James Gunn fired from Guardians 3

1356

Comments

  • edited July 2018
    @asmallcat I think a component of it is that too many people, consciously or no, buy into the romanticized mythology of the comedian as this force who stands outside of society and pokes at boundaries in order to expose some kind of hidden truth. A lot of comedians try to convince you that what they do is vastly more important than it actually is, but very very few actually live up to it.
    asmallcat
  • For the next movie Disney needs to hire someone who's above reproach. Someone who can't have made pedo jokes because he doesn't even have Twitter. Someone who can't be accused of sexual assaults because he doesn't even have a body.

    Disney needs Guy Ferrari.
    FlukesbazjensterCapeGabe
  • kuman07kuman07 Kansas City
    For the next movie Disney needs to hire someone who's above reproach. Someone who can't have made pedo jokes because he doesn't even have Twitter. Someone who can't be accused of sexual assaults because he doesn't even have a body.

    Disney needs Guy Ferrari.
    The Guardians of Flavortown 
    asmallcatDoubleA_RonFlukesbazjensterCapeGabe
  • kuman07 said:
    For the next movie Disney needs to hire someone who's above reproach. Someone who can't have made pedo jokes because he doesn't even have Twitter. Someone who can't be accused of sexual assaults because he doesn't even have a body.

    Disney needs Guy Ferrari.
    The Guardians of Flavortown 
    Diners, Drive-ins, and Drax
    kuman07CapeGabe
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    Speaking of things with embarrassingly offensive pasts, remember Disney?


    He wasn't fired because of the tweets, he was fired because the alt right weaponized outrage around the Me Too movement. The people "outing" him have miles of awful tweets you can find quickly. This is just gamer gate bullshit.
    JoshTheBlackrusskellygguenotFlukesJaimieTCretanBull
  • edited July 2018
    The newer of those two movies is from 1970. 50 years ago. No one who made decisions for either of those movies is still working for Disney. Further, it's not like Disney made a spin-off featuring the chopstick-wielding Siamese cat in 2005. 

    In fact, the super racist caricature centaur was REMOVED from Fanstasia. You know, kind of like being fired? 

    We can have a discussion about this without resorting to whataboutism, especially when the end result of this line of logic would be that no media company could ever fire anyone for racism/sexism/homophobia because literally every media company that's more than 10 years old has racist/sexist/homophobic skeletons in their closet. 

    Oh, and if you wanted to bring attention to Disney's use of Siamese cats as vehicles for hateful Asian stereotypes, you should have gone with the much more upsetting cats from Lady and the Tramp, complete with slanty eyes, broken english, and being sneaky, sly villians. 



    Edit - and as I said before, I don't think he should have been fired for this. But a LOT of the arguments here and more broadly on the internet against his firing strike me as spurious. 
    All the Chickens
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    edited July 2018
    The point I was trying to make is these companies don't have morals and whether or not Gunn deserved to be fired wasn't relevant to what happened here. He got fired as the result of a targeted bad faith campaign by far right trolls. "Whataboutism" is what they're weaponizing and they will always win that because only one side actually gives a shit or would ever take any meaningful responsibility.

    Distinguishing between campaigns by trolls and genuinely bad behavior is something that companies like Disney and especially Twitter and Facebook are capable of but they don't do it because it would cost money.
    russkellygguenot
  • No, the experiment was:

    "I was an alcoholic 6-12 years ago when I made those terrible jokes.  But I've cleaned up and am sober and I'm better now."

    versus:

    "I was a schmuck 6-12 years ago, but I've learned my lesson and I'm better now."

    asmallcat said:
    Let's run a thought experiment.  Presuppose that James Gunn hasn't had uncomfortable Twitter or on-set / professional issues for the last 6 years.  Furthermore, let's say James Gunn was a terrible alcoholic 6-12 years ago, and cleaned up his act and has been sober since then.   Does anything about this situation change?
    Addiction is a disease. Are you trying to say being, at best, an internet edgelord making pedophile jokes is the same as an addiction? Cause it isn't. And I think it's pretty clear he wouldn't be fired for being a recovered alcoholic. What an odd thought experiment.




