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

[Spider-Fan]

Whedon was not going to be asked back for Avengers 3, because Age Of Ultron was considered a let down in the standard Marvel wanted/expected. Fans did not love that film, even if the box office was good.

Disney/Marvel are not shy about doing that. It's the.key difference between MCU and DCEU, who kept sticking with Zack Snyder after disappointing results. If results are considered disappointing from a creative or box office level, they ask directors to step aside for the next one. I'm pretty sure Jon Favreau wanted to direct Iron Man 3, but they felt new blood was needed after Iron Man 2.

Whedon very openly stated after AoU, he had no interest in doing IW or A4. Going as far to say that working on AoU nearly killed him. So it wasn't a Disney decision, if anything it was a mutual departure. That is 100% different than Gunn's situation. Your narrative about Marvel firing Whedon is just factually wrong.

No. You know, I was their sort of consigliere for a while. … I sort of had my finger in all of the films in the second phase. But then I just had to concentrate only on Ultron, and sort of know that when it was done I was just going to stop. So I made a completely clean break. Not because we had a falling out, just because I was like, ‘I can’t.’ If I was still there going, ‘Well, here are my thoughts on this film,’ I’d be there every day. I wouldn’t do anything else. ‘Cause there’s a lot of films, and it’s a lot of fun. It’s very seductive. When you can put your little fairy dust on things and just improve them slightly, and they actually listen to you. You know, I was a script doctor for a long time, and the part where they listen to you is very rare. So it was important for me to, for my own self, to just go, ‘No. We can still be friends, but…’

 

[semper]

Yet they still got rid of Favreau, which doesn't negate my argument that Disney/Marvel are not about 'director loyalty'. They make decisions about directors returning one movie at a time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yet they still got rid of Favreau, which doesn't negate my argument that Disney/Marvel are not about 'director loyalty'. They make decisions about directors returning one movie at a time.

Once again, Favs was never let go. Directors are not given contracts for multiple films like actors are (usually). Favs was never under contract for a 3rd Iron Man. At the time, he was going to be making a movie about the Magic Kingdom for Disney. So it is unclear if he passed on IM3 or if he got word they didn't need him and attached himself to that. So again, the situation is not the same. At no point was Favs developing IM3. However, Gunn was HIRED to make GotG3. He was actively working on it. He had a contract. Something your other examples never had, so the situations are not remotely similar.

 

[Holiday]

Hold up what does that one part mean "kill the pushes of women..."

I thought it was a typo.

 

[TheVileOne]

These are excellent examples of the character assassination methods used by Mike Cernovich, his alt-right followers and his liberal lapdogs. Ignore the actual issue, which is Bautista bravely putting his acting career on the line by attacking a BO powerhouse. Instead, attack his credibility by dredging up his past failings as a human being. I mean, if Dave erred in other aspects of his life he has no right to express any moral outrage regarding Disney's disgraceful behavior. Well done.

[YT]iBEvITqye3Q[/YT]

I don't think DarthSkywalker and I have ever been called character assassins or liberal lapdogs before.

 

[TheVileOne]

These are excellent examples of the character assassination methods used by Mike Cernovich, his alt-right followers and his liberal lapdogs. Ignore the actual issue, which is Bautista bravely putting his acting career on the line by attacking a BO powerhouse. Instead, attack his credibility by dredging up his past failings as a human being. I mean, if Dave erred in other aspects of his life he has no right to express any moral outrage regarding Disney's disgraceful behavior. Well done.

Hey Batista is free to do whatever. Just like other people are free to bring up his past failings as a human being. His words, I don't think necessarily make him brave.

He's very loyal to James Gunn. I understand that. Gunn gave the guy the biggest break of his acting career. Guardians pretty much made him and gave him a career.

However, just because he's loyal to Gunn doesn't mean he has to voice his dirty laundry on Twitter. I think there's a right and wrong way to handle these things. Doing what he's doing is going to hurt his career.

Do you think other studios will be eager to hire Batista if he they know he's going to go that far on Twitter?

