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

[TheMaxRebo]

I'm not certain the comparison is apt. One is a fictional character, the other isn't. Beyond that, what has Gunn done to be redeemed? He apologized and stopped making unsavory jokes. Is that it? If so, I'd say it's a statute of limitations thing more than redemption.

Perhaps if he'd been working with abuse victims or something people (who are actually upset) might be more receptive to redemption. I haven't heard of anything like that, though.

Supposedly he has been doing a lot to try and grow and learn from what he did and people close to him says he has - that he has shown he knows what he did back then, even if just for shock value, was wrong ... I think the issue, and why comparing it to when you see a redemption arc in a movie is problematic, is that most of us haven't seen his redemption or anything he did, because he already did it. We want to see the person fall and then follow all he/she does to rise back up and we haven't seen any of it, only been told it happened.

 

[rowrbazzle]

Supposedly he has been doing a lot to try and grow and learn from what he did and people close to him says he has - that he has shown he knows what he did back then, even if just for shock value, was wrong ... I think the issue, and why comparing it to when you see a redemption arc in a movie is problematic, is that most of us haven't seen his redemption or anything he did, because he already did it. We want to see the person fall and then follow all he/she does to rise back up and we haven't seen any of it, only been told it happened.

I am curious as to how. I've been following the story off-and-on since it began, but haven't heard any specifics other than the apology and not making those jokes anymore. Offering more of that might help his case. Even if it's not getting him his job back at Disney it could be beneficial down the line.

That's a good point too about not witnessing any of it too.

 

[Truxi]

yeah I don't know how accurate it is I just knew something came up when I searched for more information on what had happened. My guess is Disney knows more than the rest of us and is trying to protect their image which is everything to them. I don't blame them for it at all, rape and pedophilia are disturbing topics.

I mean, my go-to rule is if breitbart says something, it's probably not true, or at least drastically misrepresented, unless I can find an actual credible source that confirms it.

Rape and pedophilia are disturbing topics, and they were common topics in most comedians sets for a good long while, so Disney probably doesn't want to open up this can of worms now that it's clear what the endgame is.

 

[Truxi]

I'm not certain the comparison is apt. One is a fictional character, the other isn't. Beyond that, what has Gunn done to be redeemed? He apologized and stopped making unsavory jokes. Is that it? If so, I'd say it's a statute of limitations thing more than redemption.

Perhaps if he'd been working with abuse victims or something people (who are actually upset) might be more receptive to redemption. I haven't heard of anything like that, though.

I mean, he made some tweets, he didn't actually do anything to anyone. So since his crime is words, it seems like words are a pretty reasonable remedy, since they do actually come with a change of behavior?

Honestly, to me seeing a former edgelord talk openly--without prompting (because again, that interview happened before he got in trouble)--about how his former edgelordery was weak and pathetic and just about keeping people at arms length is a pretty good thing? It's nice to know that people change, and given the way some folks still cling to shock humor as if it were actually shocking and not just tired, it's nice to see someone who used to rely on it calling it out for what it is. The fact that the most recent movie he made is actually a pretty good take on damaged adults dealing with traumatic childhoods and the emotional complexity that can take (in particular, the conflicting feelings of loving a parent who was abusive) kind of just adds to it.

Maybe it's less redemption and more just seeing actual positive growth from someone who used to just do cheap shocksploitation. So maybe that's my fault. It's less of a redemption arc like Loki's and more just seeing growth from a callous, childish person into someone with a little more depth, like Tony. Still fictional characters, sure, but what's the point of storytelling, if not to reflect worldviews.

 

[jkh36619]

I wonder if he would have preformed racist stand up at a sons of the confederacy meetings would we be so quick to forgive. It's just jokes after all.... We are taught at an early age that our actions today affect our tomorrow. I personally am not offended or anything. Gunn being rehired wouldn't be the end of my world. But I can certainly see Disney's position and more importantly anyone who has been affected by rape.

 

[Truxi]

I think there's a difference between saying some stuff on twitter and actively participating in a hate group meeting for love or money.

