-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
James Gunn in demand after Disney Studio firing
- Thread starter Scullibundo
- Start date
Thread titles would need to be easily editable.
I can understand how some topics taking over can be annoying. But, I mean . . . how else are we supposed to stay on top of things?
exactly. either editable thread titles or just abide by the new news, new thread policy.
Putting your account at the mercy of Bob Iger's whims seems dangerous. Lol.
If there's only going to be one thread for an ongoing topic, there really have to be constant mod updates to the title to let people know about new developments, and that seems less ideal than just making new threads.
The OP should be updating the first post with new news, and they are the ones that usually request the thread update.
that should make it all the more reason for other level headed people to step in and right this wrong
They just need to reinstate James Gunn & get it over with. It's clear that Disney jumped the gun, & I totally understand making sure that they don't fuck up any further. But all this will-they-won't-they stuff is getting tiring. Just give Gunn his job back & move on so things can get back to normal (somewhat).
I mean it's not that hard to guess.
robert.iger or robert.a.iger and alan.horn or alan.f.horn are my first guesses and I think I have a greater than 90% chance of being right.
The fact that he thought the two scenarios was similar is kinda scary.
So this all about Horn thinking he'd get brownie points.
Makes sense.
It never was Nameless.
It's this movie:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7752126/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_2
A low budget horror movie produced by him, written by his two bothers (not Sean), and directed by his friend and with some of his friends in the cast to keep the budget down.
It comes out at the end of November.
Not going to derail the thread, because this was already discussed in the thread back at SDCC.
It's not the symbol for Nameless. It's two Bs (one backwards) as it looks like the title of the movie is "Benjamin Breyer"
https://www.resetera.com/threads/james-gunn-teases-sdcc-reveal-on-twitter.55939/#post-10490165
Huh. Seems like far too big of coincidence, but I guess we'll see.
I figured this was a Horn thing from the start. I'm glad that Feige is stepping up to bat for Gunn, assuming that the rumors are true.
If the rumors are true, that'd be Fiege (and he carries a LOT of weight), the whole cast of Guardians, several hundred thousand fans, and quite a few others.
Making the mistake of thinking this was equitable to the Rosanne situation is insane and only makes sense if you act before getting all the facts. Which, you know, clearly is what happened.
If this is true it would make a lot of sense, lol. A clownish effort to reap goodwill by ineptly copying a justified public sacking. A dunderheaded exec drifting into the fraught rapids of social media controversy with all the grace of a deflated blimp.
Yeahhhh, shit like this is reminding me why I should abandon the MCU after Avengers 4. I mostly invested in the stories of Captain America and Iron Man, and since their contracts end with A4, I'll have less of a reason to be invested in the movies.
But really, Disney makes me really uncomfortable. Their treatment of Gunn is just one thing on the shit pile. The merger with Fox is downright scary, and outside of the movie business, I pretty much despise Marvel. I mean, ffs the head of Marvel Entertainment is Ike Perlmutter. Kevin Feige and Victoria Alonso seem like wonderful people, but I don't like the idea of my money also going to Marvel Entertainment. At least they got Perlmutter's decrepit claws away from the movies.
I wish Gunn the best, though. Dude seems like a perfectly decent person who owned up to past mistakes and has been unfairly targeted by alt-right fuckwads. It also really pisses me off that the alt-right is also trying to ruin the very entertainment I engage in for escapism from the shittiness in the world that they encourage. Fuck them and all of their followers.
But really, Disney makes me really uncomfortable. Their treatment of Gunn is just one thing on the shit pile. The merger with Fox is downright scary, and outside of the movie business, I pretty much despise Marvel. I mean, ffs the head of Marvel Entertainment is Ike Perlmutter. Kevin Feige and Victoria Alonso seem like wonderful people, but I don't like the idea of my money also going to Marvel Entertainment. At least they got Perlmutter's decrepit claws away from the movies.
I wish Gunn the best, though. Dude seems like a perfectly decent person who owned up to past mistakes and has been unfairly targeted by alt-right fuckwads. It also really pisses me off that the alt-right is also trying to ruin the very entertainment I engage in for escapism from the shittiness in the world that they encourage. Fuck them and all of their followers.
Consistently since this thing has started, there's been flocks of users jumping in and comparing the two. And when explained why they're different, they either run off or switch to something else.