Also, why is bringing up Batista's past failings irrelevant? IMHO far from irrelevant in this conversation.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

These are excellent examples of the character assassination methods used by Mike Cernovich, his alt-right followers and his liberal lapdogs. Ignore the actual issue, which is Bautista bravely putting his acting career on the line by attacking a BO powerhouse. Instead, attack his credibility by dredging up his past failings as a human being. I mean, if Dave erred in other aspects of his life he has no right to express any moral outrage regarding Disney's disgraceful behavior. Well done.

Uh.. Batista is the one who made it about morality here. Saying he doesn't like working for someone he finds a problem with morally. This is exactly why you don't say stupid things. Because when you have done the things he has done, it always comes back around.

He doesn't like that James Gunn was fired for tweets he made back in the day. He was fine, actually loved, working for someone known for racism, sexism, helped pump steroids into his employees, and was accused of sexual assault.

 

[terry78]

I thought it was a typo.

Well, technically.....

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Wrestling is a very shady business, no doubt. I was not aware Batista was accused of doing stuff like that, but I can't say I am surprised. The politics game in wrestling can be pretty messed up and petty.

They can be. And Batista played it with the best of them. Which is why him judging Disney for firing someone on a clam of morality is very hypocritical, considering what he did.

If we are being real, we all know why Disney fired Gunn. It was a business decision. If Batista wants to make it about morality, then his morality is fair game. Because one of the big arguments here is the morality of those that went after Gunn and brought up his past. In that process, the defenders of Gunn have been after Cernovich, which is completely fair game imo. But then why can't you bring up Batista's past, as he claims a moral stand?

 

[TheVileOne]

Disney is protecting themselves by not rehiring Gunn. It's for this simple scenario:

- If they did reinstate Gunn and something else untoward was discovered about him, it would be a nightmare for them. Disney would be held responsible for rehiring him or for not taking sooner action.

- Sort of different but I will give another example. Thiago Silva. Thiago Silva was arrested and brought up on some domestic assault allegations. I think the UFC eventually fired him for this. Eventually, Thiago Silva was acquitted of all charges. The UFC ultimately reinstated Thiago Silva. Silva had the backing of some big popular UFC fighters at the time such as Rashad Evans (former champion) and Matt Mitrione (top heavyweight) who vouched for Thiago Silva.

UFC President Dana White was forced to defend the decision to the press. He lamely went "He's got no charges. He wasn't convicted. We gave him his job back."

Literally days later, Thiago Silva's ex-wife released a smoking gun video before she bolted out of the country. Because of that video Silva was let go and never let back into the UFC.

My point is this. Something like that was terrible and embarrassing for the UFC. The act of reinstating Silva through the whole domestic assault issue was hard enough. It sounded ridiculous that they were defending this scumbag. Then video proof was introduced proving Silva was a scumbag, and UFC had to re-fire Thiago Silva.

Now I'm not saying James Gunn is a scumbag, but this is corporate politics. A company like Disney cannot afford the possibility that Gunn really is some type of criminal. If he is rehired or reinstated and other controversial things are revealed about him, it will Disney that will be majorly embarrassed by it. A corporation like Disney is NOT willing to take that type of risk.

 

[TheVileOne]

They can be. And Batista played it with the best of them. Which is why him judging Disney for firing someone on a clam of morality is very hypocritical, considering what he did.

If we are being real, we all know why Disney fired Gunn. It was a business decision. If Batista wants to make it about morality, then his morality is fair game. Because one of the big arguments here is the morality of those that went after Gunn and brought up his past. In that process, the defenders of Gunny have been after Cernovich, which is completely fair game imo. But then why can't you bring up Batista's past, as he claims a moral stand?

Because it makes you a character assassin and a liberal lapdog DarthSkywalker

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Disney is protecting themselves by not rehiring Gunn. It's for this simple scenario:

- If they did reinstate Gunn and something else untoward was discovered about him, it would be a nightmare for them. Disney would be held responsible for rehiring him or for not taking sooner action.

