Jump to content

James Gunn re-hired for Guardians of the Galaxy 3!


Recommended Posts

I saw a comment elsewhere that it was done with such haste to protect the stick price during a particularly sensitive time with the 20th Century Fox purchase.

 

Not sure how NOT firing Gunn quickly and getting some flak for a short period of time would have much of an impact though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think anyone would have remembered by 2020 [had he not been fired]. Even now, no one will remember. BUT WHAT IF A JOURNALIST ASKS A QUESTION AND THERE'S CHILDREN PRESENT

 

but heh humans like inventing empty problems to make themselves feel more important. All the inane noise demanding peoples attention isn't offensive in itself, but it not being treated for the dribble it is, is. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

I really don't think anyone would have remembered by 2020 [had he not been fired]. Even now, no one will remember. BUT WHAT IF A JOURNALIST ASKS A QUESTION AND THERE'S CHILDREN PRESENT

 

but heh humans like inventing empty problems to make themselves feel more important. All the inane noise demanding peoples attention isn't offensive in itself, but it not being treated for the dribble it is, is. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

 

R u OK, hun? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

R u OK, hun? 

 

I have noticed I am really angry lately. I just got a job, maybe that's it? I flip out anything where clearly there's obvious improvements that would save time and efficiency. I know it's the arrogant language of the ignorant to say 'why don't you do it like this?!', and am aware there will be reasons or laziness behind it. I have an extremely low tolerance for nonsense. I have issues accepting things. None of this makes sense in relation to this thread. I have increasing contempt for what humanity focusses on.

 

Saying all that, I thought Guardians of The Galaxy was generic and the sequel crap, so a third film helmed by someone else might not be a bad thing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Head of Marvel Isaac Perlmutter is one of 20 people that Trump consults outside of the Whitehouse.

The firing of James Gunn comes pretty clear around now. Nothing to do with his tweets and all to do with his anti-Trump tweets. Marvel just wanted an excuse.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/ike-perlmutter-bruce-moskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1533681163

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Avengers 4 all done now as I remember reading that Gunn had been involved in the Guardian's stuff in 3.

 

As Liamness said - Disney should have at least said they were looking into it firstrather than a kneew jerk reaction becuase some horrible right wing rapist tweeted about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phelan said:

So the Head of Marvel Isaac Perlmutter is one of 20 people that Trump consults outside of the Whitehouse.

The firing of James Gunn comes pretty clear around now. Nothing to do with his tweets and all to do with his anti-Trump tweets. Marvel just wanted an excuse.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/ike-perlmutter-bruce-moskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1533681163

 

Ike Perlmutter is head of Marvel Entertainment, which oversees the comics, TV and toys.

 

He supposedly has no influence over Marvel Studios movies now - he hasn't since around the time of Captain America: Civil War, when his frugality over budgets led to Downey Jr almost not appearing in the movie: 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-civil-war-why-kevin-820147

 

So it's unlikely that he's the one directly responsible for firing Gunn. Though I suppose it's possible that he might have spoken to and persuaded Alan Horn (who issued the original announcement about the firing) or Bob Iger (who is apparently on holiday now that the Fox deal is complete).

 

Whoever it was, it seems like they jumped the gun(n) on going ahead with firing him before they had chance to issue a unified statement including Feige. (The Fox deal putting them under pressure to do it quickly?)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grindmouse said:

 

Yup. Pratt built his career on being quick-witted, endearing but he was not afraid to be offensive or outspoken. Apparently, becoming a multi-millionaire and starring in the biggest franchises in the world isn’t enough, you need to sell out and go full right-wing Christian for that extra dollar.

 

So the assumption is that he "sold out" for money rather than had sincere beliefs he's living out? 

 

You don't have to agree with him. But other than potentially voting for Trump, I don't see what he's done to earn anyone's ire. You can disagree with people without labelling them assholes, and I'd guess the world would be in a better state now if that was the norm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick R said:

 

Ike Perlmutter is head of Marvel Entertainment, which oversees the comics, TV and toys.

 

He supposedly has no influence over Marvel Studios movies now - he hasn't since around the time of Captain America: Civil War, when his frugality over budgets led to Downey Jr almost not appearing in the movie: 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-civil-war-why-kevin-820147

 

So it's unlikely that he's the one directly responsible for firing Gunn. Though I suppose it's possible that he might have spoken to and persuaded Alan Horn (who issued the original announcement about the firing) or Bob Iger (who is apparently on holiday now that the Fox deal is complete).

 

Whoever it was, it seems like they jumped the gun(n) on going ahead with firing him before they had chance to issue a unified statement including Feige. (The Fox deal putting them under pressure to do it quickly?)

 

 

You telling me he has influence over the President but not Marvel Studios? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, grindmouse said:

 

He’s done a 180 from his Parks and Rec and “married-to-Anna-Faris” days. If it weren’t for his status as one of the highest paid AAA movie stars he’d be mouthing off like Bautista. Taking a pause to pray and reflect is wet, pandering nonsense. It’s transparent. “How can I tacitly support Gunn without taking any damage by association?”

 

Maybe Pratt was always a closet right-wing dickhead, but he wasn’t pretentious or overtly religious about it.

 

Anyone who voted for Trump is either ignorant or an asshole.

 

Apparently the turning point was his son being born prematurely. That seems like a reasonable trigger vs 'He's greedy'. If anything, I'd say being overtly religious is going to alienate a fair bit of his audience, and risk losing money. 

 

You don't have to like him or his views. But I have no idea why you wouldn't take him at face value. In the end he signed the letter asking for Gunn to be reinstated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, grindmouse said:

 

He’s done a 180 from his Parks and Rec and “married-to-Anna-Faris” days. If it weren’t for his status as one of the highest paid AAA movie stars he’d be mouthing off like Bautista. Taking a pause to pray and reflect is wet, pandering nonsense. It’s transparent. “How can I tacitly support Gunn without taking any damage by association?”

