James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[Jokerz79]

It didn't blow up until Disney fired him.

Yes it was there was already articles coming out in his past tweets and his own apology.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

Yes it was there was already articles coming out in his past tweets and his own apology.

There were articles about Sarah too, but it didn't blow up because Disney stayed mum.

If Disney hadn't fired Gunn, the controversy would be over now. And the controversy now is over his firing, and not the tweets.

[Kevinroc]

I'm not trying to shut down discussion questioning Disney's position. I'm just trying to shut down the fallacy that you somehow have more access to the situation than Disney does.

This is the textbook definition of an "argument from authority" logical fallacy. You refuse to even admit the possibility that Disney may have made a mistake.

[Carabas]

I'm just trying to shut down the fallacy that you somehow have more access to the situation than Disney does.

Can you give examples of the sorts of arcane and secretive things Disney might have access to that the New York Times, whom stood up for their smeared employee and lo and behold, controversy did not ensue, does not?

[Kevinroc]

Can you give examples of the sorts of arcane and secretive things Disney might have access to that the New York Times, whom stood up for their smeared employee and lo and behold, controversy did not ensue, does not?

And Adult Swim, who stood by Dan Harmon under similar scrutiny.

[XPac]

Disney doesn't make superhero movies. Marvel Studios and Pixar do, but they're not the same as Disney.
And Marvel Studios wouldn't have let go of Gunn in a million years over this. They're kinda screwed now as Gunn wasn't just a director but also one of the main architects of the MCU.

Honestly I doubt Marvel is that screwed. Getting Xmen and FF probably means they have more potential IP's than they could possibly use in the near future. They will no doubt have to tweak some F their plans moving foreward, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt losing Gunn will matter that much.

[Jokerz79]

There were articles about Sarah too, but it didn't blow up because Disney stayed mum.

If Disney hadn't fired Gunn, the controversy would be over now. And the controversy now is over his firing, and not the tweets.

The public learned the Director of one of Disney's biggest film franchise and brands aimed at families and kids made Rape and Pedophilia including a "joke" involving the Giving Tree and a child. Groot was jokingly called the Giving Tree in Guardians it's naive at best to think this was going to just blow over. Pedophilia has a unique stigma in society and add Hollywood, Family Property, Marvel, Disney, and Politics this was every Clickbaiters dream it wasn't going away and Disney knew it. As much as people want to believe this decision has hurt Disney truth is headlines reading "Disney faces criticism for firing Director over old offensive tweets" are better than "Disney keeps Director who made Rape and Pedophile Jokes"

I don't like what happened to Gunn and I despise the people who caused it but I'm also a realist and understand why Disney did it and know that Marvel Studios will be fine even if the worst cast scenario happens and Guardians 3 doesn't happen especially since Guardians 2 was a nice bow on most of their story arcs.

[Kevinroc]

Honestly I doubt Marvel is that screwed. Getting Xmen and FF probably means they have more potential IP's than they could possibly use in the near future. They will no doubt have to tweak some F their plans moving foreward, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt losing Gunn will matter that much.

The MCU doesn't matter in the face of this. What matters is the smear campaign. Disney and Marvel will still make loads of money.

[XPac]

Can you give examples of the sorts of arcane and secretive things Disney might have access to that the New York Times, whom stood up for their smeared employee and lo and behold, controversy did not ensue, does not?

Advertisers, stock holders, share holders could have all given their imput to Disney privately without sharing it with the NYtimes. Or to Kevinroc.

And certainly those sort of things can effect a business decision making process along with dozens of other factors.

[XPac]

This is the textbook definition of an "argument from authority" logical fallacy. You refuse to even admit the possibility that Disney may have made a mistake.

I've already said Disney might end up making a mistake (though we likely won't know for sure until the movie isn't made or bombs). If the movie ends up being made and is sucessful, then none of this will have mattered much either way.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

The public learned the Director of one of Disney's biggest film franchise and brands aimed at families and kids made Rape and Pedophilia including a "joke" involving the Giving Tree and a child. Groot was jokingly called the Giving Tree in Guardians it's naive at best to think this was going to just blow over. Pedophilia has a unique stigma in society and add Hollywood, Family Property, Marvel, Disney, and Politics this was every Clickbaiters dream it wasn't going away and Disney knew it. As much as people want to believe this decision has hurt Disney truth is headlines reading "Disney faces criticism for firing Director over old offensive tweets" are better than "Disney keeps Director who made Rape and Pedophile Jokes"

I don't like what happened to Gunn and I despise the people who caused it but I'm also a realist and understand why Disney did it and know that Marvel Studios will be fine even if the worst cast scenario happens and Guardians 3 doesn't happen especially since Guardians 2 was a nice bow on most of their story arcs.

And Sarah Silverman is playing Vanellope in Wreck it Ralph, which has a younger target audience than Guardians does.

[Kevinroc]

I've already said Disney might end up making a mistake (though we likely won't know for sure until the movie isn't made or bombs). If the movie ends up being made and is sucessful, then none of this will have mattered much either way.

It matters that Disney gave in to a smear campaign from a convicted rapist conspiracy nut. That will always matter.

[Colossus1980]

Disney will probably omit all of Drax's screen time in Avengers 4. He will end up being one of the permanent heroes never to return because he kept on defending Gunn.

[Jokerz79]

And Sarah Silverman is playing Vanellope in Wreck it Ralph, which has a younger target audience than Guardians does.

You keep ignoring there is no controversy with her the moment the general public start going OMG did you see what she said and twitter explodes and articles start pop up yes she'd be gone.

[AJBopp]

Advertisers, stock holders, share holders could have all given their imput to Disney privately without sharing it with the NYtimes. Or to Kevinroc.

I've seen you state this several times over the last few pages. it's worth pointing out, I think, that advertisers, stock holders, and share holders don't make business decisions for Disney or any other corporation, and are not consulted about them. Board members might be (but in this case they weren't). It's also remotely possible that sizeable investors in a specific movie might have some input, but it's unlikely that would happen at the level of the Gunn situation.

This is known to be the decision of one man, Mr. Horn, who quite intentionally released a statement about his decision in a specific manner that absolutely meant Disney could not override it without firing Horn first.

The supposition that Disney did the best they could because only Disney knows the whole story is, to put it simply, unsupportable and frankly silly.