Marvel Cinematic Universe

This isn’t gonna end well.

7 Likes

My apologies, I’m just pointing out a fact.

Are you of the opinion people are unable to change, and do you believe that comments intended as horrendous jokes are indicative of actions? Cause if not, show me the evidence he has committed those crimes and show me where he has not expressed remorse.

Additionally, show me a person that has never made a mistake or action that anyone can see as wrong.

For the record. I do not condone the jokes. They weren’t funny. They were abhorrent. They were also a decade ago and there have been a lot of people cutting context out while making these accusations. James Gunn has expressed remorse. If he didn’t, that’d be one thing. But he apologized when he was hired for the first Guardian movie and did so again now.

11 Likes

I completely believe people can change, and is like to believe that he has, yet, having somebody like that hired on goes against Disney’s image, and having someone who expressed things like that hired on a company built on the wallets of parents is not exactly the best move. Also I personally didn’t enjoy Guardians 2, so I’m not exactly thrilled to see him come back. I have also read the original posts, and the thing is, he’s not a comedian, he didn’t do this to make people laugh, so there’s not really any excuse for putting that kind of thing out there. And its not like it was one or two comments, it was hundreds. Having that kind of thing on your mind enough to connistantly comment about it shows it couldn’t have just been a simple dark joke. Honestly, I’d like to believe he has changed, but knowing Hollywood, and knowing the kinds of people that are there, and the amount of lying that goes on, I find it very difficult to believe. Thing is, if this were about ethics, he would have been gone for good, yet when the Guardians cast threatened to walk, Disney realized that was money they’d lose out on, they waited for the whole thing to blow over and brought him back. The thing is, whether or not he feels sorry for it, it happened, and for a short while, he had to face the repercussions of his actions. And I’d think you, if anyone, would be against this due to your experience with Kahi. And lets sit back and look at this, James Gunn made hundres of awful comments, got fired, and then, after apologizing, got re-hired. Rosanne Barr made a single insensetive comment, and was flat out fired, no chance of coming back. Why should Gunn get mercy yet not Rosanne? Hollywood is full of lies, corruption, and double standards, and honestly, I’m having a heck of a time believing him.

The entire cast and other directors have also vouched for his character, agreeing that while the jokes were very bad, his actions on set proved he was not a person who would enact what he wrote.

I adored Guardians 2. I loved it more than the first, which is saying something. Both films have their ups and downs, but the overall quality of the films is a testament to both Gunn’s writing/style and the chemistry the cast has together.

Another director could easily screw that up, so for the man who made the magic to come back and hopefully do it again is a great thing. If it had been proven that Gunn had done more than make inappropriate jokes, I’d be all for his permanent removal al la Kevin Spacy. However, at the end of the day, they were just words. People mature at different intervals than others. Judging by what the cast has said, Gunn is well past those days, or else they wouldn’t have all signed a piece of paper supporting him. And the cast all seem like stand-up people for the most part.

Not a fair comparison. Gunn didn’t creepily stalk people who consider him a friend and coerce the others to remove another from the film. Jahi did things to people. Gunn made off color remarks on social media. Sorta like equating a serial killer to a bank robber who told a police officer he was going to rob the bank they were standing next to and then did it as the cop watched.

Both did something wrong, but one was far worse than the other.

7 Likes

You seem to be implying that people need to be a comedian to make people laugh. Maybe this is a difference between you and me, but I’m often trying to be witty and humorous, and, believe it or not, I’m not getting paid to do so. If I used Twitter or social media more often, I can easily see myself using it to try and tell jokes or the like.

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that you can judge his character far better than people who have known and worked directly with him for years. The closest any of us have been to Gunn is seeing him on the other side of a screen. We see his tweets, and his interviews, and read quotes about him, but we’ve never met him. We only get to see broad strokes of who he is as a person.

Meanwhile, the actors in the GotG movies and the staff at Disney have met him in person, had conversations, worked alongside him day in and day out for a period of time I can’t hope to estimate with any amount of accuracy. I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to say that they would have gotten a chance to know the man.

So if this group of people, a group of people who have been able to work closely with Gunn over an extended period of time, tell me that Gunn has grown and changed since he made those tweets, I’m going to trust that judgement. If anyone is going to be able to know him and make that call, it’s them.

3 Likes

It would have been an attempt to be morbidly funny if it was just once or twice, but it was hundreds of comments of years. That’s not trying to be funny, thats a borderline obsession. Not to mention, I don’t give any attention to the opionions of Hollywood actors, and the only person I trust on the Guardians team is Pratt. Not to mention Hollywood is full of manipulative people, so how are we supposed to know weather or not he’s lying? We can’t, no more than his colleagues. All I’m trying to say is what he said is indicative of more than just a few dark jokes, but something that was on his mind constantly. And is thinking about that kind of thing so much really healthy? Be it “jokes” or just talking about it. I never said I was a better judge of character, only that actions speak louder than words. And I hope you don’t get Twitter and then procede to make comments like his, regardless of intent. The thing is, his actions are indicitive of something, something nobody in America at least is comfortable with it condones, and Gunn is getting away scott free, without any repercussions.

