James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[regg215]

Regardless of how you feel about the Gunn firing, I think it is a mistake for disney to move forward on Guardians 3. Whether you agree with them or not when the whole cast is ticked off about the change you can pretty much guarantee that they are not going to bring the same effort to the film. Honestly sounds like Bautista would not even do the film. I think that the biggest strength of the MCU is that the actors seem to genuinely enjoy being in their roles and that buys a lot of good will with audiences because that really comes across on screen and makes the movie more fun, I can't imagine that would occur with this film given how the actors seem to feel.

Also before it even starts filming this movie is going to be incredibly divisive, A lot of people who back Gunn are going to hate it no matter what and pick it apart for any flaw they can find, while others will wildly praise the film no matter what as a way to try and celebrate gunn being let go. Honestly Marvel should just hope Hemsworth is willing to come back for 4th Thor movie and combine it with Guardians 3. They could even use the Asgardians of the Galaxy title like the comic that is coming soon from Marvel. Thor interacting with the Guardians in Infinity War was well received and combining the two might minimize the controversy as much as is possible. A fourth Thor movie with Taika directing, that heavily incorporates the Guardians, seems kinda different that just flat out replacing gunn with someone else and might actually lead to a more profitable and better movie than it would have been otherwise.

[Conch22]

As opposed to you, who as far as I know has never met the guy making solid statements about his personal life?


I will defend ANYONE'S right to make bad jokes and have an offensive sense of humor.


I assure you, when it comes to looking for a babysitter, whether somebody told offensive jokes ten years ago and once went to a costume party in a tasteless costume wouldn't even be worth wasting a second thought about.

When Gunn encourages similar punitive action against others in the entertainment industry, he's fair game as far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fairplay. But let's get into Gunns jokes, "I like when little boys touch me in my silly place" "Eagle snatches kid is what I call it when I get lucky" "I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am. Some of those guys are still my BFFs."

That last part ended up being a bit prophetic, didn't it? A priest at his grammar school allegedly molested children, something Gunns mentioned before, so he dressed up like a Priest at a theme party, the theme being based on a show about catching sexual predators.

"2 adults have a physical confrontation"? It seems like you're trying to downplay what Depp and the others did, acting like there wasn't a victim involved. That's the difference between Gunn and them, he doesn't have any victims.



It wouldn't be a dealbreaker, no, especially if it was a long time ago and the person was a lot more mature now. I'd be more concerned about letting someone with a history of domestic violence watch my kids, though I guess that isn't as big a deal for you.



1) There were numerous stories of Spacey being a creep years before he was fired. There aren't any stories about Gunn like that.

2) Nobody came to Spacey's defense after the allegations came out, everyone came to Gunn's defense when his old tweets were reported on. I don't think Bautista would be flat-out putting his job on the line, attacking Disney and threatening to quit if his script wasn't used, if he didn't personally know Gunn enough to know what type of person he actually was. And people like Michael Rooker and Selma Blair knew him for a lot longer than 8 months.

Yeah, Bautista sounds entirely objective on the matter. I don't recall hearing Spacey stories prior to his arrest, I do recall he was picked for House of Cards given how frequently his films were watched among their viewers. Not downplaying, contextualizing between adult/ child violence as opposed to 2 adults. Would I prefer someone who's had one physical confrontation with an ex or current partner, of which I don't know the full context of, as opposed to someone who's apparently so unlucky with their actions it creates valid suspicion they could have a thing for kids. Gun to my head, I pick the person less likely to molest the child. Though neither option would be the best, obviously.

[Kevinroc]

Nazi wannabes getting their way is never a good thing.

[Colossus1980]

Disney just outright got played. I was disappointed with GOTG 2 but it was a success. Whoever has to follow Gunn is going to have it tough. Too bad Disney couldn't stand tough and rehire Gunn. Shocked how this big company let themselves get tricked into this controversy. The masterminds behind this are laughing their asses off. Disney, you have no backbone.

[jump]

There's a rape joke in Age of Ultron.

So Disney should fire the Avengers?

[Miles To Go]

Disney just outright got played. I was disappointed with GOTG 2 but it was a success. Whoever has to follow Gunn is going to have it tough. Too bad Disney couldn't stand tough and rehire Gunn. Shocked how this big company let themselves get tricked into this controversy. The masterminds behind this are laughing their asses off. Disney, you have no backbone.

If Gunn hadn't been an insensitive bonehead 11 years ago this would never have happened. Enabling pedo-humour in the age we're in now, regardless of whether or not it was intended with no harm, is not on.

[Alan2099]

If Gunn hadn't been an insensitive bonehead 11 years ago this would never have happened. Enabling pedo-humour in the age we're in now, regardless of whether or not it was intended with no harm, is not on.

He wasn't a bonehead in the age we are now.

