Movies James Gunn sacked from GotG 3, Disney severs ties due to previous "offensive material"

[Mercury33]

Also it wasn’t funny. 

[misfit410]

On 8/10/2018 at 8:05 AM, SaysWho? said:

I hope he gets rehired just to piss off the people who got him fired.

 

I hope he gets hired back just so that we can all stop trying to have people fired for jokes they make no matter how offensive they are.

[skillzdadirecta]

21 minutes ago, misfit410 said:

 

I hope he gets hired back just so that we can all stop trying to have people fired for jokes they make no matter how offensive they are.

 

Let's rehire Roseanne too while we're at it.

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Let's rehire Roseanne too while we're at it.

 

To be fair, I don't think Roseanne was joking, and her all over the map rebuttals, defenses, and apologies shows that her and Gunn are not analogous situations at all. 

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

To be fair, I don't think Roseanne was joking, and her all over the map rebuttals, defenses, and apologies shows that her and Gunn are not analogous situations at all. 

 

They aren't... Roseanne is an actual comedian.

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

They aren't... Roseanne is an actual comedian.

 

That's a false equivalency in this instance though. What they do has little bearing on the context of what is being discussed here, Gunn's tweets vs. Roseanne's. Intent and meaning behind the tweets determines the efficacy, not each person's overall profession.

 

A non-comedian making a joking tweet and a comedian making  a non-joking tweet isn't what matters. What matters is that in one context clearly it was off-color and bad but ultimately bad jokes, the other is a racist comment directed at a specific individual. Intent and meaning are what absolves Gunn and doesn't absolve Roseanne. Also aggregate evidence of everything following since then indicates the moral character of each individual enough to safely indict one person (Roseanne) and arguably exonerate another (Gunn). 

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That's a false equivalency in this instance though. What they do has little bearing on the context of what is being discussed here, Gunn's tweets vs. Roseanne's. Intent and meaning behind the tweets determines the efficacy, not each person's overall profession.

 

A non-comedian making a joking tweet and a comedian making  a non-joking tweet isn't what matters. What matters is that in one context clearly it was off-color and bad but ultimately bad jokes, the other is a racist comment directed at a specific individual. 

 

Okay so Roseanne's offense was worse because it was directed at a specific individual? I remember when Sam Bee directed a misogynistic comment at a specific individual not even a WEEK after Roseanne's gaffe and a lot of you defended her as well. The false equivalency seems to be based on whether  "If I like the person who does the offensive thing, I will defend them until my dying breath" 

 

[Jason]

No, it's a false equivalency because there's plenty of evidence that Roseanne is not, in fact, joking when she makes racist comments, yet Disney hired her knowing full well she was likely to be unable to control herself.

 

Roseanne Barr compared Susan Rice, another black Obama official, to an ape in 2013

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

No, it's a false equivalency because there's plenty of evidence that Roseanne is not, in fact, joking when she makes racist comments, yet Disney hired her knowing full well she was likely to be unable to control herself.

 

Roseanne Barr compared Susan Rice, another black Obama official, to an ape in 2013

 

Yeah and Sam Bee wasn't joking when she called Ivanka a cunt... didn't stop a number of you guys from defending that though.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Yeah and Sam Bee wasn't joking when she called Ivanka a cunt... didn't stop a number of you guys from defending that though.

 

Because a lot of the reactions amounted to "wait, I thought women are allowed to call other women cunts and that it's only considered off-limits for men?"

[Reputator]

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Okay so Roseanne's offense was worse because it was directed at a specific individual? I remember when Sam Bee directed a misogynistic comment at a specific individual not even a WEEK after Roseanne's gaffe and a lot of you defended her as well. The false equivalency seems to be based on whether  "If I like the person who does the offensive thing, I will defend them until my dying breath" 

 

 

We've already established you don't make remarks, joking or not, about races or ethnicities. That's crossing the line.

[Keyser_Soze]

9 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

The clip is not a joke about pedophilia, and certainly not a joke about being a pedophile.