 

Maybe Pratt was always a closet right-wing dickhead, but he wasn’t pretentious or overtly religious about it.

 

Anyone who voted for Trump is either ignorant or an asshole.

He's some sort of hardcore born-again Christian I think. They're usually the worst in my experience, invades every aspect of their lives to the point where they can't do anything without framing it through God stuff, they have that creepy glassy-eyed fervour that normal religious folk don't have, and they start trying to impose their new-found faith on others.

 

I find most religious folk harmless at worst, and generally more considerate and nice than others, but proper bible bashers like this are often bad news. That said, he seems alright.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/08/2018 at 13:07, Gambit said:

 

Chris Pratt sounds like the worst. 

 

 

According to Letita Wright (Shuri) he was handing out bible quotes during the filming of Infinity War.

 

17 hours ago, deerokus said:

He's some sort of hardcore born-again Christian I think. They're usually the worst in my experience, invades every aspect of their lives to the point where they can't do anything without framing it through God stuff, they have that creepy glassy-eyed fervour that normal religious folk don't have, and they start trying to impose their new-found faith on others.

 

I find most religious folk harmless at worst, and generally more considerate and nice than others, but proper bible bashers like this are often bad news. That said, he seems alright.

 

I worked with one of these. She delegated access to her mailbox for me at one point. Thousands and thousands and thousands of emails between her and her husband about God. She forwarded him almost every email she got (and vice versa) with a little note about how God was watching over her because Dave in accounts paid her expenses, or God was testing her because a customer cancelled an order. It was the creepiest thing I've seen in a really long time. (Edit - she was alright though)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Moz said:

 

According to Letita Wright (Shuri) he was handing out bible quotes during the filming of Infinity War.

 

 

I worked with one of these. She delegated access to her mailbox for me at one point. Thousands and thousands and thousands of emails between her and her husband about God. She forwarded him almost every email she got (and vice versa) with a little note about how God was watching over her because Dave in accounts paid her expenses, or God was testing her because a customer cancelled an order. It was the creepiest thing I've seen in a really long time. (Edit - she was alright though)

 

Religion is bloody weird when taken to such extremes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollywood Reporter has run an article saying that technically Gunn hasn't been fired from Disney. His exit contract is apparently still being worked out but there's now talk of a reconciliation - perhaps not getting the job back, but still being involved. Meanwhile, the likes of WB are already waiting in the wings once Gunn is clear to work elsewhere.

 

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/59736/james-gunn-not-fired-by-disney

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-gunn-demand-major-studio-movies-disney-firing-1133161

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new line of attack against James Gunn is old photos (from around the same time as the original tweets) showing him at a "To Catch a Predator" costume party.

 

 

Of course, as with the jokes, additional photos make clear that this was just one of the costume parties Gunn attended.

 

 

It would appear this is just more of the same.  Trying to weaponize his earlier 'Edgy' Persona against him, & it looks kinda desperate.  IMO this is because the #RehireJamesGunn campaign might be gaining some traction & Disney is yet to clarify just what is going on with GotG vol 3, which appears to causing some problems.

 

 

Of course, you should all of this with a pinch of salt.  There's still no solid indications that Gunn will be brought back. but the one notable thing to my mind is that Disney does seem to be dragging it's feet when it comes to naming a new Director.  Is it possible that they approached new Directors immediately after firing Gunn, & they all told them that firing him was a mistake & they wouldn't take the project?  I'd certainly like to think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jarik said:

Of course, you should all of this with a pinch of salt.  There's still no solid indications that Gunn will be brought back. but the one notable thing to my mind is that Disney does seem to be dragging it's feet when it comes to naming a new Director.  Is it possible that they approached new Directors immediately after firing Gunn, & they all told them that firing him was a mistake & they wouldn't take the project?  I'd certainly like to think so.

 

It might be that the fear of a social media backlash works in Gunn’s favour this time. I’m sure there are some potential directors who would’ve taken the job anyway, but are sitting there fearful of how much vitriol they’ll be getting online if they actually did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would be great given this news.

 

http://au.ign.com/articles/2018/08/16/james-gunn-wont-be-back-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3?abthid=5b74f2e9623c2f1a360008bf

 



After a meeting between James Gunn and Disney studio chairman Alan Horn, it appears that Marvel and Disney will not be reinstating Gunn as director of the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

As reported by Variety, "Gunn and his UTA reps pushed hard for him to be given a second chance, and Horn decided to take a courtesy meeting on Tuesday."

The meeting was said to be "civil and professional," but sources have claimed that Horn will not be changing his stance and they will continue production of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 without Gunn.

The sources also said that Marvel president Kevin Feige was out of town and wasn't present at the meeting. They further explained that while "it was rumored that Feige was pushing to bring Gunn back, he stands by the studio’s decision to not bring back the Guardians director for the third installment."

This news comes almost a week after it was reported that Marvel was trying to persuade Disney to bring Gunn back, especially after the cast of the Guardians of the Galaxy issued a statement in defense of the ousted director.

There is no further word on if Disney and Marvel will be using the script that Gunn wrote, but Dave Bautista has said that he would not reprise his role as Drax the Destroyer if they decide not to.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SpagMasterSwift said:

So, will this stop any of you from paying to see this at the cinema? 

 

Well the Disney/Fox thread isn't full of discussion about how concerning DIsney's growing monopoly is and how they're using their clout in unsavory ways, it's just pages of OMG now Wolverine can meet Ant Man SQUEEEEEEEE! So I'm going to say no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.