Guardians of the Galaxy James gunn fired!!! - Part 2

[Spider-Fan]

It is still going from AoU to IW, from IM2 to IM3, from TDW to TR, so from Vol 2 to...

TDW to TR is not a fair comparison as TDW was not directed by Branagh. From that same token, I could say Branagh to Taylor was a downgrade. Again, I disagree with your logic as your logic ignores superior 1st installments to your examples (though I know in IWs case, there will be debate there). But my point is you cannot just cherry pick examples that work for you and ignore ones that don't.

 

[2kt09]

TDW to TR is not a fair comparison as TDW was not directed by Branagh. From that same token, I could say Branagh to Taylor was a downgrade. Again, I disagree with your logic as your logic ignores superior 1st installments to your examples (though I know in IWs case, there will be debate there). But my point is you cannot just cherry pick examples that work for you and ignore ones that don't.

It's a rare case. In much the same way the Russos sticking around only improved whatever series they were working on compared to other MCU directors. I'm highlighting the pattern in precedence.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's a rare case. In much the same way the Russos sticking around only improved whatever series they were working on compared to other MCU directors. I'm highlighting the pattern in precedence.

But you're doing it with half evidence. That's the problem. You cannot say Black > Favs when Favs made the best movie in the series by far. The Russos may have a stronger argument given their Cap works trumps AoU (if we consider Avengers and IW on about equal level). But that is considering ALL the evidence. So again, I find your logic very faulty.

 

[2kt09]

But you're doing it with half evidence. That's the problem. You cannot say Black > Favs when Favs made the best movie in the series by far. The Russos may have a stronger argument given their Cap works trumps AoU (if we consider Avengers and IW on about equal level). But that is considering ALL the evidence. So again, I find your logic very faulty.

The half evidence or context is that the directors who did well the first time (or series that worked from the start), didn't in the sequel, and had someone else take over those corners of the MCU. What other TDW and Russo cases are there? Everyone else who's stuck around creatively fizzled out or have only done one. I don't think it will be that difficult to find a replacement intergalactic F&F director.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The half evidence or context is that the directors who did well the first time, needed someone else to take over their corner of the MCU.
What other TDW and Russo cases are there? Everyone else who's stuck around creatively fizzled out or have only done one.

Which means TDW & TR are irrelevant to your own point because TDW was a downgrade with a different director (not the same one). So you cannot use that one in your current argument.

As for other examples, Peyton Reed delivered a movie of about equal quality with A&W. As I have noted prior in this forum in the past, I actually find Vol 2 of GotG superior to GotG1, but I know I am in the minority on that. But regardless, any website that tracks this type of data shows Vol 2 of GotG has stronger scores than IM2 or AoU do. Also, these other examples you're providing me of directors who fizzled out also left the franchises willingly on their own accord. Neither Favs or Whedon elected to stay on for 3rd movies. Gunn did elect to do a 3rd, and was hired for it initially. His exit was not his choice. So he was evidently not burnt out (unlike the other examples you're trying to argue). .

 

[DalekbusterFitz]

Or he'll just be recast or killed off. The Guardians franchise is much more than just Bautista. Dunno if I'd call everything he's saying sense, but he is stomping his feet because he's not getting his way.

The Guardians franchise is an ensemble. Everyone has a favourite. Kill or recast one of them, and you lose a part of that audience.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What this sounds like to me is an excuse for a company to fire you because of your beliefs, not the merit of your character. That to me is a violation of your basic freedom. No employer should ever have the right to say something like "Be and vote for Party X or you're fired." That is just flat wrong. People fled to America to avoid persecution like this. Back then it may have been religious persecution. This may not be death or something like that as a punishment, but it is along the same lines. Where do you draw the line?

