Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe 9: Returning to the Fold


Rhom

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I've seen multiple people claim that Gunn has previously apologized for these tweets, but I haven't seen a single link to an article from that time period with such an apology.  The only apology from Gunn that I've seen is an apology for a blog post about the top 50 superheroes he'd like to have sex with.  That stupid blog post was mild in comparison with all the bizarre "jokes" about raping children he repeatedly tweeted.  Does anyone have a link to Gunn's previous apology of his tweeting?

Also, a lot of people are sure that Disney must have known about these tweets at the time.  Personally, I doubt that's the case.  Gunn is a prolific tweeter.  He currently has over 20,000 tweets, most of which aren't offensive.  I don't think it was standard procedure at the time to comb through thousands and thousands of tweets when making a hiring decision.

I really liked both Guardians of the Galaxy movies, but I don't have any problem with Gunn getting canned for his offensive tweeting.  Gunn has a right to be as offensive as he likes, but at the same time, his employer has the right to can his ass after it discovers it.  I'm not going to put the duty on Disney to comb through thousands and thousands of tweets, facebook posts, instagram posts, etc. for every hiring decision they make.  Twitter and other social media has been around for a while now, so reviewing a person's social media posting history can mean reviewing tens of thousands of posts, which is unreasonable to me.  The only way I would side with Gunn over Disney is if Gunn proactively disclosed these tweets to Disney himself before he was hired.

Disney are within their rights to fire him but to claim they should or could not have checked his Twitter history prior to hiring seems very odd. If you fire someone because you fear the back lash against your brand you don't hire them in the first place without a check. I'm sure Disney have the resources to do what a couple of people on a mission could achieve with some time and a search engine. Even if they had been negligent and not checked prior to hiring him they should have checked everything else after the superhero sex list controversy a few years ago. Maybe they did and told Gunn "if this ever becomes a thing you are done" but the largest media company in the world not knowing or checking this seems more implausible than the possibility those tweets were Gunn's genuine thoughts/beliefs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.  I feel for James Gunn. Not jokes I would make or laugh at, but they are jokes.

But that's not why I feel sick to my stomach.  I've read far too much We Hunted the Mammoth, plus all the crap around the various 'gates, not to recognise the names that are associated with "exposing" these (public, FFS) tweets.  They're toxic hypocrites.  Gunn has been taken out for criticising Trump.  This should be a warning for anyone else who is outspoken: this is how the alt-right "fight".  I don't envy Disney's position at all, but - bleurgh - I wish they could call this out for what it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jace also has to admit discomfort with the situation.

It's like I'm saying 'There's a difference between hate/intolerance and jokes in poor taste...' but then I'm like 'well the Nazis will use that to start liquidating undesirables under the guise of 'performance art'.

It's a pickle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

I don't envy Disney's position at all, but - bleurgh - I wish they could call this out for what it really is.

I agree it's wrong that the alt-right gets to crow about this scalp. Especially given the gross double standard of Trump's conduct.

But I don't think Disney could have been expected to die on that hill so I don't blame them for folding.

Sometimes the worst people win, and the endgame here is that Gunn still bears some personal responsibility for giving them that opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Sometimes the worst people win, and the endgame here is that Gunn still bears some personal responsibility for giving them that opening.

Could he have foreseen the rise of the alt-right (or Trump) since he made those jokes?  Could he have known he would end up working for Disney?  I guess she should have told Disney about them (maybe he did), but given his past work they knew what they were hiring!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that Patton Oswalt is being targeted by the Trumpscum now. He did an experiment a few years ago with out of context tweets where he would have a two part tweet expressing a normal opinion, but the second part on its own would sound like it was supporting nambla or some other horrible thing. Sure enough, the Trumpscum are taking those tweets out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jace also has to admit discomfort with the situation.

It's like I'm saying 'There's a difference between hate/intolerance and jokes in poor taste...' but then I'm like 'well the Nazis will use that to start liquidating undesirables under the guise of 'performance art'.

It's a pickle.

 

4 hours ago, Morpheus said:

I see that Patton Oswalt is being targeted by the Trumpscum now. He did an experiment a few years ago with out of context tweets where he would have a two part tweet expressing a normal opinion, but the second part on its own would sound like it was supporting nambla or some other horrible thing. Sure enough, the Trumpscum are taking those tweets out of context.

