Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' started by Thread Manager, Aug 20, 2018.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]544117[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]543771[/split]
Then why do you think Gunn went on a deletion spree?
Honestly? Probably company orders he clearly did a half-assed job following.
Even if that's true - he should have deleted them well before the incident. Failure to do so showed absolutely zero common sense.
I'm highly skeptical Disney or Marvel knew about the tweets when they hired Gunn. Even a big corporation like Disney can miss things like those tweets when hiring, especially given the fact that Marvel normally are the ones who handle the hiring stuff , not Disney.
Its not like Gunn and other directors are going through deep background checks for security clearance purposes to work for the FBI or something.
They're hired to direct a movie ,and alot of times, this kind of stuff isn't even on the minds of the studio execs, though that may change from now on for Disney for the sake of covering themselves in the future.
Disney is ruthless when it comes to getting what they want , but would they really have allowed Marvel to hire Gunn, knowing about those particular tweets were out there, and risking them being discovered and putting themselves at risk for a potential scandal?
Nah, I just don't buy it.
I don't get how this even happened because it borders on stupidity at a level that I can't grasp. There were people back when Gunn was hired that spoke out against it because of his blog (the Superheros one). Gunn apologized for that. But why did no one (Marvel, Disney, Gunn) think to comb through his other social media? That's what stumps me. Why didn't Disney/Marvel insist on Gunn checking his Twitter? Why didn't Gunn think of it himself? Even if Gunn didn't have the time to go through it himself, he's got the money to hire someone who could.
Of course they would. Disney employed/employs people with shady pasts or convicted of crimes all the time. Only when it becomes a massive (media, social media) issue, then they act. But not before. As long as it doesn't affect their bottom line, they don't do anything.
I mean look at the whole Rosanne issue. Disney/ABC knew exactly who Rosanne was when they hired her, her political stance, her social media posts etc.. As long as she was not 'showing her true self' to the public, there wouldn't be a problem and they would continue to employ her. But when she eventually did screw up enough and media/social media took notice, then they fired her. That's business for you. They don't care who they employ as long as it gets them money. They only act if it affects their profit. The fact that they should have never hired that person in the first place gets overlooked by most.
Do you think the practice of looking over someone's social media profile is an invention post-2011? Because I can tell you with absolute certainty it isn't. Looking over what you post online has been around since the days of Myspace (if not prior). I don't care if Twitter "wasn't what it is today." Do I think Horn or Feige were the dudes checking over his profiles themselves? Absolutely not. They have interns and such for that. When hiring random extras and such, Horn or Feige more than likely are not consulted at all. Those jobs are too small potatoes. But actors and high profile crew? Without a doubt they get consulted. I am sure the job description of said interns is to alert them of anything questionnable (at least, alert their department head who alerts Horn/Feige if they deem it serious). Do you think whoever does this looked at these posts and said "Yeah, nothing to see here?" I will tell you that if they did, they're incompetent. I don't believe this notion they weren't alerted about these posts on a guy taking a high profile role in the production. Not for a nanosecond.
It's actually a lot like that according to folks I know who've worked for Disney over the years, and in much less high profile gigs than helming one of their summer tentpoles designed to generate merchandise waves for years to come.
To not see the MAGA connection to me seems willfully obtuse. Gunn's old tweets would have never been unearthed and weaponized against him had he never been critical of Trump. The US has entered very dangerous territory where it is no longer permissible to criticize those in power. Now that Chris Evans has reached his own saturation point and is unloading on Trump on Twitter also, I expect the alt-right to turn on him as well. Disney doesn't even realize what's going on and how they got played.
But first they'd have to find something that could be held against him. I doubt Evans has ever joked about rape or pedophilia on social media.
I think Iger and Horn are well aware they got scammed. But they likely came to the conclusion that its easier to move forward without Gunn than to do the right thing and reinstate him for the job for which he was hired.
I certainly hope not. But maybe they frame him with something else. It seems these kind of folks use whatever they can to achieve their agenda. Like those costume party photos that magically emerged when it looked like Disney might have been contemplating walking back their decision on Gunn.