  • It sounds like were excusing Disney for having racist imagery in their animation a while back-- to which I assume they've corrected-- but holding an individual to a different standard.
  • gguenot said:
    It sounds like were excusing Disney for having racist imagery in their animation a while back-- to which I assume they've corrected-- but holding an individual to a different standard.
    That's cause Disney isn't a person, despite what SCOTUS says. And yeah, if the guy who green lit the mammy centaur was still making movies, I'd want him fired. There's a mix of things going on here that are getting conflated. 

    The first is a claim that, apparently, Disney can never fire anyone for something that happened X years ago because the company did some extremely racist shit in their past. This argument makes no sense and has no bearing on whether or not Gunn should be fired. Like, if his tweets were just him spamming the N-word over and over, I doubt we'd be having this discussion, even if he had apologized and said he was a new man. Like, should Disney just dissolve because norms changed? Was making jokes about pedophiles more acceptable 12 years ago then it was now? 

    The second is whether these tweets should have resulted in him being fired. As I have said, I don't think they should have. 
  • No, the experiment was:

    "I was an alcoholic 6-12 years ago when I made those terrible jokes.  But I've cleaned up and am sober and I'm better now."

    versus:

    "I was a schmuck 6-12 years ago, but I've learned my lesson and I'm better now."

    asmallcat said:
    Let's run a thought experiment.  Presuppose that James Gunn hasn't had uncomfortable Twitter or on-set / professional issues for the last 6 years.  Furthermore, let's say James Gunn was a terrible alcoholic 6-12 years ago, and cleaned up his act and has been sober since then.   Does anything about this situation change?
    Addiction is a disease. Are you trying to say being, at best, an internet edgelord making pedophile jokes is the same as an addiction? Cause it isn't. And I think it's pretty clear he wouldn't be fired for being a recovered alcoholic. What an odd thought experiment.




    Sorry, that was unclear. And no, I don't think it would make a difference if it was continuous tweeting, as this was. Maybe if it was 1 night of drunk tweeting. 
  • The point I was trying to make is these companies don't have morals and whether or not Gunn deserved to be fired wasn't relevant to what happened here. He got fired as the result of a targeted bad faith campaign by far right trolls. "Whataboutism" is what they're weaponizing and they will always win that because only one side actually gives a shit or would ever take any meaningful responsibility.

    Distinguishing between campaigns by trolls and genuinely bad behavior is something that companies like Disney and especially Twitter and Facebook are capable of but they don't do it because it would cost money.
    Of course companies don't have morals. Their calculus is always "what will cost more money." That's all we can expect from companies, ever. 

    Frankly, I don't think who made the tweets public matters. That gets us into a whole mess of who's allowed to bring public posts by known people to everyone's attention. All we can do is say, "do these statements warrant firing?" Here, I don't think they do, but I understand why Disney disagrees. 
    anubus21
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco
    asmallcat said:


    The first is a claim that, apparently, Disney can never fire anyone for something that happened X years ago because the company did some extremely racist shit in their past.


    That's.... not at all what I was saying.
    asmallcat said:
    The point I was trying to make is these companies don't have morals and whether or not Gunn deserved to be fired wasn't relevant to what happened here. He got fired as the result of a targeted bad faith campaign by far right trolls. "Whataboutism" is what they're weaponizing and they will always win that because only one side actually gives a shit or would ever take any meaningful responsibility.

    Distinguishing between campaigns by trolls and genuinely bad behavior is something that companies like Disney and especially Twitter and Facebook are capable of but they don't do it because it would cost money.
    Of course companies don't have morals. Their calculus is always "what will cost more money." That's all we can expect from companies, ever. 

    Frankly, I don't think who made the tweets public matters. That gets us into a whole mess of who's allowed to bring public posts by known people to everyone's attention. All we can do is say, "do these statements warrant firing?" Here, I don't think they do, but I understand why Disney disagrees. 

    Disney didn't disagree when the first Guardians was made. They felt the need to react based on a targeted harassment campaign designed to make it appear like people are outraged, that's a failure on Disney's part. This is the kind of shit we saw constantly during gamer gate and it has massive, devastating effects on individuals and on the culture as a whole.
  • asmallcat said:


    The first is a claim that, apparently, Disney can never fire anyone for something that happened X years ago because the company did some extremely racist shit in their past.


