B5Erik

Yeah, kind of sad.

James Gunn's fans are like cult members, apparently. Do not question the cult leader or any of his choices...

dsa_shea

Correct! All of the "public outrage" mentioned in some of these posts about his tweets is pure hyperbole
Are most people aware of the Guardians of the Galaxy Movies? Most likely.
Do most of those people know who James Gunn is? Likely not.
Does a majority of the population know about these tweets and have an opinion on it right now? I highly doubt it.

dsa_shea

Much like the defenders of the Trump parade.

B5Erik

Who on this thread has been defending Trump? Personally, I think he's a moron and a vile, arrogant jackass.

And what does Trump have to do with this thread? Did he fire James Gunn?? (I didn't know Gunn was a contestant on The Apprentice...)

Jay G.

It's telling that you automatically assume he's on your side.

And James Gunn has made horrible choices in the past, but they're in the past. Nobody is saying you have to like his past behavior, but I personally don't think it has any bearing on the work he's done at Marvel for the past 6 years, and that firing his was an overreaction to a fake "controversy" stirred up by seriously unhinged people.

He wrote/directed two very popular and successful movies that were age appropriate for their PG-13 rating. He hasn't done anything offensive in 6 years, and it would've been found by now if he had. He deserves to be able to continue on a film franchise he started and is very personal to him.

Jay G.

Trump didn't fire anyone on The Apprentice. He just said his catchphrase to whomever the producers decided to eliminate.

B5Erik

See, why does it have to be about taking sides? I've said that Disney handled this thing poorly, but I also don't believe that they can re-hire him after those pictures came out.

Both sides have things to be criticized for. But I guess that doesn't play into your narrative. Apparently, we have to take sides and fight.


I can tell you that a lot of employers would fire someone for the same thing if it became public knowledge and was bad PR for that company. I thought about it, and I would get fired if there were things that I posted that were THAT bad and made the company look bad - even if those posts were in the past. There is an expectation that an employee will behave themselves in public as if they are a representative of the company they work for, and that they have done nothing in the past which would cause their employer harm.

That is a fair opinion. I don't entirely share it (he deserves nothing, he didn't pay for the movies to be made, and he did make himself the center of attention knowing that he had some seriously disturbing shit that could easily come out if he kept pissing people off).

Does it suck that a scumbag got him fired? Kind of. But if Gunn hadn't posted some seriously disturbing things online for all to see and read none of this would have happened. He HAS to take some responsibility for it. Not just, "Oh, I'm really sorry, I was just being absurd to get attention," but a true mea culpa with some genuine remorse. And even then, for a company that specializes in family entertainment the kind of things he posted makes it really, REALLY uncomfortable at best from a PR standpoint to hire him back.

Everyone loses in this scenario. No one's completely in the right.

Oh, wait - that doesn't fit your black and white, "We must fight," narrative...

Jay G.

I'm not the one the characterized anyone that disagreed with me as being part of a cult.

Can you quote your company policy that states this? This is the third time I've requested.

This is rather a mercenary view. You're suggesting the creative team doesn't add anything of value to any film, and only the money put into it matters.

Victim blaming again. You're saying it's his fault people with a political agenda tried to make a mountain out of a 6+ years-old molehill.

You mean, take responsibility by saying something like, I dunno: "Regardless of how much time has passed, I understand and accept the business decisions taken today. Even these many years later, I take full responsibility for the way I conducted myself then."

Something like that, which he actually said?
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/07/ja...xy-1201986202/

Except the right wing nutjobs who stirred this all up to get him fired, because he's fired and they got exactly what they want, and you don't want Disney to fix it.

Josh-da-man

From what I've heard, Gunn has been publicly critical of Trump, and Cernovich started spreading this stuff around in retaliation against Disney for firing Roseanne Barr earlier this year over her "Planet of the Apes" tweets.

So there is an indirect Trump connection.

Ranger

Ha ha, I forgot Tim Burton was directing the live action Dumbo. If that version has drunk Dumbo, I wonder if people will complain... Even though the original 1941 Dumbo had it with the champagne. It's even funnier that it's not long after Prohibition ended in '33.

Ridiculous that anyone would complain about the Jackson Pollack joke. Most people do not even know that black light detects bodily fluids.

story

I wonder what age Groot will be. There's part of me that thinks it will be back to adult Groot, given he's a teenager in the Avengers. I think a fun twist may be Old Man Groot.

Jay G.

There's a shot of pink bubble elephant in the teaser, so it seems likely.





Disney also had an extended drunken singing riff in Sleeping Beauty.



http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Minstrel

Josh-da-man

Alcohol? That ninja's tripping on DMT.

B5Erik

I'm talking about a complete lack of acceptance of other opinions if they question Gunn at all. Anyone critical of Gunn in this thread has been attacked, very much like cult members attack critics of their cult leaders. Is that a fair comparison? Fair or not, it's fairly accurate.

