James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Gunn isn’t the only director that can make good GOTG, Kevin Feige knows what he is doing and he will find the right director.
The cast needs to shut up, because they signed the contract.

Some of the worst takes

[Kevinroc]

I thinks it's woefully naieve to assume they don't want the movie making money. Again, that's sort of the point.

Some of the worst decisions in Hollywood are based on ego. Look at X-Men: The Last Stand.

[Carabas]

Gunn isn’t the only director that can make good GOTG, Kevin Feige knows what he is doing and he will find the right director.

He did find the right director. And those things don't exactly grow on trees.
Odds are the next right director is not going to want to do this because of how the job became available.

The cast needs to shut up, because they signed the contract.

Not generally how this works.

[Agent Z]

Gunn alone isn't what made the Guardians movies good. Nicole Perlman, the script writer, laid the groundwork for them.

[AJBopp]

He did find the right director. And those things don't exactly grow on trees.
Odds are the next right director is not going to want to do this because of how the job became available.


Not generally how this works.

A young director with little experience (which is how Marvel's decisions have often gone with good success) is not likely to turn down the chance at a high profile, $1.5 billion franchise for a company with a track record as solid as a Marvel's

[Carabas]

Gunn alone isn't what made the Guardians movies good. Nicole Perlman, the script writer, laid the groundwork for them.

I don't think that apart from the basic plot, that script and the actual film are all that similar. The Awesome Mix tapes are all Gunn for example.

[Agent Z]

I don't think that apart from the basic plot, that script and the actual film are all that similar. The Awesome Mix tapes are all Gunn for example.

True but the real meat of the story comes from Perlman. Gunn's contributions are more the music and the humor which while appreciated do not make a good movie alone.

[AJBopp]

True but the real meat of the story comes from Perlman. Gunn's contributions are more the music and the humor which while appreciated do not make a good movie alone.

The director is responsible for everything you see in the movie, and can reasonably be expected to have great input into the script to influence the story he wants to tell. He tells the lighting designer how he wants the movie in general, and the scenes in specific, lit. He tells the costumer what he wants the costumes to be like. He tells the properties team what items he wants to see on the set, he tells the cinematographer how he wants the movie shot, he tells the editor how he wants it edited.

The director, if he's a good one, and has a good team, communicates these things in a broad way, and relies on their expertise to bring back solid ideas. If they miss his vision, he explains in more detail what he wants.

Ultimately, everything you see on the screen comes from the director and his vision. He's not a guy that just tells actors where to move and what expressions to wear.

I would expect, even with the commitment to use Gunn's scripts, that the new director will have influence over several rewrites on certain places to match how he wants to tell the story, even though the story will still be Gunn's.

[Enterprise E]

You know, for all the people saying that this movie will take a hit from Gunn not directing it because of his firing, I think another question must be asked: how much of a hit would this movie take if they had kept Gunn as its director. First it was tweets joking about pedophilia. However now, there are pictures of him at a pedophilia-based party. That is much harder to hide or gloss over. I have even heard some people say that it's enough to warrant an investigation. Remember, pedophilia is seen as one of the worst things around, and its practice is one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable to many. Remember the trope "Even Evil has Standards"? Oftentimes, the example is an otherwise evil scum is totally repulsed by pedophiles or another villain that is a pedophile or even just hurts or kills kids. And also, think about this: how could Disney's competitors have used them potentially keeping James Gunn against them? The DCEU is in trouble right now and their main competition is Marvel. They're not going to catch up anytime soon. And suddenly, a major controversy crops up, one that could potentially sink Marvel/Disney if they handled it incorrectly since people would point to them and say that they're allowing a guy who makes light of pedophilia, and could potentially even be one himself, to stay on and direct a movie. You don't think you would have just given ammunition to someone who has a beef with the Marvel MCU? Think again. And every other issue would not be under the microscope and have a spotlight on it, too.

Yes, this was probably a no-win scenario for Disney and Marvel. However, I think that in the long run they'll lose less by firing Gunn, if they indeed lose anything at all, than they would had they kept him on. Remember, the movies are for a general audience, and most of them don't really care too much about who directs it as long as it's a good movie and there are no huge controversies behind it, such as the director at the very least making light of a severe topic like pedophilia. And something like that could have affected how other Marvel movies are viewed by the general audience as well.

[AJBopp]

Remember the trope "Even Evil has Standards"? Oftentimes, the example is an otherwise evil scum is totally repulsed by pedophiles or another villain that is a pedophile or even just hurts or kills kids. And also, think about this: how could Disney's competitors have used them potentially keeping James Gunn against them?

