Disney severs ties with James Gunn

There is nothing Disney can do. They bring him back people are going to take that as a family friendly company endorsing talking/joking about pedophilia/child rape which obviously clashes with the image they want. They stick with the decision they were forced into and they risk the movie being a flop. Either way, people are outraged. Maybe they put the movie on the back burner and let everyone move on from it, then make it once people are less upset. At the end of the day you know Disney has numerous movies in the pipeline and this won't hurt them all the much financially.
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
Agreed. I think just putting the movie on hold is probably the best bet.
“There is little due process in the court of public opinion.”

So unbelievably true.

That being said, I hope these guys and gals lawyer up, if I was Disney’s attorney I’d argue they are hurting the brand of the franchise by showing dissent/discord before a movie is even made. This can potentially cost Disney money damages if people decide not to buy the product (see movies buy merch etc) because the actors are not on board.
 
I think this letter would only have been released with Disney's approval. They've been very careful with their words. It sounds very much like the Disney legal team had eyes on it.

With Disney seemingly stuck between a rock and a hard place, it wouldn't surprise me if they actually just cancelled GotG3 now. After all, they just bought Xmen and Fantastic 4 so they're hardly strapped for material to adapt. Plus they have on going plans for the MCU so it might be there's no room for it to be put on hold and brought back later, plus there could be scheduling issues with the cast if they postpone it. Either way the film is tainted by association.

I would love to see James Gunn reinstated but the more I think about it, the more I think it simply won't happen. Glad to be proved wrong though.
 
Ethan Reigns said:
Disney is a studio that made its name in entertainment for children. No one else was doing that when they began (in 1935) and the fact that they thrived during the depression was a testament to the fact that people thought wholesome entertainment was needed. Now they find out that one of their creative kingpins felt at home at a NAMBLA meeting (North American Man / Boy Love Association). How could they possibly retain any credibility in children's entertainment if he stayed? They should have fired him, alright. From a cannon.
Click to expand...
NAMBLA? Yuck.
 
brinkster130 said:
There is nothing Disney can do. They bring him back people are going to take that as a family friendly company endorsing talking/joking about pedophilia/child rape which obviously clashes with the image they want. They stick with the decision they were forced into and they risk the movie being a flop. Either way, people are outraged. Maybe they put the movie on the back burner and let everyone move on from it, then make it once people are less upset. At the end of the day you know Disney has numerous movies in the pipeline and this won't hurt them all the much financially.
Click to expand...

I don't know I think this would all blow over time. I think sometimes these companies are so concerned with their image that they go to extremes when it comes to protecting it. Don't forget a lot of the audience for these movies are more in the teen-adult age range. If Gunn was brought back I don't think it would drive people away. I think the series has peaked anyway.
 
Mr Trick said:
I don't know I think this would all blow over time. I think sometimes these companies are so concerned with their image that they go to extremes when it comes to protecting it. Don't forget a lot of the audience for these movies are more in the teen-adult age range. If Gunn was brought back I don't think it would drive people away. I think the series has peaked anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know Disney puts out entertainment for teens and adults, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a company that has and wants to maintain its squeaky clean family-friendly image....that really isn't debatable. If you look at comments around the internet its clear that there are a number of people who were shocked/disappointed by the things Gunn has said, given how much more seriously peoples words are taken today, it shouldn't be all that surprising that Disney parted ways. You may think the series has peaked, and that may be true, but Disney literally just got done spending millions to redo rides and decor at their theme parks to include GotG so they clearly thought there was a future for it.
 
brinkster130 said:
Yeah, I know Disney puts out entertainment for teens and adults, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a company that has and wants to maintain its squeaky clean family-friendly image....that really isn't debatable. If you look at comments around the internet its clear that there are a number of people who were shocked/disappointed by the things Gunn has said, given how much more seriously peoples words are taken today, it shouldn't be all that surprising that Disney parted ways. You may think the series has peaked, and that may be true, but Disney literally just got done spending millions to redo rides and decor at their theme parks to include GotG so they clearly thought there was a future for it.
Click to expand...