I read the Deadline article, I don't actually see anything in there about Horn expecting praise or comparing it to the Roseanne situation. The quoted part of the article in his post doesn't seem to hint at that. Seemed like a random thing a user here said (which, to be fair, is very possibly true), then everybody started reacting to it as if it was a confirmed part of the story... And not some random commentary added by another user.
I made that post after seeing the mods shut down another thread on the subject of this thread so there's nothing for me to report.
Well use the report function to have mod update title. Or are you not supposed to use that function
I didn't make this thread. Is that okay? I really have no idea what the rules are for this sort of thing.
news to me i asked one to update a thread i made for 3ds/ds for me.
It sounds like Marvel are in talks with Disney and might get him back. But the idea of Gunn working on new big projects and someone else taking on the Guardians series is pretty exciting, I almost hope he doesn't go back.
Why are people going to bat so hard for this guy? The tweets I saw were fucking horrible and this whole "oh well, he's just a target of the alt-right" is a complete non-starter for me. It doesn't matter who raised the red flag. What matters is his personal history and if Disney hired him not knowing about his sexist/rapist/paedo social media past, then I feel they're entirely justified to sack him. To do otherwise is to invite tarnishing their company image. Like, it's cool that he's sorry and moved on from those views and so on but he still needs to own his mistakes, however many times they come up.
But he's apologised and been open about those mistakes for years, he's already done the growing and the learning.
Because he apologized for how he used to speak years ago. He spoke specifically about the tweets in at least one interview 1-2 years before he got fired. He clearly changed and grew as a person years ago. He owned his mistakes. He spoke about them publicly. Read up on the situation before commenting.
Also, Disney knew. Companies look at social media accounts. And they hired him specifically because of his risque film making career.
And as far as your company image goes, they are going to make another Pirates film with Johnny Depp, who was accused of domestic assault. Robert Downey's history is well documented. Josh Brolin plays Thanos and he was arrested for domestic assault.
But sure, "company image."
Do you believe in personal growth? Do you believe a person can change? Because this sends a horrible message that we can't change from the person we were. (And I see a lot of detractors bring up Gunn's age. Does that mean there's a specific age we stop growing at?)
Not to mention the "target of the alt-right" absolutely should not be a non-starter. These people will continue to destroy people's careers using these tactics and worse tactics if they see that they work. What happens when that someone isn't a rich white director? What happens when they're an up-and-coming black woman?
Forgiveness is a two-way street. He has to move on, and so do other people. He doesn't get to make a public apology (or two or whatever number) and then declare this issue is over. It's clearly not over and apparently some folks, including his bosses at Disney, haven't yet reached a point where they're willing to look past this shit. There isn't like a magic number of times he has to say he's sorry before the world forgets.
EDIT:
I've already addressed this. See above.
The messenger is not the message.
Last edited:
Was this posted 3 weeks ago and caught in some time warp until just this moment?
You just sound like someone who needs others to suffer. Not an uncommon position but don't really see the benefit
Remember that time that Disney, a company who very much cares about their company image, hired Roseanne -- who they knew had made racist comments and harassed the survivors of school shootings weeks prior to being hired?
Yeah, good times.
Stop making up reasons for why Disney did what they did. They fucked up.
Yeah, good times.
Stop making up reasons for why Disney did what they did. They fucked up.
The world did forget, then the alt right came along and said "remember this?".
Misreprestation of old tweets with the precise desire to take down a prominent Trump critic makes the messenger the message.
Yes, forgiveness can be a two-way street, and nobody is entitled to accept another's apology. But in this case it's obvious you didn't read up on what he has said on the subject (given how you dismiss it so decisively). Maybe actually read up on what he has said.
And if that doesn't matter at all to you, just say so.
In this case it absolutely is.
https://twitter.com/DaveBautista/status/1021125112974618624
I'm glad Bautista understands what is going on and has spoken out against it.
