James Gunn and Peter Safran to be co heads of dc at wb discovery

[Tofali]

Volume 3 wrapped filming in May so there is no need for a new director.

[HollowSage]

Extremely crazy. I wonder, will Marvel let Gunn finish Guardians 3? Or will they bring in another director to finish it?

Note, I do not see Feige as being vindictive like that at all. Feige is known as a complete professional. However, having your biggest competing studio’s head directing and promoting one of your star properties might be too much for Disney to stomach. It’s not even that there’s a real conflict of interest if Gunn promotes Guardians 3 professionally. But it’s too much bizarre, and even possibly bad PR for Disney to take. Imagine the questions by the press. The whole thing could be so cringe that they just wouldn’t go through with it.

Gunn won’t sabotage his own movie and there is no bad PR for Disney. The only bad PR would be if they didn’t let him come to the premiere. Everyone involved will be professional and Gunn and Marvel will part ways on good terms. At least in public.

[Brian B]

Gunn won’t sabotage his own movie and there is no bad PR for Disney. The only bad PR would be if they didn’t let him come to the premiere. Everyone involved will be professional and Gunn and Marvel will part ways on good terms. At least in public.

I’m sure Gunn is contractually obligated to promote it. I don’t think Gunn would deliberately sabotage anything. I don’t think Feige will be vindictive. But the whole idea may be so far out there and embarrassing that Disney dumps Gunn and lets someone else finish it. If so, it would be understandable and I doubt Gunn would be offended.

Sure, there is the saying that all PR is good, but if it makes Chapek or Feige look like they need Warner Discovery to make their revenue, that is not going to be something that Disney wants its investors to think.

[80sbaby]

I’m sure Gunn is contractually obligated to promote it. I don’t think Gunn would deliberately sabotage anything. I don’t think Feige will be vindictive. But the whole idea may be so far out there and embarrassing that Disney dumps Gunn and lets someone else finish it. If so, it would be understandable and I doubt Gunn would be offended.

Why would it be embarrassing? The general public doesn't care about Marvel vs DC fan wars or anything like that. Directors work for different studios all the time. This isn't really that weird, other than what we comic fans ascribe to it.

[Brian B]

Why would it be embarrassing? The general public doesn't care about Marvel vs DC fan wars or anything like that. Directors work for different studios all the time. This isn't really that weird, other than what we comic fans ascribe to it.

This is not about one director working for two different studios.

This is about the HEAD of one studio, Gunn, directing for another studio.

If it makes Chapek or Feige look like they need Warner Discovery to make their revenue, that is not going to be something that Disney wants its investors to think.

That’s why it would be an embarrassment.

If I ran Apple, I don’t want my institutional investors thinking that I need Google’s executive suite to run my company for me.

That’s a losing proposition.

Maybe Chapek or Feige are fine with it. We shall see. I would be surprised if they just let Gunn finish up the picture.

[80sbaby]

This is not about one director working for two different studios.

This is about the HEAD of one studio, Gunn, directing for another studio.

If it makes Chapek or Feige look like they need Warner Discovery to make their revenue, that is not going to be something that Disney wants its investors to think.

That’s why it would be an embarrassment.

If I ran Apple, I don’t want my institutional investors thinking that I need Google’s executive suite to run my company for me.

That’s a losing proposition.

Maybe Chapek or Feige are fine with it. We shall see. I would be surprised if they just let Gunn finish up the picture.

Lol what? It doesn't look like that at all. First of all, Gunn worked for Marvel Studios first. Second, anyone who knows about Gunn being in charge would also know Gunn was hired to work on GOTG first. There's zero reason for Disney to worry about that. He's not taking over for Feige or Chapek. He's completing a series he started and working FOR them.

[HollowSage]

This is not about one director working for two different studios.

This is about the HEAD of one studio, Gunn, directing for another studio.

If it makes Chapek or Feige look like they need Warner Discovery to make their revenue, that is not going to be something that Disney wants its investors to think.

No one would think that. It’s quite the opposite in fact. WBD needed to poach a Marvel director to run their troubled franchise. There is nothing for Disney/Marvel to be embarrassed about.

[Brian B]

Lol what? It doesn't look like that at all. First of all, Gunn worked for Marvel Studios first. Second, anyone who knows about Gunn being in charge would also know Gunn was hired to work on GOTG first. There's zero reason for Disney to worry about that. He's not taking over for Feige or Chapek. He's completing a series he started and working FOR them.

Yes, that is the situation.

But, if you’re Chapek, who already has investors thinking he’s no Bob Iger, do you want to be seen as dependent on another studio’s HEAD, not just a director anymore, but a studio HEAD finishing up his last movie for your company? Investors may see that as Chapek’s failing. Chapek had a great talent, Gunn, that he alienated and could not keep happy. If you’re Chapek, you don’t want that. Worse, your revenue goals are now tied to the studio HEAD of another company. Does that give your investors confidence that you can keep the revenue flowing, or do they decide a shake-up at the very top is needed to replace the schlub who lost talent the company is dependent on to produce billions in revenue?

Again, I doubt Gunn finishes Guardians 3. People are shown the door immediately for far less high-profile promotions at different employers. The only thing that might keep Gunn around is this project is so high profile, that firing the director now will cause more chaos than any problem it solves, especially after the embarrassment of firing Gunn previously. No, Chapek wasn’t responsible for Gunn’s previous firing, but it would just look messier than ever. Investors don’t like messes.

Luckily, this proposition has a test for us. We will see if a Gunn-directed Guardians 3 gets released or not.

[80sbaby]

He's going to finish Vol. 3

[Brian B]

He's going to finish Vol. 3

Well, we’ll see about that, won’t we. Neither you or I can see the future. But this hypothesis is very testable. We will find out if Gunn is allowed to finish.

[Jokerz79]

Well, we’ll see about that, won’t we. Neither you or I can see the future. But this hypothesis is very testable. We will find out if Gunn is allowed to finish.

The filming ended in May it's in post production they can't take his name off it that would violate Director Guild Rules.

To take his name off they'd have to go back and refilm a majority of the film and thus delaying release, potentially causing a cast revolt given how close they are to Gunn, it would also cost millions, and look petty.

Gunn's name will be on the film when Released and thus no reason to try and fire him or hide him now.

[80sbaby]

The filming ended in May it's in post production they can't take his name off it that would violate Director Guild Rules.

To take his name off they'd have to go back and refilm a majority of the film and thus delaying release, potentially causing a cast revolt given how close they are to Gunn, it would also costing millions, and look petty.

Gunn's name will be on the film when Released and thus no reason to try and fire him or hide him now.

Exactly. This is already a forgone conclusion.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Namor is fat and Gunn won’t finish GotG 3.

Sheesh.

[WebLurker]

Extremely crazy. I wonder, will Marvel let Gunn finish Guardians 3? Or will they bring in another director to finish it?

Note, I do not see Feige as being vindictive like that at all. Feige is known as a complete professional. However, having your biggest competing studio’s head directing and promoting one of your star properties might be too much for Disney to stomach. It’s not even that there’s a real conflict of interest if Gunn promotes Guardians 3 professionally. But it’s too much bizarre, and even possibly bad PR for Disney to take. Imagine the questions by the press. The whole thing could be so cringe that they just wouldn’t go through with it.

Wouldn't it be worse PR to not let Gunn go the whole way with his movie?

[signalman112]

Feige responses to the James Gunn news.