You know what's funny about the whole thing is if the movie ends up getting canned like some here have predicted then it makes Disney look even dumber. If they left James Gunn on board then it would get made for sure. When I said it had peaked I guess I meant it might be a good time for Gunn to leave anyway even if this is the wrong way to do it. Disney can still have their theme park. There's nothing stopping that from happening with or without a third movie.
 
Mr Trick said:
You know what's funny about the whole thing is if the movie ends up getting canned like some here have predicted then it makes Disney look even dumber. If they left James Gunn on board then it would get made for sure. When I said it had peaked I guess I meant it might be a good time for Gunn to leave anyway even if this is the wrong way to do it. Disney can still have their theme park. There's nothing stopping that from happening with or without a third movie.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day I don't think it matters either way to Disney all that much. They only took action to keep up appearances and protect their image. In the grand scheme of things the movie is a drop in the bucket...it won't have much effect on them as a company.
 
As much as I would love to see a new "Guardians" movie, I don't think that it will make or break the studio, whether it ever is made or not. Quill and the others will almost certainly return in the next "Avengers" movie, and, given pretty much accepted fact that some characters are going to actually, permanently die this time, they could just be added to the "bite the dust" list, closing out that part of the franchise.
 
brinkster130 said:
At the end of the day I don't think it matters either way to Disney all that much. They only took action to keep up appearances and protect their image. In the grand scheme of things the movie is a drop in the bucket...it won't have much effect on them as a company.
Click to expand...

You hit on an interesting point there. And that is if Disney only care about merchandise money then why don't they stop making movies altogether? By this point their well enough established and already have these various theme parks and toy products etc... Their set up for the future. So if they only care about making money and they don't need the movies to make that money then they can stop making movies? I'm sure we the public would be happy if Disney were out of the movie making game too. Its a similar sort of thing which is happening with the WWE now. Their product is in the shits and has been for ages. If they just relied on making money through their PPV's and live events they would probably struggle. But because of their various merchandise and the WWE Network (their answer to Netflix) WWE are still secure financially for the future.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
Not making one movie is very different than making no movies ever again. Their kids movies are still wildly popular and bring in new fans and tons of $$$
Mr Trick said:
You hit on an interesting point there. And that is if Disney only care about merchandise money then why don't they stop making movies altogether? By this point their well enough established and already have these various theme parks and toy products etc... Their set up for the future. So if they only care about making money and they don't need the movies to make that money then they can stop making movies? I'm sure we the public would be happy if Disney were out of the movie making game too. Its a similar sort of thing which is happening with the WWE now. Their product is in the shits and has been for ages. If they just relied on making money through their PPV's and live events they would probably struggle. But because of their various merchandise and the WWE Network (their answer to Netflix) WWE are still secure financially for the future.
Click to expand...
Don't move rights expire if you don't make movies though?

That's why we got Josh Trank's Fantastic Four reboot in 2015.... because Fox were going to lose the rights if they didn't make a movie. So they made a movie and it was terrible, but at least they retained the rights.

Disney aren't going to spend $71 billion on Fox and then never use the characters they're acquired for new movies. Without new movies there won't be merchandise, live shows, new theme park attractions etc. Talk about flushing your money down the toilet!
 
Take it for what it's worth but Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth have unfollowed Gunn on Twitter.
 
Spanky said:
Take it for what it's worth but Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth have unfollowed Gunn on Twitter.
Click to expand...
Stupid question perhaps but how do we know they followed him previous to this? Is there a way to check?
 
From Variety:

"Disney feels no pressure to immediately find a new director, according to sources, and is willing to wait until the right A-list filmmaker comes along. For one, the studio never gave the film an official release date, even though it was widely expected to hit theaters within the next two years. Depending on how long it takes to land the right director, Disney may in fact wind up pushing back the film’s original February 2019 start date."
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
pushing it to the back burner, like us smarties suggested.
The widespread problem with how this story is largely depicted in the media is that it downplays Gunn's side. And Marvel fanatics and others see this as an overreaction by Disney that played right into the hands of the alt-right, aka the people who got the ball rolling on this. And it also means Disney makes itself vulnerable and easy pray for bullies. But here is the thing for me.

