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

[rteetz]

@rteetz Not necessarily true.

We will have to agree to disagree then. These tweets were out there for a long time for Disney to do something but only did something when other people discovered them.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Shock value is nothing new.

There was a famous DJ back in the 60s that got fired for saying if women's skirts got any shorter .... well, I won't complete it but this is nothing new.

The difference is that back then the audience EXPECTED him to be fired. Now we want to wring our hands and offer excuses.

Plenty of comics back in the day that used off color humor that were never fired but rather celebrated, from George Carlin who had a rape joke as part of his set to Andrew Dice Clay and all his stuff - I think we are less tolerant of things like that now than we used to be

 

[Truxi]

And we can argue about what people deserve all day (though you and I might actually agree in practice!). This is a business decision -- period. Disney has to gauge risk/reward in keeping someone who once joked about PEDOPHILIA but is now an awesome person (let's stipulate).

Then I'm inclined to wonder where this puts Patton Oswalt, since he has a lot of jokes in his early specials that could come under fire. They hired him. Those aren't even tweets easily missed--they're part of his early act that anyone who's a fan of his would know.

That's my big problem with this. They hired people knowing what their humor was, knowing what their previous work was (no one familiar with Gunn's early work should be surprised by any of this), and then suddenly those people are unacceptable, even though--unlike Roseanne--they have moved on and changed the sort of jokes they feel are appropriate to tell. And again, it bears repeating--the reason he came under fire was because an accused-rapist who publicly claimed that there's no such thing as date rape took issue with some political things Gunn said and dug these up to hurt him. I find that very troubling.

Disney just acquired Fox. Are they going to cancel Family Guy? I mean, I wouldn't cry about it if they did, but surely everything about Seth MacFarlane's style of humor (which, unlike Gunn's, hasn't evolved from the shock-humor that was all the rage in the early aughts) is antithetical to their brand as well.

 

[Truxi]

We will have to agree to disagree then. These tweets were out there for a long time for Disney to do something but only did something when other people discovered them.

Not even when people "discovered" them. When one bad-faith actor with a personal vendetta against Gunn went and brought them to the forefront.

 

[Truxi]

Plenty of comics back in the day that used off color humor that were never fired but rather celebrated, from George Carlin who had a rape joke as part of his set to Andrew Dice Clay and all his stuff - I think we are less tolerant of things like that now than we used to be

To be fair--that's a good thing. We absolutely should be less tolerant now of sexist or racist humor. Plenty of comedians, including some who used to tell very problematic jokes, prove that you can be hilarious, and even blue as hell, without needing to be horrible. (Shoot, there are even comedians who can tell a good rape joke--it's just that they never make rape the actual punchline. The punchline is usually: "holy cats, how ridiculous and horrible is it that this thing is so common.")

The issue I see is if the person in question has actively changed and no longer makes those kind of jokes...should they suddenly be punished for something they did long ago that was public knowledge, and that they moved away from.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Then I'm inclined to wonder where this puts Patton Oswalt, since he has a lot of jokes in his early specials that could come under fire. They hired him. Those aren't even tweets easily missed--they're part of his early act that anyone who's a fan of his would know.

That's my big problem with this. They hired people knowing what their humor was, knowing what their previous work was (no one familiar with Gunn's early work should be surprised by any of this), and then suddenly those people are unacceptable, even though--unlike Roseanne--they have moved on and changed the sort of jokes they feel are appropriate to tell. And again, it bears repeating--the reason he came under fire was because an accused-rapist who publicly claimed that there's no such thing as date rape took issue with some political things Gunn said and dug these up to hurt him. I find that very troubling.

Disney just acquired Fox. Are they going to cancel Family Guy? I mean, I wouldn't cry about it if they did, but surely everything about Seth MacFarlane's style of humor (which, unlike Gunn's, hasn't evolved from the shock-humor that was all the rage in the early aughts) is antithetical to their brand as well.

And how far can you take it - I mean, Robert Lopez (of Frozen Fame) wrote the music for Avenue Q which features songs like "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" - could some people look at lyrics in that and other songs and thing he shouldn't be working for Disney?

Not saying that is the same thing as what Gunn said, but everything is on a spectrum and who gets to decide what is ok to joke about and what isn't?

Not Disney, but there have been tons of things on South Park way worse than what Gunn wrote - but that show isn't going anywhere. Why are some things ok and some aren't? Is "shock value" no good but "satire" ok? Who decides?

 

[TheMaxRebo]

To be fair--that's a good thing. We absolutely should be less tolerant now of sexist or racist humor. Plenty of comedians, including some who used to tell very problematic jokes, prove that you can be hilarious, and even blue as hell, without needing to be horrible. (Shoot, there are even comedians who can tell a good rape joke--it's just that they never make rape the actual punchline. The punchline is usually: "holy cats, how ridiculous and horrible is it that this thing is so common.")

The issue I see is if the person in question has actively changed and no longer makes those kind of jokes...should they suddenly be punished for something they did long ago that was public knowledge, and that they moved away from.

