Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3

[hachi]

12 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

What does CYA stand for? is the only thing I'm wondering from this whole development.

I think it's Cover Your Ass, a pre-emptive move.

[Kanedas Bike]

3 hours ago, Mommar said:

Your last two lines are how mechanianc is describing how history should be viewed too.

Then maybe I read his post wrong, I thought we were of a different mind on a few key points. Either way, all good.

3 hours ago, kajnrig said:

What does CYA stand for? is the only thing I'm wondering from this whole development.

 

3 hours ago, hachi said:

I think it's Cover Your Ass, a pre-emptive move.

LOL - yep!

-b.

[JB0]

Cover your butt.

[badboy00z]

10 hours ago, kajnrig said:

What does CYA stand for? is the only thing I'm wondering from this whole development.

Cover your ass.

[505thAirborne]

10 hours ago, kajnrig said:

What does CYA stand for? is the only thing I'm wondering from this whole development.

CYA..... Cover Your Ass. 

[kajnrig]

okay guys i think i got it thanks

 

 

 

no wait one more time please

[505thAirborne]

5 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

okay guys i think i got it thanks

 

 

 

no wait one more time please

You'll never ever forget this one. 

[mechaninac]

 It has now been seared into his mind until the time when TSHTF... 

[kajnrig]

Finally bit the bullet and decided to find out what all the hullabaloo is about.

Edited July 26, 2018 by kajnrig

[reddsun1]

*snip*

 

Oops, sorry hutch--you beat me to it. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by reddsun1

[Tking22]

Looks like the ENTIRE cast of Guardians put out and signed a quite heartfelt Tweet in support of James Gunn.

C'mon Disney, you knee jerked, fix this.

[TangledThorns]

If you make a racist joke, you're a racist. If you make pedophilia jokes, and lots of them, then you're not a pedo. gg Hollywood. 

[Tking22]

52 minutes ago, TangledThorns said:

If you make a racist joke, you're a racist. If you make pedophilia jokes, and lots of them, then you're not a pedo. gg Hollywood. 

I'm not sure what you are referring to with this? James Gunn hasn't been accused of pedophilia or anything relating to actually hurting or molesting children? They're just old, stupid, unfunny jokes.

[TangledThorns]

1 hour ago, Tking22 said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to with this? James Gunn hasn't been accused of pedophilia or anything relating to actually hurting or molesting children? They're just old, stupid, unfunny jokes.

No, he made some very sick jokes about young children. No normal thinking person would post what he posted and I seriously believe Gunn is a closet pedo. As a father of two young children I wouldn't allow Gunn near them. In the long run its safer for Disney to keep Gunn away.

[Tking22]

Ah I see. Well, good news is I highly doubt you'll have a problem with keeping James Gunn away from your children. Disagreed, jokes alone shouldn't keep Gunn away from doing what he does for Disney, but that's just my take. Safer? Closet pedo? I gotta get out of this thread, it hurts my head. By all of this logic Jeff Ross of Roast Battle should be locked up or executed for being the world's most dastardly war criminal.

 

[mechaninac]

Hollyweirdos openly espouse the proposition that what is truly important is not the veracity of the charges, but the seriousness of the charges.  If someone is accused of being a racist because of something that person said or tweeted, regardless of when the utterance was made, even if there is no concrete evidence of racism ever in that person's past other than a remark uttered in jest or frustration or anger, then that person is forever labeled a racist and ostracized and black-balled from "polite company", and his/her life ruined.  Therefore, it is perfectly fitting that Gunn gets his career and life ruined by the very same 'seriousness standard' that he and his peers apply to anyone they see fit to vilify, regardless of weather or not his pro pedophilia musings were "innocent" jokes and however long ago they were made.  It's a knife that cuts both ways, or at least it should if fairness in outrage and punishment is to be followed, and he has no one to blame but himself for stepping into that knife.