And as with this situation--it really depends on what actions he took in the interim to distance himself from his previous words and actions.

I've said before, as far as Gunn himself goes, I don't really care if he directs GotG3 or not. There's at least half a dozen directors out there who could do just as good a job, if not better.

My problem is that this sets a very disturbing precedent where bad-faith actors with a personal vendetta against an actor/writer/comedian for political reasons will dig into their past solely to punish them, regardless of any growth or changes made in the time between previous comments and now.

 

[jkh36619]

Ok, what about racist comedy at the holiday inn lounge. The point is the same. All Roseanne did was tweet right?

 

[Truxi]

Ok, what about racist comedy at the holiday inn lounge. The point is the same. All Roseanne did was tweet right?

Feels like you're being disingenuous and ignoring a large part of what I'm saying.

James Gunn -- tweeted some horrible things ten years ago. In the years since then, he has cleaned up his act, publicly expressed regret--prior to there being consequences and without trying to justify what he said--and become a better person.

Roseanne -- has spent the past several years tweeting racist and transphobic stuff without changing or improving, and the only apologies offered were basically "Sorry that I got in trouble" (and only apologizing for part of her racism in a single tweet)

If Roseanne also actually, y'know, cleaned up her act and stopped behaving like a horrible person online and in interviews, publicly expressed regret for her previous words and actions while actually acknowledging what about them was so horrible...then it would be a different thing. But she hasn't.

tl:dr -- Gunn had already worked to distance himself from and apologized for his behavior from a decade ago. Roseanne has not done any of that.

 

[Truxi]

But hey, we know this whole thing started as retribution for Roseanne being fired for making a racist, islamaphobic comment while employed by Disney.

That's kind of the point, isn't it.

 

[jkh36619]

If Roseanne spent every single day for the next 10 years apologizing, I still think Disney would be smart not to hire her back. My opinions are strictly speaking if I were in Disney's shoes. The next few years may change dramatically now that it has acquired Fox but as of right now, Disney is a family entertainment and it must protect itself.

 

[Truxi]

I find the whole "must protect themselves" thing to be a weaksauce argument when the issue is not current behavior, but old behavior that was known when they hired the person in question. (That said, I think given Roseanne's increasingly unhinged twitter behavior over the past few years, including threatening to sue anyone who called out her bad behavior, that they should have known better when they hired her anyway.)

But again and again I reiterate--part of why Disney really needs to rethink this is to "protect itself."

Because this wasn't done in good faith, and the folks who started it already have two more Disney talents in their sights, one of whom is the star of a biiiiiig new movie coming out later this year. If Disney lets this stand, they open themselves up to losing a lot of talent (and as a consequence, properties) to personal vendettas rather than actual bad behavior in the near future.

 

[jkh36619]

They don't seem to think its a "weaksauce".

 

[Truxi]

Ok....and?

You're the one saying it, fwiw. The time to "protect themselves" as "family entertainment" was when they hired folks who were well known for family unfriendly entertainment.

But Disney's never really done that. Again, I point to the late Robin Williams. Or Bob Saget. Or any number of other comedians and creators who have worked with Disney while having a very blue history. (Seriously, tho, the first time I tried to listen to Bob Saget's stand-up I felt sick. But he was the face of their Wholesome Sitcom Dads for years.)

It's one thing if a person actually does something to another person or group of people (like harassment or creating a hostile work environment). Or if the person continues their bad/family unfriendly behavior while working for the Mouse.

But if that's not the case, and Disney knew full well what sort of work and jokes the person had done in the past and still hired them...then claiming that they're "protecting their brand" is just...disingenuous at best.

 

[jkh36619]

I'm not saying they didn't know, but now its out there so they are doing what they think it right. It's reactionary but probably the right call. You would run your 150 billion company another way and that's fine.

 

[Jeffery berish]

Ok....and?

You're the one saying it, fwiw. The time to "protect themselves" as "family entertainment" was when they hired folks who were well known for family unfriendly entertainment.