- Sort of different but I will give another example. Thiago Silva. Thiago Silva was arrested and brought up on some domestic assault allegations. I think the UFC eventually fired him for this. Eventually, Thiago Silva was acquitted of all charges. The UFC ultimately reinstated Thiago Silva. Silva had the backing of some big popular UFC fighters at the time such as Rashad Evans (former champion) and Matt Mitrione (top heavyweight) who vouched for Thiago Silva.

UFC President Dana White was forced to defend the decision to the press. He lamely went "He's got no charges. He wasn't convicted. We gave him his job back."

Literally days later, Thiago Silva's ex-wife released a smoking gun video before she bolted out of the country. Because of that video Silva was let go and never let back into the UFC.

My point is this. Something like that was terrible and embarrassing for the UFC. The act of reinstating Silva through the whole domestic assault issue was hard enough. It sounded ridiculous that they were defending this scumbag. Then video proof was introduced proving Silva was a scumbag, and UFC had to re-fire Thiago Silva.

Now I'm not saying James Gunn is a scumbag, but this is corporate politics. A company like Disney cannot afford the possibility that Gunn really is some type of criminal. If he is rehired or reinstated and other controversial things are revealed about him, it will Disney that will be majorly embarrassed by it. A corporation like Disney is NOT willing to take that type of risk.

I either forgot or never knew what happened to Thiago Silva. Holy crap.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Wrestling is a very shady business, no doubt. I was not aware Batista was accused of doing stuff like that, but I can't say I am surprised. The politics game in wrestling can be pretty messed up and petty.

It might be self-explanatory, but I feel I should elaborate on one point as well for those who are totally unfamiliar with how wrestling works. One's position on the card ties directly with their financial compensation. Wrestlers (at least in WWE) don't have guaranteed contracts. They have downside guarantees and they can get more money by being higher on the card, getting more tv time, and selling more merchandise. So if you are in a title match at Wrestlemania, you will get more payout from that show than if you are on the pre-show. That's where most of the money is made. Having your push killed and being jobbed out (made to lose all the time) or getting taken off tv has a big impact on the pocketbook.

 

[TheVileOne]

I either forgot or never knew what happened to Thiago Silva. Holy crap.

https://www.mmafighting.com/2014/9/19/6567581/thiago-silva-released-again-from-the-ufc

Yup. This is basically why he's persona non grata now. Hard to believe he used to be one of the top light heavyweight fighters in the world.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It might be self-explanatory, but I feel I should elaborate on one point as well for those who are totally unfamiliar with how wrestling works. One's position on the card ties directly with their financial compensation. Wrestlers (at least in WWE) don't have guaranteed contracts. They have downside guarantees and they can get more money by being higher on the card, getting more tv time, and selling more merchandise. So if you are in a title match at Wrestlemania, you will get more payout from that show than if you are on the pre-show. That's where most of the money is made. Having your push killed and being jobbed out (made to lose all the time) or getting taken off tv has a big impact on the pocketbook.

Part of the why Neville and Aries left. Little to no Wrestlemania cut because they don't count the pre-show as apart of Wrestlemania.

 

[TheVileOne]

Also, let me just say I have no idea if Batista really did that to other women in the WWE.

However, just from reading his book and based on his own anecdotes, I wouldn't find it hard to believe.

 

[Zarex]

They can be. And Batista played it with the best of them. Which is why him judging Disney for firing someone on a clam of morality is very hypocritical, considering what he did.

If we are being real, we all know why Disney fired Gunn. It was a business decision. If Batista wants to make it about morality, then his morality is fair game. Because one of the big arguments here is the morality of those that went after Gunn and brought up his past. In that process, the defenders of Gunn have been after Cernovich, which is completely fair game imo. But then why can't you bring up Batista's past, as he claims a moral stand?

Because the issues have nothing to do with each other. It's "but her e-mails.....", an effort to district from the issue at hand in order to confuse the weak minded among us.

Bautista may be a horrible person - that's news to me - but he is 100% right on this issue. And it would be fair game to attack him if he, like Disney, had caved in the face of outside pressure applied by fascists. Then you can scream "HYPOCRITE" as loudly as you would like. But that's not the case.

