James Gunn is Back!

[Chance Jackson]

James Gunn Back On as 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3' Director
I'm here for it.

 

[THORin]

James Gunn Back On as 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3' Director

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[jolldan]

Best news I’ve heard all day.

 

[Batmannerism]

GOTG remains my favourite MCU film, and I loved Vol 2 so I'm thrilled that Gunn will be making Vol 3.

However, and this is to look a gift horse in the mouth, what's the real reason ?

Maybe Captain Marvel's reception has made the big wish at Disney nervous.

Going to slide over to the GOTG vol 3 thread to see what opinions and theories are flying around.

Peace out super fans!

 

[metaphysician]

Most plausible explanation: nothing changed recently. Disney decided to bring him back months ago, they were just waiting for enough time to pass before revealing it, so that whatever scandal could well and truly blow over.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Dang, this is a bad week for the Alt-Right trolls. Captain Marvel opens to huge success and their one "real victory" gets undone with Gunn's return!

 

[Heretic]

Maybe Captain Marvel's reception has made the big wish at Disney nervous.

The reception of Captain Marvel is that it will become a billion dollar plus film, certainly among the upper tier of Marvel box office winners (maybe reaching their top 5 or 6). And it is a character no one had ever heard of, and female superhero movies had long been considered box office poison. I have NO idea how Disney could be anything but reassured and pleased with that result.

 

[Kuwolski]

Most plausible explanation: nothing changed recently. Disney decided to bring him back months ago, they were just waiting for enough time to pass before revealing it, so that whatever scandal could well and truly blow over.

I don't think its a coincidence this was announced the weekend before the merger closes.

 

[Batmannerism]

The reception of Captain Marvel is that it will become a billion dollar plus film, certainly among the upper tier of Marvel box office winners (maybe reaching their top 5 or 6). And it is a character no one had ever heard of, and female superhero movies had long been considered box office poison. I have NO idea how Disney could be anything but reassured and pleased with that result.

I was referring to it's critical reception.

As for its box office returns, we'll see if it reaches the billion dollar Mark. It'll certainly make a good return for Disney but will it top BP? Who knows ? It's currently experiencing a significant drop off at the BO as all cbms do.

Until recently Female superhero films suffered from being crap on their own merits - there are precious few of them anyway ...Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, not a big list. Anyway, that hoodoo was well and truly broken with a little movie called Wonder Woman.

Disney may be ecstatic about CM's success, who can say, but the timing of this announcement seems odd to me - but I'm a bit suspicious, given Disney's moral stand on Gunn last year it seems an odd time to do a 180 turn.

 

[Xeno]

 

[Iceman]

Dang, this is a bad week for the Alt-Right trolls. Captain Marvel opens to huge success and their one "real victory" gets undone with Gunn's return!

They are having a nightmare every time they log back on. It just gets worse.

 

[Shuri]

I just saw this now. I knew it! I'm so happy

 

[Darkprime]

I watched volume 2 tonight to celebrate.

 

[Tg11]

Is this for real because if Gunn is back what happens to The Suicide Squad since he was attached to it?

 

[Chesterfield]

I was referring to it's critical reception.

As for its box office returns, we'll see if it reaches the billion dollar Mark. It'll certainly make a good return for Disney but will it top BP? Who knows ? It's currently experiencing a significant drop off at the BO as all cbms do.

Until recently Female superhero films suffered from being crap on their own merits - there are precious few of them anyway ...Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, not a big list. Anyway, that hoodoo was well and truly broken with a little movie called Wonder Woman.

Disney may be ecstatic about CM's success, who can say, but the timing of this announcement seems odd to me - but I'm a bit suspicious, given Disney's moral stand on Gunn last year it seems an odd time to do a 180 turn.

It's odd to you because you're not thinking like a business man. You don't generate $18Billion in revenue in the space of 10 years without making some curious decisions.

 

[The Infernal]

I have mixed feelings. He got done for the wrong reasons and his own double standards shouldn't matter, but I can't deny he still makes me uneasy.

 

[samsnee]

I’m glad he’s back just because I know the cast really wanted it and you want to keep a good vibe on the set.

But I do hope he learns from V2. The humor was just too juvenile at times (“Do you have a penis?”) and no splitting up the group this time.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Is this for real because if Gunn is back what happens to The Suicide Squad since he was attached to it?

They've stated that he will stay on as director for Suicide Squad and return to do Volume 3 once he finishes that project.

 

[Tg11]

They've stated that he will stay on as director for Suicide Squad and return to do Volume 3 once he finishes that project.

If he can do both then I say even better

 

[The Infernal]

Was he really fired?

 

[Batmannerism]

It's odd to you because you're not thinking like a business man. You don't generate $18Billion in revenue in the space of 10 years without making some curious decisions.

2 things:

1)It's not so much the decision as the timing of the decision. What else has happened recently to make Disney do a complete turnaround ? Even if it had been in the works for a while, why announce it now ?

2) It wasn't a business decision to begin with, it was a moral decision ( or at least was dressed up like one) based on what Disney's reaction to the inappropriate tweets he sent. You could say that all decisions made by corporate entities are business decisions, but this one doesn't appear to have been made for solely business reasons.