The bigger, more news-worthy stuff in regards to this story isn't even mentioned in the general media. And they also mix up facts on purpose to take the heat off Gunn. Most outlets say 'he's already apologized for this back in 2012 so this is just stupid'. No he didn't. The apology he gave in 2012 was for his blog, not his Twitter. A blog where he posted a '100 superheroes you wanna sleep with' list. One that contained plenty rape and LGBT 'jokes'. That's what people remembered back then and why they didn't want Gunn.

Then there are his ties to known, and this year convicted, pedos. The guy who send him the video with the little girls singing 'I touch myself' send it to Gunn because 'I thought you might appreciate this' after which Gunn made his happy ejaculation known. This was a guy who he has been in contact with even back in 2012. Someone he even met in person. He also made a comment about raping a personal friend he had staying over, something he posted on Twitter while he was watching her sleep. Then there was also the tweet about the 'child rape manual' but I don't remember if he was the one that originally linked to it or someone else (Twitter was structured differently back then). Point is, he didn't delete it.

Ultimately, Gunn brought it all on himself. He was the one who posted this stuff. He was the one, who long after having supposedly changed from that person, left those tweets up for all the world to see. Now I don't know about people here but if I ever changed, for the better, part of my responsibility to myself would be to delete this stuff. Not only as part of my 'doing things better now' philosophy but as part of my distancing myself from what I used to be. The fact that he left all this up, even after getting in trouble back in 2012 for his blog, shows that the change was only on the surface, if that. Or he really was that stupid.

Second of all, Gunn is one of those political nutjobs that has no issues burying someone, sending lynch mobs after them and tell his followers to dig up dirt on them from 10 years ago. It doesn't even matter that the guy who unearthed all this is from the opposite political spectrum with his own more than spotty past and present. The fact is that Gunn probably thought he was safe to do what he did, being a Hollywood leftie employed by Marvel/Disney. Disney literally had no choice but to do what they did. Imagine the PR nightmare during the whole filming of GOTG3 and OMG the press tour for that movie. Disney also is tailored towards children. As soon as parents hear of the fact Disney knew about this and didn't do anything, oh boy.

Disney doesn't actually care (isn't Depp still on their payroll?) about the issue but they care about money. If the social media outcry gets big enough, they have to act.

But it's still all Gunn's fault at the end of the day. But hey maybe it was inevitable since Gunn himself was molested (and propably more) as a child. He either pushed the envelope so much to get people talking about such topics or he is the product of what happened to him. I'm not mourning his being fired from GOTG3. As someone who hated GOTG2 because it was pure Gunn, same as with some Guardian's in IW. Guardian's 1 is still my fave and that one is definitely more Pearlman than it is Gunn, the only parts of GOTG1 that didn't work for me (aside from the lamest MCU villain) were those I consider to be pure Gunn. Like Drax calling Gamora a whore.
 
I would be surprised if the people on this forum who hate (or are triggered by) Seeing Red and the attempted rape would give any sympathy to Gunn. Unlike Buffy, his victims had no ability to fight back or give consent. Gunn is credited as director and writer for GotG but we should not regard him as essential. He could be replaced by any of a number of writers and directors.

As for feeling sorry for him, Disney has no choice if they want to remain in the children's movie business and Gunn always had the choice to not post about his illegal activities. I hope he gets arrested, convicted and sent into the general population of whatever prison he goes to. BTW his birthday is today. Wish him a Buffy-type birthday.
 
Dave Bautista, who plays Drax, said (emphasis mine) via twitter:

"I will do what Im legally obligated to do but @Guardians without @JamesGunn is not what I signed up for. GOTG w/o @JamesGunn just isn’t GOTG. Its also pretty nauseating to work for someone who’d empower a smear campaign by fascists"

I wonder if Drax is going to now meet an untimely death in the upcoming movie now that he's nauseated working with Disney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom