Mar
15
2019

James Gunn rehired for Guardians of the Galaxy 3.

Interesting.

And probably inevitable, the way that the cast of Guardians of the Galaxy kind of freaked out when they fired James Gunn in the first place. Apparently Disney-Marvel never particularly planned to put anybody else in the director’s slot all along; it looks like that the company just decided to wait and let the original firestorm die down.

I honestly don’t have a strong opinion on this particular case, but Gunn was smart to not blame anybody but himself and largely keep his head down until the coast was clear (to mix the metaphors). We probably won’t see GG3 until at least 2022 at this point, though. Which might not be so bad, from a movie-going point of view.

9 Comments »

  • Aetius451AD says:

    On one hand, yes social media shit storms are insane and should not happen.
    .
    On the other, why does this guy get his job back? Good card carrying liberal? A few other guys spoke up for him? He was just making a joke about child sex and not something REALLY horrible like guns, hunting, or wearing a MAGA hat?
    .
    To me this seems less of people saying: yeah, this is something that should not happen and more ‘Oh crap, it took out a guy we LIKE, can’t let that happen.’
    .
    Rules (and I use this term lightly when referring to what is a mob mentality- in both senses of the word ‘mob’) have to be the same for everyone or else you do not have a free society, but just a caste system.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      I’m not disagreeing, but: as I said here, Gunn gets his job back because 1.6 billion in revenue off of first two movies in the series. I can think of other people who won’t be getting their jobs back, simply because they AREN’T earners at that level.

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    I remember being surprised that Gunn was hired in the first place. This is the man whose filmography includes Tromeo and Juliet, Slither, and Super. I’m not trashing them (especially not Slither, which is a SLICK little alien-slug body-horror flick), but what about that list is in line with the Disney brand? Had I been the exec in charge of protecting the company image, Gunn’s proposed hiring would have been met with a hard pass from me.

    Having said that…Disney’s rush to can him was unfair. Again, you can’t look at that list of films and tell me you didn’t know who you were hiring. Any problems they had with his Twitter feed should’ve come up in the background check that you can’t tell me Disney doesn’t run. If they hired him anyway, then either it proves that they don’t know how to run a background check (in which case, why should he have to pay for it?), or it proves that they didn’t have a real problem with it (in which case, why throw him to the wolves?).

    I am sure that Disney hired him back because he’s made a lot of money for them, and because they realized that there was no good alternative to helm the third Guardians movie in his place. Neither of those, in my mind, are good reasons to rehire someone you canned for bad behavior. But since I think that no one who does comedy should be fired for a few tasteless or off-color jokes, I approve of the decision on balance, even if I don’t like the probable reasoning behind it.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      I have been consistently and pleasantly surprised at how often Disney/Marvel has gotten good work out of directors who I’ve never heard of before.

      • DemosthenesVW says:

        Yeah, I don’t think Disney can take credit for James Gunn’s work. Check out Slither sometime. It’ll make you wonder why Nathan Fillion hasn’t gotten more lead roles in movies…as if Firefly and Castle hadn’t made you wonder that already.

      • acat says:

        The one thing Guardians 3 *has* to do is .. soundtrack.
        .
        Guardians 1 was a great compilation, Guardians 2 had *one* (and *only one*) good song .. and it wasn’t even in the movie!
        .
        Mew

        • DemosthenesVW says:

          Umm, “Brandy” was THROUGHOUT the movie. It played into the whole theme.
          .
          The alternative interpretation of your words is that you don’t believe “Brandy” is a good song, which is only acceptable if you then follow up with “It is a GREAT song,” which even I (lover of that particular tune that I am) wouldn’t say.

          • acat says:

            You are entitled to your own .. taste ..
            .
            I was, however, referring to “Fox On The Run”.
            .
            Mew

  • Finrod says:

    Ten to one Roseanne Barr never gets rehired, though.

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com