 

So the North American Man Boy Love Association is not a group of pedophiles and this wasn't a joke about being one?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

So the North American Man Boy Love Association is not a group of pedophiles and this wasn't a joke about being one?

 

The joke is not about NAMBLA or about being a pedophile. 

 

Do you even comedy bro?

[Keyser_Soze]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Do you even comedy bro?

 

Do you?

 

The joke is they (NAMBLA) ran an ad to deflect from the fact they are pedos.

[Jason]

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Do you?

 

The joke is they (NAMBLA) ran an ad to deflect from the fact they are pedos.

 

That’s not the joke.

[ALIEN-gunner]

Speaking of jokes, I heard one just recently..."James Gunn's favorite part of Halloween: Free Delivery."

 

Funny or not that's just what's going on now after this craziness. I don't hate the man and I think he should have every right to keep making movies. But the thing is he's not going to work for Disney again because his "humor" clashes with Disney's family friendly values and so they had every right to fire him. 

 

[ALIEN-gunner]

15 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

It's important to differentiate what he said from what he did.

 

Did / Does he molest children?

 

If yes: Be mad and never forgive him.

If no: He's worth being forgiven.

 

I posted this video before but no one said anything. Pedophilia is never funny, so is this video funny?

 

 

Perhaps you didn't like it but is it a well told joke or a poorly told joke?

Maybe some would find it humorous while others would be offended.

If you didn't like it should we lock up David Cross and throw away the key?

 

Eh, that video was kinda funny I guess but it doesn't fit. It's a joke about how absolutely terrible and disgusting NAMBLA is for molesting young boys but at least they aren't killers. James Gunn's "jokes" were about how he thought molesting kids was a swell idea. 

[misfit410]

15 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

They aren't... Roseanne is an actual comedian.

 

Roseanne did it and was fired for doing it, much different than doing it 10 years ago and someone digging it up,  And there is also a distinguishable line between making a racial joke and directly insulting someone racially.   

[Greatoneshere]

16 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Okay so Roseanne's offense was worse because it was directed at a specific individual? I remember when Sam Bee directed a misogynistic comment at a specific individual not even a WEEK after Roseanne's gaffe and a lot of you defended her as well. The false equivalency seems to be based on whether  "If I like the person who does the offensive thing, I will defend them until my dying breath" 

 

 

I don't think you understood the substance of my post at all. What Roseanne did and what Gunn did are different. They are. In terms of intent and meaning (as well as timeline and their actions since then) they are entirely different examples and cannot be equated to one another.

 

But you focused on the fact that I'm also distinguishing that James Gunn is just making some broad, bad, lazy jokes and Roseanne is directly attacking a specific person racially. That also makes them different, but let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The broader point is in their intent, meaning, and efficacy, Gunn's situation and Roseanne's situation are hardly alike.

 

Roseanne and Sam Bee are nothing alike either, given Sam Bee is a comedian doing political speech on her show when she said "cunt" about a public, political figure and Roseanne was racially attacking someone on Twitter, not in her capacity as a comedian on her show Roseanne. Yes, those are also different from one another. And even their shows, Roseanne and Sam Bee's show, are nothing alike, so even if Roseanne did it on her show they'd still be different scenarios.

 

Speech is so unique that almost every situation is not comparable to another situation. Sometimes, sure, but not here. 

[Keyser_Soze]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't think you understood the substance of my post at all. What Roseanne did and what Gunn did are different. They are. In terms of intent and meaning (as well as timeline and their actions since then) they are entirely different examples and cannot be equated to one another.

 

But you focused on the fact that I'm also distinguishing that James Gunn is just making some broad, bad, lazy jokes and Roseanne is directly attacking a specific person racially. That also makes them different, but let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The broader point is in their intent, meaning, and efficacy, Gunn's situation and Roseanne's situation are hardly alike.

