|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 25, 2018 3:20:48 GMT
Disney's stance on why they fired James Gunn was this: "The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible…. [They are] inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.”
That got me wondering, how many Disney movies do you know of that should also be "inconsistent with Disney studio values" as they are preaching it in today's world?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 25, 2018 4:46:12 GMT
Quite a few of their animated shorts and features from the 1930's to the 1950's such as Dumbo had very stereotypical characterizations that are now viewed as very negative depictions in today's culture. Tim Burton's remake of Dumbo will not feature the crows from the original, in fact there will be NO talking animals in the picture at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 6:20:57 GMT
The Little Mermaid has a glaring lack of squids in the cast. Disney execs are well known anti-squidites.
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Jul 25, 2018 8:43:05 GMT
I've seen this argument and doesn't really hold up since the cultural climate in society was different when those movies were released. James Gunn posted about things that have no real constraint in time.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 25, 2018 12:17:43 GMT
At the end of the day, when you make billions by marketing to children, you can't have the face of one of your subdivisions known for being the guy who says 'he likes it when children touch him in his silly place.' It doesn't matter that it was a joke, it doesn't matter that it was ten years ago or whatever. He made the comments in a public venue and it's a bad look for the company, it's that simple. Disney's statement about their company's values is just PR bullshit, it was all about their bottom line. You'd fire him too if you were his employer.
Again, to be clear: James Gunn was not fired because he made offensive comments. He was fired because those comments had the potential to cost the company millions. It was a completely reasonable response. I've also heard comparisons to Gunn's treatment by Disney as compared to John Lasseter. It's a fair complaint, but it only really shows that Lasseter should've been given the hard boot as well, not that Gunn deserved better.
Look, it sucks. James Gunn has a twisted sense of humor and I personally don't hold it against him. Those jokes didn't bother me, I just thought they were weird. They were years old, it's true. But the second they became a controversial talking point for America, he could not be associated with family entertainment anymore. Everyone deserves a second chance and Gunn better get one, it's just going to take some time.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 25, 2018 12:43:49 GMT
At the end of the day, when you make billions by marketing to children, you can't have the face of one of your subdivisions known for being the guy who says 'he likes it when children touch him in his silly place.' It doesn't matter that it was a joke, it doesn't matter that it was ten years ago or whatever. He made the comments in a public venue and it's a bad look for the company, it's that simple. Disney's statement about their company's values is just PR bullshit, it was all about their bottom line. You'd fire him too if you were his employer. Again, to be clear: James Gunn was not fired because he made offensive comments. He was fired because those comments had the potential to cost the company millions. It was a completely reasonable response. I've also heard comparisons to Gunn's treatment by Disney as compared to John Lasseter. It's a fair complaint, but it only really shows that Lasseter should've been given the hard boot as well, not that Gunn deserved better. Look, it sucks. James Gunn has a twisted sense of humor and I personally don't hold it against him. Those jokes didn't bother me, I just thought they were weird. They were years old, it's true. But the second they became a controversial talking point for America, he could not be associated with family entertainment anymore. Everyone deserves a second chance and Gunn better get one, it's just going to take some time. Except he never made those jokes while employed with Disney. They were done in his past, same way Disney has some questionable messages embedded in their movies in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 25, 2018 13:06:37 GMT
At the end of the day, when you make billions by marketing to children, you can't have the face of one of your subdivisions known for being the guy who says 'he likes it when children touch him in his silly place.' It doesn't matter that it was a joke, it doesn't matter that it was ten years ago or whatever. He made the comments in a public venue and it's a bad look for the company, it's that simple. Disney's statement about their company's values is just PR bullshit, it was all about their bottom line. You'd fire him too if you were his employer. Again, to be clear: James Gunn was not fired because he made offensive comments. He was fired because those comments had the potential to cost the company millions. It was a completely reasonable response. I've also heard comparisons to Gunn's treatment by Disney as compared to John Lasseter. It's a fair complaint, but it only really shows that Lasseter should've been given the hard boot as well, not that Gunn deserved better. Look, it sucks. James Gunn has a twisted sense of humor and I personally don't hold it against him. Those jokes didn't bother me, I just thought they were weird. They were years old, it's true. But the second they became a controversial talking point for America, he could not be associated with family entertainment anymore. Everyone deserves a second chance and Gunn better get one, it's just going to take some time. Except he never made those jokes while employed with Disney. They were done in his past, same way Disney has some questionable messages embedded in their movies in the past. That doesn't matter. He was an adult, he was in control of his actions. Even if they knew about the tweets and hired him anyway, they have a right to fire the guy if his past actions reflect poorly on the company. What if he actually admitted to a rape that happened ten years ago instead of joking about it? Would he get a pass because it was before Guardians was made? And I'm not comparing the two, I'm proving there is no statute of limitations for unsavory behavior in the court of public opinion. No matter how long ago it happened, it's still on public record. It's still a bad look for the company, which is why they had to part with him at least temporarily. Maybe they'll work with him on some redemptive PR project in the future and rehire him, but they had to let him go at least temporarily. That's how it works. Questionable messages? I think the crows in Dumbo (1941) are beyond questionable. Disney would surely fire the writers today. How does that change the Gunn situation? If you're trying to prove they're hypocrites, I agree 100%. I still understand the Gunn firing from a business standpoint, if not the moral one they're using as an excuse. Like I said, Gunn isn't the first celeb to go through a public shaming and then make a comeback. There's a process involved, and I don't think we've seen the last of him-- particularly since he's clearly so beloved by his colleagues.