James Gunn fired from Guardians of the Galaxy 3

[caligulathegod]

So, jokes about pedophilia are never funny?

Captain Oveur: Have you ever been in a plane cockpit before?
Joey: No, sir.
Captain Oveur: Ever seen a grown man naked?

Captain Oveur: Joey, have you ever been in a… in a Turkish Prison?

Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Captain Oveur: Joey, do you ever… hang around the gymnasium?

We used to recognize absurdity in this country. Even racism can be skewed through absurdity, but there’s a difference between that and using racism to spew hatred.

[kaylasdad99]

Oh, noes!!!

Who’s going to make sure that the wardrobe department “makes it work?”

[kaylasdad99]

@cmkeller

tim314:

as is my feeling that the guy who brought these things to light is an absolute a-hole

But how do you feel about him possibly being 100% a dick?

That fits.

[kaylasdad99]

@steadicam

Honestly, I have no pity for Mr. Gunn or any respect for Disney. TGoTG franchise is disposable entertainment and the next director will do fine because the movie doesn’t need to be good (witness that last two aren’te really very good anyway)

WTF, dude?

Any movie with Johnny Karate is AWESOME!

[kaylasdad99]

@BigT

I’ve encountered a lot of fans saying the same thing–including fans who were against Scarlet Johanssen being cast in a trans role.

Really?

How did those people feel about the casting of Hillary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry, I wonder?

[kaylasdad99]

@DKW

Hmmmm.

>SNIP<

Issue 5: Is EVERYONE a goddam idiot here?
And of course, the 900-ton gorilla: If he’s truly contrite, why not delete the goddam Tweets? That he didn’t find this extremely elementary step necessary, especially after his initial round of apologies in 2012, shows a horrendous lapse of judgement regardless of how serious he was about those stupid pathetic unfunny worthless ridiculous lame “jokes”.

>SNIP<

Personally, it wouldn’t occur to me that my contrition would be well-demonstrated by sanitizing my history.

I’m not a Twitter user. Is it possible to footnote a years-old tweet with an addendum that references the apology? If so, istm that this would be a good standard practice.

[kaylasdad99]

@eunoia

Blowing up on social media again today.

Getting fired from Disney is hardly a death sentence. Tim Burton went on to make Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands, eventually being re-hired by Disney to make a bunch of movies including a metaphorical re-telling of his firing incident and a full-length version of the one he was originally fired for. Pretty much refuted the theory Disney knows its ass from its elbow.

Could I trouble you to be a teensy bit less oracular? Specifically: what did Tim Burton get in trouble for; and what full-length movie was a metaphorical retelling of his firing incident?

[kaylasdad99]

@adaher

This is the culture right now. Eventually everyone will be fired and so everyone will have to be rehired again. But it is insanity and it really should stop, with laws if necessary.

Should they be the kind of laws that are engendered by hard cases?

[kaylasdad99]

@Arkcon

My question is: Do they care enough to not be in the sequel? As in, someone else will have to be Star-Lord, or Gamora?

If so, then this letter actually means something. One or two of them, would be taking a risk. More than two of them would be forcing the companies’ hands. Then again, backlash. Don’t want to be known as “uncooperative.”

Depends on whether they had already contractually obligated themselves to be in the sequel. If so, I’d look at their willingness to accept the consequences of that as “above and beyond.”

Also, it’s “Johnny Karate.” Who the hell is “Star-Lord?”

[BigT]

This lack of nuance is doing no one any favors, in my opinion. One can support some firings while not others. A blanket idea of never firing anyone for information about their past is not a good one, as it can let truly vile people off with no consequences.

What makes Gunn different is that he clearly is not the same person as he was, and the things were just jokes, not actual statements of his beliefs or actual actions that caused harm. Plus he had already apologized for them. And this was before Disney picked him up, so they have no excuse not to have known about this at the time.

It’s also particularly galling from Disney, because this is not how they handled Lasseter. They were far more forgiving with him, having him step down from a high position but still stick around to help finish the projects he was involved in. And what he did actually harmed people.

What we need is a conversation on forgiveness in this country. It’s important. If someone has made amends, we need to forgive. Treating the person who messed up but fixed things the same as someone who continues to do bad things just encourages people never to try be any better.

That said, we also don’t want to leave some really bad actions unpunished. There has to be a balance. A point where we decide what stuff can be forgiven and what it takes for it be forgiven. We need to realize the nuance of these situations.

And not give into the false dichotomy that we must ignore the past or fire everyone. That’s what the people who dredged this up on Gunn want to happen. Because then their genuinely awful people won’t be punished, either.

[puddleglum]

@BigT

This lack of nuance is doing no one any favors, in my opinion. One can support some firings while not others. A blanket idea of never firing anyone for information about their past is not a good one, as it can let truly vile people off with no consequences.

