Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skillzdadirecta

Movies Guardians Of The Galaxy Three Moving Ahead

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

But the cosmic side of the MCU was introduced in the Thor movies and was expanded upon in Guardians and Dr. Strange. Capt. Marvel looks to expand it even more... Gunn didn't have a hand on all these films?

 

It's not like they didn't know what was going on with GotG when they made those decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brick said:

 

Just things I've heard from other outlets, that after Guardians he was going to help shepherd more cosmic stuff for the MCU as a producer. 

 

I might have read some of the same stuff but I took it as speculation unless you read something I didn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mercury33 said:

I really don’t see why they wouldn’t use his script nor do I find it hypocritical. If you fire someone from your company for inappropriate behavior you don’t then go and throw out all their work.

 

How do you not find firing a person over their objectional content hypocritical when you then use their content? At least don't be intentionally dense over the issue, even if you disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

How do you not find firing a person over their objectional content hypocritical when you then use their content? At least don't be intentionally dense over the issue, even if you disagree. 

 

Lol intentially dense? Was he fired for something he put into a Guardians movie or something he wanted to put into the next movie? No, it was something entirely different. There was no objection to the work he was currently doing on that project. Therefore there’s no reason not to use it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I’m sure you’ve already seen more than you realize. 

 

Nope I've seen 100% non pedo movies including The Ninth Gate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

How do you not find firing a person over their objectional content hypocritical when you then use their content? At least don't be intentionally dense over the issue, even if you disagree. 

 

Why would it? They already paid him for a script and have that in hand. What Disney chose not to do was pay him again for directing.

 

Like, if I hired a guy to paint my house, he chose a bunch of colors I loved, and then I found out he's an asshole. It's perfectly cool and not at all hypocritical, if I fire him and get someone else to paint everything with the colors he chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Like, if I hired a guy to paint my house, he chose a bunch of colors I loved, and then I found out he's an asshole. It's perfectly cool and not at all hypocritical, if I fire him and get someone else to paint everything with the colors he chose.

 

Paint color doesn't reflect words and ideas of someone who got fired because of something else that he wrote.

 

Your analogy is closer to: I got a guy to paint my house and loved the paint he mixed but later found out he tweeted he puts human blood in the paint he uses so I fired the guy but then still used the paint he mixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Paint color doesn't reflect words and ideas of someone who got fired because of something else that he wrote.

 

Your analogy is closer to: I got a guy to paint my house and loved the paint he mixed but later found out he tweeted he puts human blood in the paint he uses so I fired the guy but then still used the paint he mixed.

 

No, that doesn't make sense, because Disney has read his script and already knows he hadn't put any if that questionable content in it. They just don't want to give him any more money.

 

Fine, the painter had a habit of putting blood in the mix. I fire him and, after checking, saw that he didn't taint any of the paint he was planning to put up in my house. Still a pretty shitty thing to do to past customers, so he can stay fired because I so don't want to give him any new money. Like, maybe if he went back and apologized to previous customers and offered to redo their walls, maybe, but in this case, he didn't even take down his old tweets bragging about it. Me firing him got him to finally take them down, but I'm not hiring him again for the minimal effort it took to do something he would have done years ago.

 

Mister 50-something painter man. You don't really get to play off being some edgy fine arts major in your 40s. It's a bad look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Paint color doesn't reflect words and ideas of someone who got fired because of something else that he wrote.

 

Your analogy is closer to: I got a guy to paint my house and loved the paint he mixed but later found out he tweeted he puts human blood in the paint he uses so I fired the guy but then still used the paint he mixed.

 

No, no it isn’t at all like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

 

No, no it isn’t at all like that. 

 

It is. Luckily the person I was having a discussion with found middle ground between analogies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

later found out he tweeted he puts human blood in the paint he uses so I fired the guy but then still used the paint he mixed.

But no one would really fire over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Why would it? They already paid him for a script and have that in hand. What Disney chose not to do was pay him again for directing.

 

Like, if I hired a guy to paint my house, he chose a bunch of colors I loved, and then I found out he's an asshole. It's perfectly cool and not at all hypocritical, if I fire him and get someone else to paint everything with the colors he chose.

 

So if his current script is not objectionable, then why would his current directing be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

So if his current script is not objectionable, then why would his current directing be?

 

As I said, because his prior actions were reprehensible enough that Disney doesn't want to give him a job and more money. He already got their money for the script, so that's just water under the bridge. By cutting off the relationship, they're just not giving him new money.

 

Like, I work in IT. If my boss find out I was living under a fake name because of some crimes I was on the run from, he'll fire me. However, why the hell would he rip out all the work is previously done. Sure, maybe spend money on a lengthy audit, but throwing away work ALREADY paid for? That would be just silly and willing to keep that work done isn't at all at odds with the firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

So if his current script is not objectionable, then why would his current directing be?

He wasn’t fired because of his work, he was fired because he is a liability in the age of outrage culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

As I said, because his prior actions were reprehensible enough that Disney doesn't want to give him a job and more money. He already got their money for the script, so that's just water under the bridge. By cutting off the relationship, they're just not giving him new money.

 

Like, I work in IT. If my boss find out I was living under a fake name because of some crimes I was on the run from, he'll fire me. However, why the hell would he rip out all the work is previously done. Sure, maybe spend money on a lengthy audit, but throwing away work ALREADY paid for? That would be just silly and willing to keep that work done isn't at all at odds with the firing.

