Guardians of the Galaxy James gunn fired!!! - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

As an actor in NYC, and someone who works in the entertainment industry, directors get paid in accordance with how much money they bring in. That's just basic principles of a job. They do a lot of work, and they get paid for it. No reward in that, you're doing your job and you get paid.

We can argue the principles of how much entertainment personnel get paid, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with someone who thinks people of other professions should get paid more. I have two parents who are teachers. But at the end of the day, if you help create a product that makes billions of dollars, you deserve to get paid millions. The same way a real estate broker who sells a piece of land that's worth millions would get hundreds of thousands in commission.

And 2011 is 7 years ago, it's closer to a decade than not. But if you would prefer, I have no problem saying more than a half decade ago.

I can see how the responses of Bautista and others could bother you though. I have seen many same responses in support of people who have done far worse than make jokes. But I think we need to remember that, as of now, that is all he's accused of doing, and I do think that's a very different standard than those who come out in support of those who have assaulted others.

All that aside, I don't think any of it changes my initial point. I believe this is a dangerous standard to set unless we find out his behavior behind the scenes was continuing to show a problematic attitude.

That's not really true though. We have a lot of example of that not being true. Also, using that logic, they get to decide if they pay him or not. For whatever reason. If they think Gunn is a problem for them as a whole now, in this environment, his past coming back to haunt him is his fault. He is messing with Disney's paper and image and they don't want to deal with it.

With Gunn, I understand we call them jokes, and I get that. But his general attitude to me is just something that is an issue in general. It is apart of that environment that makes the really bad stuff okay.

Infinity, while me may disagree on certain things, I just wanted to say I do see your view and say you have made it well.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

99% of filmgoers don't know who James Gunn is.

And right there is the issue. Because for all the sound and the fury, the real problem is if 2% end up knowing who he is, and it is because of what he wrote on Twitter.

 

[Marvel united]

Maybe we'll get Silver Surfer as a result of a delay.

 

[Lilbaz]

Disney as a company is associated with products they've put out that contain racism and sexism. And they regularly employ a major movie star who has been involved in domestic abuse. Given that, and the fact that Gunn had been called out publicly for his questionable humor in 2012, I don't really think the main reason they let him go is because they can't be associated with 8-9 year old jokes that were of horrible taste.

I do agree though, Gunn is going to be fine. He'll lay low for a bit and then someone will hire him, or he'll start working on some personal indie projects. But I do think this sets a bad precedent in how we go about punishing others. I also think rewarding someone like Cernovich also sets a very dangerous precedent, and we'll likely see the effects of that going forward.

You bring up rdj, when his problems were all over the media no studio wanted to touch him as they didn't want their brand associated with it. He cleaned his act up and eventually was given another chance. Gunn will be given another chance aswell once this blows over just maybe not by disney.

 

[Lilbaz]

Maybe we'll get Silver Surfer as a result of a delay.

It does give marvel and a new director the chance to relook at the script. I wouldn't rule anything out at the moment.

 

[Zarex]

So uh, this heavily implies Feige fired him:



So the reason Feige might be silent isn't because of support, but because he did it. Because Horn Is Feige's boss, Iger is Horn's boss. There is no one between Horn and Feige.

Is Feige He Who Shall Not Be Named? If he pulled the plug it would have warranted a mention in the article. It most likely came from HR and/or Legal.

Inappropriate jokes he left for all to see - that is until he was promptly fired.

By not deleting his past Gunn left himself open to the cybernazis and the "Let's Eat Our Own!" SJWs (I hate using this term as a criticism, but it fits) gobbled up the bait. Let this be a lesson to anyone who ever did anything stupid in the past and tried to move on.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is Feige He Who Shall Not Be Named? If he pulled the plug it would have warranted a mention in the article. It most likely came from HR and/or Legal.

So Marvel HR/Legal sent it to Horn and not Feige? Why? Do you think Feige was not involved in these discussions? Because it does seem there were discussions.

 

[Lilbaz]

So Marvel HR/Legal sent it to Horn and not Feige? Why? Do you think Feige was not involved in these discussions? Because it does seem there were discussions.

Don't see why there would be seperate hr and legal for each company. That would be innefficient.

 

[Infinity9999x]

That's not really true though. We have a lot of example of that not being true. Also, using that logic, they get to decide if they pay him or not. For whatever reason. If they think Gunn is a problem for them as a whole now, in this environment, his past coming back to haunt him is his fault. He is messing with Disney's paper and image and they don't want to deal with it.