Mike Cernovich went after Sam Seder a while back because Seder is a leftie who regularly roasts Cernovich's idiocy on his show.  It didn't work, though the Majority Report did lose revenue because of it.

Mike Cernovich went after Gunn because Gunn tweets and re-tweets a fair amount of political speech.  It's also clear that Gunn's politics trend progressive.  That is what this is about.

Disney telling Cernovich to eat shit by welcoming Gunn back in to the fold would be just fine by me, and I don't particularly care about the Guardians films (although I really liked the first one).

Gunn wrote some vile stuff a decade ago, for which he may or may-not have apologized for.  Cernovich pushes a child molestation conspiracy theory that inspired an armed man to go to a mans business and nearly kill someone.

Don't confuse the game that's being played here.  I know which side I'm on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Mike Cernovich went after Sam Seder a while back because Seder is a leftie who regularly roasts Cernovich's idiocy on his show.  It didn't work, though the Majority Report did lose revenue because of it.

Mike Cernovich went after Gunn because Gunn tweets and re-tweets a fair amount of political speech.  It's also clear that Gunn's politics trend progressive.  That is what this is about.

Disney telling Cernovich to eat shit by welcoming Gunn back in to the fold would be just fine by me, and I don't particularly care about the Guardians films (although I really liked the first one).

Gunn wrote some vile stuff a decade ago, for which he may or may-not have apologized for.  Cernovich pushes a child molestation conspiracy theory that inspired an armed man to go to a mans business and nearly kill someone.

Don't confuse the game that's being played here.  I know which side I'm on.

Again, I do wonder when going after people’s employment, like this, rises to the equivalent of government sponsored censorship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Mike Cernovich went after Sam Seder a while back because Seder is a leftie who regularly roasts Cernovich's idiocy on his show.  It didn't work, though the Majority Report did lose revenue because of it.

Mike Cernovich went after Gunn because Gunn tweets and re-tweets a fair amount of political speech.  It's also clear that Gunn's politics trend progressive.  That is what this is about.

Disney telling Cernovich to eat shit by welcoming Gunn back in to the fold would be just fine by me, and I don't particularly care about the Guardians films (although I really liked the first one).

Gunn wrote some vile stuff a decade ago, for which he may or may-not have apologized for.  Cernovich pushes a child molestation conspiracy theory that inspired an armed man to go to a mans business and nearly kill someone.

Don't confuse the game that's being played here.  I know which side I'm on.

QfT (except the Guardians bit - I like those films).

I guess it's easier for Disney to let Gunn go than be seen to be "taking sides" and making a "political allegiance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Again, I do wonder when going after people’s employment, like this, rises to the equivalent of government sponsored censorship?

No. It doesn't.  Free speech does not:

  • Make you immune to criticism.
  • obligate anyone to give you a platform.

I have plenty of opinions about the world.  They all happen to be really, awesomely, correct.  Yet, No op-ed written by me will appear in the New York times or the Globe and Mail and I will not be invited on Meet the press.  If I demand camera time or column inches, they can tell me to fuck off, and they'd be perfectly entitled to do so.

The same thing goes for comment sections.  Ed Brayton once described it best: You come in my house and shit on my rug, I'm kicking you out of my house.

If someone wants to call me an asshole, let them do it on their own youtube channel or twitter feed or blog.  I don't have to give them space on mine.  That is how this works.

Disney is perfectly entitled to fire Gunn (within whatever contractual framework they agreed to).  We get to criticize it and comment on it.  We can even demand that the Mouse give Gunn his job back.  The Mouse isn't obligated to listen. 

People losing their jobs for activities not related to that job is somewhat concerning to me.  I happen to think "Pool Patrol Pete" is a fucking racist tool who should be mocked ceaselessly.  However, I'm not sure I agree with Sunoco firing him.  Maybe there was a history there.  I don't know. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I don't think it's a matter of taking sides.  Disney has done that before.

If Disney reinstates Gunn could it be seen as taking sides against the president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

No. It doesn't.  Free speech does not:

  • Make you immune to criticism.
  • obligate anyone to give you a platform.

I have plenty of opinions about the world.  They all happen to be really, awesomely, correct.  Yet, No op-ed written by me will appear in the New York times or the Globe and Mail and I will not be invited on Meet the press.  If I demand camera time or column inches, they can tell me to fuck off, and they'd be perfectly entitled to do so.