No, I cannot quote that company policy - it is proprietary information that is not to be divulged online. Would they find out if I posted it? Probably not, but I need this job so I'm not going to mess with it. We're talking about a large company with 40,000+ employees. They have resources to investigate if anyone reported any kind of violation (and it is ENTIRELY possible that another employee could be a member of this board and would have an obligation under company policy to report a violation).

From a legal, ownership standpoint - yes.


Wait, Gunn didn't have a political agenda when he made himself the center of attention going after Trump? Why is it OK for him to have a political agenda but not OK for people who disagree with his political views to have an agenda? Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

I would even agree that some of the people who have gone after Gunn are scumbags, but he had an agenda just like they did. His pursuit of his agenda blew up in his face. It happens sometimes.

And if HE really said those things and didn't just have his PR firm release that on his behalf, then more power to him. He would deserve props for such an honest, stand up statement like that. IF he wrote that statement himself. That usually isn't the case. The PR firm usually does what they think will have the greatest effect in making the problem go away.

But I don't for a minute believe it is impossible that he wrote that himself. I just don't know how likely that is given how Hollywood works.

Wait, so you're calling the people who went after him, "Nutjobs," but Gunn, who posted dozens of vile, disturbing, disgusting, offensive tweets and took part in a party that was rather twisted (At best - we're going to attack pedophiles by looking like we're celebrating them??) and posted photos of said party isn't a nutjob? I'm sorry, but that stuff he's posted were the postings of a raving nutjob. Someone with serious, SERIOUS issues. And that's being kind.

And that's where the, "Cult," comment comes from. You're attacking the other side rather viciously, but your guy, who posted like a ranting sicko is OK in your book and didn't do anything worthy of being called a nutjob? Can you seriously not see how hypocritical that is?

And it's not that I don't want Disney to fix it - I just don't see how they can after those photos came out. They are in the kids' entertainment business. The nature of the comments that Gunn posted and the photos that were posted are the very definition of what some parents would literally kill people over to protect their kids. Even with what everyone has said about him really being a good guy I would never, ever let him be alone with my kid if my kid were still 8 or 10 or 12 years old. The guy is obsessed with sex, especially sex with kids. Was it all a put on, or is there some grain of truth to it? I don't know. No one knows other than James Gunn.

Would you leave James Gunn alone with your 10 year old son or daughter? Could you really be sure that it was all a put on and he's a perfectly safe, stand up guy?

So can Disney really employ him again after not only all those tweets, but now with the pictures? It would be a bad PR move at the very best, and an utter disaster at worst.

It's not that I don't want Disney to re-hire him, it's just that I honestly don't see how they can now that those pictures came out.

Before that I was honestly hoping he would be reinstated.

After I saw the pictures, though, I knew he was toast because that was more than they could get away with. You think people went after Gunn before? Imagine a more organized campaign, now with pictures to make their point! And Disney would then be targeted too, for boycotts and the like. That's a headache they don't need.

William Fuld

rw2516

Bullshit. Ratings are not law. Theaters can have whatever policy they want concerning letting kids into R movies.

Kids can get some adult to buy the tickets for them, just like with liquor or cigarettes, and nobody can do anything about it because it's not illegal.

Worst that can happen is theater can kick some kid(s) out if they're found in an R movie without an adult.

Jay G.

It's not accurate. d2cheer made this post critical of Gunn's actions yesterday, and was prompty... ignored. Nobody attacked him. rw2516 has been critical in the thread, maybe we should ask him if he feels "attacked."

People have responded to your posts because they think you're wrong on several points. It's not an "attack" from your critics, it's a persecution complex on your part.

So why should we believe you? I've never heard of a company policy that punishes for behavior that happened before you worked at the company. Can you find any evidence that this is the case, such as any company policy or a story citing such a policy?

Who said anything about ownership? I was talking about whether creatives added value to a film.

It was wrong because it was ad hominem, an attack on the person instead of criticizing their arguments. Gunn was voicing criticism of the political actions of the President of the United States, something any free American should be able to do regardless of party affiliation or who is currently President. Instead of pleading their case for the President, they instead attempted character assassination. It'd be like instead of arguing the points you bring up, I instead tried to dig up dirt on you, and tried to get you fired from your job. That's not proper discourse.

And isn't it kind of hypocritical to complain about being "attacked" at the beginning of a post, and then defend people who actually attacked an individual? By your own argument, why would it be wrong to attack you?

Way to move the goalposts.

"He should offer a real apology where he takes responsibility"
"He did"
"Well... I don't believe him."

Which were obviously jokes. Really bad, tasteless jokes, but still jokes. He's stated as such, repeatedly, over several years.