The tweets you saw are bad tweets, they don't read great in isolation, but they are particularly "horrible" as you put it when they are arranged out of context and out of sequence, and suggestively for political reasons. When I see people saying things like "his sexist/rapist/paedo past" - I unfortunately conclude that they have received the intended narrative which has been pedalled by people who are wilfully hypocritical in their defence of a President that has boasted of his own sexual harassment, and their defence of people like Cernovich and Roy Moore; the former has tweeted much worse shit than Gunn and wasn't joking, and both of those men have serious allegations of physical wrongdoing against them. James Gunn hasn't committed any such crimes, he made some bad jokes, and worst of all - he's had many of them taken out of context. The Jim Jeffries show bit on this controversy was pretty on point as far as that goes. But for arguments sake, I'll go through what's wrong with the way some particular tweets have been shared and repurposed:
Some of the tweets for example were playing on the #fakeretweet hashtag. The idea behind that hashtag at that point in time was to compose a tweet and pretend that somebody else had said it by throwing RT and a mention in front of it. Gunn made a couple of jokes riffing on the hashtag, they're not retweets, he posted them himself, but the intention was to make it look like someone else had originally posted them saying something obviously morally objectionable and shocking. If you're not au fait with twitter, if you don't understand what a retweet is, you just see words about a boy "touching him in his silly place" - but he'd targeted that fake retweet at a friend and a colleague in a joke attempt to make it look like his friend had said it. I've seen multiple people point out that particular tweet and similar while calling him a sick fuck, and to be blunt, regardless of whether its funny or not, they don't fully understand the context and intent behind the joke in the first place. He did similar tweets towards his brother Sean Gunn, but those don't have the same 'theme' so they were left out of the alt-right tweet collages.
Similarly, one of the tweets in the selective collages and images doing the rounds is a tweet containing a youtube link and a comment about 100 pubescent girls touching themselves. In isolation, without context, it will illicit an intended and understandable WTF reaction from the reader - but context is important. The youtube video in question was a church choir singing "I touch myself" by the Divinyls. An inappropriate song for a church choir to sing. He was pointing out the irony. But in the 2018 context of an alt-right tweet collage, it reads like the fevered tweeting of a predator or something. Which is just inaccurate, unfair and wrong frankly.
Finally, another reason people are coming to bat for him is that he has been targeted for purely political reasons. Granted, even with mitigating circumstances, we can all appreciate that such tweets were ill advised and poor humour - for many people there are things you just don't joke about and that's fine - but James Gunn hasn't joked about these things for years. The alt-right mobs screeching about Rosanne losing her job and who are demanding similar on the left? They cannot point to Rosanne's personal history of hard lessons learned; she was tweeting and saying toxic shit right up until she was sacked and she's still doing it now. Gunn hasn't told an objectionable joke on twitter for 6+ years, and in that time he's released family friendly heartfelt films that kids love and earned the mouse over a billion dollars doing it. He has campaigned against the morally unscrupulous things the current US administration has done, and used his power to draw attention to things he feels are wrong or an injustice - and the truth is, that's the only reason anyone bothered to go digging through his twitter history in the first place. These tweets were forgotten mistakes of a distant past until people on the Internet decided they didn't like him arguing with Ben Shapiro and attacking the policies of a certain Donald Trump.
They're not great, and he was right to apologise, he's right to have quickly accepted that whatever happens happens, but personally I think the hate-mob that was assembled was largely misled about who Gunn was and who he is. And I fully understand and empathise with the cast and others sticking up for him if they believe he's a good guy. The old forms of media always enjoyed tearing people down and destroying careers, newspapers and TV have done it for decades, but generally speaking - people do make mistakes and do get second chances. It seems in the age of the Internet, the Internet never forgets, and the left and the right demand no quarter. A world where people are not allowed to change and redeem poor choices seems untenably shitty and hostile to me.
I saw the apologies. It doesn't change his past tweets. My first reaction on seeing them was "eww, gross" followed by disappointment and a reflection about whether I want to still engage with his work. And that's the thing about making mistakes like this: they follow you. For years to come. Like, we're a decade removed from some of those "jokes" and he still has friends and colleagues who, newly informed about these tweets, feel they're not comfortable working/associating with him. I'm sure at some point the public will be comfortable with Gunn again, warts and all, but apparently that time is not not now. Especially not for his bosses at Disney who seem unwilling to go in to bat for him. Honestly, I can't fault them. The best thing for everyone at this point is to accept the consequences and do something else instead.
Taking your political cues from a former pro wrestler is probably not the best idea. The issue is crystal clear and it's not about Trump or fighting the Nazis. It's about creepy tweets from a once beloved film director.
Claiming this ignores the context of this whole situation. There is a reason this story won't die and why people are supporting James Gunn. Because the method by which is past was looked up was flawed. If someone researched you, and published something you aren't proud of in your past solely because of political means does that seem fair? I would disagree.