Then this applies to being a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. You cut out being a Nazi, but that would apply here. And people get fired for being a Nazi all the time and no one gets upset. You want to make the argument of what a basic freedom is, but then want exceptions. Those exception fundamentally change the rule. "Freedoms "in a free society are checked all the time. You can't discriminate in your hiring practices based on race or sex anymore. You can't enter into a slavery agreement even if both sides are "willing".

You mention avoiding persecution. Its the same for those that own companies. People who own companies, run them, are also allowed freedom in such a society. Fundamental freedoms have to do with government. Trying to keep them from placing restriction on private citizens.

And lets be clear, we have protection for workers. You can't get fired for being a practicing Christian, Muslim, etc. You can't be fired for being a Democrat or Republican. But claiming religious or political affiliation does make you immune to your action. You can't cloak your racism, your sexism, in the idea that it is your religious or political right, is BS. And you can get fired for acting like bigot, even when invoking your religion or political party.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Guardians franchise is an ensemble. Everyone has a favourite. Kill or recast one of them, and you lose a part of that audience.

I disagree with this. There may be several Guardians that each get their time, but they aren't all equal. Not by a long shot. Peter Quill is clearly the star, followed by Rocket to a certain extent. Losing Bautista would be nowhere near as devastating as losing Pratt.

 

[NotNickFury]

The Guardians franchise is an ensemble. Everyone has a favourite. Kill or recast one of them, and you lose a part of that audience.

Based on what? No, really, what do you base that off of if it's not just pulled out of thin air?

I mean, how petty or pathetic would it be to sit out of a movie based on a franchise that you enjoy just because one character may die or won't be in it? Like 'Oh, Groot's gone? Then I'm not seeing Guardians Vol. 3!'

Then they'll huff and puff and stomp their feet like Bautista's doing right now, but they know that they'll be there Day One at the cinema anyway because the Guardians, ensemble or not, don't just fall apart as a franchise just because of one character any more than the future Avengers team-ups won't detract audiences just because Iron Man or Captain America may die.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Then this applies to being a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. You cut out being a Nazi, but that would apply here. And people get fired for being a Nazi all the time and no one gets upset. You want to make the argument of what a basic freedom is, but then want exceptions. Those exception fundamentally change the rule. "Freedoms "in a free society are checked all the time. You can't discriminate in your hiring practices based on race or sex anymore. You can't enter into a slavery agreement even if both sides are "willing".

You mention avoiding persecution. Its the same for those that own companies. People who own companies, run them, are also allowed freedom in such a society. Fundamental freedoms have to do with government. Trying to keep them from placing restriction on private citizens.

And lets be clear, we have protection for workers. You can't get fired for being a practicing Christian, Muslim, etc. You can't be fired for being a Democrat or Republican. But claiming religious or political affiliation does make you immune to your action. You can't cloak your racism, your sexism, in the idea that it is your religious or political right, is BS. And you can get fired for acting like bigot, even when invoking your religion or political party.

I had a much longer reply typed out, but I lost it when my computer froze and I am not typing all that again. Suffice to say for me, there is a difference between bigotry/sexism and posting political views. I don't see limiting things like bigotry as wrong as we have rules against it in society already and laws in certain situations. So again, posting about how much you like or hate someone like Trump I don't see as the same thing.

Your last paragraph seems to talk about using political and religious affiliation as a defense for bigotry, and that really isn't what I am talking about. That's a different conversation.

This is probably my last post on this particular topic. My opinion is pretty clear here, and arguments are sort of getting circular. I'd rather we actually start talking about James Gunn stuff again in here.

 

[Lilbaz]

Can someone explain to me why tweeting a racist joke is unnacceptable but posting a joke about molesting children is acceptable?

 

[Spider-Fan]

No one is saying either is acceptable. But ones made almost a decade ago and prior to being employed with said company is different than making one while being employed with said company.

This has been stated ad naseum.

 

[Holiday]

Can someone explain to me why tweeting a racist joke is unnacceptable but posting a joke about molesting children is acceptable?