Meanwhile, the other side tweets stuff like "date rape is a myth" and mean it. Are you seriously going to try and defend an accused rapist by suggesting I'm being unfair to him?

Your statements say otherwise. You just wrote that Gunn is a "ranting sicko" who you would never trust with your kids. Why would you want a man you've characterized as such to be re-hired?

You don't think they're trying? The photos aren't gaining any traction, because the press now know the true motives of the people behind their exposure, and aren't biting. And nobody else cares, "James Gunn did something offensive years ago" is already old news.

story

Interesting, that could be cool. All of our heroes are basically young people, could be interesting to have someone old in the mix, see how that plays out. Especially for his relationship with Rocket.

What I want to know is will Quill and Gamora actually get together and be a couple. It seems like they are but I wouldn't call it explicit.

fumanstan

Obsessed seems like hypoerbole. I wouldn't let any stranger be alone with my 10 year old son since I don't know Gunn, but if I had a friend that I knew really well and tweeted the same type of material, my first instinct wouldn't be that he's a pedophile.

dex14

A couple? That would involve sex! Don't talk about explicit relationships! The kids can't handle it! Apparently neither can their parents!

Ranger

I'm aware that movies can be a bad influence. I can understand parents not being happy about some franchies becoming less kid-friendly, e.g. first Jumanji was PG, second one was PG-13. Jumanji 2 did very well, so the studio's decision worked out. Companies like to make money.

It's easy to find detailed, helpful parent guides for movies on the internet - IMDB, Kids in Mind, screenit, etc.

GhostLee

I don't think anyone who tries to defend, minimize or normalize an alt-right character assassin and rape advocate and his pals has any room to compare those who oppose that to cult members. B5Erik might have posted that Cernovich and Co. are scumbags, but it's becoming clearer he doesn't seem to really believe it - and he's the only Gunn detractor here who's even mentioned the other "side." I wonder why the rest of them have avoided that.

And I see he still hasn't acknowledged my points about MSNBC and Cernovich's own tweets/writings. So determined to protect everyone's kids from that evil James Gunn that he can't acknowledge Disney has let the author of "How to Choke a Woman" pull their strings. Sad.

slop101

Yeah, however "disgusting" you may find Gunn, by that same logic, you should find Cernovich and his ilk about a thousand times more disgusting; rapists actively trying to actually legitimize rape. But hey, let's look at the one time Gunn dressed up for a party to be shocking instead...

B5Erik

I don't know anything about Cernovich. I'm accepting that he may very well be a scumbag, but before the Gunn thing I hadn't even heard of him.

But even if he is a scumbag, that doesn't make what Gunn posted OK. It doesn't make it any less vile, repugnant, and completely offensive.

I'm seeing a lot of people defending Gunn as if it doesn't matter that he posted those things because the guy who pointed those things out and made them public in a big way is a scumbag. That's a non-sequitur. Just because the messenger is a horrible person doesn't invalidate facts that he has presented.

And that's why I said this is like a cult. It isn't just Cernovich being attacked, it's EVERYONE who posts anything remotely critical of Gunn. It's as if Gunn gets a free pass because the person who made this stuff public is a far worse person than Gunn.

Whatever. I'm finding that Gunn's fans and followers don't want to have a real discussion, they just want to attack anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with their opinions.

As I noted, I was in favor of Disney re-hiring Gunn up until the pictures were made public. At that point I put myself in the place of the people at Disney and couldn't find a way to sell re-hiring him to the public when Disney is a family entertainment company.

Whatever. There is no discussion here, only anger and resentment.

Jay G.

Maybe you should educate yourself before you posit the opinion we're being overly harsh on him and his supporters though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich

Besides being a rape apologist that was accused of rape, he also repeats insane conspiracy theories like Pizzagate and QAnon. If you don't know about those, here's a good primer:


It doesn't make what Gunn did ok, but it does mean that this whole thing was a fake controversy. The massive "buzz" when it originally broke wasn't genuine outrage from the public at large, but was generated by Cernovich and his politically motivated lackeys. Disney rashly reacted to a fear-mongering campaign by far-right nutjobs. If Cernovich hadn't dug those posts up and whipped up a media frenzy, nobody would've cared about those old posts, because nobody had cared about those posts for the 6+ years of their existence.

Cernovich isn't being attacked because he outed Gunn. He was a right-wing wacko before that.

You're the one characterizing anyone that doesn't "march in lockstep" with your opinions as being part of a cult. Personally, I'm trying to have a real discussion with you, but I don't think you're genuinely trying to do the same. But that's just a criticism of you, based on your personal actions, not a broad-brush painting of anyone that may disagree with me.

So your "it's not that I don't want Disney to fix it..." statement in your last post was a lie? Or are you having difficulty making a distinction between what you think Disney should do, i.e. what's morally and ethically right, and what you think they will do?