The same thing goes for comment sections.  Ed Brayton once described it best: You come in my house and shit on my rug, I'm kicking you out of my house.

If someone wants to call me an asshole, let them do it on their own youtube channel or twitter feed or blog.  I don't have to give them space on mine.  That is how this works.

Disney is perfectly entitled to fire Gunn (within whatever contractual framework they agreed to).  We get to criticize it and comment on it.  We can even demand that the Mouse give Gunn his job back.  The Mouse isn't obligated to listen. 

People losing their jobs for activities not related to that job is somewhat concerning to me.  I happen to think "Pool Patrol Pete" is a fucking racist tool who should be mocked ceaselessly.  However, I'm not sure I agree with Sunoco firing him.  Maybe there was a history there.  I don't know. 

 

Here’s my problem, you don’t have to go to Government to engage in prior restraint when you can hit people in the wallet by attacking their employment.  It is an end run around the free expression protections that are supposed to exist.  I agree that employers should have the ability to fire employees who hurt their bottom line.  What I am troubled by is how this undermines existing free speech protections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Here’s my problem, you don’t have to go to Government to engage in prior restraint when you can hit people in the wallet by attacking their employment.  It is an end run around the free expression protections that are supposed to exist.  I agree that employers should have the ability to fire employees who hurt their bottom line.  What I am troubled by is how this undermines existing free speech protections.

Yes, Yes.

This is the war on drugs in a nutshell.  Nixon couldn't do much to silence the anti-war or counter culture crowd but, since this crowd also identified with the drug culture, he could criminalize their other activities.  Convict one of these people on a drug charge and you've not only taken them out of circulation for a while, but you've totally discredited them in the eyes of half the country.

Disney may have also been doing an end-run around accusations of bias for firing Rosanne "I-thought-the-bitch-was-whaaaeeeet" Barr and not firing Gunn.  I think they jumped the gun.

That was not a pun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all sorts fucked up and getting more fucked up.

AFAIK, Gunn apologized for the tweets multiple times a while back and has said he regrets them. I still think they are super foul and I'm still unsure how I feel about the firing, but there is that.

Good luck going after Oswalt and Ian Black. That...well that is going to be entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Warner brothers would hire the unforgivable tweeting Gunn if he were to say write and direct a green lantern corps film? 

Warners would be crazy to not even consider it.

I'm interested to see how the petition goes. If Disney is all about the bottom line there might come a point where they think it's more damaging to fire him than not. Then again the MCU is bigger than one franchise, let alone Disney as a whole so I guess they have to consider whether people will boycott all their films/TV over Gunn. I suspect very few people either side of the argument would boycott everything Disney.

I guess those "angry Christian mums" groups now know the best way to get a show canned, not with advertising petitions but by digging dirt on showrunners and lead actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I think Disney was well within its rights to fire Gunn and I have no problem with their decision, I do hope that Gunn gets another chance in the industry.  Gunn has handled his termination, a very difficult situation for him I'm sure, as well as possible.  He does seem genuine about his regret for making those statements, and as long as nothing comes out contradicting that, I'd be willing to watch his next movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole situation sucks donkey balls. The man made some jokes. They were tasteless and not at all funny, but it's no reason to sack him. I mean, Frankie Boyle makes far more 'edgy' jokes (about subjects such as rape, child abuse, and Her Majesty the Queen's ancient, haunted pussy) every time he takes the stage and is lauded as a comedy genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

If Disney reinstates Gunn could it be seen as taking sides against the president?

I don't see why.

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

This whole situation sucks donkey balls. The man made some jokes. They were tasteless and not at all funny, but it's no reason to sack him. I mean, Frankie Boyle makes far more 'edgy' jokes (about subjects such as rape, child abuse, and Her Majesty the Queen's ancient, haunted pussy) every time he takes the stage and is lauded as a comedy genius.

The spit-roasting joke was also special.  I love that man.

The context isn't really the same between the two.  Boyle was telling raunchy jokes on a TV program where raunchy jokes are told, although he was exemplary.  Gunn was broadcasting his noise to the world on twitter.  Also, I doubt Boyle will get offered a job anytime soon.  Patton Oswald however...

Personally, I'm more interested in how Gunn got the "revenge against the mutineers" scene from GOTG 2 into a PG-13 movie. That was like the Red Wedding with a top 40 soundtrack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...