He was a boneyead years ago when it wasn't such a big deal to be a bonehead.

[Kevinroc]

If Gunn hadn't been an insensitive bonehead 11 years ago this would never have happened. Enabling pedo-humour in the age we're in now, regardless of whether or not it was intended with no harm, is not on.

Blaming the victim of a Nazi smear attack is not a good look.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

When Gunn encourages similar punitive action against others in the entertainment industry, he's fair game as far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fairplay. But let's get into Gunns jokes, "I like when little boys touch me in my silly place" "Eagle snatches kid is what I call it when I get lucky" "I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am. Some of those guys are still my BFFs."

That last part ended up being a bit prophetic, didn't it? A priest at his grammar school allegedly molested children, something Gunns mentioned before, so he dressed up like a Priest at a theme party, the theme being based on a show about catching sexual predators.


Yeah, Bautista sounds entirely objective on the matter. I don't recall hearing Spacey stories prior to his arrest, I do recall he was picked for House of Cards given how frequently his films were watched among their viewers. Not downplaying, contextualizing between adult/ child violence as opposed to 2 adults. Would I prefer someone who's had one physical confrontation with an ex or current partner, of which I don't know the full context of, as opposed to someone who's apparently so unlucky with their actions it creates valid suspicion they could have a thing for kids. Gun to my head, I pick the person less likely to molest the child. Though neither option would be the best, obviously.

are you saying the full context could make somebody beating their wife up better?

[Papa Moai]

When Gunn encourages similar punitive action against others in the entertainment industry, he's fair game as far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fairplay. But let's get into Gunns jokes, "I like when little boys touch me in my silly place" "Eagle snatches kid is what I call it when I get lucky" "I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am. Some of those guys are still my BFFs."

Isn't the eagle-one only one of those he wrote as himself as opposed to pranking his friends by falsely quoting them saying something horrible? And is "get lucky" even meant to be interpreted sexually in that tweet? I'm honestly not sure because at this point I think we're all looking for signs of sexual deviance in everything Gunn has ever said or done. That is bound to affect how we interpret things like that tweet or the picture from that costume party.

[Conch22]

are you saying the full context could make somebody beating their wife up better?

I don't know what he full context is. Is the full context his wife came at him with a butcher knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and he knocked her out, then got an assault charge? Is it that he has a mental illness, there was a medication mixup, he suffered from hallucinations as a result and struck out wildly hitting her without meaning to? I don't know, I'm not all that interested in Depps personal life or the hypothetical baby sitting candidate I mentioned.

I do know your trying to ascribe different context to my responses outside of what's clearly stated to make some obnoxious point about people being taken out of context. It's incredibly transparent. If Gunn was against people being fired for tweets, I would be more inclined to defend his right to those without being fired. He's not, so he's feeling the sting of his own ethos and making a joke and repeatedly pretending you are one of the most hated things in society, having a friend that is and then attending a party centered around that, is going to rub some people the wrong way, especially if it's heavily publicized. Don't worry, Gunn got a few mill off his script work for GotG 3 regardless of if they use it. He's got studios that are less concerned with turning off the theme park crowd interested in having him. His careers not dead and if those studios think hiring him won't hurt their bottom line as opposed to Disneys not unreasonable response, given the response and their demographic, then how did Gunn put it?

"I wish some of these so-called defenders of freedom of speech would start to understand what freedom of speech is AND isn't. Roseanne is allowed to say whatever she wants. It doesn't mean the ABC Network needs to continue funding her tv show if her words are considered abhorrent."

Are you not going to honor the ideals James Gunn promoted of a companies freedom to protect its image from associating with figures whose social media posts people find abhorrent? I disagree with Gunn here, but this is the world he wanted to live in, he can full well feel the sting of it. And I know, Johnny Depp may've struck his wife and Disney hired him, 2 wrongs makes a who cares, even though the argument I made was based more on financial viability after a scandal than morality policing and you couldn't understand that distinction for some reason.


Have fun doing the very obvious taking things I say and inferring negative context to an unreasonable extent (because you like Gunn/ dislike who revealed his antics) to attempt to stain my character and make a false equivalence between myself and Gunn. Knock yourself out. Gunn will still be permanently done with Disney and you'll eventually have to get over it.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

I don't know what he full context is. Is the full context his wife came at him with a butcher knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and he knocked her out, then got an assault charge? Is it that he has a mental illness, there was a medication mixup, he suffered from hallucinations as a result and struck out wildly hitting her without meaning to? I don't know, I'm not all that interested in Depps personal life or the hypothetical baby sitting candidate I mentioned.