Also, the only reason all his associates et. al. defend him is because he attacks the "right" people and champions the "right" causes; If he didn't, they would've thrown him under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

Disney is a business; their first duty is to protect and grow shareholder value.  Gunn has made himself a liability to that end; therefore, Disney has every right to cut off all ties with him in order to protect itself from bad publicity that would adversely affect their profitability.

Edited July 30, 2018 by mechaninac

[Tking22]

3 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

Also, the only reason all his associates et. al. defend him is because he attacks the "right" people and champions the "right" causes; If he didn't, they would've thrown him under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

Yeah but that's the only reason he got attacked, not because those that found all this out were trying to do good or do a public service, he just disagrees with the "wrong" people, and now everyone is trying to use this new fangled double edged sword to cut everyone in sight.

"Those people" that dug this up aren't trying to make the world a better place, or out pedos in Hollywood, without naming names, the main man that drug all this up is an accused, and tried rapist, rape apologist, racist, and misogynist. It's just so hard to take any of this seriously when it happened so long ago, and knowing who dug this up. It's like if Emperor Palpatine or Hitler let you know about something stupid someone said a decade ago. I'm just like, "That sucks that idiot said that, but aren't you the most evil being in existence?"

Disney definitely has to protect itself, but those in the know know how this all came up, and by who, it's not like this was that idiot Roseanne that has been racist for years, and posted something blatantly racist in the present day/time, Gunn's offense was years ago, and really doesn't reflect who he is now, how he thinks, and it doesn't reflect itself in his current work.

Should this double edged sword cut everyone and everything? Yes, if we're being fair. But should there be context? Absolutely. I think the context is king here. When did these things get said? A decade ago to me isn't an indication of someone's current character, I said unbelievably stupid crap when I was in college and I thought I knew everything.

[mechaninac]

Wait... so outing a possible pedophile who happens to hold all the "correct" opinions that bounce around in Hollyweird echo chambers, if done by someone(s) who holds the opposite views to the would-be pedo and those who defend him/her (or a known evil individual, for that matter... the identity of the person is ultimately irrelevant to the veracity of the information being disseminated; it's either true or it isn't, there is no applicable qualifier), is a bad thing?  Since when do those Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts ever do anything for the "right thing" themselves, or take note of how long ago something was done or said, or pay any heed to the truth, or care about the lives they ruin when THEY go on their self-righteous witch hunts?  Again, their hurling-of-accusations game cuts both ways, and I find it gloriously ironic that they are getting caught by their own "seriousness of the charge" standards.  #Metoo, racism, bigotry, intolerance, misogyny, pedophilia... They are not, and should not be, immune to the many bits of hysteria they created.

Ultimately, I find selective outrage to be exceedingly shallow, pedantic, disingenuous, and counter productive; so either apply the same guilty-until-proven-innocent rule to everyone and let the scorched earth purges begin, or afford everyone the benefit of the doubt and the decency of a fair hearing where innocence is assumed until actual proof of guilt is presented and deemed irrefutable.  Anything less is massively hypocritical.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mechaninac

[Tking22]

21 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

Wait... so outing a possible pedophile who happens to hold all the "correct" opinions that bounce around in Hollyweird echo chambers, if done by someone(s) who holds the opposite views to the would-be pedo and those who defend him/her (or a known evil individual, for that matter... the identity of the person is ultimately irrelevant to the veracity of the information being disseminated; it's either true or it isn't, there is no applicable qualifier), is a bad thing?  Since when do those Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts ever do anything for the "right thing" themselves, or take note of how long ago something was done or said, or pay any heed to the truth, or care about the lives they ruin when THEY go on their self-righteous witch hunts?  Again, their hurling-of-accusations game cuts both ways, and I find it gloriously ironic that they are getting caught by their own "seriousness of the charge" standards.  #Metoo, racism, bigotry, intolerance, misogyny, pedophilia... They are not, and should not be, immune to the many bits of hysteria they created.

Ultimately, I find selective outrage to be exceedingly shallow, pedantic, disingenuous, and counter productive; so either apply the same guilty-until-proven-innocent rule to everyone and let the scorched earth purges begin, or afford everyone the benefit of the doubt and the decency of a fair hearing where innocence is assumed until actual proof of guilt is presented and deemed irrefutable.  Anything less is massively hypocritical.