1 Like

So you want to be cynical and believe that there’s no way he’s grown past this. Fair enough, I suppose. I’m just gonna enjoy the next Guardians movie.

2 Likes

I’ve always been a bit of a downer accorsing to evryone I know, and I don’t want to not eblive he’s changed, I’m just sceptical, and would hope that I’m not the into one. And enjoy the movie, because if its just more of the same Gaurdians 2, then I probably won’t.

1 Like

It wasn’t. I make hundreds of tweets in a year, that is not indicative of your suggestion. Additionally, at the time of these tweets he worked on a project known for being intentionally shocking. And the tweets were. At best, he was keeping in-line with his job. Do they still suck? Yes. Is is “obsessed” with them now? No. Has he apologized for them? Yes. Has he made similar tweets since? No.

Through evidence. Call someone that when there is reliable evidence or witness testimony. Name me a single person that has come forward with a legitimate, creditable first person account of Gunn being the monster the tweets suggest he is. You will not be able to. Because tweets from an entertainer with the admitted intention of being bad jokes are not indicative of action or agreement.

Evidently not. Chris Pratt came out in full, unabashed support of James Gunn and vouched highly for his character, alongside every other main cast member of the films. You can condemn the words of a person and still vouch for them as a person. Especially when it comes to words a full decade later because that person is not the same.

You say this while you judge his character due to his words.

When you exclude context, you hang a person by their words.

What actions? Show me his actions. Finally…

What are you talking about? Scott free? No repercussions? You’ve just come into this topic, accused a man of being a pedophile based on ten year old tweets that have been apologized for twice and that he was fired for, and you’re saying there weren’t any repercussions? This stigma will follow him. That’s horrendous. And it’s a stigma not founded in any actions at all. A court couldn’t convict him because there isn’t anything to suggest actions. There were repercussions. But then cooler heads came together and forgave him.

A few words of advice. Do not make mistakes. Do not make comments in the public eye people that can be used against you later. And for the love of everything good in the world, hope dearly that if you make comments now that none of them will come back to bite you down the line. Because if those comments are not from someone who agrees with them ten years later, then people like yourself will not be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and forgive you then.

People are not the same people over the course of ten years. Judge a person by the content of their character now and determine for yourself if they stand by comments made back then. Hold people accountable, absolutely, but do your research. Find the context. And consider everything.

10 Likes

Just to add a few points to this debate, hopefully in a balanced way:

While Gunn’s case is admittedly rather extreme and gratuitous, it’s worth noting that almost everyone has some aspect of their past that they’d like to forget. To draw on an even bigger and more integral example within the MCU, would it be fair for Marvel to not have hired Robert Downey Jr. because of his somewhat checkered history? This was actually a debate that arose within the studio at the time Iron Man was being developed, but thanks to Jon Favreau fighting for his choice, the MCU hired their arguably most important and popular actor. Downey’s issues were no more family-friendly than Gunn’s, but it would hardly have been fair to pass him over for something that happened in the past, which he made successful efforts to correct and atone for. I think we should give Gunn the same benefit of the doubt here.

However, the above being said:

I do see your point here; depending on Gunn’s social circle at the time, it might be plausible to say he was influenced by certain behaviors and attitudes that don’t reflect his true self, but such a large amount of comments of that nature is rather distasteful, and I can sympathize with the fact that it was too much for some people. Personally, I was able to see the context behind some of the jokes, although I’d, hopefully, never even think to make comments like that in the same scenarios. I do think that these tweets deserve scrutiny, but it seems that they have been given a lot of thought over the years, and that Gunn has learned from his actions, which is the best that can be hoped for.

I also don’t know if I can entirely buy this. As a society we have been dealing with the impact of words a lot lately, and the question of when words cross a line does need to be asked. Can we say that threats of violence that are not enacted are “just words?” I’m certainly not one to be offended by every little thing someone says, and I actually find that our culture is much too sensitive in certain cases, but there does need to be a line somewhere, and even if Gunn didn’t cross it, he came pretty darn close.

I don’t think this assumption applies to Hollywood only. Everyone is capable of lying, but just because they are, it doesn’t mean that we should take everything someone says as a deception. James Gunn issued an apology for his past behavior many times, and since his first apology it seems that he has mostly avoided the actions that he was guilty of. That is as clear an indication as we have that he was telling the truth when he said that he was remorseful, and that the things he said do not reflect his character. Patterns can indicate character, but a broken pattern is just as telling.

That’s about the best way I could put it. I don’t think people should be forced into feeling like they’re walking on eggshells when they speak, because that flies directly in the face of the ideals we’ve created as a free society. People should be able to say what they want, no matter what, so long as it does not threaten violence or degrade other people. There is a massive problem brewing online where people of certain opinions–both popular and unpopular–are being censored or excoriated for some things that they say, which are in many cases certainly less offensive than the tweets being discussed, and that should stop. However, it is always prudent that we think about what we’re going to say when we’re online, as we have the wonderful benefit of being able to edit our words before we post them, and we should use it whenever we can.

