(No politics!!) how impacted will Guardians in Epcot be now?

[Brocktoon]

Could be! Are there really that many people in Hollywood joking about pedophilia, though?

If people dig through the past of many comedic celebrities they'll probably find some sort of joke / comment relating to pedophilia, rape, or something else that doesn't fit with Disney's 'zero tolerance' policy. Tweets about pedophilia have been dug up on Silverman and Oswalt, and Devito had an episode of 'Always Sunny' involving a child beauty pageant and a ton of pedo jokes.

It doesn't have to be just pedophilia or rape jokes ... look up Chris Pratt's Kardashian 'comeback' joke (NSFW) from his Parks/Rec days. Are people now going to say that his humor doesn't align with Disney's values?

If Disney is going to tow a 'zero tolerance' policy then there's a chance that there will be no talent left to work with. From a business perspective they may have no choice but to re-evaluate things.

 

[SteveDude]

Disney probably realized they made a rash decision and potentially a huge mistake. I'm the least surprised. With the entire principal cast standing with Gunn, and tons of fans crying out for his reinstatement, it was only a matter of time before Disney reconsidered. Entire franchise (or at least this third film) was put at risk due to a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If people dig through the past of many comedic celebrities they'll probably find some sort of joke / comment relating to pedophilia, rape, or something else that doesn't fit with Disney's 'zero tolerance' policy. Tweets about pedophilia have been dug up on Silverman and Oswalt, and Devito had an episode of 'Always Sunny' involving a child beauty pageant and a ton of pedo jokes.

It doesn't have to be just pedophilia or rape jokes ... look up Chris Pratt's Kardashian 'comeback' joke (NSFW) from his Parks/Rec days. Are people now going to say that his humor doesn't align with Disney's values?

If Disney is going to tow a 'zero tolerance' policy then there's a chance that there will be no talent left to work with. From a business perspective they may have no choice but to re-evaluate things.

I watched an Eddie Murphy comedy special from 1983 recently. It had a lot of cursing and n-word as well as gay and aids jokes (not surprising given the time period). He apologized for his gay and aids jokes in the early 1990s. Disney has had Eddie Murphy in several films. The type of person that Eddie Murphy was back then isn't the same type of person he is now (at least image, acting choices, etc).

Quite honestly, while I don't condone what this issue is about, I do think that it's being viewed in tunnel vision-meaning pick and choose just who the public gets outraged about, when they get outraged about it, etc. With societal pressures as they are now Disney had no choice but also societal pressures aren't always used in admirable ways.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I think a significant number of popular comedians made blue jokes of one kind or another in electronic forums in the late naughts and early 2010 area. It was popular back then. Maybe not pedophilia, but certainly things that are considered more off limits today. I think a Zero Tolerance Policy for things from 10 years ago would leave Disney open to a lot of "gotcha" moments with all kinds of actors, voice talent, directors and more. And there is no shortage of people willing to dig this stuff up because they have an axe to grind. As I said in a previous post, I have no problems with what Disney did, but I can understand them reconsidering as well. However, I think that reconsidering just makes this a bigger story, and it seems to me to be the type of story Disney probably wishes would just go away. I expect they will handle a similar situation the next time differently.

I agree with all of this - do wish as a society we could agree on how these things are handled. Like suspend the person at first awareness and then get a week to investigate or something

Feels like people what their cut of flesh right away and get all over companies if they don't act fast enough and praise those that act right away - but in the end, would it really matter if they fired Gunn the day the news came out or suspended him, did some investigation and fire him a week later if warrented?

 

[Boski]

If this rumor is true I can see how this might go a different direction. Maybe Disney brings Gunn back but not as director but as a writer/producer (which we know hes already done the first draft of) for GoTG3. Then he is less in the public eye, he really wouldn't have to do any press, and the film will still "feel" like one of his films. With the MCU going forward with more "cosmic" type movies, it was reported Gunn was suppose to be heavily involved in their development and reinstating him in this capacity would allow him to continue that path. Again keeping him more behind the scenes. Just a theory.

