@mrdinghat: I agree that it's kind of ridiculous to see a franchise get rebooted so quickly after a successful run (successful as in "they actually managed to get through six or so movies" and not successful as in "the movies were actually good"). When seeing this, my first thought was, "really? Already?"
Having said that, let's not pretend that this is standard for Hollywood movies. At least, not yet. There's still plenty of original content coming out.
Regardless of whether or not Bethesda should refund the games, is there really any likelihood of any future lawsuits actually being successful? Can someone show some examples of major publishers actually losing a lawsuit because of their game sucking too much?
And I don't think that Aliens:Colonial Marines really counts since my understanding is that a settlement was reached before a verdict was given. As in, they didn't actually lose the lawsuit, they just chose to settle.
I realize that the company's official return policy doesn't supersede law (as is actually pointed out in the return policy), but how many cases have there actually been where a game company lost a lawsuit because their no return policy was deemed to be illegal?
@justthetip: Well, I'm pretty sure that nobody's perfect. I'm not aware of it EVER being a requirement that an employer has to be perfect in order to justify firing an employee.
In any case, it's a moot point. The guy got fired and then he got another job. Happens every day.
@Richardthe3rd: Okay...if you say so. But I'f never heard of "finding another job after being fired" being referred to as "**** you." Of course he's going to find another job, that's typically what people do after being fired.
Anyway, this actually seems like a pretty good fit for him.
@cejay0813: And if your employer chooses to fire you over those comments, then they reserve that right. You're not required to agree with that decision, but the professional thing to do is to handle that dispute behind closed doors. And then when your termination is upheld, you shut your mouth about it, you move on, and get another job.
That's what James Gunn is doing, and he's the one who actually got fired. Dave Bautista, on the other hand, IS acting childish and unprofessional. He's publicly complaining about the termination, taking sides and criticizing his employer, and threatening to quit if he doesn't get his way. And he's not even the one who lost his job. That is the OPPOSITE of professionalism.
I hate to break it to you, but people get fired every day. And in the adult world, you deal with that stuff quietly, you move on and find another job. What you DON'T do is throw a public tantrum and go on social media to complain about how unfair it is. This is especially true since Bautista still has his job, which means that he's biting the hand that feeds him. If he feels so strongly about this that he has to undermine his employer, then he ought to be a man about it, quit, and then pay off whatever penalties he gets for violating his contract. Otherwise, the adult and professional thing to do here is to shut up, do his freaking job, and stop publicly criticizing his employer. James Gunn's termination was 100% justified, and it's not Bautista's job to approve of it. Disney doesn't have to check with Bautista before firing someone, just to make sure that Bautista is okay with it.
@quigonzel: You want to give us a link establishing that? I've seen a lot of people here making that claim, and so far not a single person has been able to provide any evidence that Disney knew about the tweets.
That really doesn't seem to make sense either. That Disney knew about the tweets years ago, and somehow didn't have him delete the tweets. It makes far more sense that they just didn't know about the tweets at all.
@ValedictorianXD: Or it could mean less work in the future. Consider that this really isn't Bautista's fight. Bautista isn't the one who got fired, James Gunn is the one who got fired. Ultimately this is between Disney and James Gunn, and i don't see James Gunn being anything but professional about the whole thing. Meanwhile Bautista is out there stirring up s*** against his employer, bad-mouthing them in public, and threatening to quit. All over a termination that (whether you like it or not) is 100% justified. It is entirely possible that future employers will see that behavior and get the idea that he's a liability. If he's going to do this when working for Disney, then what reason is there to believe that he won't do the same thing if he's got a beef with a different movie company?
