Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"

[suarezguy]

I have a question. What gives Disney or any corporation the power to determine what is right or wrong in society? Despite what the Supreme Court says, corporations aren't people.

Well while not people businesses do generally have the right to spend their money as they want ...

People shouldn't have the right though to force their opinions to a point where you are getting people fired.

There is a view that people's work and employment should be judged just on the value of the work, the employees' personal actions should have no impact, and there's something to that but given that the consumers can backlash against the work it still seems unreasonable that businesses shouldn't be able to protect their investment by firing celebrities for their personal-but-public actions.
Otherwise you would be requiring the company to lose a lot of money and some consumers permanently.

 

[Jayson1]

I'm curious. Could Feige simply do double duty and also focus on the cosmic universe? Put the Russo brothers in charge of the earth based stuff while he focuses on space but also still looking over the earth stuff as well but simply deligate more with Russo's by giving them more power.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

Of course we are living in new world though were America has basically become a Oligarchy and Corporations do have more power and thus more control over things like civil rights,1st Amendment issues and etc. I was listening Jimmy Dore the other day and he thinks the Internet should be treated like a public utility and thus more regulations over how business con operate on the internet. I think stopping them from using it as their own personal big brother spy network would be a good start. If people want to change online behavior by people it proably would be a good idea to have real oversight and people acting responsible instead of hoping the rich guy in charge does the right thing or hope he doesn't do the wrong thing.

Jason

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I'm hoping James Gunn clears waivers (as they say in football) and gets signed by DC Entertainment to help their cinematic universe (gosh, they need it). From what I've been reading though it is a slim chance that Disney will actually let him go. There's been mention of James Gunn being given another Disney/Marvel franchise to work on.

 

[Jayson1]

I actually forgot about the DC angle when it comes to these weird idea of them not firing him but simply sending him to a new movie. Maybe they just want to make sure he doesn't go over to DC. They are kind of the competion.

Jason

 

[JD]

Still not getting it. The fact the man made more than "a few bad jokes" about pedophilia and rape speaks to a larger problem. As I've said before, what kind of person (Gunn) actually believed there's anything right about "joking" about rape and pedophilia? He was a damned adult--a fully aware adult, not some thoughtless teenager stereotype trying to impress his friends online. "I'm sorry" does not hand wave his conscious dive into that away.

The thing is Gunn, knew that it was wrong to joke about this stuff, that was the whole reason he did it. He didn't necessarily actually believe rape and pedophilia were funny, he just said those things because he was trying to shock people and get a reaction out of them.

Further, if a part of this culture believes Joy Reid should still be held accountable for her years-old homophobic posts (well, a culture other than that running MSNBC) and Trump for his old Access Hollywood miked "grab" comment, then it should apply to Gunn.

I'm not sure about Joy Reid since I have no idea who that is, but Trump is pretty much the opposite of Gunn ,he was being completely serious, bragging about things he possibly actually did. He has also never once apologized and has continued to both and do the same kind of this shit, while Gunn apologized and stopped his bad behavior.

I'm a person who absolutely believes in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of humour. But I can absolutely understand why Disney fired him, as a business decision. I totally sympathise with their position.

Disney has a reputation built on (cinematic) moralism. When George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, he did it partly because he apparently felt Disney's reputation for upholding societal moral values would mean they would keep the moral heart of Star Wars intact, in a way other studios may not. With a reputation built on restating moral values for every new generation, what would your company do if it emerged one of your prominent employees joked on a public platform about sticking his cock in babies? No matter how good the man.

The company of Snow White and Pinocchio, who are making a universally-appealing comic book franchise that will be sold in markets across the planet, including conservative markets in Asia or Africa, can't exactly treat it the same way as as the company making The Fast and the Furious.

Freedom of speech also entails your peers are free to be judge you for what you say, form their own opinions, and have a right to refuse you work. I don't believe he meant it. I don't believe anyone with a kind reputation could. I don't believe his career should suffer permanently for a joke. But Disney are free to refuse him employment. He will just have to find work elsewhere, and many studios will be happy to employ him, as he is not a Harvey Weinstein or a Kevin Spacey, he just made a mistake, and others do not require Disney's reputation for child-friendliness.

If his tweets were such a problem, then why the hell did they hire him in the first place? The tweets have been out there for almost a decade, and it sounds like they weren't exactly a secret, so why was it OK then, but not now? I think they had even come up before and nothing was done about it, so I find it a bit hard to believe this was purely about Disney's morality.

 

[suarezguy]

I'm sorry, but did Disney ever make official apoligies for all the horrid racist cartoons they made in the past? Did they ever come out and say that what their company did in the past was wrong?

No longer releasing them or profiting from them or releasing a version removing them (Fantasia) seems pretty apologetic and getting away from it in practice.