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 25, 2018 13:26:22 GMT
Except he never made those jokes while employed with Disney. They were done in his past, same way Disney has some questionable messages embedded in their movies in the past. That doesn't matter. He was an adult, he was in control of his actions. Even if they knew about the tweets and hired him anyway, they have a right to fire the guy if his past actions reflect poorly on the company. What if he actually admitted to a rape that happened ten years ago instead of joking about it? Would he get a pass because it was before Guardians was made? And I'm not comparing the two, I'm proving there is no statute of limitations for unsavory behavior in the court of public opinion. No matter how long ago it happened, it's still on public record. It's still a bad look for the company, which is why they had to part with him at least temporarily. Maybe they'll work with him on some redemptive PR project in the future and rehire him, but they had to let him go at least temporarily. That's how it works. Questionable messages? I think the crows in Dumbo (1941) are beyond questionable. Disney would surely fire the writers today. How does that change the Gunn situation? If you're trying to prove they're hypocrites, I agree 100%. I still understand the Gunn firing from a business standpoint, if not the moral one they're using as an excuse. Like I said, Gunn isn't the first celeb to go through a public shaming and then make a comeback. There's a process involved, and I don't think we've seen the last of him-- particularly since he's clearly so beloved by his colleagues. There's a HUGE difference between past crime and past jokes. One is punishable by law, the other isn't. Surely you can't be implying that making pedo jokes carries the same weight as actually admitting to be a rapist?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 25, 2018 13:29:20 GMT
Wasn't it rumoured that Walt Disney sided with the Nazi's?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 25, 2018 13:52:09 GMT
I've seen this argument and doesn't really hold up since the cultural climate in society was different when those movies were released. James Gunn posted about things that have no real constraint in time. As did Brett Easton Ellis and he's still being published... Had Patrick Bateman made his debut on Twitter talking about the literal vaginas he carried in his gym bag, we not have gotten American Psycho.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 25, 2018 14:15:46 GMT
That doesn't matter. He was an adult, he was in control of his actions. Even if they knew about the tweets and hired him anyway, they have a right to fire the guy if his past actions reflect poorly on the company. What if he actually admitted to a rape that happened ten years ago instead of joking about it? Would he get a pass because it was before Guardians was made? And I'm not comparing the two, I'm proving there is no statute of limitations for unsavory behavior in the court of public opinion. No matter how long ago it happened, it's still on public record. It's still a bad look for the company, which is why they had to part with him at least temporarily. Maybe they'll work with him on some redemptive PR project in the future and rehire him, but they had to let him go at least temporarily. That's how it works. Questionable messages? I think the crows in Dumbo (1941) are beyond questionable. Disney would surely fire the writers today. How does that change the Gunn situation? If you're trying to prove they're hypocrites, I agree 100%. I still understand the Gunn firing from a business standpoint, if not the moral one they're using as an excuse. Like I said, Gunn isn't the first celeb to go through a public shaming and then make a comeback. There's a process involved, and I don't think we've seen the last of him-- particularly since he's clearly so beloved by his colleagues. There's a HUGE difference between past crime and past jokes. One is punishable by law, the other isn't. Surely you can't be implying that making pedo jokes carries the same weight as actually admitting to be a rapist? See the bolded part of my quote above. I already said I'm not comparing the two. The fact that it happened before he worked at Disney is irrelevant. It's making Disney look bad now. And making off color jokes is not as bad as committing an actual crime but it's still a fireable offense, particularly in today's climate. What's wild to me is how nobody would be coming to Gunn's defense if he wasn't who he is. If the situation were identical and it was Zack Snyder who made these comments this board would be laughing its ass off and saying he deserved whatever he got. I'll say it again for the 50th time. I am not offended in the least by anything Gunn said in those tweets. A sick sense of humor doesn't scare me. But corporations will cut bait on commodities when they become problematic. The controversy makes Gunn look bad, and thus makes Disney look bad as long as he's running Marvel Cosmic. They can't do nothing and they aren't going to be known for defending rape and pedo jokes when their entire brand targets children and families. It sucks that it happened, it sucks that Disney isn't consistent with their handling of these things, and it sucks that an alt right nutjob is behind it all. But this is where we are, and Gunn had to be let go for business reasons.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 25, 2018 20:32:29 GMT
The Little Mermaid has a glaring lack of squids in the cast. Disney execs are well known anti-squidi tes . good one! LMAO!