Oh, I agree it is good we move on - I was responding to a comment saying/seemingly implying we are more tolerant of things now than in the past

Interestingly I think we want to be a forgiving society but it is like we need to watch the people go through their repentance for it to be legit or something ... so the fact he already went through this, but "we" didn't witness it since it happened before "we" were aware of the original crime, it doesn't count or something

 

[Killer Fish]

And how far can you take it - I mean, Robert Lopez (of Frozen Fame) wrote the music for Avenue Q which features songs like "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" - could some people look at lyrics in that and other songs and thing he shouldn't be working for Disney?

Not saying that is the same thing as what Gunn said, but everything is on a spectrum and who gets to decide what is ok to joke about and what isn't?

Not Disney, but there have been tons of things on South Park way worse than what Gunn wrote - but that show isn't going anywhere. Why are some things ok and some aren't? Is "shock value" no good but "satire" ok? Who decides?

EXACTLY....Could not agree more with this post.

 

[Truxi]

When it comes to shock value, I think it's just something that's immense popularity has passed. South Park and Family Guy are still trucking, possibly until the heat death of the universe, but if new show came around that based its appeal purely on shock value (or even just satire)...it wouldn't get much traction.


tbh, I never even hear anyone talking about South Park anymore. I'm...vaguely aware that it's still around, but it just doesn't seem to be the massive cultural phenomenon it was a decade-plus ago. Same with Family Guy.

A little over ten years ago, everyone--not just comedians, I mean like...everyone--was basically just trying to tell the Aristocrats. These days, I think the style of humor has shifted to something a little angrier and a little more thoughtful, if still somewhat absurdist. Shock for shock's sake comes off as almost childish and weaksauce now.


Shoot, speaking of Avenue Q, look at Happy Time Murders. My first thought on seeing that trailer was: "Well, this feels dated." Seems like everyone is pretty underwhelmed with, "Well, they're like muppets--BUT THEY HAVE SEX AND DO DRUGS!" Like...yeah, there was a musical about that. Family Guy already made a H is For Homicide Sesame Street joke. And both of those were well over a decade ago.

A lot of the comedians I see complaining about how everyone's too sensitive these days are ones who have either always been one-trick ponies, or ones like Roseanne who have turned into one-trick ponies. And their trick is boring now, because let's face it, no one's really shocked anymore.

 

[Boski]

This is a small part of the buzzfeed interview Gunn did back in 2017.

"I felt like Guardians forced me into a much deeper way of thinking about, you know, my relationship to people, I suppose. I was a very nasty guy on Twitter. It was a lot [expletive] edgy, in-your-face, dirty stuff. I suddenly was working for Marvel and Disney, and that didn't seem like something I could do anymore. I thought that that would be a hindrance on my life. But the truth was it was a big, huge opening for me. I realized, a lot of that stuff is a way that I push away people. When I was forced into being this" — he moved his hand over his chest — "I felt more fully myself."

And what's "this"?

"Sensitive, I guess?" he said. "Positive. I mean, I really do love people. And by not having jokes to make about whatever was that offensive topic of the week, that forced me into just being who I really was, which was a pretty positive person. It felt like a relief."

It is a pretty long article but is really interesting and touches on his entire career. Its worth the read if you haven't already done so but I will forewarn you there is a good bit of language and mature subjects being discussed.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy?utm_term=.atmX6M7qr#.ik7NJwvd2

 

[Truxi]

An excellent find, thank you for sharing!

 

[danikoski]

This is a small part of the buzzfeed interview Gunn did back in 2017.

"I felt like Guardians forced me into a much deeper way of thinking about, you know, my relationship to people, I suppose. I was a very nasty guy on Twitter. It was a lot [expletive] edgy, in-your-face, dirty stuff. I suddenly was working for Marvel and Disney, and that didn't seem like something I could do anymore. I thought that that would be a hindrance on my life. But the truth was it was a big, huge opening for me. I realized, a lot of that stuff is a way that I push away people. When I was forced into being this" — he moved his hand over his chest — "I felt more fully myself."

And what's "this"?

"Sensitive, I guess?" he said. "Positive. I mean, I really do love people. And by not having jokes to make about whatever was that offensive topic of the week, that forced me into just being who I really was, which was a pretty positive person. It felt like a relief."

It is a pretty long article but is really interesting and touches on his entire career. Its worth the read if you haven't already done so but I will forewarn you there is a good bit of language and mature subjects being discussed.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy?utm_term=.atmX6M7qr#.ik7NJwvd2

Personally, I'm torn on the James Gunn situation. This article is insightful. Thanks for posting it.

I do think that Disney had a snap reaction. I wish they would have taken a bit more time to review things before passing judgement. But I also understand where Disney is coming from...although if they knew about the tweets, they should have addressed them long before now. And they should have to explain why they didn't.

However, many of Gunn's tweets we're appalling and abhorrent. We had a family friend who was a super nice older gentlemen. He also was convicted on multiple counts of child pornography. So just because someone is a nice guy doesn't mean they can't have major skeletons tucked away.