 

[Jayson1]

Some talked about the issue. Others entered this thread breathlessly trying to find ways to guarantee another GOTG movie is produced without as much as a sentence specifically about the subject--Gunn and his so-called humor.



Still not getting it. The fact the man made more than "a few bad jokes" about pedophilia and rape speaks to a larger problem. As I've said before, what kind of person (Gunn) actually believed there's anything right about "joking" about rape and pedophilia? He was a damned adult--a fully aware adult, not some thoughtless teenager stereotype trying to impress his friends online. "I'm sorry" does not hand wave his conscious dive into that away.

Further, if a part of this culture believes Joy Reid should still be held accountable for her years-old homophobic posts (well, a culture other than that running MSNBC) and Trump for his old Access Hollywood miked "grab" comment, then it should apply to Gunn.

We know why he makes those kind of jokes. He was going for shock humor. That means you got to say something shocking which means you got to say things you know is going to anger some and have others admire you over how edgy you are "for going there." Age has nothing do with it. People usually develop more sophisticated tastes as they get older but people also see vulgarity and edginess as adult stuff as well and not for kids. It's all about how one see's being a adult. Only difference is as you get older if your into edgy stuff you also start to look for social commentary into the jokes or maybe you see it as appealing to your inner teenager. I don't think young people put that much thought into it. They just see naughty words and laugh because they are rebellious and against things like conformity and all that normal teenager stuff.

Jason

 

[DonIago]

No longer releasing them or profiting from them or releasing a version removing them (Fantasia) seems pretty apologetic and getting away from it in practice.

As a non-fan of historical revisionism, I'd frankly rather see the original versions of such films released and presented in their proper context than sanitized.

 

[Mage]

No longer releasing them or profiting from them or releasing a version removing them (Fantasia) seems pretty apologetic and getting away from it in practice.

Basicly, pretending it didn't happen is an apology?????

As a non-fan of historical revisionism, I'd frankly rather see the original versions of such films released and presented in their proper context than sanitized.

This.

 

[Jayson1]

Basicly, pretending it didn't happen is an apology?????



This.

I think he was going for the part of not profiting off them. I can sort of see that. I mean giving up money proably means more than someone making a apology for things they don't care about since all the people who made those choices are now dead or no longer working for DIsney.

Jason

 

[suarezguy]

Yes, foregoing revenue from a product that there's some demand for seems about as apologetic/remorseful as a corporation can be when the makers of that product are already no longer working for the company/deceased.

As a non-fan of historical revisionism, I'd frankly rather see the original versions of such films released and presented in their proper context than sanitized.

There is a case against revisionism, even against not releasing (though I think the latter case is weaker). The big issue is that since Disney is (and wants to be) so much associated with appropriate-for-children, it would be very difficult to release it, with it still being rated G or at most PG, and not seems like Disney still considered it acceptable and appropriate, including even for children of today rather than just a historical document.

 

[DonIago]

I feel there's something a bit underhanded about saying "Oh, but hey, if we just cut out ten seconds of racism we can still make money off of this!" That doesn't sound like an apology to me; it sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

I'd be more impressed if it was "Oh, but hey, if we just cut out ten seconds of racism we can make money which we will then donate to appropriate charities!"

 

[suarezguy]

True Disney could have just not released any of Fantasia again (it has not rereleased Song of the South) or made major charitable donations (both seem a lot to demand), but editing the film, removing the offensive, seems to in practice be saying that what the company did in the past was wrong, at least that the company is not unapologetic or apathetic or unconcerned about it.

 

[Noname Given]

True Disney could have just not released any of Fantasia again (it has not rereleased Song of the South) or made major charitable donations (both seem a lot to demand), but editing the film, removing the offensive, seems to in practice be saying that what the company did in the past was wrong, at least that the company is not unapologetic or apathetic or unconcerned about it.

Makes one wonder what the live-action "Dumbo" is going to do - RE: The Crows.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

The big issue is that since Disney is (and wants to be) so much associated with appropriate-for-children...

I just watched an episode of Daredevil, supposedly set in the Marvel universe, where a character smashes off the head of another with a car door.

What kid-friendly content is Disney protecting under the Marvel banner again?

 

[fireproof78]

Makes one wonder what the live-action "Dumbo" is going to do - RE: The Crows.

Don't remind me that Dumbo is coming back *shudders*

 

[Turtletrekker]

Disney is still making money off of Song of the South. One of their biggest rides, Splash Mountain, is based on the movie.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JD]

^I did not know that.

 

[Jayson1]

Do they make money of the song Zippy Do Da I think it's called. It actually kind of a famous Disney song and basically the only thing I recall from the movie until I read about the racist aspect of the story. I don't think even as a kid I ever watched that movie. Was it available still in the 80's when I was a kid?

Jason