If they had fired him because the working relationship broke down, and rehired him later that would make sense - but to take a moral stand and then reverse it is strange (unless proof appeared that he never sent the tweets, but of course he did).

Finally, I'm not sure I agree with your logic - If anything the MCU's financial success suggests that they generally make smart decisions based on a sound understanding of their audience rather than curious ones - they have found a winning formula and stuck to it ( as their origin films demsonstrate) making changes only when it's advantageous. The MCU works because it doesn't takel a lot of risks. While BP was a groundbreaking film in terms of its casting it was a film that the world was clealry ready for, and the MCU had already tested the waters by introducing the character in 2016 - a very smart move.
As for Captain Marvel, for once the MCU was behind DC on this one who had already made a very successful female superhero film.
So, in summary, I'm not sure curious decisions describes the MCU's pattern of generally smart and well thought out moves, which is what makes the firing/rehiring of James Gunn so odd.

 

[BigThor]

 

[SirStrangefolk]

2 things:

1)It's not so much the decision as the timing of the decision. What else has happened recently to make Disney do a complete turnaround ? Even if it had been in the works for a while, why announce it now ?

2) It wasn't a business decision to begin with, it was a moral decision ( or at least was dressed up like one) based on what Disney's reaction to the inappropriate tweets he sent. You could say that all decisions made by corporate entities are business decisions, but this one doesn't appear to have been made for solely business reasons.

If they had fired him because the working relationship broke down, and rehired him later that would make sense - but to take a moral stand and then reverse it is strange (unless proof appeared that he never sent the tweets, but of course he did).

Finally, I'm not sure I agree with your logic - If anything the MCU's financial success suggests that they generally make smart decisions based on a sound understanding of their audience rather than curious ones - they have found a winning formula and stuck to it ( as their origin films demsonstrate) making changes only when it's advantageous. The MCU works because it doesn't takel a lot of risks. While BP was a groundbreaking film in terms of its casting it was a film that the world was clealry ready for, and the MCU had already tested the waters by introducing the character in 2016 - a very smart move.
As for Captain Marvel, for once the MCU was behind DC on this one who had already made a very successful female superhero film.
So, in summary, I'm not sure curious decisions describes the MCU's pattern of generally smart and well thought out moves, which is what makes the firing/rehiring of James Gunn so odd.

The firing/rehiring of Gunn had nothing to do with Marvel Studios and the people generally involved in making decisions about the MCU though. This was all from higher up Disney. And yes, it's totally a business decision. Initially they fired him because they were afraid these tweets being in the news would lead to bad press for Disney and result in less sales. But then Gunn gave the best response to the scenario he could have given, Feige tried to get them to reverse the situation, online it appeared as if public opinion was actually supporting Gunn (so their hypothesis of damaging their image seemed wrong), the actors in the GotG franchise were making it clear they would become difficult if Gunn wasn't involved and no other decent director was willing to take on the project when they either believed it belonged to Gunn or were afraid they would be judged by others who feel that way. Their other options would be to either 1. Make GotG 3 with a hack director and reluctant actors and then have all the press and interviews be about what it could've been like had Gunn not been fired, 2. Completely cancel GotG Vol. 3 (and potential later sequels) and miss out on that revenue or 3. Rehire Gunn and hope audiences would accept something made by him. Since it seemed people were generally supportive of Gunn, option 3 would make the most sense as a business decision, even if it required going back on a previous decision (which is something corporations usually avoid).

 

[Batmannerism]

The firing/rehiring of Gunn had nothing to do with Marvel Studios and the people generally involved in making decisions about the MCU though. This was all from higher up Disney. And yes, it's totally a business decision. Initially they fired him because they were afraid these tweets being in the news would lead to bad press for Disney and result in less sales. But then Gunn gave the best response to the scenario he could have given, Feige tried to get them to reverse the situation, online it appeared as if public opinion was actually supporting Gunn (so their hypothesis of damaging their image seemed wrong), the actors in the GotG franchise were making it clear they would become difficult if Gunn wasn't involved and no other decent director was willing to take on the project when they either believed it belonged to Gunn or were afraid they would be judged by others who feel that way. Their other options would be to either 1. Make GotG 3 with a hack director and reluctant actors and then have all the press and interviews be about what it could've been like had Gunn not been fired, 2. Completely cancel GotG Vol. 3 (and potential later sequels) and miss out on that revenue or 3. Rehire Gunn and hope audiences would accept something made by him. Since it seemed people were generally supportive of Gunn, option 3 would make the most sense as a business decision, even if it required going back on a previous decision (which is something corporations usually avoid).

That makes sense. I am sure you are correct that the real reason for his reinstatement is that it makes business sense - because it does. However, the original reason for his firing was stated by Disney that his behaviour was inconsistent with Disney's values. That's a moral stand ( again, or is dressed up as one). What Disney is showing us is it's degree of hypocrisy, that morals come second to good business sense - because Gunn still did what he did, and his apology and the outcry from the cast are old news.
if those tweets were inconsistent with Disney corporate values then, they're inconsistent now, unless those values have changed or are just a sham.

Now I can completely accept that Disney puts revenue first, but my original question is what has changed ? ( other than Disney realising that it was the best financial decision) is there something else that's happened to change their mind.