AND... you're... BLUE! HAH HA HAH! You're blue! HA hah HAH HA!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 25, 2018 20:36:44 GMT
There's a HUGE difference between past crime and past jokes. One is punishable by law, the other isn't. Surely you can't be implying that making pedo jokes carries the same weight as actually admitting to be a rapist? See the bolded part of my quote above. I already said I'm not comparing the two. The fact that it happened before he worked at Disney is irrelevant. It's making Disney look bad now. And making off color jokes is not as bad as committing an actual crime but it's still a fireable offense, particularly in today's climate. What's wild to me is how nobody would be coming to Gunn's defense if he wasn't who he is. If the situation were identical and it was Zack Snyder who made these comments this board would be laughing its ass off and saying he deserved whatever he got. I'll say it again for the 50th time. I am not offended in the least by anything Gunn said in those tweets. A sick sense of humor doesn't scare me. But corporations will cut bait on commodities when they become problematic. The controversy makes Gunn look bad, and thus makes Disney look bad as long as he's running Marvel Cosmic. They can't do nothing and they aren't going to be known for defending rape and pedo jokes when their entire brand targets children and families. It sucks that it happened, it sucks that Disney isn't consistent with their handling of these things, and it sucks that an alt right nutjob is behind it all. But this is where we are, and Gunn had to be let go for business reasons. But didn't that stuff come out when he was hired by Disney? This is just rehashing things people knew about.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 26, 2018 4:12:57 GMT
Song of the South Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah, bitches!
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Jul 26, 2018 4:19:42 GMT
Beauty and the Beast
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Jul 26, 2018 8:23:38 GMT
I've seen this argument and doesn't really hold up since the cultural climate in society was different when those movies were released. James Gunn posted about things that have no real constraint in time. As did Brett Easton Ellis and he's still being published... Had Patrick Bateman made his debut on Twitter talking about the literal vaginas he carried in his gym bag, we not have gotten American Psycho. A very valid point. Although I would say the whole shtick of American Psycho is supposed to be the satirical breakdown of 80s yuppie culture in isolation rather than the general misogynistic, toxic masculine behaviour the white male lead exhibits (although his fascination with Donald Trump definitely changes the whole outlook of the book when read today!)
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 26, 2018 11:45:03 GMT
See the bolded part of my quote above. I already said I'm not comparing the two. The fact that it happened before he worked at Disney is irrelevant. It's making Disney look bad now. And making off color jokes is not as bad as committing an actual crime but it's still a fireable offense, particularly in today's climate. What's wild to me is how nobody would be coming to Gunn's defense if he wasn't who he is. If the situation were identical and it was Zack Snyder who made these comments this board would be laughing its ass off and saying he deserved whatever he got. I'll say it again for the 50th time. I am not offended in the least by anything Gunn said in those tweets. A sick sense of humor doesn't scare me. But corporations will cut bait on commodities when they become problematic. The controversy makes Gunn look bad, and thus makes Disney look bad as long as he's running Marvel Cosmic. They can't do nothing and they aren't going to be known for defending rape and pedo jokes when their entire brand targets children and families. It sucks that it happened, it sucks that Disney isn't consistent with their handling of these things, and it sucks that an alt right nutjob is behind it all. But this is where we are, and Gunn had to be let go for business reasons. But didn't that stuff come out when he was hired by Disney? This is just rehashing things people knew about. It's a rehashed controversy but more people are paying attention this time. Disney is well within their rights to get rid of a guy who is making the company look bad. Any business would do this.
|
|
|
Post by Häns Haferflöcken on Jul 26, 2018 12:51:11 GMT
why is so many peeps gRaNdStAnDiNg around here? me and my friend mr. NormanClature do not do this stuf! cuz like dc make stupod movies stupodstupadstupedstupidstupodstupostupud we are SERIOUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!yeh
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 26, 2018 13:46:55 GMT
But didn't that stuff come out when he was hired by Disney? This is just rehashing things people knew about. It's a rehashed controversy but more people are paying attention this time. Disney is well within their rights to get rid of a guy who is making the company look bad. Any business would do this. The sad part is that the only people paying attention to this are the ones that know him and will still go see his Guardians 3 anyway and the ones against the company that may or may not see the movie depending on their spite. Most people don't care about this. The ones that get outraged about this will forget when it goes out of the news cycle. So yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 26, 2018 14:09:52 GMT
As did Brett Easton Ellis and he's still being published... Had Patrick Bateman made his debut on Twitter talking about the literal vaginas he carried in his gym bag, we not have gotten American Psycho. A very valid point. Although I would say the whole shtick of American Psycho is supposed to be the satirical breakdown of 80s yuppie culture in isolation rather than the general misogynistic, toxic masculine behaviour the white male lead exhibits (although his fascination with Donald Trump definitely changes the whole outlook of the book when read today!) In all fairness, it wasn't as if Ellis had an easy time of it with American Psycho. I just thought there was a bit of irony in your comments when juxtaposed against your avatar.
|
|