4 Likes

I think your glossing over the fact that this was not a one time thing. If he had done it once I would be with you, yet it was an enormous amount of comments. I’m honestly baffled that you’re trying to defend someone who said such awful things, be it years ago or yesterday. And the actions are his Tweets, which is an action. And I can assure you he wouldn’t have apologized had it not been found out. He wouldn’t have said anything had it not risked his job. Honestly, how some people find a way to make someone who said such horrendous things so many times out to be a good guy is surprising. And on Chris Pratt, I don’t have to agree with him to trust him. I know what he said, and that almost convinced me, until I went back and read some of the things Gunn said. It shouldn’t really matter if it happened ten years ago, or seventy years ago. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, I want to believe that he has changed, but that doesn’t negate what he said. It was said, clean and simple, and I have a hard time believing him now.

@Toa_Heatwave Actually, on this message board, you really do have to walk on eggshells, or a moderator will come and shut down your post. Its made this website a awesome and clean place, yet it is not free speech.

I’m not. You are glossing over the apologies though.

So tell me, exactly what are you willing to imply? Because I can seperate a persons words from their actions.

Except not exactly. If I say I’m going to hurt you, that’s assault. If I ask someone to hurt you, that’s a call to harm you. Both of those are illegal. Show me where Gunn did that. He made no actionable comments. Were they horrendous? Yes. You can condemn a persons words and still separate terrible comments if you can be assured they’re a different person.

Again, go back and find the context. During this time, that was his job. To say shocking things.

This is an absolutely excellent point.

Additionally, this is somewhat my point. That last little bit was me being facetious to make a point. If you can not forgive someone for them in the past, they have no incentive to improve, learn, and grow as a person.

Again, lemme make myself clear. I do not condone the tweets. The tweets were horrendous. They were awful. They were disgusting. James Gunn is also not a child molester so far as we can tell. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

If we do not allow a person to be forgiven after asking for forgiveness, then what is the point of asking and being sorry?

5 Likes

Well, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that there aren’t rules at all. Private organizations that promote certain values have the right to make their own codes of conduct for their members. You as a member therefore have the right to leave if you think the rules are too stringent. So long as the moderators of this board don’t actively censor certain opinions, they’re perfectly capable of reining in discussions that get out of hand.

Think of it this way…there are a number of things that students are allowed to do and not to do under freedom of speech. One example that the Supreme Court uses is that a student cannot print an article in a school newspaper if the school’s administration objects to it. That may seem like a violation of free speech, but it isn’t in reality, for a couple of reasons: first, the school owns and distributes the paper, meaning that they control what is printed in it, and second, the administration has authority over the students because they and their parents choose to have them attend that school, and can easily remove them if they object to the rules.

The message boards are like that–the mods are appointed by the people who created the boards, and therefore those people have the right to decide what they want said on them. It seems restrictive on the surface, but it’s actually promoting freedom, because it gives everyone the ability to find a place where their views are welcomed, or to create one if they think no such place exists.

2 Likes

You claim that I have glossed over the apologise, which is a lie. I acknowledged them, I simply have a hard time believing them. I have said my piece I say. I’m skeptical, and eveyone jumps to defend someone they don’t know. I never said I wished anything more on him than him staying fired. I’m not callkng for him to be put on a child sex offender watchlist, I simply don’t wish him to be hired. And what you say can have a very negative impact on your life. If I say I’m going to shoot up a school, someone will come and try and stop me, even if I never intended to so so. Same thing with a bomb threat, if I say I’m going to set off a bomb, I will get arrested of making the threat, even if the action was never completes. In the end, I have said what I came here to say, and I only hope it made some people think about the problem, instead of just rolling with the flow of things. Isn’t that what discussions are for? Having to sides of an arguement express their opinions so that future readers may make up their own minds about the subject? I have played the devil’s advocate, and you have played the defense, relatively well might I add, so in the end, you can make up your own mind on the subject, and I can make up mine.

Devil’s advocate is not something you’re supposed to agree with though. Evidently, you’ve been arguing the side of the argument you have agreed with.

There is an astounding difference between voicing an opinion and making a threat. You cannot compare the two.

6 Likes

What opinion are you talking about? Gunn’s comments see not an opinion, more statements, perverted statements about what he wants children to do to him. Also, I was telling Eljay I was playing devil’s advocate from his point of view.

The opinion you are expressing. The argument you’ve given. It’s an opinion.

2 Likes

That’s not devil’s advocate, as for Gunn, what he said was terrible, but unless.hes found guilty by a court of law then this is just things he has said, after all, it’s innocent until proven guilty. As for his character he’s been vouched for by several people he’s worked closely with. He’s been punished enough for what he said those many years ago.

3 Likes

All I said is that Disney would should have either never fired him, or never hired him back. Also, should it really matter whether or not I used the phrase right. I got my point across and dwelling on it is just somewhat petty.

@Chronicler When I used those examples, I was referring to Gunns Tweets, not anyhting I had said.