Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by Thread Manager, Jul 22, 2018.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]540737[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]538175[/split]
I think we need to be fair. It wasn't simple dumb stuff. He didn't have a dumb sports take, or go on a rant about how much better Coke or Pepsi is. It was making "jokes" about pedophilia and the rape of women.
There was a whole movie about those type of jokes, the Aristocrats. Should all of the cast members of that film be punished retroactively? Should Whoopie Goldberg be fired from The View and Drew Carry removed from The Price Is Right for similar transgressions?
Comparing a film to what one post on social media are two different things. They are taken in two very different ways. Same with stand up. Twitter very much comes off as a platform to express one's self on topics, which is actually what Gunn used it for now. That is why comparing them doesn't work imo. And even still, such things have lost people jobs before.
That Gunn cited himself as a provocateur goes against using "it's just a joke" as a defense imo. Because by saying that, he is basically saying he was saying really awful things to provoke. Well, yeah, that is what happened, just not how he intended it to. I also think Gunn coming out with a statement, then deleting it, and then coming out with another, which seemed far more apologetic, shows he realized he messed up, even as it was a long time ago.
Can you cite these transgressions from Goldberg on twitter? I have not heard of these.
Drew Carey and Whoopie Goldberg (and Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, George Carlin, Penn & Teller, Bob Saget) were all in The Aristocrats movie.
I don't see why we should hold someone saying a rape or incest joke on film or TV to a lower standard to the nobodies doing the same exact thing on the Twitter machine. For aspiring comedians it's no different than an open mike night. Either it's acceptable given the nature of entertainment or they should all be subject to retroactive punishment for their past transgressions.
I looked up that movie. Its a documentary about the concept of an obscene joke. You do realize the difference, right?
It is very different. Its recorded, forever. Is Gunn going to go to open mic night and make a political stand every night, like he does on twitter? It isn't scripted and thus agreed upon by those who are paying for the film that it is okay. That being said, what do you mean by punishment for past transgressions? Because every boss has the right to make the decision whether to hire and fire based on what they know. Something might be okay at one studio, and not another. It might be okay 10 years ago, and not now. It might depend on who is in charge now.
If Disney wanted to keep him on, they could have. What have they done wrong by firing him exactly though? Why did Gunn apologize?
The joke, about incest, was told by the comedians during the course of the film. I do realize the difference, yes.
It's retroactive because Gunn was fired for comments posted before he worked for the Mouse. He delivered two excellent (imo) movies and was by all accounts a model contract employee. There was no benefit to the firing other than appearances. I found it to be cowardly.
Gunn apologized because his posts were gross and unfunny. Horn should have accepted it, reiterated that the posts were in no way consistent with the ideals of The Walt Disney Company, and moved on to actual problems. I don't like anyone losing a job for foolish reasons.
Not the same thing at all. The Aristocrats was the filming of a crude joke. Saying they all should be fired for that would be like saying an actor who plays a child molester in a movie should never be hired again. Gunn did not make a movie about rape or pedophilia....what he did was post on his personal social media accounts many many many crude jokes about rape and pedophilia over the course of many years and saying how funny he thought that was. The Aristocrats is actors playing a role....thousands of posts on your personal social media says this is your personal feelings.
I haven't read all of Mr. Gunn's posts, But I believe that a very small portion of the thousands of posts deleted were about rape and incest. That's still too many, in my opinion. And if he were actively engaging in such behavior during his tenure his dismissal would be justified. But that's not the case.
I don't remember that much of the Aristocrats movie. But it involves over 100 comedians telling and talking about an incest joke. They are not performing roles. But I have no reason to suspect either they or James Gunn are pro rape and incest.
So then why do you keep bring it up as a comparsion?
Do you think he showed them what he did on twitter before they hired him? Why is it cowardly? Wouldn't it be a benefit to them to keep on the guy who make them so much money?
Why do you get to say what Horn and Iger do, and why do they have to listen to you as opposed to their investors, board members and other members of the public?
I looked up the Aristocrats. Wiki is very helpful in this regard. The Aristocrats is type of joked structured around pitching an idea to a talent agent, and the idea being obscene as hell. The film is about people discussing the style of joke, while telling their versions or versions they remember hearing.
Gunn was fired for making a bunch of jokes about taboo topics. Many prominent comedians, including some working for the Mouse, have done the same. That's why.
A)I have no idea. Doubtful.
B)It was the easy way to avoid controversy
C)Directorial changes haven't affected Marvel at the BO.
I have a right to my opinion. They don't have to listen to it.
No, he was fired for doing this stuff on his social media account, so many times he decided he needed to nuke an entire 10,000 post to make sure it was gone. This is the same as being in a documentary how?
So it is new information they have to process and make a decision on.
You do. As do they.
Disney most likely knew about those tweets when they hired him. And also, this is pretty much who James Gunn was before they hired him. A provocateur. A man who made a comedy wherein Ellen Page rapes Rainn Wilson.
They're free to do how they please, but don't tell me they didn't know these things when they hired him.
Going through people's social media wasn't really a thing in 2012. That is the thing. This is a rather new phenomenon. And honestly, he should have erased this stuff a long time ago. He knew he worked for Disney. He knew he use to write this stuff on twitter.
Given how quick this was, I think there may have been something going on behind the scenes.
I have to believe that Disney is real gunshy about this stuff after what happened with Roseanne. I just don't think they want the bad press, especially around one of their prized franchises. It's basically them cutting off a branch to save the tree from further damage.
Which is what I think they did as well.
Frankly, I don't blame them , even though that opinion upsets alot of fanboys.
I've already seen how awkward it is for fanboys and geek pundits to try explain what he said, in what context he said it in, and to then disavow his comments, while at the same time, argue it was wrong for Disney fire him.
Now imagine Disney/Marvel Spokespeople and actors, having to do thatrigmarole every time an eager reporter brings it up to them in an interview or press event.
There was no way Disney was gonna let that happen regardless of how much of fandom wanted them to do that.
R Kelly just released a 19-minute song called "I Admit" in which he didn't admit to anything that people have wanted him to go to jail for.
Would it matter if he admitted it at this point? Its pretty clear what he did, and it seems plenty of people don't care.
Yeah, I've always assumed he's had enough connections with real people in power that he's protected.
Dukes of Hazzard star Tom Wopat pleads guilty to inappropriately touching two female co-stars in a play - https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...y-in-touching-case/ar-BBKYOSc?ocid=spartandhp
Was this done for a broadcast show or some kind of stunt for the net? In any case that is some sick **** to be doing.
Well, anything short of getting Spielberg to do Guardians 3, they are still going to have to explain it. Just bought time until they actually have to promote it