  

Roseanne and Sam Bee are nothing alike either, given Sam Bee is a comedian doing political speech on her show when she said "cunt" about a public, political figure and Roseanne was racially attacking someone on Twitter, not in her capacity as a comedian on her show Roseanne. Yes, those are also different from one another. And even their shows, Roseanne and Sam Bee's show, are nothing alike, so even if Roseanne did it on her show they'd still be different scenarios.

 

Speech is so unique that almost every situation is not comparable to another situation. Sometimes, sure, but not here. 

 

[MarSolo]

Don’t argue with a Philadelphian.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't think you understood the substance of my post at all. What Roseanne did and what Gunn did are different. They are. In terms of intent and meaning (as well as timeline and their actions since then) they are entirely different examples and cannot be equated to one another.

 

But you focused on the fact that I'm also distinguishing that James Gunn is just making some broad, bad, lazy jokes and Roseanne is directly attacking a specific person racially. That also makes them different, but let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The broader point is in their intent, meaning, and efficacy, Gunn's situation and Roseanne's situation are hardly alike.

 

Roseanne and Sam Bee are nothing alike either, given Sam Bee is a comedian doing political speech on her show when she said "cunt" about a public, political figure and Roseanne was racially attacking someone on Twitter, not in her capacity as a comedian on her show Roseanne. Yes, those are also different from one another. And even their shows, Roseanne and Sam Bee's show, are nothing alike, so even if Roseanne did it on her show they'd still be different scenarios.

 

Speech is so unique that almost every situation is not comparable to another situation. Sometimes, sure, but not here. 

 

*Translation: "I like Sam Bee and James Gunn so what they do is okay, but Roseanne and any Republican who does something similar can go right to hell".

 

It's cool... I've seen this before, I remember calling Bill Maher out on this board a while back for his racist bullshit (long before his N-word gaffe and before Ice Cube took him to task) and I was shouted down be well meaning posters on this board too. What you guys fail to realize is that all of the clever rationalizations and differentiations that you come up with to defend the bad behavior of your favs, the "other side" does the same thing and the feel just as justified and righteous as YOU do. I try to be consistent in calling out bullshit when I see it. The funny thing is, as I've said I don't know Gunn and have never met him but I know guys who do and while they defend him, they have also said that there's even MORE problematic shit that he has said and done out there that hasn't gone public yet. But yeah, keep defending one joke over another... A lot of the arguments you guys are making to defend Sam Bee are the same ones folks use to defend Roseanne. I've even heard some of these same arguments used to defend TRUMP. 

 

So in summation, what we've learned is that on Dayonepatch, Jokes and insults about race? BAD  (except when they are made by someone we like on The Left)... Jokes about child rape and insults based on gender? O-TAY!

Got it.

[Greatoneshere]

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

*Translation: "I like Sam Bee and James Gunn so what they do is okay, but Roseanne and any Republican who does something similar can go right to hell".

 

It's cool... I've seen this before, I remember calling Bill Maher out on this board a while back for his racist bullshit (long before his N-word gaffe and before Ice Cube took him to task) and I was shouted down be well meaning posters on this board too. What you guys fail to realize is that all of the clever rationalizations and differentiations that you come up with to defend the bad behavior of your favs, the "other side" does the same thing and the feel just as justified and righteous as YOU do. I try to be consistent in calling out bullshit when I see it. The funny thing is, as I've said I don't know Gunn and have never met him but I know guys who do and while they defend him, they have also said that there's even MORE problematic shit that he has said and done out there that hasn't gone public yet. But yeah, keep defending one joke over another... A lot of the arguments you guys are making to defend Sam Bee are the same ones folks use to defend Roseanne. I've even heard some of these same arguments used to defend TRUMP. 

 

So in summation, what we've learned is that on Dayonepatch, Jokes and insults about race? BAD   Jokes about child rape and insults based on gender? O-TAY!

Got it.

 

But I didn't say I approve of what James Gunn or Samantha Bee did. There's no "rationalizing" on my part here. They aren't analogous situations. They all may be on the same spectrum or sliding scale, but they are far enough apart from one another to not be exactly analogous to one another, that's all I'm saying.