As long as we're remembering things, let's remember that Gunn hasn't actually done any of the things that apparently violate the standards of evil. Also remember that other studios are likely to snap Gunn's directing talents up in a heartbeat as the director of a $1.5 billion franchise.

[Alan2099]

Gunn's crime was having bad taste and getting caught.

He was not a pedophile. No matter how much people want you to think it, there wasn't anything to suggest he was a pedophile. He told some jokes about it and went to a Halloween party. You think if he was really a pedophile he would have wanted to go to a party about exposing and catching pedophiles?

There was no controversy until they fired Gunn. Nobody cared that he told tasteless jokes.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Gunn's crime was having bad taste and getting caught.

He was not a pedophile. No matter how much people want you to think it, there wasn't anything to suggest he was a pedophile. He told some jokes about it and went to a Halloween party. You think if he was really a pedophile he would have wanted to go to a party about exposing and catching pedophiles?

There was no controversy until they fired Gunn. Nobody cared that he told tasteless jokes.

Thank you. It’s very telling that the other side of this has on multiple occasions insinuated that it was worth considering he’s a oedophile like it’s in any way a reasonable stance. But you know, people need to grandstand

[bobellis75]

Thank you. It’s very telling that the other side of this has on multiple occasions insinuated that it was worth considering he’s a oedophile like it’s in any way a reasonable stance. But you know, people need to grandstand

I go with the Seinfeld theory - if it's a joke, it doesn't matter.

If you're saying something for entertainment (even if it's in VERY poor taste) then who cares. Is it offensive? Sure. I don't think gay people should march against Eddie Murphy for stuff he said in 1984, though. Andrew Dice Clay said a lot of horrible things on stage. Music, comedy, etc...there are always going to be those who push things too far. Louie CK does a whole bit about if murder were legal how parents would murder their kids and there would be stations like the "dog poop" stations with bags and trash cans for dead kids. I mean...I think the bit is hilarious, but I know someone who was mortified that anyone would say it or think it's funny.

For those that wanted to compare Gunn to Roseanne...Roseanne was being a mean spirited jackass. Gunn was pushing the envelope way too far...but he wasn't calling out a specific person with hateful speech.

Disney can do what they want, though...but if they really were concerned about this, they never should have hired him in the first place.

[Immortal Weapon]

You know, for all the people saying that this movie will take a hit from Gunn not directing it because of his firing, I think another question must be asked: how much of a hit would this movie take if they had kept Gunn as its director. First it was tweets joking about pedophilia. However now, there are pictures of him at a pedophilia-based party. That is much harder to hide or gloss over. I have even heard some people say that it's enough to warrant an investigation. Remember, pedophilia is seen as one of the worst things around, and its practice is one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable to many. Remember the trope "Even Evil has Standards"? Oftentimes, the example is an otherwise evil scum is totally repulsed by pedophiles or another villain that is a pedophile or even just hurts or kills kids. And also, think about this: how could Disney's competitors have used them potentially keeping James Gunn against them? The DCEU is in trouble right now and their main competition is Marvel. They're not going to catch up anytime soon. And suddenly, a major controversy crops up, one that could potentially sink Marvel/Disney if they handled it incorrectly since people would point to them and say that they're allowing a guy who makes light of pedophilia, and could potentially even be one himself, to stay on and direct a movie. You don't think you would have just given ammunition to someone who has a beef with the Marvel MCU? Think again. And every other issue would not be under the microscope and have a spotlight on it, too.

Yes, this was probably a no-win scenario for Disney and Marvel. However, I think that in the long run they'll lose less by firing Gunn, if they indeed lose anything at all, than they would had they kept him on. Remember, the movies are for a general audience, and most of them don't really care too much about who directs it as long as it's a good movie and there are no huge controversies behind it, such as the director at the very least making light of a severe topic like pedophilia. And something like that could have affected how other Marvel movies are viewed by the general audience as well.

The movie would have not taken no hits if Gunn was kept. Considering who launched the attack against him and the fact that rival studios are waiting in the wings for Disney to let him go of his contract.

[titanfan]

He did find the right director. And those things don't exactly grow on trees.
Odds are the next right director is not going to want to do this because of how the job became available.

I agree that there are a lot of name directors who will not take the job because of this.

However, those types of directors do grow on trees. There are waaaaaaay more talented directors than there are movies for them.