With Gunn, I understand we call them jokes, and I get that. But his general attitude to me is just something that is an issue in general. It is apart of that environment that makes the really bad stuff okay.

Infinity, while me may disagree on certain things, I just wanted to say I do see your view and say you have made it well.

Thanks Darth. Like I said, I get both sides of this. And it may come out that his apologies really have just been lip service...it's just a tough situation overall I think.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't see why there would be seperate hr and legal for each company. That would be innefficient.

Fine. So Disney HR/Legal brought this to Horn, who talked to Iger, but Feige was not brought in? If Legal/HR told them to fire him, how exactly is Disney at fault then?

 

[Zarex]

So Marvel HR/Legal sent it to Horn and not Feige? Why? Do you think Feige was not involved in these discussions? Because it does seem there were discussions.

My two cents? Legal and/or HR at Disney Studios told Horn "We have a problem". Horn made the decision and brought it to Iger for approval. Horn informed Feige, who disagreed with the decision but agreed to not comment. I also think Feige has been working behind the scenes with the cast on reinstatement.

Also the Variety article didn't add any info. It went from there's a possibility for reinstatement to that being unlikely. That's pretty much the same thing.

 

[Snow Queen]

Don't see why there would be seperate hr and legal for each company. That would be innefficient.

This got me curious, so I decided to see what was online about this. There's a woman on LinkedIn that says she's VP at Marvel Entertainment's human resources department.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My two cents? Legal and/or HR at Disney Studios told Horn "We have a problem". Horn made the decision and brought it to Iger for approval. Horn informed Feige, who disagreed with the decision but agreed to not comment. I also think Feige has been working behind the scenes with the cast on reinstatement.

Also the Variety article didn't add any info. It went from there's a possibility for reinstatement to that being unlikely. That's pretty much the same thing.

What do you base it on? If it is because Feige is silent, why do you assume it is because Disney is clearly not talking about this in general? Have we heard from Bob Iger?

And the article did add basically the mechanism in which he was fired and the logic behind it. Its an exclusive for what feels like obvious reasons. They got that info from the studio.

 

[Lilbaz]

This got me curious, so I decided to see what was online about this. There's a woman on LinkedIn that says she's VP at Marvel Entertainment's human resources department.

Fair enough.

 

[Zarex]

What do you base it on? If it is because Feige is silent, why do you assume it is because Disney is clearly not talking about this in general? Have we heard from Bob Iger?

And the article did add basically the mechanism in which he was fired and the logic behind it. Its an exclusive for what feels like obvious reasons. They got that info from the studio.

I'm basing it on Feige's silence and the coordination of the cast response. My guess is Feige is supporting the guy he hired for three films and a producing job after the trilogy was done. Iger's involvement was detailed in the article, but not Feige's.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm basing it on Feige's silence and the coordination of the cast response. My guess is Feige is supporting the guy he hired for three films and a producing job after the trilogy was done. Iger's involvement was detailed in the article, but not Feige's.

Iger has been silent. What does that tell you? So you have no idea what Feige is doing, but what we do know now is Horn signed off on the decision and Iger had input. And we know the one person underneath Horn is Feige. So how do you think that discussion went exactly, because I seriously doubt they didn't call Feige.

 

[Zarex]

Iger has been silent. What does that tell you? So you have no idea what Feige is doing, but what we do know now is Horn signed off on the decision and Iger had input. And we know the one person underneath Horn is Feige. So how do you think that discussion went exactly, because I seriously doubt they didn't call Feige.

It tells me that Gunn doesn't report to Iger. And that Bob has been kinda busy.

Again, I think Horn called Feige after the decision was done.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It tells me that Gunn doesn't report to Iger. And that Bob has been kinda busy.

Again, I think Horn called Feige after the decision was done.

But Horn does, and it was Horn's decision. Horn was specifically talking for the company.

Why do you assume that? And if it is his silence, who else at Disney has a said thing over then Horn?