Again, James Gunn's termination is justified. People are free to not like it, but this was not a wrongful termination. Those tweets are absolutely sufficient to justify terminating an employee. And if there is some dispute, then it should be handled in private between the concerned parties. Instead, Bautista is deliberately pushing this story's presence into the public's eye, trying to leverage public pressure into forcing Disney's hand. That's actually unprofessional as hell, and it's entirely likely that other potential employers will see that as Dave Bautista biting the hand that feeds him, all because he has some beef that should be handled internally. The obvious question would then be, "if we were to hire him, then why wouldn't he do the same thing if he's ever got a disagreement with us?"
@Richardthe3rd: I didn't say that Gunn thinks that way, I'm referring to Donut0389's claim that there's no point bettering oneself if it changes nothing. That's a rather silly way of looking at things, and certainly isn't supported by what happened to James Gunn. James Gunn IS in a better position than he was before, specifically because he DID change and stop putting that kind of crap online. Sure he got fired, but that was years later after doing the 2 biggest movie of his entire career. If he hadn't stopped tweeting that kind of garbage then chances are that he either would have gotten fired a lot sooner or never even gotten the job in the first place.
@Donut0389: I'd just like to point out that if you're "apologizing and growing as a person" in order to get a pass for previous things that you actually did, then you're doing it wrong.
1) Some would argue that it's important to "apologize and grow as a person" in order to BE a better person. That it's not a means to an end, that being a better person IS the end. You might not agree with this, but some people also wonder why the hell anyone would volunteer their free time and money to help the homeless or save the turtles or whatever other charitable thing they're involved in. Someone might find a wallet that someone dropped, and you might ask why they'd go to the trouble of returning it instead of just taking all of the cash out of it and throwing the wallet in the trash. And if you have to ask why someone would do something like that, then you're just never going to understand this concept. But not everyone "becomes a better person" because they're expecting some kind of reward. For a lot of people, "becoming a better person" IS the reward.
2) Even if you think that point 1 is a load of hot garbage, there's also a far more tangible reason to "become a better person". The more that you act like a crappy person, the longer you engage in that kind of behavior, the more likely it is that that behaviour is going to come back to bite you in the ass. In this case, the bad behavior was posting stupid horrible stuff on his Twitter account. And yes, he got caught eventually, even though he stopped doing it a long time ago. But can we agree that it's a lot more likely that he'd have been caught doing it SOONER if he hadn't stopped doing it a long time ago? The same applies to anything. If you rob a bank, you might stop after that and say "never again." That doesn't necessarily require you to take "being a better person" as its own reward. It's entirely possible that you just consider the action too risky, and choose to reduce that risk by not continuing to perform that action. But make no mistake that if you've been out of the bank robbing game for years and then somehow get busted later on for the one bank robbery that you did years ago, you don't get a pass just because you're a better person. Your past caught up to you and that sucks, but let's be real here: your past probably would have caught up to you a lot sooner if you hadn't stopped doing the stuff that was likely to get you in trouble.
You can talk all day about how firing James Gunn is unfair. But to ask what was the point of stopping posting that kind of garbage in the first place? He EVENTUALLY got canned after he made a bunch of money making the two biggest movies of his entire career. And he gets to go to any new employer saying, "I don't do that any more." THAT is the "why". If he was still doing this stuff, if he got canned for a post that he made last month, then it would obviously be a lot harder to convince a new employer that he won't repeat that behavior. Also, if he hadn't stopped making those kinds of comments, it's highly likely that he would have been fired a lot sooner and lost out on a bunch of Disney money. Sure, his luck eventually ran out and he got canned for old comments that he made. But the fact that it took that long for those comments to bite him in the ass is a textbook example of why people SHOULD stop doing stuff that's going to get them in trouble. Even if you don't give a damn about actually "being a better person", the longer you do stuff that's likely to get you in trouble, the more likely you are to eventually get in trouble for it. This isn't an example of why people shouldn't bother trying to become better people since it won't make up for what they did anyway. This is an example of why people SHOULD try to become better people as soon as freaking possible in order to minimize the kinds of stuff that's later going to come back to haunt them.
MrGeezer's comments