I do know your trying to ascribe different context to my responses outside of what's clearly stated to make some obnoxious point about people being taken out of context. It's incredibly transparent. If Gunn was against people being fired for tweets, I would be more inclined to defend his right to those without being fired. He's not, so he's feeling the sting of his own ethos and making a joke and repeatedly pretending you are one of the most hated things in society, having a friend that is and then attending a party centered around that, is going to rub some people the wrong way, especially if it's heavily publicized. Don't worry, Gunn got a few mill off his script work for GotG 3 regardless of if they use it. He's got studios that are less concerned with turning off the theme park crowd interested in having him. His careers not dead and if those studios think hiring him won't hurt their bottom line as opposed to Disneys not unreasonable response, given the response and their demographic, then how did Gunn put it?

"I wish some of these so-called defenders of freedom of speech would start to understand what freedom of speech is AND isn't. Roseanne is allowed to say whatever she wants. It doesn't mean the ABC Network needs to continue funding her tv show if her words are considered abhorrent."

Are you not going to honor the ideals James Gunn promoted of a companies freedom to protect its image from associating with figures whose social media posts people find abhorrent? I disagree with Gunn here, but this is the world he wanted to live in, he can full well feel the sting of it. And I know, Johnny Depp may've struck his wife and Disney hired him, 2 wrongs makes a who cares, even though the argument I made was based more on financial viability after a scandal than morality policing and you couldn't understand that distinction for some reason.


Have fun doing the very obvious taking things I say and inferring negative context to an unreasonable extent (because you like Gunn/ dislike who revealed his antics) to attempt to stain my character and make a false equivalence between myself and Gunn. Knock yourself out. Gunn will still be permanently done with Disney and you'll eventually have to get over it.

You've repeatedly downplayed the domestic violence, saying it's in an incident between two adults, you don't know what happened, etc. now you're trying to say "maybe the abusers were attacked by their victims and they were acting in self defense!"

And once again, Roseanne was fired for something she did in the present, when she was currently employed by ABC. They gave her a free pass for all the controversial stuff she did in the past. Gunn was fired for something he did a decade ago, before Marvel hired him.

[Conch22]

You've repeatedly downplayed the domestic violence, saying it's in an incident between two adults, you don't know what happened, etc. now you're trying to say "maybe the abusers were attacked by their victims and they were acting in self defense!"

And once again, Roseanne was fired for something she did in the present, when she was currently employed by ABC. They gave her a free pass for all the controversial stuff she did in the past. Gunn was fired for something he did a decade ago, before Marvel hired him.

You asked what circumstances could make it justifiable, I gave 2 examples. I differentiated between child abuse and spousal abuse and that child abuse is generally seen as worse, given a childs reduced capacity to defend itself against an adult. Just as instances of women abusing their husband are stigmatized and result in ridicule and shame, as, given that men typically have more upper body strength, this leads to victim blaming when they are the victims of violence from women. That's a sexist standard that hurts abuse victims ability to seek help, but it is very prevalent. Stating domestic violence as an incident between 2 adults, while highlighting how it differs greatly in comparison to child abuse, is not an inaccurate description.


Your last sentence in no way disproves any rationale I've set forth in my previous reply, its just you ignoring Gunn suffering the consequences of a policy he recently backed using a timing technicality. Again, you're gonna have to move past it sometime buddy. If this is serving as free group therapy for the diehard Gunn fanclub, then that's not too terrible.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

You asked what circumstances could make it justifiable, I gave 2 examples. I differentiated between child abuse and spousal abuse and that child abuse is generally seen as worse, given a childs reduced capacity to defend itself against an adult. Just as instances of women abusing their husband are stigmatized and result in ridicule and shame, as, given that men typically have more upper body strength, this leads to victim blaming when they are the victims of violence from women. That's a sexist standard that hurts abuse victims ability to seek help, but it is very prevalent. Stating domestic violence as an incident between 2 adults, while highlighting how it differs greatly in comparison to child abuse, is not an inaccurate description.


Your last sentence in no way disproves any rationale I've set forth in my previous reply, its just you ignoring Gunn suffering the consequences of a policy he recently backed using a timing technicality. Again, you're gonna have to move past it sometime buddy. If this is serving as free group therapy for the diehard Gunn fanclub, then that's not too terrible.

LMAO.
A man hits his wife: Maybe he was defending himself! You don't know what happened, you sexist!
A man jokes about pedophilia ten years ago: He's a child molester, he'll rape your children if you let him!

And if you can't see why firing someone for something they did while they were representing the company is a little different than firing someone for something they did years ago before they were ever hired, I don't know what else to tell you. Gunn behaved when he was working for Disney, Roseanne didn't.

[XPac]

I think we should all avoid twitter. Nothing good ever comes from it.

There are CERTAIN people who really know what they are doing and can use Twitter to their advantage. But yeah ... I'd say 8 out of 10 people will just shoot themselves in the foot sooner or later