 

[jknezek]

I agree with all of this - do wish as a society we could agree on how these things are handled. Like suspend the person at first awareness and then get a week to investigate or something

Feels like people what their cut of flesh right away and get all over companies if they don't act fast enough and praise those that act right away - but in the end, would it really matter if they fired Gunn the day the news came out or suspended him, did some investigation and fire him a week later if warrented?

I don't think all companies are in the same position as Disney though. Every situation is different as well, so standardizing things is not that simple. Disney got a lot of praise, and some criticism, for the quick hook on Roseanne. Now that had immediacy, an unhappy set of coworkers, a history of her running her mouth, so that is one situation. Then almost immediately, here is Gunn. They did the same thing, but the situation ends up being different. Now they get a lot of criticism, and probably still more praise, for the quick hook, but the follow on because it wasn't immediate, the coworkers liked the guy, and his path had changed and been documented that it had changed, so the story just won't die. And the issue with the actors is a problem. Because Disney needs talent. They can't alienate it but nor can they alienate the fan base.

Now look at Lasseter. Here they didn't give the quick hook. They gave him time, they did an investigation, they eased him out. The situation probably had immediacy, the coworkers seemed split, but not much history nor much proof other than a few things in the press. It dragged on and on and what did we do? We hammered Disney on it. Over and over. How long it was taking, how ridiculous it was. There's a whole thread on it.

So twice they did a quick hook, once they did a slow ease out, and EVERY TIME a significant number of people hammered them for it. One size does not fit all. Companies are kind of adrift. And it is worse because Disney is Disney. Someone brought up Comedy Central and how much better they handled a similar situation to Gunn, but Comedy Central isn't Disney. They don't cater to kids, they don't run beloved theme parks, they don't have one of the most well-known corporate characters on the entire planet. So Comedy Central has a lot more flexibility in what they can do.

There just isn't going to be an agreement or standardization on this. And these situations are how executives justify their outrageous salaries. Eisner is paid an insane amount of money, but he has to deal with Lasseter and Roseanne and Gunn. Part of sitting in that seat, and getting that ridiculous check, is dealing with these absurd no-win situations. I still think he's stupidly overpaid, but he's also going to be vilified by a significant portion of the population every time this kind of thing comes up, because there is no way to win.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I don't think all companies are in the same position as Disney though. Every situation is different as well, so standardizing things is not that simple. Disney got a lot of praise, and some criticism, for the quick hook on Roseanne. Now that had immediacy, an unhappy set of coworkers, a history of her running her mouth, so that is one situation. Then almost immediately, here is Gunn. They did the same thing, but the situation ends up being different. Now they get a lot of criticism, and probably still more praise, for the quick hook, but the follow on because it wasn't immediate, the coworkers liked the guy, and his path had changed and been documented that it had changed, so the story just won't die. And the issue with the actors is a problem. Because Disney needs talent. They can't alienate it but nor can they alienate the fan base.

Now look at Lasseter. Here they didn't give the quick hook. They gave him time, they did an investigation, they eased him out. The situation probably had immediacy, the coworkers seemed split, but not much history nor much proof other than a few things in the press. It dragged on and on and what did we do? We hammered Disney on it. Over and over. How long it was taking, how ridiculous it was. There's a whole thread on it.

So twice they did a quick hook, once they did a slow ease out, and EVERY TIME a significant number of people hammered them for it. One size does not fit all. Companies are kind of adrift. And it is worse because Disney is Disney. Someone brought up Comedy Central and how much better they handled a similar situation to Gunn, but Comedy Central isn't Disney. They don't cater to kids, they don't run beloved theme parks, they don't have one of the most well-known corporate characters on the entire planet. So Comedy Central has a lot more flexibility in what they can do.

There just isn't going to be an agreement or standardization on this. And these situations are how executives justify their outrageous salaries. Eisner is paid an insane amount of money, but he has to deal with Lasseter and Roseanne and Gunn. Part of sitting in that seat, and getting that ridiculous check, is dealing with these absurd no-win situations. I still think he's stupidly overpaid, but he's also going to be vilified by a significant portion of the population every time this kind of thing comes up, because there is no way to win.