But Disney's never really done that. Again, I point to the late Robin Williams. Or Bob Saget. Or any number of other comedians and creators who have worked with Disney while having a very blue history. (Seriously, tho, the first time I tried to listen to Bob Saget's stand-up I felt sick. But he was the face of their Wholesome Sitcom Dads for years.)

It's one thing if a person actually does something to another person or group of people (like harassment or creating a hostile work environment). Or if the person continues their bad/family unfriendly behavior while working for the Mouse.

But if that's not the case, and Disney knew full well what sort of work and jokes the person had done in the past and still hired them...then claiming that they're "protecting their brand" is just...disingenuous at best.

Which means like most stories like this there is more information than we are being told .

 

[rowrbazzle]

...Because this wasn't done in good faith, and the folks who started it already have two more Disney talents in their sights, one of whom is the star of a biiiiiig new movie coming out later this year. If Disney lets this stand, they open themselves up to losing a lot of talent (and as a consequence, properties) to personal vendettas rather than actual bad behavior in the near future.

I think the reason why the tweets were unearthed is ultimately beside the point in Gunn's case (at least to me). Disney isn't responding to the anger of those individuals, but the perception of the public at large. Had it been a genuinely concerned citizen, I expect the result would've been the same. It was still his words that got him fired. Disney wasn't being blackmailed. Still, your larger point about a precedent is well-taken. This could be a problem going forward.

...But if that's not the case, and Disney knew full well what sort of work and jokes the person had done in the past and still hired them...then claiming that they're "protecting their brand" is just...disingenuous at best.

They're protecting their brand now that it's apparently threatened, which was the result of the widespread public knowledge. That Disney was apparently unconcerned before is most certainly weak sauce on their part, though.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I feel like this thread has now devolved into Facebook with the links (which the most recent one contains profanity as well as appears to be an opinion piece mostly and the prior one is an extreme website on the political field)...can we not go into that type of rabbit hole please?

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Providing links to online material is fine, but PLEASE be aware that the content of the links is still subject to DIS Guidelines regarding profanity and political discussion among others.

Several posts have been removed for this reason. If you wish to direct posters to other sites by posting links, you will be held responsible for the content in the link.

Post links at your own risk.

 

[Truxi]

I think the reason why the tweets were unearthed is ultimately beside the point in Gunn's case (at least to me)....Still, your larger point about a precedent is well-taken. This could be a problem going forward.
They're protecting their brand now that it's apparently threatened, which was the result of the widespread public knowledge. That Disney was apparently unconcerned before is most certainly weak sauce on their part, though.

I guess that's why I really think they need to reconsider. Because this might be short-term "protecting their brand" (from a largely underwhelming public pressure in response to Gunn? Like, Disney saw more flak over giving characters two moms, really), but in the long run it opens them up to way more problems, and to becoming a political battle ground, which they emphatically do not want to be.

Which is why I feel like the reason the tweets were unearthed is pretty relevant to the whole thing. Because almost every comedian who was active in the early aughts or before has at least one public statement that would be bad for their brand.

(And I mean, while I wouldn't cry if Family Guy finally ended, there's that to consider--they just bought the rights to a lot, if not all, of Seth MacFarlane's work. There has absolutely been worse in Family Guy, but I don't imagine they're likely to blacklist him and kill what is, if not a golden goose exactly, still a pretty consistent layer of profitable eggs. With their acquisition of so many more adult properties right now, they're really just putting themselves in a more vulnerable position by setting a precedent for an absolute zero-tolerance-regardless-of-current-changes-or-disavowment)

 

[SteveDude]

Which is why I feel like the reason the tweets were unearthed is pretty relevant to the whole thing. Because almost every comedian who was active in the early aughts or before has at least one public statement that would be bad for their brand.

Chris Pratt is very publicly known to have made some ridiculously lewd remarks on the show Parks and Recreation, although mostly in the show's outtakes (but they're all over the internet/social media). Has Disney seen these? I hope not, we can't make another Guardians without Star Lord, right?