 

[Teal03]

So what if it was 8 or 10 years ago. This man was 40 something tweeting rape jokes about children. I really find it disgusting how people are defending him. Oh please on the growth excuse. It’s no coincidence that he stopped tweeting these disgusting unfunny jokes right around the time he got a huge gig and knew he would gain a following. I hope the FBI investigates him. Years making unfunny pedo jokes and friends with a convicted pedo.

I just find it hilarious how most of the people defending him had so much to say about what others did years ago and had their pitchforks out for them but hey let’s give the 40 something year old man who finds it funny to make unfunny jokes about children being raped a 2nd chance because he directs a hit franchise.

People are such hypocrites when it comes to somebody or something they like. That’s an even bigger problem than “cancel culture”. People playing dumb when their favorite is involved but very vocal when someone they don’t like does the same thing.

Disney hiring him in the first place is problematic and I wouldn’t be shocked if an investigation happens with them (after their little stunt with LA Times)and they have more creeps like Gunn being exposed. I will agree that it is cowardly to hire scum like this and fire them because of backlash. They knew what they were getting into.

The entire cast is stupid for publicly defending him. Especially since they have young children, really can’t act , and publicly went against a giagantic company like Disney. Disney is about to own 60% of the media. They could be blackballed over this. I think the cast openly supporting him like this puts the ride and the 3rd movie in jeopardy more than Gunn’s tweets. They could’ve just got a new director and called it a day but no they publicly disrespect Disney.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

This goes back to my point earlier. Why is it a problem now if it wasn't when they hired him? Would Disney actually lose business if they didn't fire him? I am not sure. I think people are standing behind Gunn right now and they may lose business with that as well.

I just have an issue with people digging up Tweets from 5+ years ago. People are in different positions of work at these times and at different stages of their life and may be un-wise. People do change over 5+ years. I know for sure things I believed or thought 5 years ago I don't today. And if these old tweets are such issues why didn't employers find this and do something sooner.

I maintain that this a business judgment call: might keeping a guy who everyone NOW knows tweeted about PEDOPHILIA employed by a FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT business be bad for our brand?

They've determined that the risk of keeping him is greater than the risk of firing him. Period. It really is that simple.

It's not about what's fair or nice. It's business.

And we shouldn't pretend that he's Scorsese or Hitchcock or Kubrick. I have a feeling they'll be able to move on from him.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Not sure this is the end....I smell a search for return.....

There is no doubt in my mind that Disney, or at least Marvel knew of this letter and it coming out. I wonder if this is a balloon....floating to see reaction.

I haven't really commented on any of this, as I have a major issues with pulling out some young persons stupid mistakes after they have reached success. Were the comments in poor taste, absolutely, has the person apologized and taken responsibility ...yes. At some point, there needs to be forgiveness to help solve some of these issues. Mistakes are made, we are human. He didn't deny it, he admitted the mistake.

I could see Disney coming back, offering a rehire after proof of some kind of sensitivity training. Lets face it, as some here have said Disney was a bit quick on the reaction here.

Again -- Disney isn't his best friend who owes him a second chance as a person! This is a business. They made a risk/reward calculation.

And he was what... 42 when he tweeted those things? I think that past the "young person" exception.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

We will have to agree to disagree then. These tweets were out there for a long time for Disney to do something but only did something when other people discovered them.

Yes. Because when other people -- very large numbers of other people -- became aware, this became a business liability.

 

[rteetz]

Yes. Because when other people -- very large numbers of other people -- became aware, this became a business liability.

I get that but why wasn’t it a business liability earlier. People knew about these tweets for a long time.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I get that but why wasn’t it a business liability earlier. People knew about these tweets for a long time.

Not so. I'm sure Disney knew. Some knew. Now THE MASSES know -- and Disney has him involved in kids' movies. With the masses knowing he's now a liability.

Hypocritical of them to "care" now and "not care" then? No. They're not a person or a friend. They're a business. They deemed him not a liability when few knew about the tweets, and now a liability when the masses know.

This seems really straightforward to me.

And perhaps everyone -- and certainly people in their FORTIES who know that what you post is permanent -- should think twice.

ETA: and perhaps now companies like Disney WILL be more choosy to begin with about who they hire based on their past tweets.

 

[jkh36619]

They way I see it is Disney hires talented director (knowing or unknowing about his past) who makes Disney $$$$. Disney is a Hero. Tweets brought to forefront so Disney unloads him. Disney is a hero. The only way Disney looks silly is if they admit they knew of the tweets.

 

[rteetz]

Not so. I'm sure Disney knew. Some knew. Now THE MASSES know -- and Disney has him involved in kids' movies. With the masses knowing he's now a liability.

Hypocritical of them to "care" now and "not care" then? No. They're not a person or a friend. They're a business. They deemed him not a liability when few knew about the tweets, and now a liability when the masses know.

This seems really straightforward to me.

And perhaps everyone -- and certainly people in their FORTIES who know that what you post is permanent -- should think twice.

ETA: and perhaps now companies like Disney WILL be more choosy to begin with about who they hire based on their past tweets.

Agree to disagree then. I think if it’s a problem now it should’ve been a problem when they hired him.