Maybe stay away from politics? Marvels fan base covers both sides of the spectrum they and disney don't want to piss off half their fan base by chosing sides.
Maybe fans should realize people are entitled to their opinions and not let the political views of the actors sway their opinions of their work. You don't have to agree with people all the time to like them or respect their work.
So "shut up and dribble"?
I think it's obvious that Disney fired Gunn because they are afraid of their kid-friendly movie being tainted, I really don't see anything to do with politics. Yes I know that Gunn is notoriously known for bashing conservatives and Trump, yes I know the alt-right unearthed those tweets, but I think Disney's decision would have been the same no matter where Gunn's or the accusers' political affiliation falls.
I wonder if they did a thorough background check and found out the tweets, why on earth they didn't ask him to delete them. Or perhaps back in the time they thought that no one except themselves would dig that deep, or they didn't think society in a few years would find those tweets unacceptable.
People are entitled to their own opinions. But if their opinion is to side with racism, sexism, etc. I have a hard time thinking the movie they made means more then who they are as a person.
And maybe actors/directors should stop trying to sway the minds of people by using the media or their social media in regards to politics. Was it not the Avengers cast who made a video collectively endorsing Hillary? And so did others in Hollywood? If that's not the industry trying to sway the mind of the public in regards to politics, I don't know what is.
You blame it on the people for paying any attention to it but not the industry for starting it? Feels like you blaming the wrong people there.
I'm not really talking about controversial things like somebody making a racist tweet or something like that. Obviously that falls under different guidelines. I'm just saying when they're voicing themself politically or something that maybe you should take it as that as the person expressing their First Amendment right which you have the right to do as well on your social media. The post I was responding to seem to me more talking about actors talking politically on their social media not was more what my response was for. Not for things like those
People have a right to say what they want to on a political issue. So Chris Evans can have whatever political opinion he holds. He is also allowed to say that on his social media. When you're going to his social media to see what he says in a political issue and you're getting angry, that is sort of on you. You have the right to not go to his Twitter page. If you're going to his Twitter page and seeing what he saying politically then you're making a choice to see what he's saying. You have the choice to not go to his Twitter page at all. Chris Evans is Twitter page is his Twitter page and as long as he's not doing anything offensive ( along the lines of racism or something like that, not offensive as in you disagree with him) or illegal with it, he can say whatever he wants. That is a freedom granted to him, to you, to anyone.
Ok i'm marvel i hire an actor to star in a film and pay him millions of dollars, not just to be the star but also be an ambassador for the film and my company. To go around the world and do interviews in order to help sell the film.
That actor uses the spotlight to go on a political rant that alienates half of the fans. Millions of them decide not to watch the film and the film loses $100m from it's box office because of it. Can you see why i might be a little pissed off?
I'm not saying they can't talk about politics/religion etc... they have every right. It's just probably not the best idea.
You can rant about politics on your social media, correct? So can an actor. If they can't, then I say you can't. Your rights are not more valuable. They are equal. You're free to ignore them.
Did you even read the bottom line of the post you quoted? They have every right it is just probably not the best idea.
I can moan about my boss on social media, i have the right. Probably not the best idea though.
Yes I did, but this notion that actors should shut up and have no voice because they have corporate overlords fuels a world run by companies where everyone is too afraid to speak out if real injustice happens, and leads to Orwell's 1984 coming to pass. I don't accept this mentality. I don't care if Evans offends a few fans, it is his right to say whatever he wants IMO, especially as he had helped make his corporate overlords billions. He doesn't need to shut up, the people he helped make billions for need to not tell him what to do so long as he is not being racist, bigoted, or something like that.
He wants to get into politics that's up to him. But he should relise that it might effect his popularity, if that drops it will effect his acting career. He is using his celebrity status to try and acheive a political objective. Good for him, if he believes in what he is saying go for it. But there may be consequences.
Just hope it's not another Scarlet Johansson paying lip service trying to gain popularity while being a total hypocrite.