James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[Kevinroc]

He was an Indie Director and Guardians an virtual unknown Marvel property and now years later he's an A-List Director and Guardians is one of the biggest franchises in film. Also here's the Huff post article from before https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_2217589.html He apologized for Sexist and Homophobic comments. Pedophilia and Rape even jokes hold a different stigma so when people say this would had blown over they are selectively choosing to ignore the differences in both 2012 and 2018 and how this wasn't going away given those differences.

Disney still hired Sarah Silverman to voice a Disney Princess.

[Uggha]

The basis of one opinion seems to be "What I believe is based on how I imagine business is done."

The basis of the other opinion is "What I believe is based on the lack of any supporting statement or other evidence that there was any involvement with the decision on anyone's part, either at Marvel or Disney, other than Alan Horn."

This sort of high profile thing doesn't happen in a group without the group's involvement getting publicized. Either the group is authorized to release a statement, or someone directly or tangentially involved spills the information. None of that has happened here.

Again, fair enough. You believe it was a one man show based on what exactly? Because they didn't elaborate publicly on the process of handing down the dismissal? You do realize he and Bob Iger are close colleagues and it was Iger who talked him into stepping back into the Chairman position because he was able to oversee and work well with the heads of all division. Isn't that some level of supporting evidence that would make it easier to believe that he likely consulted with Iger at least and likely others? It's been my experience that decisions like these rarely aren't made without being put before a company's general counsel or VP of corporate communications.

[Jokerz79]

Disney still hired Sarah Silverman to voice a Disney Princess.

& most of the general public don't know her act so no controversy thus no issue how is that always ignored when she's brought up?

They also hired Gunn and for years there was no issue because most didn't know about his past tweets about Pedophilia and Rape people need to know about something for there to be a controversy.

[numberthirty]

& most of the general public don't know her act so no controversy thus no issue how is that always ignored when she's brought up?

They also hired Gunn and for years there was no issue because most didn't know about his past tweets about Pedophilia and Rape people need to know about something for there to be a controversy.

Never mind that Silverman has a completely different relationship with GLAAD than Gunn.

[Kevinroc]

& most of the general public don't know her act so no controversy thus no issue how is that always ignored when she's brought up?

They also hired Gunn and for years there was no issue because most didn't know about his past tweets about Pedophilia and Rape people need to know about something for there to be a controversy.

I understand that not everyone has heard of her, but Sarah Silverman is not an unknown quantity. The Sarah Silverman Program aired on Comedy Central from 2007-2010. She was also in The Aristocrats film that is frequently cited in this thread.

[Uggha]

No more than you do, but I'm sure that's going to stop you from passing your speculation on as fact....

Oh no wait you did do that.




Considering how quickly he was fired, it wasn't a very long discussion. Hard to know how much data was behind it or anything... you know because none of us were there... including you.



You mean like all the people irate at Disney for cowtowing to a conspiracy right wing nut who put people's lives in danger. Congrats they just took a political side. And this story and the publicity and backlash against them is bigger for it. Great decision.




I like how you make an appeal to authority by trying to diminish a fans, you know a group you are part of. Are you sure you aren't a fan having an emotional response to people upset at a company that makes the precious movies you like and just aren't blindly defending them with next to no information about it as if because they are a giant organization they must be right and have really really thought this out.

Okay now I'm done

I said I am deducing things based on my on interpretation and I make no apology for that. There are things that hit the public domain that likely will induce a chain of events regardless of the persons or motivation of how they came to be in the public domain. Even if it was political tit for tat doesn't make it any less problematic once it starts making it into public discourse. In the world of social media, the speed in which that happens is very quick for good or ill.


Waiting on financial results to guage consumer reaction to determine a course of action can be considered more risky than making pro/con arguments, assessing them and simply making the safe decision. I can only guess that is what occurred but I recognize these individuals are a lot higher position in the world of business than you or I. Do or can they make the wrong decision? Of course! If you take the attachment to the particular movie out of the equation, it doesn't seem like it was a risky decision, more a risk averse decision. We'll see, but I don't see Captain Marvel or Infinity War or Spiderman Homecoming suffering any the worse for it. I guess we will see but the decision also protects against any parents who may have been offended and withholding their patronage from the animated movies or theme parks or toys or cruises. Fans of the MCU is not Disney's only consideration in their very broad entertainment empire.