 

I wasn't making my personal stance on Gunn, Bee, or Roseanne part of the argument. I'm saying you said because what I said about Gunn, then I must be implicitly agreeing to what Roseanne did too then. That's simply not true, given I believe they are entirely different free speech situations, which they are. How is a person on Twitter insulting a specific individual with a racial epithet the same as a bunch of bad jokes from years ago making fun of things Gunn himself very obviously doesn't do and doesn't believe in? Are they both reprehensible? Sure. To the same degree? No, not at all, thus: different situations. They aren't the same situation, so they do not inspire the same response.

 

Free speech laws in this country are very, very context-based, and that's because few free speech situations are exactly the same. Stop trying to tell me I'm making an argument I simply am not making. I've said from the start that Gunn's jokes have always been (arguably, mind you), bad form. Sam Bee and Roseanne are also different situations. 

 

For emphasis: never said Gunn's "jokes" and blog posts and weird costume parties are totally okay! And that Roseanne is the devil. Stop working in binary absolutes given that we're dealing with a spectrum, not a black and white issue. If someone "on the left" said and did, in a vacuum, exactly the same thing Roseanne did, I'd have been all over it as I was the Roseanne Barr situation (which was: I didn't care much, but it was obviously bad and racist). But that isn't the case here, so the response is different from me. 

[skillzdadirecta]

16 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

We've already established you don't make remarks, joking or not, about races or ethnicities. That's crossing the line.

"Unless someone we like does it. THEN,  it's Comedy".

[Greatoneshere]

39 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

"Unless someone we like does it. THEN,  it's Comedy".

 

If this is directed at me specifically, I think you're truly missing what I'm saying then, perhaps blinded by the issue, I don't know. Because I certainly don't feel what you're saying. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

If this is directed at me specifically, I think you're truly missing what I'm saying then, perhaps blinded by the issue, I don't know. Because I certainly don't feel what you're saying. 

It's not directed at you specifically... relax.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

It's not directed at you specifically... relax.

 

I was genuinely just checking since you posted that directly under my post in this thread was all.  

[skillzdadirecta]

Na it was more of a... general jab

[Reputator]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

"Unless someone we like does it. THEN,  it's Comedy".

 

I do think Gunn garners some forgiveness based on the content of his character. And I...actually think that's appropriate.

[ALIEN-gunner]

That is as they say is that. James Gunn is not coming back. https://variety.com/2018/film/news/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-disney-firing-1202907016/ 

[skillzdadirecta]

11 hours ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

That is as they say is that. James Gunn is not coming back. https://variety.com/2018/film/news/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-disney-firing-1202907016/ 

Not surprising given there's more than likely more shit out there that can be used against him. Shame. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

So this HUGE James Gunn defender on my FB apparently just found out about the pedo dress up pics. That's where he draws the line and he's changed his tune. Now, it's James Gunn is a terrible person and he should never work again. Early this morning he was still on the "fuck Disney" train, calling for a boycott of  the movie and hoping it tanks. 

 

He's been defending Gunn for weeks, but now he's decided he can't anymore. 

 

I guess I just don't get where the line is drawn. "Jokes" about having children molest you are okay and deserve forgiveness, but dressing up as a pedo at a theme party isn't? Hmmm, okay.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Not surprising given there's more than likely more shit out there that can be used against him. Shame. 

 

That’s my guess too. Alan Horn is the best executive in Hollywood, the notion that he was tricked into canning Gunn is silly. They quite likely found out or maybe even knew already there were more shoes to drop and don’t want to be caught flat footed. Best to just move on now. They are quite right to say Horn was just extending a professional courtesy by bringing Gunn in for a chat.

[Brick]

That Variety article has no sourcing and sounds like all speculation. If it is true though shame on Alan Horn for capitulating to Nazis trying to get Gunn fired because he's outspoken against Trump.