A possible pedophile? And with that, you lost me. Once again, he hasn't been charged or accused of anything, so beyond that, I just can't with the rest of your statement. And once again, I absolutely believe context matters. 

What exactly are we attempting to hypothetically compare the Gunn situation to? Because once again, without context we're just shooting in the dark. 

The context is everything for me, to not acknowledge that, I simply can't agree with the scorched Earth, everyone should be treated the same way approach, I would find that to be idiotic and disingenuous. So disagreed, wholeheartedly, I find nothing about taking each situation into context hypocritical. These Twitter crap storms are all over the place with the people involved, who said what, what the outrage is even about, timing, or if anything mentioned or Tweeted was even acted upon or if it was just an unfunny joke from years ago.

[jenius]

I agree with the racism reference earlier. Seems like people will condemn you in a heartbeat for perceived racism from a tiny, out of context, sample (right or wrong). It seems like sounding like a pedophile is at least an equally bad offense right? Comedians get some leeway for pressing boundaries but he wasn't a comedian... So his unfunny comments seem like perfectly valid reasons to have not hired him in the first place. Retroactive Justice is yet another issue here.

At the end of the day, public stupidity, regardless of potential pedophilia, has consequences.

[captain america]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtR6Ij5xK4M

[Tking22]

16 minutes ago, jenius said:

Retroactive Justice is yet another issue here.

This is a big factor as well, there's zero chance Disney didn't look up all the apparently dumb, unfunny, too edgy stuff he made before they hired him. But they decided to take the gamble, and it paid a billion dollars, twice.

Would GotG come together the same without him? Who knows. While I'd like to see him back, realistically, it's not going to happen. This was all too high profile, this wasn't like Adult Swim and the Rick and Morty situation that just happened, that was small and it was Adult Swim, not Disney. The stuff he said was all about children, this is Disney, that's just not a look they are going to be willing to take on, positive tweets from the cast or not.

At this point I'm guessing Disney is focused on moving forward, who are they giving Guardians 3 to? It will be a big one, rumors are we'll be seeing a new team mix up. The obvious choice? Taika Waititi. He already essentially made Thor Ragnarok a Guardians film, he seems the perfect fit. 

[Old_Nash]

5 hours ago, Tking22 said:

Looks like the ENTIRE cast of Guardians put out and signed a quite heartfelt Tweet in support of James Gunn.

C'mon Disney, you knee jerked, fix this.

No ones want to lost his jbs XD

[Thom]

Sometimes what you say comes back to bite you. I won't defend what he said in the past other than it was already known when he was initially hired and to fire him now is just a cheap reaction to remanufactured complaints.  It's not like this was ever hidden and it seems to definitively have a political motive. Of course the success of GotG may have also made this an explosive easter egg, where it didn't matter so much when the movie wasn't expected to be so huge and popular. Now they are huge movies and everything is under a spotlight  that usually sees nothing but the flaws.

[mechaninac]

1 hour ago, Tking22 said:

A possible pedophile? And with that, you lost me. Once again, he hasn't been charged or accused of anything, so beyond that, I just can't with the rest of your statement. And once again, I absolutely believe context matters. 

What exactly are we attempting to hypothetically compare the Gunn situation to? Because once again, without context we're just shooting in the dark. 

The context is everything for me, to not acknowledge that, I simply can't agree with the scorched Earth, everyone should be treated the same way approach, I would find that to be idiotic and disingenuous. So disagreed, wholeheartedly, I find nothing about taking each situation into context hypocritical. These Twitter crap storms are all over the place with the people involved, who said what, what the outrage is even about, timing, or if anything mentioned or Tweeted was even acted upon or if it was just an unfunny joke from years ago.

That's just splitting hairs for the sake of being obtuse and refusing to consider another's point of view out of hand, and picking out isolated illustrative words and phrases -- out of context -- to erect a straw man in order to imply motive you can then counter.