    That's.... not at all what I was saying.
    asmallcat said:
    The point I was trying to make is these companies don't have morals and whether or not Gunn deserved to be fired wasn't relevant to what happened here. He got fired as the result of a targeted bad faith campaign by far right trolls. "Whataboutism" is what they're weaponizing and they will always win that because only one side actually gives a shit or would ever take any meaningful responsibility.

    Distinguishing between campaigns by trolls and genuinely bad behavior is something that companies like Disney and especially Twitter and Facebook are capable of but they don't do it because it would cost money.
    Of course companies don't have morals. Their calculus is always "what will cost more money." That's all we can expect from companies, ever. 

    Frankly, I don't think who made the tweets public matters. That gets us into a whole mess of who's allowed to bring public posts by known people to everyone's attention. All we can do is say, "do these statements warrant firing?" Here, I don't think they do, but I understand why Disney disagrees. 

    Disney didn't disagree when the first Guardians was made. They felt the need to react based on a targeted harassment campaign designed to make it appear like people are outraged, that's a failure on Disney's part. This is the kind of shit we saw constantly during gamer gate and it has massive, devastating effects on individuals and on the culture as a whole.
    What, then, is the relevance of bringing up previous Disney movies that were racist from 50+ years ago? What bearing does that have on this situation if not to somehow say Disney is being hypocritical?

    I think this has a lot more to do with the culture we are in re social media and public members of companies than with who is outing him to Disney. I think Disney would have fired him if the exact same people who pointed this out in 2012 pointed it out now. 

    Do you have evidence that they fired him because of the number of people who complained about the tweets, rather than the content of the tweets? If you can show that they only fired Gunn because 1,000 people called them out on twitter, I will 100% agree with you that they misunderstood the situation and should not have fired Gunn. I just highly doubt this is the case. I think they just decided it was more financially beneficial to not keep him on.

    As I have said multiple times, I don't think he should have been fired for this. I just don't think it's a gross miscarriage of justice that he was. It's not that hard not to should pedophilia jokes into the void that is social media when you are hoping to one day have a job with an industry that cares a lot about PR. 
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    If Chris Evan's had been the one who brought these old tweets out into public focus, we would have the same decision from Disney. The source of who pointed the tweets out doesn't matter, outside of a place where his supporters can direct their anger.

    And it would be an understatement to say that a lot has changed since they hired James Gunn in 2012 to direct Guardians of the Galaxy. Heck, a lot has changed since 2016.
    anubus21
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    asmallcat said:
    I think this has a lot more to do with the culture we are in re social media and public members of companies than with who is outing him to Disney. I think Disney would have fired him if the exact same people who pointed this out in 2012 pointed it out now. 

    All the tweets were public in 2012. It's also an issue that people have already publically called Gunn out for in the past, and he's apologized and changed his behaviour. It's pretty much impossible to think that someone at Disney didn't know about it.

    The person outing him to Disney is also completely relevant in this situation because it was 100% a political move. He led an online campaign to get Gunn fired in direct response to Gunn making anti-Trump tweets.
    JaimieT
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    asmallcat said:
    asmallcat said:


    The first is a claim that, apparently, Disney can never fire anyone for something that happened X years ago because the company did some extremely racist shit in their past.


    That's.... not at all what I was saying.
    asmallcat said:
    The point I was trying to make is these companies don't have morals and whether or not Gunn deserved to be fired wasn't relevant to what happened here. He got fired as the result of a targeted bad faith campaign by far right trolls. "Whataboutism" is what they're weaponizing and they will always win that because only one side actually gives a shit or would ever take any meaningful responsibility.

    Distinguishing between campaigns by trolls and genuinely bad behavior is something that companies like Disney and especially Twitter and Facebook are capable of but they don't do it because it would cost money.
    Of course companies don't have morals. Their calculus is always "what will cost more money." That's all we can expect from companies, ever. 

    Frankly, I don't think who made the tweets public matters. That gets us into a whole mess of who's allowed to bring public posts by known people to everyone's attention. All we can do is say, "do these statements warrant firing?" Here, I don't think they do, but I understand why Disney disagrees. 

