Of course. And almost certainly has nothing to do with Bautista threatening to leave. Throwing out the entire script and starting over from scratch would have put a major dent in the movie and cost Disney a buttload of money. This way, they still get to "preserve their values" or whatever by firing Gunn, while still keeping the movie on track and being able to use the work that he did for them.
@wrestlingdude: Firing him is an EXAMPLE of free speech. Disney (or you, or me) is within their rights to disassociate from people who do stuff like making jokes about rape and pedophilia. You can opine that it's not fair given the time frames involved, but Disney is well within their rights to make their position on the issue known by firing the guy. It'd be one thing if James Gunn had gotten arrested for the comments, but all that happened was that he lost his job. That's not tyranny. Disney is not obligated to keep the dude employed. And while it's good that Gunn has changed, let this be a lesson to you that changing into a better person does not and never has protected you from the consequences of decisions that you have already made. You can spend all day laying the blame on Disney, or on the alt-right groups that dug up the dirt on him. But at the end of the day this still comes down to being mostly James Gunn's fault since he actually did the stuff that he's getting fired for. No one would have brought this dirt up if James Gunn hadn't put it out there in the first place.
@DMZapp: That's only a valid point if you can prove that Disney knew about the tweets all along and only fired James Gunn once people complained about him. Otherwise, Disney can take the position of "we fired Gunn as soon as we learned of the tweets, and would have fired him regardless of who brought them to our attention."
As soon as they reverse that decision though, they're DEFINITELY catering to the mob.
They've really got no choice but to stand by their decision on this one.
@Mogan: Disney's **** also wasn't all done by the people at Disney. That is to say, most of the people at Disney had nothing to do with Disney's BS over the years, so it's kind of absurd to say that they should be held accountable for something they never did.
Furthermore, what the heck is Disney supposed to do? Destroy the entire company and put everyone there out of work?
@lodoss900: There would be something ironic about the cast criticizing "mob justice" and then banding together to strong-arm the studio to do what they want.
Sort of why, while I don't know if Disney will keep Gunn's script, they sort of have to stand by their decision to fire him. Whether or not firing him was ultimately the best decision, it still sort of has to seem like their decision. If they immediately reversed their decision as soon as people started complaining, they'd look worse than they do now.
@gord0nd: For starters, while Disney was well aware of Gunn's film history, I still haven't seen any confirmation that they were aware of these specific comments. One could imagine that if Disney had been aware of these specific comments at the time when he was hired, that they probably would have told him to delete his account so that it doesn't come back later and bite them in the ass.
In any case, that's beside the point. Like you say, this was a BUSINESS DECISION. Even if Disney was aware of these comments before, they weren't widely known. Now they ARE widely known, and are potentially damaging as hell for Disney's image.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that this is a business decision. James Gunn's statement says that he accepts this BUSINESS DECISION. Yes, it's a business decision. However, being a business (rather than moral) decision doesn't mean he shouldn't get fired.
Generally speaking, when you get hired for a job you and your employer's are not BFF's. You're getting paid money because you're an asset rather than a liability. Whether or not it's fair for Gunn to lose his job for things he said a decade ago, the point still stands that his comments (in Disney's view) make him a liability NOW.
And I'm sure that some people will say that if Disney knew about Gunn's comments back then, that they shouldn't have hired him at all. The thing is, even if Disney knew about these specific comments (and that still has yet to be established), Gunn still made out pretty well in the deal. What's better for Gunn in this situation? Never getting hired in the first place? Or getting two very high profile jobs (the two biggest jobs of his entire career) before his past finally comes back to bite him in the ass?
In any case, it's business decisions all around. If the defense of Gunn's comments is that he was cultivating the kind of trashy shock humor that allowed him to better do the kinds of low-budget trash that he was doing at the time, then that's a business decision. An understandable business decision? Sure. But there's always the risk that doing that kind of thing is later going to clash with a future employer's desired image. You choose to wallow in the s*** because your job is making s***, then YES there's always the possibility that that's going to negatively affect your future employment with certain companies. I always thought that James Gunn was a weird choice for these Marvel movies in the first place. But I'm certainly not gonna feel sorry for the guy. Disney could have just not ever hired him at all. At least James Gunn got the two biggest most high profile movies of his entire career out of the deal before his past finally made his image incompatible with that of his employer.
Hey, Rick and Morty also mentioned Game of Thrones. If you do a review of Game of Thrones, are you going to call it "the Game of Thrones show from Rick and Morty"?
Funny how so many people are upset at a guy voluntarily deciding not to do a job.
He didn't get fired. He decided that the role wasn't right for him, and then he backed out. As long as it wasn't done so in a way as to violate his contractual obligations or delay the movie or something like that, then why the hell would anyone care?
This would be like if an actress got signed onto a role that required nudity and then dropped out because she doesn't feel right doing nude scenes. To the people who are angry about this, I hope you realize that the filmmakers are totally free to just replace this actor with another white guy. Unless this was some last minute thing that throws gears into the production by forcing a last minute casting decision in order to avoid the movie getting delayed, then I fail to see how anyone could have a PROBLEM with this. It's not enough that "social justice" or "progressive" changes aren't forced upon you, but now you expect EVERYONE to be on board with your values including the people actually doing the job?
Might I ask, do you also get upset if a vegan waiter decides to not work at a steakhouse?
This is literally just a case of a dude deciding that a role isn't right for him. I can understand being upset if that delays the movie or requires a last minute scramble to find an inferior actor who'll suck in the role, but as long as it doesn't hurt the movie what the hell do any of you care whether or not the guy thinks the role is right for him? Would it be more acceptable if he backed out while saying, "I decided that this movie is just gonna be a pile of shit, and it's too crappy for me to be wasting my time on"?
MrGeezer's comments