Possible pedophile, possible racist, possible harasser, possible whatever.  You entirely miss the point:  If context is the predicating criteria for someone's comment yesterday or 10 years ago for one possible type of perceived egregious "wrong think" or behavior, it should be the overriding criteria for all such public condemnation attacks for all those so accused, no exceptions.  Period (Rosanne was summarily fired for her idiotic tweet, being immediately accused of racism, with any context or extenuating circumstances deliberately ignored).  Context should be taken into account in EVERY single case, but we both know that is not the case, not even close, specially depending on the accused's sociopolitical worldview.

I'm not advocating for witch hunts and scorched earth scenarios, far from it.  My point is that Gunn should be held to the same standards as anyone else caught in such a scandal -- of his own making I might add, as there is no dispute that he did make the reprehensible remarks that got him in trouble -- would face given the exact same circumstances, and a standard he readily applied against others until he got busted.  I abhor double standards, so either treat every accusation levied against someone in the public eye based on the context of their words in every single instance, or don't consider context for any.  Then again, if Hollywood didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mechaninac

[Tking22]

25 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

That's just splitting hairs for the sake of being obtuse and refusing to consider another's point of view out of hand, and picking out isolated illustrative words and phrases -- out of context -- to erect a straw man in order to imply motive you can then counter.

Possible pedophile, possible racist, possible harasser, possible whatever.  You entirely miss the point:  If context is the predicating criteria for someone's comment yesterday or 10 years ago for one possible type of perceived egregious "wrong think" or behavior, it should be the overriding criteria for all such public condemnation attacks for all those so accused, no exceptions.  Period (Rosanne was summarily fired for her idiotic tweet, being immediately accused of racism, with any context or extenuating circumstances deliberately ignored).  Context should be taken into account in EVERY single case, but we both know that is not the case, not even close, specially depending on the accused's sociopolitical worldview.

I'm not advocating for witch hunts and scorched earth scenarios, far from it.  My point is that Gunn should be held to the same standards as anyone else caught in such a scandal -- of his own making I might add, as there is no dispute that he did make the reprehensible remarks that got him in trouble -- would face given the exact same circumstances, and a standard he readily applied against others until he got busted.  I abhor double standards, so either treat every accusation levied against someone in the public eye based on the context of their words in every single instance, or don't consider context for any.  Then again, if Hollywood didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Well, I disagree with you. Gunn lost his job, what exactly is there to write text walls about now? Justice was served as far as what we are discussing is concerned. I didn't want him to lose his job, he did, I lost I guess? Now I'd like him to get it back, if that makes me a hypocrite because I don't think someone like, since we have an example, Roseanne does, so be it. Roseanne is a racist, has been for a while, makes good TV though. I don't think Gunn is a pedophile or supports it or any nonsense, I just think he was dumb and unfunny 10 years ago, I think he deserves his job back. Period. I'm sorry if you disagree.

[captain america]

4 hours ago, Tking22 said:

"Those people" that dug this up aren't trying to make the world a better place, or out pedos in Hollywood, without naming names, the main man that drug all this up is an accused, and tried rapist, rape apologist, racist, and misogynist.

Are you talking about Cernovich? Accused and tried by whom? You know that he used to practice law, right?

Racist? His wife is Iranian

Misogynist? See above. Also, he has a daughter.  Perhaps a scant 5-10 minutes of research before posting such absurdities?

Gunn may end up being one of the more fortunate ones. I know of at least one other director who will be in hot water over grotesque sexual conduct of the child kind, and it won't be over inappropriate tweets.

[Tking22]

6 minutes ago, captain america said:

Are you talking about Cernovich? Accused and tried by whom? You know that he used to practice law, right?

Racist? His wife is Iranian

Misogynist? See above. Also, he has a daughter.  Perhaps a scant 5-10 minutes of research before posting such absurdities?

Gunn may end up being one of the more fortunate ones. I know of at least one other director who will be in hot water over grotesque sexual conduct of the child kind, and it won't be over inappropriate tweets.