 

But they knew about the objectionable content since they first hired him. if they didn't want to give him money due to past objectionable content, why did they wait until now if they really cared? Many people, myself included, were aware of his past objectionable content long before Disney initially hired him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

He wasn’t fired because of his work, he was fired because he is a liability in the age of outrage culture.

 

Right - so won't outrage culture be pissed at using his script? And if they are willing to take on that outrage anyway, then why not let him also direct? I mean, Bryan Singer is embroiled in much worse controversies yet Bohemian Rhapsody is cleaning up awards. It's good they're using his script, but it is hypocritical is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Right - so won't outrage culture be pissed at using his script? And if they are willing to take on that outrage anyway, then why not let him also direct? I mean, Bryan Singer is embroiled in much worse controversies yet Bohemian Rhapsody is cleaning up awards. It's good they're using his script, but it is hypocritical is all I'm saying.

I don’t think using his script, that was turned in before the tweets became public knowledge, as the basis for the eventual shooting script carries remotely the level of liability as putting him in the director’s chair. I think one of the pieces you’re missing is he was fired right as they were gearing up for production. He may not even be the credited writer on the script by the time the movie hits the screen.

 

As to Bohemian Rhapsody...they fired Singer in the middle of production but didn’t throw out everything they had already paid for :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sblfilms said:

I don’t think using his script, that was turned in before the tweets became public knowledge, as the basis for the eventual shooting script carries remotely the level of liability as putting him in the director’s chair. I think one of the pieces you’re missing is he was fired right as they were gearing up for production. He may not even be the credited writer on the script by the time the movie hits the screen.

 

As to Bohemian Rhapsody...they fired Singer in the middle of production but didn’t throw out everything they had already paid for :p

 

You may be right in terms of crediting him once the film is finished, but the tweets were public knowledge long before Gunn was even hired by Disney in the first place, so that bit confuses me.

 

And Singer was fired 2-3 weeks before the end of shooting, which isn't per se the middle of production, and he's still solely credited as the director on the film (no credit to replacement director Dexter Fletcher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people know who directs these films and even less know who writes them. They'll use his script,  credit a couple of other writers who add a line or two and be done with it. I still don't see how using something you paid for is hypocritical unless they were using a script that featured all the crude pedo-humor he got fired for as entertainment themselves. THAT would be hypocritical.

 

On another note, I find the outrage at Gunn's firing as a result of similar outrage to be... ironic. "Outrage culture" has become a self eating snake :lol:

 

I'm not gonna even GET into the fact that folks are overly concerned with a multi millionaire filmmaker losing his job, only to go on to make millions MORE dollars ar orher studios is also a bit... silly but what do I know? Maybe when I finally grow up I'll understand :thinking::mthinking::hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You may be right in terms of crediting him once the film is finished, but the tweets were public knowledge long before Gunn was even hired by Disney in the first place, so that bit confuses me.

 

And Singer was fired 2-3 weeks before the end of shooting, which isn't per se the middle of production, and he's still solely credited as the director on the film (no credit to replacement director Dexter Fletcher).

 

No, they really weren’t. Just because they were public, doesn’t make them public knowledge. How many of them had YOU read before the news stories about them came out? How many of the articles from his website had YOU read before the news stories came out? And you are far more likely to have seen this stuff than the average person.

 

Come on man, you know what “In the middle” means! If I say a player got ejected in the middle of the game, it doesn’t mean near the mid point of the game. 

 

Credits are decided by the individual guilds, not the studios. They would have deleted his name if they could :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

No, they really weren’t. Just because they were public, doesn’t make them public knowledge. How many of them had YOU read before the news stories about them came out? How many of the articles from his website had YOU read before the news stories came out? And you are far more likely to have seen this stuff than the average person.

 

Come on man, you know what “In the middle” means! If I say a player got ejected in the middle of the game, it doesn’t mean near the mid point of the game. 

 

Credits are decided by the individual guilds, not the studios. They would have deleted his name if they could :p

 

Haha, I was just clearing the air for those who might have thought "mid-production" meant literally mid-production.

 

And I agree I know more than the average person, but Disney is a giant corporation who vets their hires, so they would/should know even if the average person wouldn't know. There's no way Disney "stumbled" on it after the fact. Now, you're saying they only care it became public knowledge vs. the fact the tweets existed. That's likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disney does vet the shit out of their hires putting folks through strenuous background checks Yes. (I just went through one) but I don't think they check social media but for high profile hires like Gunn, maybe they do. In any case I doubt very much that Disney didn't know about these tweets. They just didn't care until it became a potential problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think crucially important is that when James Gunn got hired to do GOTG, we weren’t living in the time of scouting through people’s social media accounts to dig up all the stupid, racist, sexist, <choose your own ist> stuff a person ever said to beat them up.

 

We now exist in a time where people are digging up tweets of then 14 or 15 year olds high school kids calling each other fags to hurt their draft prospects for pro sports.

 

Things have changed since the beginning of this decade and I bet Disney does factor in potential social media scouring into their hiring process now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Somebody do a well person check on @Brick, he is likely very dehydrated.

Kid needs Gatorade immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

This post aged poorly.

 

37-2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...