I get every situation is different but I guess the part that no matter what they do they get blasted is what annoys me and wish there could be some sort of protocol which everyone is ok with - though get that it is not realistic

And I assume you meant Iger not Eisner

 

[jknezek]

I get every situation is different but I guess the part that no matter what they do they get blasted is what annoys me and wish there could be some sort of protocol which everyone is ok with - though get that it is not realistic

And I assume you meant Iger not Eisner

My wife always tells me I need to stop living in the past.... Good catch.

 

[intertile]

I think Disney botched this situation, and now is gonna look bad no matter what the decision. Now, I don't agree/like Gunn's twitter post...and for that matter wouldn't have found them funny even 10 years ago. That being said they are being looked at in a vacuum, and are probably being taken completely out of context. We have no idea how this conversation or exchange even came about, and while probably still a bad choice to post was probably part of a larger conversation. When these controversies surface in this social media era, the public expects a fast reaction. Companies look to the backlash that the NFL had after the Rice incident or the Anthem issue. Problem is, in both of those incidents the NFL didn't comment or react at all, and when they did it was the wrong response(this was an example, I have no interest in arguing either issue and this is not an indication on my stance on either...nor will I go there so please don't). Consequently companies are so sensitive to the fact that they must make a response, that all too often they go the knee jerk route and make a bigger mistake.
The correct move by Disney was to make a statement, that we are going to investigate the comments. We will speak with Gunn, his peers, etc. and make a decision on our future relationship with him at that time. Then they could have taken there time and made a decision.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I agree with all of this - do wish as a society we could agree on how these things are handled. Like suspend the person at first awareness and then get a week to investigate or something

Feels like people what their cut of flesh right away and get all over companies if they don't act fast enough and praise those that act right away - but in the end, would it really matter if they fired Gunn the day the news came out or suspended him, did some investigation and fire him a week later if warrented?

Though I agree generally when there are accusations, I’m unclear on what they would investigate with Gunn...? What would you investigate in his case?

In this case it would be more like taking a break to see if controversy dies down.

 

[rteetz]

James Gunn’s Fate With Disney Lies In Bob Iger’s Hands

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Though I agree generally when there are accusations, I’m unclear on what they would investigate with Gunn...? What would you investigate in his case?

In this case it would be more like taking a break to see if controversy dies down.

I guess that too - just give everyone a minute to catch their breath, think it through, find if there is more evidence - even in this case, people were calling for his head even before it got out how much he had tried to atone for the mistake, etc. so that could have been more widely circulated

Just make it less of a knee jerk reaction - maybe the end result is the same but I bet at that point there is a lot less chance of having to back-track like Disney might be doing

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I guess that too - just give everyone a minute to catch their breath, think it through, find if there is more evidence - even in this case, people were calling for his head even before it got out how much he had tried to atone for the mistake, etc. so that could have been more widely circulated

Just make it less of a knee jerk reaction - maybe the end result is the same but I bet at that point there is a lot less chance of having to back-track like Disney might be doing

I'm definitely for making it less knee-jerk. In the Gunn case I just don't think there's new info to find -- it would have been more of a cooling off period. It just can't be too long, or I think that looks bad -- like with Lasseter.

My personal feeling is that I couldn't care less if a man who jokes about pedophilia in his 40's -- online, which he knows lives forever -- suffers consequences longer term when it comes to jobs with family entertainment firms. I wouldn't mind this serving as a deterrent to others either. And my personal opinion is that he's no Scorsese or Shakespeare. Do we really think no one else can write or direct a Marvel movie? Seems like a lot of drama to me. All that said, I wouldn't change how my family consumes Disney products either way -- ONLY because this isn't ongoing behavior on his part.

 

[rowrbazzle]

Disney probably realized they made a rash decision and potentially a huge mistake. I'm the least surprised. With the entire principal cast standing with Gunn, and tons of fans crying out for his reinstatement, it was only a matter of time before Disney reconsidered. Entire franchise (or at least this third film) was put at risk due to a knee-jerk reaction.

Is the film at risk? From what I gather at least a draft is already written. I don't think the actors have said they'd boycott and refuse to work with anyone else. Even if the movie was cancelled, I think Disney would be fine. How many other Marvel movies do they have in the pipeline? Maybe they reverse course, but I don't think there's an overwhelming reason to do so.