If you see it as taking a political side because that is the only lens you are viewing the situation through, you aren't allowing for how they may see it. Do they like how it became a controversy, who knows? Maybe even they don't but they still have to look at it through the lens business and risk assessment. If they are looking at it through the lens of the bottom line and more than just the MCU, the viewpoint may look a little different. And maybe it was a quick assessment but for the sake of argument I would bet dollars to donuts that it might amount to a small hit to revenue at Marvel Studios from fans who didn't like the decision versus parents who might have a negative reaction that might run across all their divisions. Couple that with how many franchises they are juggling at the box office and how many titles exist within the MCU and it just doesn't seem like it would be a decision that needed to be drug out.

The right course is subjective in a situation like this but protecting shareholder equity is not and is the fiduciary responsibility of any management. I enjoyed the movies but I admit I am not a huge fan of GotG and really don't have any heartburn of other projects sliding into their slot. I am not blindly defending Disney, what I am defending is the very true fact that their agenda is most certainly not mine our yours or any other fans when it comes to running the company. What might have been the right thing in your eyes or my eyes might be the same or different and is most certainly to be different from one person to the next. Considering that, it would only make sense that they would assess the value of Guardians to the MCU which is minimal with all the titles now in the catalog, the potential negative impacts of doing nothing across all its business and taking the least risky position. If I was shareholder in Disney and I am not, I would expect no less.

[numberthirty]

I understand that not everyone has heard of her, but Sarah Silverman is not an unknown quantity. The Sarah Silverman Program aired on Comedy Central from 2007-2010. She was also in The Aristocrats film that is frequently cited in this thread.

You are right about her not being an unknown quantity.

They knew she had never been called out by GLAAD.

[Kevinroc]

You are right about her not being an unknown quantity.

They knew she had never been called out by GLAAD.

I am aware Gunn has made disgusting comments in his past. This is not news to me. I'm sure Disney appreciates you supporting them for capitulating to a right wing smear campaign started by Weird Mike.

[numberthirty]

I am aware Gunn has made disgusting comments in his past. This is not news to me. I'm sure Disney appreciates you supporting them for capitulating to a right wing smear campaign started by Weird Mike.

Let's clear something up about that...

When a person(or a group, in the case of GLAAD) are bringing up what you have actually done?

That's not a smear campaign.

They are going after him based on his actions.

[Kevinroc]

Let's clear something up about that...

When a person(or a group, in the case of GLAAD) are bringing up what you have actually done?

That's not a smear campaign.

They are going after him based on his actions.

Gunn apologized to GLAAD, and they published his apology back in 2012.

https://www.glaad.org/blog/director-...ents-blog-post

If you are arguing that people can not change and his apology means nothing, just say so.

[Kevinroc]

When you support Weird Mike, you support a man who laughed at almost getting someone killed.

https://twitter.com/DaveBautista/sta...37400580501506

[numberthirty]

Gunn apologized to GLAAD, and they published his apology back in 2012.

https://www.glaad.org/blog/director-...ents-blog-post

If you are arguing that people can not change and his apology means nothing, just say so.

Since no one has said that, there is no reason to say so.

It also has nothing to do with, that in each instance, he has been called out based on his own actions.

[numberthirty]

When you support Weird Mike, you support a man who laughed at almost getting someone killed.

https://twitter.com/DaveBautista/sta...37400580501506

Luckily, no one is doing that.

[Kevinroc]

Since no one has said that, there is no reason to say so.

It also has nothing to do with, that in each instance, he has been called out based on his own actions.

I don't understand what you're doing in this thread. Gunn apologized for the comments you cited back in 2012 and GLAAD published his apology back in 2012.

[Kevinroc]

Luckily, no one is doing that.

When you support Gunn's firing by Disney, you are supporting Weird Mike.