Curious, but what tweet about paedophilia from Gunn do you consider the worst?

 

[Lilbaz]

Curious, but what tweet about paedophilia from Gunn do you consider the worst?

Dunno laughing at people with aids , raping the little boy next to me? None of them are great.

But they don't really bother me that much. Just think it was stupid of him to post them and even stupider to not delete them when he got a job with disney. People who have aids, parents and victims of abuse and many average people will find them offensive. Parents are disneys biggest customer.

 

[jr24tw]

I found his rape jokes not all that funny either. I mean the one he posted about thinking about raping a friend he had sleep over at his place that night. Who does that? Imagine being the family or friend of said person (while not being that familiar with Gunn) and you saw this tweet while checking your social media in the morning. I know I would be in a frenzy to get into contact with them if that were my friend or family member (knowing they slept at Gunn's place), checking to see if they are ok.

 

[Holiday]

Dunno laughing at people with aids , raping the little boy next to me? None of them are great.

But they don't really bother me that much. Just think it was stupid of him to post them and even stupider to not delete them when he got a job with disney. People who have aids, parents and victims of abuse and many average people will find them offensive. Parents are disneys biggest customer.

The aids joke wasn't horrible to me. "Laughter is the best medicine, so I laugh at people with aids" The joke is he's doing something horrible for good reason. It's not about paedophilia either. Nor is the tweet about "raping the ***** boy next to me". That joke is about the masculinity of the Expendables film marketing, and how it hyped him up to assault the person next to him in the theater. Think about it, why would a child be watching the Expendables in the theater? My point is, when taking a closer look his tweets singled out by Cernovich they are not that bad as some make them out to be.

I don't give Disney any credit here either. They hired Gunn shortly after he wrote a movie in which Rainn Wilson was raped by Juno. Wow, what a surprise that the same person wrote nasty Twitter jokes.

I found his rape jokes not all that funny either. I mean the one he posted about thinking about raping a friend he had sleep over at his place that night. Who does that? Imagine being the family or friend of said person (while not being that familiar with Gunn) and you saw this tweet while checking your social media in the morning. I know I would be in a frenzy to get into contact with them if that were my friend or family member (knowing they slept at Gunn's place), checking to see if they are ok.

If the girl in question and Gunn have the kind of relationship where they joke that way, I don't see the problem.

 

[Zarex]

Can someone explain to me why tweeting a racist joke is unnacceptable but posting a joke about molesting children is acceptable?

Good question! Both are bad, but an awful lot of comedians have child molestation jokes in their arsenal while racist jokes are, for the most, part passe. One reason might be that molesting kids is a criminal act, so it's highly unlikely that a guy who is joking about it is actually committing that crime. It's legal to be racist - We even elected one President! - so it is much more likely that the guy making racist jokes on the Twitter machine actually is in fact a racist.

 

[Lilbaz]

No one is saying either is acceptable. But ones made almost a decade ago and prior to being employed with said company is different than making one while being employed with said company.

This has been stated ad naseum.

It was still on his twitter account. Even if it was made a decade ago people could still read it, he had not taken it down.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I had a much longer reply typed out, but I lost it when my computer froze and I am not typing all that again. Suffice to say for me, there is a difference between bigotry/sexism and posting political views. I don't see limiting things like bigotry as wrong as we have rules against it in society already and laws in certain situations. So again, posting about how much you like or hate someone like Trump I don't see as the same thing.

Your last paragraph seems to talk about using political and religious affiliation as a defense for bigotry, and that really isn't what I am talking about. That's a different conversation.

This is probably my last post on this particular topic. My opinion is pretty clear here, and arguments are sort of getting circular. I'd rather we actually start talking about James Gunn stuff again in here.