What makes Gunn different is that he clearly is not the same person as he was, and the things were just jokes, not actual statements of his beliefs or actual actions that caused harm. Plus he had already apologized for them. And this was before Disney picked him up, so they have no excuse not to have known about this at the time.

It’s also particularly galling from Disney, because this is not how they handled Lasseter. They were far more forgiving with him, having him step down from a high position but still stick around to help finish the projects he was involved in. And what he did actually harmed people.

What we need is a conversation on forgiveness in this country. It’s important. If someone has made amends, we need to forgive. Treating the person who messed up but fixed things the same as someone who continues to do bad things just encourages people never to try be any better.

That said, we also don’t want to leave some really bad actions unpunished. There has to be a balance. A point where we decide what stuff can be forgiven and what it takes for it be forgiven. We need to realize the nuance of these situations.

And not give into the false dichotomy that we must ignore the past or fire everyone. That’s what the people who dredged this up on Gunn want to happen. Because then their genuinely awful people won’t be punished, either.

No one says that the standard should be that no one ever gets fired for information about their past. There is a huge difference between telling offensive jokes and actually doing things that hurt people. That should be obvious. The problem is that some people want to decide whether offensive jokes should be punishable based on who is doing them and people like James Gunn should be let off because he is on the right side

[wintertime]

@Pantastic

What do you think would have happened to a Disney director in the 1950s who said that gay people were fine? How about a black disney director married to a white woman? You know, back in the good 'ol days before modern ‘offended’ culture took hold.

Let’s assume that those people would have been fired in the situations you describe for doing something considered offensive by a portion of the public with certain beliefs popular at that time.

Do your examples intend to convey that firing employees because of behaviour perceived as offensive by people with specific beliefs would have been wrong in the past, and is also wrong in present time? So … Gunn should not have been fired?

Or do you mean to say that it was wrong back then but nowadays it’s the correct course of action?

Or is it always fine to fire employees for behaviour that some people might find offensive?

Or do you argue that only some people or specific beliefs should be taken into account when “offensive behaviour” and its appropriate punishment by non-governmental actors is defined?

If so, whose? And why?

One other point: Your examples don’t quite fit with Gunn’s situation - he wasn’t explicitly political active but made some jokes. And they were done before he signed his contract with Disney. And they had already been made aware of those jokes earlier and hadn’t done anything.

You may call those jokes bad or not funny at all, and I’d agree; but Gunn’s situation raises serious questions about the kind of action that is appropriate if there is a claim that someone’s views or actions are offensive to someone else.

Also, the rules that call an employer into action should be clear, transparent and consistent; as should be their reach.

@Pantastic

The level of speech that offended people in the older times you’re idolizing was much less back in the days when just saying that maybe it’s no big deal for a black person to use the same water fountain as a white person could get you arrested.

Where did I idolize “older times”? [Hint: You couldn’t be farther from the truth] And what do my arguments have to do with racial bigotry?

You seem to be talking to someone else.

Free speech is, of course, an ideal. Even the USA sets limits, though less so than other nations, even other democracies.

Societies limit it further; and oftentimes, we don’t even realize how far we have strayed from this ideal because of our preconceptions of what should not be said or may be said without serious repercussions.

Are societies always wrong when they decide to (let someone) silence someone beyond the limits that democratic laws already provide, and punish those who won’t comply?

Well, that could be an interesting discussion.

@Pantastic

Side note: Calling anti-scientific nonsense ‘undisputed science’ doesn’t make it so.

For example?

[caligulathegod]

@eunoia

Getting fired from Disney is hardly a death sentence. Tim Burton went on to make Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands, eventually being re-hired by Disney to make a bunch of movies including a metaphorical re-telling of his firing incident and a full-length version of the one he was originally fired for. Pretty much refuted the theory Disney knows its ass from its elbow.

@kaylasdad99

Could I trouble you to be a teensy bit less oracular? Specifically: what did Tim Burton get in trouble for; and what full-length movie was a metaphorical retelling of his firing incident?

I would guess it was about Burton, originally hired as a Disney animator, storyboard artist and concept artist. “Back in 1984 Burton made a 30 minute live action short film about a boy who harnesses the power of science to resurrect his dead dog. Disney, the studio who paid for the film, immediately fired the director for wasting their money on a kid’s film that was too scary.” He later came back and made a feature length version of that same film, Frankenweenie. I am totally blanking on the metaphorical re-telling film.

It’s a false comparison. Burton was an unknown at the time and the world had to catch up to his aesthetic which did not match Disney at the time. The James Gunn incident is more like if they fired Gilbert Gottfried for telling the Aristocrats joke.

[kaylasdad99]

@caligulathegod

I would guess it was about Burton, originally hired as a Disney animator, storyboard artist and concept artist. “Back in 1984 Burton made a 30 minute live action short film about a boy who harnesses the power of science to resurrect his dead dog. Disney, the studio who paid for the film, immediately fired the director for wasting their money on a kid’s film that was too scary.” He later came back and made a feature length version of that same film, Frankenweenie. I am totally blanking on the metaphorical re-telling film.