I didn't want to name him because it was already getting too political, but I guess he got it bumped to a misdemeanor, my bad I guess? Good for him? And a daughter? No way he could be a misogynist... His wife Iranian? No way he could be a racist...

This thread is too much, I'm out before I catch a warning. I apologize to everyone for feeding into this. 

[azrael]

Before this thread gets any more drawn out that it already is, I would urge restraint before posting.

[mechaninac]

20 hours ago, azrael said:

Before this thread gets any more drawn out that it already is, I would urge restraint before posting.

The thing is that such philosophical discussions are extremely intellectually stimulating, but they tend to gravitate towards the political and can get a bit acrimonious at times due to the subject matter and the deeply held passions and biases from all sides of the argument... par for the course; however, I'd submit that so far the back and forth has been mostly civil and constructive and very helpful, and, besides, what is the alternative, the screeching name calling and blind rage and violence personified by groups like AntiFa?  Open debate is far more civilized.

The way I see this whole Gunn thing can be better summed up by one simple motto:  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".  There should never be two different standards regarding these matters; if an accusation of racism, for example, is enough to get someone fired, then an accusation of pedophilia (based entirely on his own words) should also be enough to be shown the door with swift alacrity... and he should stay fired unless the same courtesy and leeway is afforded to the former.  No mulligans, no redemption.

Tim Pool (no right-winger, he) pretty much lays out what my thoughts are on the subject in his YouTube video on it.  Is the attack on Gunn's pedophile supporting tweets politically motivated?  Without a doubt in large part, but the motivation -- to make those who made the rules live by them -- in no way exonerates Gunn from what he wrote, and ultimately it was not the messenger that got Gunn fired by Disney, it was the message (Gunn himself, in his own words)... attacking the messenger is just a feeble attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by mechaninac

[no3Ljm]

https://www.cbr.com/disney-stands-by-james-gunn-firing-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3/

 

[Big s]

I don’t feel like anyone has accused him of actually being a pedophile, like in some of the cases of firings for harassment. His full tweets are over the top though and go a bit beyond south park humor, but not by much. The issue is more about Disney being a company for children, no matter the political reasons for why this became an issue.  I don’t see how they could ignore what has come out and not cause outrage between people if they just ignored the whole thing. It’s unfortunate, but I think we all just have to accept the decision of the mouse.

 I don’t think this will be a career ender. This isn’t the age of Roman Polanski anymore, but I can’t put him anywhere near that category.

[kalvasflam]

You know, somewhere, Sideshow Bob and his minions probably huddled together, and decided that there might be more skeletons in the closet, then they imagined the furor if Disney hired the guy back, and then later on, they found out something else about Gunn.  Either in relation to his tweets or something else.  And it went public.  Then it would look horrible for Disney because they didn't vet him well enough.

Basically Gunn is too risky an asset right now.  Give it five or six years, if there are no controversies, they can probably figure out a way to bring him back on some smaller projects, and then go from there.  Basically "rehabilitate" him like Mel Gibson.

[kajnrig]

2 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

You know, somewhere, Sideshow Bob and his minions probably huddled together, and decided that there might be more skeletons in the closet, then they imagined the furor if Disney hired the guy back, and then later on, they found out something else about Gunn.

I doubt that's the case. Disney rarely if ever admit making a wrong decision; it's more likely they're just going to not touch this at all anymore, consequences be damned. They'd rather garner some (relatively minor, in the grand scheme of things) ill will than admit being wrong - or worse, admit being duped by anyone, including and especially Neo-Nazis.

But on the subject of the original outrage, I'd like to point out that said outrage has pretty much died completely down now. I don't hear a peep from the supposedly offended mob of people about this anymore, whereas the demand that he be rehired was going and continues to go strong. So... it's not very hard to see which "side" was being disingenuous, which outrage was borne of actual outrage and not a desire to enact proxy political warfare.

[TangledThorns]

The last thing Disney wants is to find out Gunn is their Jared Fogle.