 

[JtheDreamer]

Punchlines to jokes just being Drax randomly calling Gamora a ****e, Mantis being turned into the submissive Asian woman stereotype is something I saw brought up often by Asian women, Gamora's lip service of the most dangerous woman in the galaxy constantly being beaten and being in need of saving during the first film, Drax's entire treatment of Mantis boils down to "it's funny because he called her ugly" and none of the characters could care less, Star Lord...just Star Lord, and no doubt other examples I'm forgetting. It's not a matter of jokes can't be made about characters because they're women (and I say about, because the movies alter the female characters into more serious these characters, opposed to the men who make jokes and treat people horribly but it's okay because they're lovable losers), but given Gunn's history, it puts a lot of his decisions under a different light, at least to me. It creates a rather unpleasant atmosphere in the films, especially given his films never address any of it and as such, appear oblivious at best.

I always felt his screenplays were extremely juvenile - which is why I'm not going to miss his stewardship of this franchise.

 

[JtheDreamer]

By not deleting his past Gunn left himself open to the cybernazis and the "Let's Eat Our Own!" SJWs (I hate using this term as a criticism, but it fits) gobbled up the bait. Let this be a lesson to anyone who ever did anything stupid in the past and tried to move on.

Darth has pointed out numerous times that Gunn plays by the very same rules that inevitably bit him in the ass when it comes to Twitter.

Not deleting his prior child rape posts and other vulgar nonsense was a serious gaffe on his part and doesn't lend to the idea that he's a fully changed man, not to mention lacked common sense after being inked to direct films for Disney. I mean that takes some serious huevos to leave them up in lieu of that. It's not like the comments were printed in textbooks throughout the land that couldn't be recalled. He had all the power in the world to clean his Twitter up, yet he never did.

I'll stop repeating that part of it because I've said it enough I just don't understand how anyone can overlook it.

 

[Snow Queen]

I always felt his screenplays were extremely juvenile - which is why I'm not going to miss his stewardship of this franchise.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I find his writing frustrating, especially with Guardians 2 as I think there's something good there that he just doesn't manage. He always just felt like a lazy shock jock to me. I've been wishing he was off these since before the first one came out due to his humour and attitude, and both films only confirmed my thoughts. While honestly all this news has just gone with exactly what I thought before, and if he stays off it's what I wanted in the first place, I do wish it hadn't been because an alt-right type dug it up.

 

[Man in the Suit]

I always felt his screenplays were extremely juvenile - which is why I'm not going to miss his stewardship of this franchise.

Nobody else will be able to direct GOTG 3 because soundtracks weren't good until these movies. Mr. Blue Sky and Surrender are really deep cuts and haven't been used before.

 

[samsnee]

Don’t disagree that the writing for Vol 2 was much more juvenile in nature.

At this point I don’t care enough either way. I’ve enjoyed his work but he’s no Spielberg.

 

[Zarex]

But Horn does, and it was Horn's decision. Horn was specifically talking for the company.

Why do you assume that? And if it is his silence, who else at Disney has a said thing over then Horn?

Do you think Feige was involved in the firing? Why do you assume that? Why was his name not in Horn's release or the Variety article? Do you think he was supportive of the decision? If so, why hasn't he commented? Do you think Feige supports the guy who he hired for four separate positions? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think Feige has the back of a guy who he took a chance on and over performed in that position? Or do you think Feige was ready to move on from Gunn? Please provide support for your answers.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Do you think Feige was involved in the firing? Why do you assume that? Why was his name not in Horn's release or the Variety article? Do you think he was supportive of the decision? If so, why hasn't he commented? Do you think Feige supports the guy who he hired for four separate positions? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think Feige has the back of a guy who he took a chance on and over performed in that position? Or do you think Feige was ready to move on from Gunn? Please provide support for your answers.

Yes, Feige was involved with the firing, as I don't think Horn, Iger and the shareholders had a conversation without the studio head. That Iger was specifically mentioned means it literally went all the way to the top. The idea that Horn and Iger were involved but not Feige seems far fetched, as outside of the firing of studio heads themselves, there has not been any such direct action, going over the studio head's head. There is no indication that Horn or Iger would treat a studio head in such a manner. Hell, they even gave Lasseter, who did some apparently really disgusting stuff, a way to back out the door. Even more it specifically indicates that Horn signed off on firing Gunn, meaning he was not making that decision. He definitely didn't sign off on it with Iger, as Iger is above him and yet Iger seemed to simply be involved with discussion on the matter.

Basically what you seem to think is Feige had no indication any of this was going on, no one contacted him and then Horn called him and told him Gunn was fired. For Horn this would be after a discussion and decision was made at least calling Iger, if not some sort of shareholders discussion. But no Feige. The only reason to assume that is what went down is wanting it to be the case.