Your argument originally was what you do in your off time should not be tied back to your work. You should not be fired for things you do in your free time. You are free to be racist, sexist, or bigoted in the United States. Its a part of freedom of speech in the US. You can even be a Nazi, which can be considered a political affiliation. But people get fired for such stuff all the time. Why? Because companies don't want to be branded as such. They don't want to be the Nazi sympathizers or the company who employs the guy who sent around a memo about how women are inferior and here is the "scientific" prove. This is exactly why James Gunn got fired for joking about raping children. Because Disney doesn't want to be the place that employs the guy who thinks pedophile is funny to make family films.

And this is exactly why I think it is a very bad argument to suggest one cannot be fired for what they do while off the clock. Because while plenty of things are protected in that regard and should be, rightly, not everything is.

Also I don't think it is a different conversation, but few people just say they are racist without justification, or that they are in fact racist or bigoted at all. A big part of Trump's bigotry comes with his policies. And people support his racist and sexist policies, while claiming to be none of those things.

 

[Lilbaz]

At the end of the day the customer is the ultimate boss of a company. If they decide to spend their money elsewhere everyone at the company is out of a job from ceo to janitor.
Gunns tweets being unearthed would have caused a massive problem for disney if they had not fired him. There would have been many people calling for him to be fired, boycotting disney movies their merch and their theme parks. This meant disney had to let him go. I'm sure he got a nice payoff.

 

[Zarex]

At the end of the day the customer is the ultimate boss of a company. If they decide to spend their money elsewhere everyone at the company is out of a job from ceo to janitor.
Gunns tweets being unearthed would have caused a massive problem for disney if they had not fired him. There would have been many people calling for him to be fired, boycotting disney movies their merch and their theme parks. This meant disney had to let him go. I'm sure he got a nice payoff.

I completely disagree. If Gunn gave an apology and Disney issued a release stating that "The comments do not represent the values of The Walt Disney Company ", the problem would have been resolved by the weekend. Though cybernazis and their enablers can certainly cause a stink, there arent enough of them to cause any lasting monetary damage. Disney created a much bigger and longer lasting problem by firing Gunn than they would have if they let him make a third wildly successful flick.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I completely disagree. If Gunn gave an apology and Disney issued a release stating that "The comments do not represent the values of The Walt Disney Company ", the problem would have been resolved by the weekend. Though cybernazis and their enablers can certainly cause a stink, there arent enough of them to cause any lasting monetary damage. Disney created a much bigger and longer lasting problem by firing Gunn than they would have if they let him make a third wildly successful flick.

You don't know that unequivocally. There stood a chance that keeping him on could have caused a stir they didn't want (even with an apology), so they didn't chance anything. There also stands a chance they never scrubbed far back enough for those child rape tweets and that's why it prompted such a swift move.

Btw what problem are we talking about? Dave Bautista the academy award winner?

Marvel will find a new director and the show will go on. I remember hearing similar nonsense when Edgar Wright was forced out, people complaining other directors wouldn't respect the studio after how long he worked on the movie.

 

[Zarex]

Dave 's a problem. So is losing the director that created the franchise and delivered two films that have brought in over $350M in profit from the BO alone. Putting the franchise on hold is a problem. Losing the architect for the cosmic MCU is a problem. Getting a replacement is a problem. Disney having to be consistent in their hiring going forward is a problem. (No blue humor at any time in your life, future Mouse employees!). Lots of problems that wouldn't exist if Disney didn't royally screw up this situation.

 

[Holiday]

Gunn was let go within what, 24 hours? No one can say either way what the reaction from the majority would have been if Disney would have kept Gunn.

 

[Lilbaz]

Gunn was let go within what, 24 hours? No one can say either way what the reaction from the majority would have been if Disney would have kept Gunn.

There would have been more publicity about it that's for certain. Fox, moms across america etc... would have been bringing it up trying to get publicity for their own political agendas. There might not be that many cyber nazi's but there are plenty of people that get offended over the slightest thing. Look at cyberpunk 2077 and their tweet. I don't even know why it was offensive yet it has caused a massive argument with a number calling for a boycott.