If immoral behavior in our pasts prevents us from speaking up against injustice, we should all just shut our mouths and take it. Right?

And, by the by, I haven't discussed Mr. Cernovich's past rape charge or his disturbing viewers on sexual assault and white supremacy. What I have discussed is what he is doing NOW - dredging up old tweets out of context and attempting to weaponize them, using his fellow white supremacists and easily confused SJWs. All in an effort to punish those who have the nads to stand up against Putin's Boy. That's the problem, and it will remain so regardless of your many attempts to confuse the issue.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Disney is protecting themselves by not rehiring Gunn. It's for this simple scenario:

- If they did reinstate Gunn and something else untoward was discovered about him, it would be a nightmare for them. Disney would be held responsible for rehiring him or for not taking sooner action.

- Sort of different but I will give another example. Thiago Silva. Thiago Silva was arrested and brought up on some domestic assault allegations. I think the UFC eventually fired him for this. Eventually, Thiago Silva was acquitted of all charges. The UFC ultimately reinstated Thiago Silva. Silva had the backing of some big popular UFC fighters at the time such as Rashad Evans (former champion) and Matt Mitrione (top heavyweight) who vouched for Thiago Silva.

UFC President Dana White was forced to defend the decision to the press. He lamely went "He's got no charges. He wasn't convicted. We gave him his job back."

Literally days later, Thiago Silva's ex-wife released a smoking gun video before she bolted out of the country. Because of that video Silva was let go and never let back into the UFC.

My point is this. Something like that was terrible and embarrassing for the UFC. The act of reinstating Silva through the whole domestic assault issue was hard enough. It sounded ridiculous that they were defending this scumbag. Then video proof was introduced proving Silva was a scumbag, and UFC had to re-fire Thiago Silva.

Now I'm not saying James Gunn is a scumbag, but this is corporate politics. A company like Disney cannot afford the possibility that Gunn really is some type of criminal. If he is rehired or reinstated and other controversial things are revealed about him, it will Disney that will be majorly embarrassed by it. A corporation like Disney is NOT willing to take that type of risk.

A similar situation was with Ray Rice in the NFL. He and his then-fiancee were involved in a domestic violence situation for which he was arrested. His fiancee came out in support for him, then ended up marrying soon after, and the charges were dropped. The NFL gave him a slap on the wrist with the usual "it was a mistake and he learned his lesson"-type explanations. A famous video came out of Rice knocking her out cold in an elevator and it just exploded. The NFL and Roger Goodell got destroyed over this by the fanbase, media, and women's rights groups all season long.

 

[TheVileOne]

Same with the Ravens, Ray Rice's team at the time. Ravens even put out a statement that basically said his girlfriend was also at fault for the incident and was "sorry" that it happened. That was right before the video got released.

So if anything, Disney is protecting themselves from a similar situation by not rehiring Gunn. Yes, a big corporation would avoid doing that even in an unlikely scenario. I'm not saying people have to like it, but that's a very true reality.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because the issues have nothing to do with each other. It's "but her e-mails.....", an effort to district from the issue at hand in order to confuse the weak minded among us.

Bautista may be a horrible person - that's news to me - but he is 100% right on this issue. And it would be fair game to attack him if he, like Disney, had caved in the face of outside pressure applied by fascists. Then you can scream "HYPOCRITE" as loudly as you would like. But that's not the case.

If immoral behavior in our pasts prevents us from speaking up against injustice, we should all just shut our mouths and take it. Right?

And, by the by, I haven't discussed Mr. Cernovich's past rape charge or his disturbing viewers on sexual assault and white supremacy. What I have discussed is what he is doing NOW - dredging up old tweets out of context and attempting to weaponize them, using his fellow white supremacists and easily confused SJWs. All in an effort to punish those who have the nads to stand up against Putin's Boy. That's the problem, and it will remain so regardless of your many attempts to confuse the issue.

Let's be very specific.

His complaint is one of the moral standing of his employer. His problem is his employer fired someone for reasons he found unjustified. That makes it him nauseous. This is a man who worked for Vince McMahon with a smile on his face for how long? Even came back for a run and has said on more then one occasion he wants another run. Working for Vince, by choice, doesn't apparently make him nauseous.