    Disney didn't disagree when the first Guardians was made. They felt the need to react based on a targeted harassment campaign designed to make it appear like people are outraged, that's a failure on Disney's part. This is the kind of shit we saw constantly during gamer gate and it has massive, devastating effects on individuals and on the culture as a whole.

    What, then, is the relevance of bringing up previous Disney movies that were racist from 50+ years ago? What bearing does that have on this situation if not to somehow say Disney is being hypocritical?

    That's a good response. Here is a weird response.

    The first is a claim that, apparently, Disney can never fire anyone for something that happened X years ago because the company did some extremely racist shit in their past. 

    You went conclusive with whatever we were "claiming," which is why I didn't respond at first.

    Anyway, dropping the "we" and just talking about me now. 

    As society marches ever forward, some of what we say and do will inevitably become problematic. We just can't predict what we don't know, and it's foolish to think we're fully enlightened. So what I was suggesting is, maybe there's room for grace. I didn't mention Disney's problematic past because everyone has a problematic past. But I do think it's interesting to mention Disney's problematic past because, no one's talking about that? Oh, of course they aren't. These trolls have an agenda.

    "As I have said multiple times, I don't think he should have been fired for this. I just don't think it's a gross miscarriage of justice that he was."

    Sure, I can empathize with that position. It's not my position, but I'm really not far from it. I don't even like the GOTG movies. I just don't care. But if they come for someone or something I do like, that'll be a shame.
  • JoshTheBlackJoshTheBlack Atlanta, GA
    Would you say Disney shouldn’t hire Bob Saget or Gilbert Gottfried ever again?  Or if they were currently part of a Disney film in production should they be fired?  I’m pretty sure both of them have made tasteless jokes about pedophilia in the past that make James Gunn’s tweets pale in comparison. You can watch them do lengthy bits about pedophilia and necrophilia on YouTube right now. Some people find tasteless humour hilarious.  I have half a dozen or more jokes about both subjects that I’ve told in the recent past. Should I be ostracised from this community for that? 

    His jokes were in poor taste, and more importantly they were criminally unfunny.  That doesn’t mean that he should be fired. They weren’t targeted hate speech like with Roseanne. There is no victim here. 

    I dont align myself closely with either party. There are things I lean left on and things I lean right on. My republican friends call me a brain dead liberal, and my democratic friends call me  right-wing nutjob.  This was a hit job and the fact that Disney has succumbed to it, and very quickly so is profoundly disappointing. 

    This culture of outrage is not going to fix anything either. All it will do is make us more divided. This is precisely what Russia was trying to do by meddling in our election. Divide us.  

    Bobcat Goldthwait has lent his voice to an upcoming Disney Park attraction. He has made ALL MANNER of tasteless joke. He made an entire movie about a woman’s life turned upside down because she experimented with beastiality  he made another about a man and a teenager going on a killing spree.  He has asked that Disney remove his voice from the attraction lest they be hypocritical. 

    If you start firing people for tasteless jokes made  half a decade or more ago, (or really ever) where there is no victim, where does it end?  I bet if we had a rating system like that episode of Black Mirror, the people shouting the loudest would be the ones with the lowest ratings. 
    DoubleA_Ron
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Bobcat is a smart one. He didn't just remove his voice from the Disneyland attraction, he made a firm statement about how the alt-right is on the attack. 
    JoshTheBlack
  • You all are putting way more thought into this than anyone at Disney did. There was probably some exec who got wind of it and said, "I don't want the news calling me or mentioning me. Make this liability go away ASAP." 
    MattyWeaves
  • I don't know, this thread feels more like another ripping the right thread. *shrugs*
  • nstinson said:
    I don't know, this thread feels more like another ripping the right thread. *shrugs*
    How so?
  • Wow, so when I began this thread I knew there would be some debate but didn't expect this much! Bringing it back to a more movie direction, how do folks think it will affect GoG 3? Gunn was right in the middle of writing the script for the next movie so does Disney commandeer it and claim it as work product, then hand it to another writer? Or do they just say to hell with it and hire someone to write a whole new script (with the proviso that they have to include Adam Warlock since that was teased in the 2nd film)?