 

[rteetz]

Is the film at risk? From what I gather at least a draft is already written. I don't think the actors have said they'd boycott and refuse to work with anyone else. Even if the movie was cancelled, I think Disney would be fine. How many other Marvel movies do they have in the pipeline? Maybe they reverse course, but I don't think there's an overwhelming reason to do so.

I agree but Gunn is the main guy behind guardians so if they stick with his ideas he still had a large hand in this movie and because of that does he get a cut? The guardians movies under him have been very successful.

 

[rowrbazzle]

I agree but Gunn is the main guy behind guardians so if they stick with his ideas he still had a large hand in this movie and because of that does he get a cut? The guardians movies under him have been very successful.

I'm sure he'd still be paid for the work he did. I don't know if the movie would be better or worse without him. I guess it would depend on who replaces him. And if he is integral, then it would also depend on how much of the movie has already been decided. I know both movies have been successful, but Disney has a lot of successful movies. I guess I figure they'll be okay either way.

I'm trying to think of similar situations where directors have changed from one movie to the next. I keep thinking of Mission Impossible, which just had it's biggest box office opening with the 5th director. That's a different type of movie, though. Winter Soldier was regarded more highly than First Avenger and it had a different director. I dunno; maybe there are other examples.

 

[rteetz]

I'm sure he'd still be paid for the work he did. I don't know if the movie would be better or worse without him. I guess it would depend on who replaces him. And if he is integral, then it would also depend on how much of the movie has already been decided. I know both movies have been successful, but Disney has a lot of successful movies. I guess I figure they'll be okay either way.

I'm trying to think of similar situations where directors have changed from one movie to the next. I keep thinking of Mission Impossible, which just had it's biggest box office opening with the 5th director. That's a different type of movie, though. Winter Soldier was regarded more highly than First Avenger and it had a different director. I dunno; maybe there are other examples.

Star Wars had different directors but of course in the George Lucas days he was very involved in the process and in Episode 7-8 JJ was an executive producer of 8.

 

[Brocktoon]

Directing/writing a huge SFX intense action flick for a major studio is a mess to begin with. Finding a director who can do that and understand the quirkiness of the source material is even tougher. Now find someone who can do that and work with an ensemble cast and still keep everyone so happy that they support you and keep the studio / accountants happy. GoTG had every right to end up being an over-budget off-the-rails mess but James Gunn made it work ... and lightning struck twice with Vol 2.

There are other action directors out there and there are other quirky directors, but it's going to be tough job to find someone that meshes with the source material AND the ensemble as well as Gunn does now. It's doable but probably won't be without a lot of pain ... Unless we want Tim Burton's GoTG V3 starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter

Maybe someone like Waititi can handle it, but it'll still take time for him to mesh with cast & crew ...

 

[jkh36619]

GotG V3 will be fine with or without Gunn. I like Volume 1 better than 2 so if 3 is lacking a bit further it will still be ok.

 

[Boski]

I'm sure he'd still be paid for the work he did. I don't know if the movie would be better or worse without him. I guess it would depend on who replaces him. And if he is integral, then it would also depend on how much of the movie has already been decided. I know both movies have been successful, but Disney has a lot of successful movies. I guess I figure they'll be okay either way.

I'm trying to think of similar situations where directors have changed from one movie to the next. I keep thinking of Mission Impossible, which just had it's biggest box office opening with the 5th director. That's a different type of movie, though. Winter Soldier was regarded more highly than First Avenger and it had a different director. I dunno; maybe there are other examples.

Iron Man 1 and 2 were done by Favreau while 3 was done by Shane Black. Avengers 1 and 2 were done by Joss Whedon, 3 and 4 (upcoming) are done by the Russo Brothers (who also did Winter Soldier and Civil War). So its not like it would be a foreign idea to the MCU. In your post before you asked what Marvel had in the pipeline, next year we've got Capt Marvel, Avengers 4, and Spider-Man Far from home already lined up. The general thought was GoTG3 would be a 2020 release with 2 other films, but nothing has been confirmed.