This is not whataboutism. This is not, "but her emails". We aren't talking about anything different. This is a man who brought up the morality of his new boss, when he never did this with his old boss, who is a Vince McMahon. Batista's issue is his buddy got fired. He is playing the loyalty card. Which is his right. Does not change what it says about him.

Also you just brought up Cernovich's past... you do realize that right?

 

[TheVileOne]

Because the issues have nothing to do with each other. It's "but her e-mails.....", an effort to district from the issue at hand in order to confuse the weak minded among us.

Bautista may be a horrible person - that's news to me - but he is 100% right on this issue. And it would be fair game to attack him if he, like Disney, had caved in the face of outside pressure applied by fascists. Then you can scream "HYPOCRITE" as loudly as you would like. But that's not the case.

If immoral behavior in our pasts prevents us from speaking up against injustice, we should all just shut our mouths and take it. Right?

And, by the by, I haven't discussed Mr. Cernovich's past rape charge or his disturbing viewers on sexual assault and white supremacy. What I have discussed is what he is doing NOW - dredging up old tweets out of context and attempting to weaponize them, using his fellow white supremacists and easily confused SJWs. All in an effort to punish those who have the nads to stand up against Putin's Boy. That's the problem, and it will remain so regardless of your many attempts to confuse the issue.

I mean you are trying really hard not "discussing" them just by bringing them up

Zarex, you seem to be deflecting a lot by going to Cernovich. Does it matter who found the tweets or where they came from?

Even a CNN anchor asked that about Sarah Jeong.

Also, let me make one thing clear. If heads of Disney decided to have a meeting and smooth this over and reinstate Gunn, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think maybe they should've taken a softer stance when this blew up and not outright fire him.

However, once again, the world we are currently in has basically made it so this is the result.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Vince McMahon probably would have done the same thing. He fired Hulk Hogan over comments he made during a sextape that was recorded without Hogan's knowledge. He even fired Daniel Bryan after Bryan choked out an announcer with his tie during a mass beatdown in a scripted segment on air and sponsors/Linda McMahon's campaign manager got upset. He fired Muhammad Hassan after complaints from a completely scripted segment staging a "terrorist attack" on the Undertaker, and Hassan never did get his job back. The last two are notable both because those were performances were the wrestlers were simply doing what they were told, but also because Batista continued to work with the company after they occurred (he wasn't actually with the company at the time of the Bryan incident, but returned a couple of years later).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Vince McMahon probably would have done the same thing. He fired Hulk Hogan over comments he made during a sextape that was recorded without Hogan's knowledge. He even fired Daniel Bryan after Bryan choked out an announcer with his tie during a mass beatdown in a scripted segment on air and sponsors/Linda McMahon's campaign manager got upset. He fired Muhammad Hassan after complaints from a completely scripted segment staging a "terrorist attack" on the Undertaker, and Hassan never did get his job back. The last two are notable both because those were performances were the wrestlers were simply doing what they were told, but also because Batista continued to work with the company after they occurred (he wasn't actually with the company at the time of the Bryan incident, but returned a couple of years later).

Yeah, I don't think it is hard to understand. Batistia is a hypocrite. His friend got fired, and it has hit him hard. That is understandable. But that does not change that the only reason he has a problem with this, is it was his friend. This is not about the cause.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I just want to say that I personally would like to have Gunn around. I don't really care if the guy is a total scumbag. He makes movies. He's not running for president. Unless it is something he should be in prison for, it is none of my concern. I just understand the situation Disney is in here. Had they not fired him, the public and media backlash could have been immense. We've seen it before. It would have been really risky to keep him on.

 

[TheVileOne]

I just want to say that I personally would like to have Gunn around. I don't really care if the guy is a total scumbag. He makes movies. He's not running for president. Unless it is something he should be in prison for, it is none of my concern. I just understand the situation Disney is in here. Had they not fired him, the public and media backlash could have been immense. We've seen it before. It would have been really risky to keep him on.

I'm pretty much in the same boat.