    Btw, I don't think he should have been fired. 10-12 year old tweets seem like a dumb reason to let someone go and I doubt anyone who wants to see GoG 3 wouldn't go because of them. It was a politically motivated hit job, BUT it was Disney to folded before there was any real outrage from the public at large. I am against the "what can I rage against this week" crap that goes down nowadays and if Disney had just waited it would have disappeared before August 1st. That doesn't excuse how dumb the tweets are, but people on the left and right need to realize that in today's climate the opposition is gonna use everything against you no matter how old.
  • gguenot said:
    nstinson said:
    I don't know, this thread feels more like another ripping the right thread. *shrugs*
    How so?
    It's honest about the motivations of the people involved. 
  • I do suspect that this as re-outed by someone on the right angry with Gunn’s political statements, but if something is uncovered that is bad then you have to judge the thing uncovered separately from the motivations of the discoverer (you have to judge that too, but separately). Not like some GOP action or super-PAC or something, it doesn’t take a lot of resources to find stuff that was on Twitter.

    The change in the different reactions to this kind of thing is pretty dramatic where the left is now all about maintaining the moral high ground to the point of overreaction to questionable behavior while the right has just kind of embraced hypocrisy on it.
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    anubus21 said:
    Wow, so when I began this thread I knew there would be some debate but didn't expect this much! Bringing it back to a more movie direction, how do folks think it will affect GoG 3? Gunn was right in the middle of writing the script for the next movie so does Disney commandeer it and claim it as work product, then hand it to another writer? Or do they just say to hell with it and hire someone to write a whole new script (with the proviso that they have to include Adam Warlock since that was teased in the 2nd film)?

    So much of what made the first two films successful is Gunn himself. All the music, all the humor, the crafting of a family out of this random group of a-holes, all that came from Gunn. Plus his brother does the mocap for Rocket; is he gonna stay on? Gunn was also supposed to be the "showrunner" for all Marvel's space/cosmic stuff, of which there is supposed to be a lot in the next few years. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have fired him; I'm pretty conflicted about it but it's pretty clear to me that the end product (GOTG3) will suffer for it. 
  • asmallcat said:
    gguenot said:
    nstinson said:
    I don't know, this thread feels more like another ripping the right thread. *shrugs*
    How so?
    It's honest about the motivations of the people involved. 
    Sorry, I'm not following (not being snarky). It seems that @nstinson is saying that this is a nothing conservative bashing thread when I dont get that sense.
  • Frakkin T said:
    anubus21 said:
    Wow, so when I began this thread I knew there would be some debate but didn't expect this much! Bringing it back to a more movie direction, how do folks think it will affect GoG 3? Gunn was right in the middle of writing the script for the next movie so does Disney commandeer it and claim it as work product, then hand it to another writer? Or do they just say to hell with it and hire someone to write a whole new script (with the proviso that they have to include Adam Warlock since that was teased in the 2nd film)?

    So much of what made the first two films successful is Gunn himself. All the music, all the humor, the crafting of a family out of this random group of a-holes, all that came from Gunn. Plus his brother does the mocap for Rocket; is he gonna stay on? Gunn was also supposed to be the "showrunner" for all Marvel's space/cosmic stuff, of which there is supposed to be a lot in the next few years. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have fired him; I'm pretty conflicted about it but it's pretty clear to me that the end product (GOTG3) will suffer for it. 
    Sadly I think it will suffer and I would have to think his brother will bail, unless Gunn tells him to stay on for the good of the movie. He should do a mea culpa again for the tweets, promise to never get on Twitter again and beg disney to let him come back OR he lets the film crash and burn, at which point Disney will be begging him to come back. Either way, sucks for us :(
    Frakkin T
  • He’d already done the first draft of the script too. Are they going to dump it and start from scratch, or leave him with a writing credit?
  • LordBy said:
    He’d already done the first draft of the script too. Are they going to dump it and start from scratch, or leave him with a writing credit?
    Writers Guild would demand and probably require that they give him a writing credit, even if they just use parts of the first script.
This discussion has been closed.