Ah. Thanks for the explain.

It’s a false comparison. Burton was an unknown at the time and the world had to catch up to his aesthetic which did not match Disney at the time. The James Gunn incident is more like if they fired Gilbert Gottfried for telling the Aristocrats joke.

My brother bought a new DVD of Aladdin for his son’s tenth birthday. We watched it at the party, and Iago the Parrot sounded a LOT like Patton Oswalt…
okay, I made that up…

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@puddleglum

No one says that the standard should be that no one ever gets fired for information about their past. There is a huge difference between telling offensive jokes and actually doing things that hurt people. That should be obvious. The problem is that some people want to decide whether offensive jokes should be punishable based on who is doing them and people like James Gunn should be let off because he is on the right side

Right. There’s just no way that overt politics isn’t behind the push to keep Gunn, right? No way! And it was pure politics that got Roseanne booted, right? There’s just no way that it happened because people were using their judgement based on the actual events, right? And that different people, with different histories should BE judged differently for different thingS- well, I think we can all see that that’s just another partisan dodge, right?

I mean, we know that Gunn was targeted by right wing political activists; it MUST have been the same for Roseanne being targeted by the left, right? THERE’S SIMPLY NO OTHER EXPLANATION, RIGHT?

:rolleyes::dubious:

[eunoia]

Even Café Society is so poisoned with partisan politics that nobody has yet mentioned Chekhov.

[Corry_El]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Right. There’s just no way that overt politics isn’t behind the push to keep Gunn, right? No way! And it was pure politics that got Roseanne booted, right? There’s just no way that it happened because people were using their judgement based on the actual events, right? And that different people, with different histories should BE judged differently for different thingS- well, I think we can all see that that’s just another partisan dodge, right?

I mean, we know that Gunn was targeted by right wing political activists; it MUST have been the same for Roseanne being targeted by the left, right? THERE’S SIMPLY NO OTHER EXPLANATION, RIGHT?

:rolleyes::dubious:

It’s not that it MUST be true, but it’s just that a lot of people (including myself) look at it and use their judgement to say, ‘yeah a lot of this seems to depend which side the offender and denouncer happen to be on’. Maybe those people are wrong and it’s really not about politics but more of a coincidence. How could it ever be proved? Nor does that mean that I think everyone who reaches opposite conclusions does it just because of politics. But seems obvious to me reading a cross section of comments that politics has a good deal to do with it. One particularly clear point is how it sticks in some craws how a ‘right wing’ internet person is the one digging up Gunn’s tweets.

And obviously, the relentless sequential left/right jib/jab about ‘hypocrisy’ almost never involves cases which are exactly alike. There’s a strong tendency, caused by short attention spans, to focus on the most recent jib or jab, not even look back a few to find one that’s a little closer. For example, obviously, in the Barr case she put her stupid joke out there entirely herself, rather than it being something written awhile ago somebody else called attention to. I can see that difference. Still, I don’t buy that it doesn’t have a lot to do with politics. In my opinion it obviously does.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Corry_El

It’s not that it MUST be true, but it’s just that a lot of people (including myself) look at it and use their judgement to say, ‘yeah a lot of this seems to depend which side the offender and denouncer happen to be on’. Maybe those people are wrong and it’s really not about politics but more of a coincidence. How could it ever be proved? Nor does that mean that I think everyone who reaches opposite conclusions does it just because of politics. But seems obvious to me reading a cross section of comments that politics has a good deal to do with it. One particularly clear point is how it sticks in some craws how a ‘right wing’ internet person is the one digging up Gunn’s tweets.

And obviously, the relentless sequential left/right jib/jab about ‘hypocrisy’ almost never involves cases which are exactly alike. There’s a strong tendency, caused by short attention spans, to focus on the most recent jib or jab, not even look back a few to find one that’s a little closer. For example, obviously, in the Barr case she put her stupid joke out there entirely herself, rather than it being something written awhile ago somebody else called attention to. I can see that difference. Still, I don’t buy that it doesn’t have a lot to do with politics. In my opinion it obviously does.

James Gunn’s situation is unquestionably because of a politically motivated campaign to cause exactly this situation.

Roseanne Barr’s situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow, and/or they then drew attention to it for political reasons. The first possibility is ridiculous and the second would require that no one actually cared about a targetted direct racist comment about a non-celebrity and that they were using the racism as a cover for hurting Donald Trump.

And somehow that second possibility doesn’t sound ridiculous to some people. :rolleyes:

It’s fucking ridiculous.

[adaher]

It’s all ridiculous. Companies shouldn’t fire for tweets. Period. Enough already.

[cmkeller]

Snowboarder Bo:

Roseanne Barr’s situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow

Why, did some other party cause James Gunn to make offensive tweets?