Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND


Bazza

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bautista basically owes his success in movies to Gunn, so naturally he is going to be loyal to him. But beyond that, Bautista has no particular regard for the Disney brand or what it stands for in the global entertainment marketplace. If he did, he would understand the business side of show business and act more like a professional about all this. It is one thing to morally support your friend in private, but it another thing to publicly scuttle your career over show business politics. I respect loyalty, but not career self-immolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Gunn did something wrong (but unrelated to his ability to direct GoTG 3) in the eyes of Disney, so they fired him.  Dave Bautista draws a line in the sand on what Disney did, which may be career suicide.

 

Wow, a lot of entertainers were backballed back in the days of McCarthysim when they espoused, or were even accused of espousing, certain beliefs that others felt were inappropriate.  Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. 

 

I don't support Gunn's comments, but just because I don't agree with them, that does not mean I agree it is OK that he be fired for having made them.  At one time, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. epitomized the freedom of speech held dear in a democracy.  What do we live in now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Well, "freedom of speech" has always had exceptions, such as if someone's speech is inciting hatred or violence, which, it could be argued, Gunn's comments were (even if he didn't intend them to).

 

There are certainly legal limits to freedom of speech.  If Gunn's statements crossed those lines into illegality, was he charged and convicted?  I do not believe Disney has any legal authority to police the Internet.  How far are we prepared to extend the right of hirers to discriminate against workers who have made public statements they dislike or disagree with?

 

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Not in the slightest.

 

What is it, then? 

 

James Gunn posted comments online which were inappropriate and offensive, many years ago.  Now, he is being fired for making those statements. 

 

If someone you or I disagreed with on these Boards 10 or so years back were in a position to fire one of us, would it be OK to do so because we had that disagreement?  Would the topic of the disagreement matter (whether Batman has normal characteristic maxima versus a heated political debate, for example)?  Who gets to decide which topics, and which comments, are sufficiently heinous?  Disney?  Anyone hiring or firing people?

 

The fact that both Gunn and Disney are in the public eye certainly makes it more challenging, but does that make it OK?  Should Disney be required to demonstrate some reasonable basis for any belief that Gunn is a danger to their bottom line? 

 

Where do we draw the line - which topics are so off limits that they mandate allowing such discrimination in perpetuity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What is it, then? 

 

A case of actions having consequences, perhaps? A case of hypocrisy on Disney's part? A case of mob mentality, using cell phones and computers instead of pitch forks? A case of manipulating that mob mentality to take out someone with a differing political opinion? A case of someone being too stupid to delete childish tweets he made in his 40s?

 

There are a lot of things it could be or is. Most of them aren't good things.

 

But it's certainly not a violation of his right to free speech. Gunn has no First Amendment protections here. He may have some legal recourse, but if he takes that recourse, you won't see his lawyers mentioning anything about free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to research the practical limitations of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech/expression online. So far I've found no indication that under it the American government has either the obligation or the authority to police private employers' terms of employment regarding the views expressed by their employees; only that Congress cannot pass laws restricting expression.

 

If someone else has further official information, I'd love to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disney has all sorts of clauses in their contracts with actors, directors, and so on, many of which cover how you present yourself to the public. Gunn may be able to sue Disney for breach of contract, but as far as we know he is not doing that. There may even be a "pay out" clause to terminate the contract with some amount of compensation, and Gunn may be taking the pay out and bowing out gracefully. Unfortunately, we are not privvy to such details.

 

In any event, issues of free speech are irrelevant in cases of contract employment where it is the terms of the contract that matter, not the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Freedom of Speech only means the government won't pass laws to censor you.

 

This is way off topic, but briefly as I can:

 

The first amendment is the constitutional requirement by the people that the federal government protect and not attack free expression insofar as it does not materially damage other rights.

 

Freedom of expression ("speech," the press, assembly etc) is an innate, God-given, inalienable right all human beings share simply by being human.  We all have the right to freedom of expression merely by being human, although that right's expression can be suppressed (you can be silenced, you just still have the right to speech).

 

As a society, we agree to an informal and unwritten contract: we will give up certain non-critical freedoms in order to gain greater safety and expression of our overall rights.  I have the right to express myself however I wish even if it is lying and damaging to people, but we have agreed that it is illegal to slander or libel someone.  I have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (as the saying goes) but have agreed that it ought to be illegal to create chaos and riot that may harm people or businesses.

 

Gunn has the right to say whatever he wants, but we have agreed that private businesses may choose to punish someone for their expression if they deem it too damaging to their business or public image.  Whether this is a proper use of that power or not, is up to some debate.  Youtube has the power to not carry Alex Jones' content if they choose to, because it is their business and their money to do with as they wish, even though Jones has the right to say what he chooses.  Businesses are private organizations who are spending their money to hire and promote people: its their money to do with what they choose.

 

The thing we all have to try to cling to is the greatest amount of liberty with the least amount of censorship.  Putting up with things we don't care for and don't want to hear is the entire point of freedom of speech; if all we tolerate is things we want to hear, then we've abandoned the entire concept of liberty.

 

As I've stated before, I do not like people being fired for what they say, I think that's a bad precedent and what someone says on their own time in their own capacity, not representing the business directly, is their own affair.  I wouldn't want a boss to fire me for some off-color joke I've made in the past, with my friends.

 

Putting a gigantic monkey wrench into this whole discussion is how private speech is, and to what degree you represent your employer on social media.  It seems completely public and a high-profile person has always had to be more careful than ordinary citizens.  A senator or governor can't get away with stuff which you or I can on a regular basis.  People who are famously part of a business are less free to say things without necessarily impacting the business they work for (say, the girl who plays Wendy for the commercials).

 

All of this stuff has to be taken into consideration, its not as simple as we do/do not have free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disney has a "brand identity" as a purveyor of family-friendly entertainment.   Marvel Studios, while they may have a freer hand than, say, Disney Animation, nonetheless has the shadow of that brand ID looming over their heads.  

It wasn't political correctness or "SJWs"(hate that term) who got Gunn fired.  It was running astray of corporate standards and practices and most likely violating contractual clauses.  It's messed up that it happened over tasteless jokes made years ago,  but it happened nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So he's fired from his role as Director for something he wrote many years ago, but Disney will still use the script he wrote much more recently.  

And they fired him because of their 'family values' because nothing says family values like enabling the smear campaign of a right wing rape advocate.  Also haven't Disney owned companies hired Victor Salva in the past? No seriously, I'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Twilight said:

And they fired him because of their 'family values' because nothing says family values like enabling the smear campaign of a right wing rape advocate.  Also haven't Disney owned companies hired Victor Salva in the past? No seriously, I'm asking.

You and Bobcat both... but it looks like the answer is yes.

 

bobcatgoldthwaitI love @jamesgunn. He’s a loyal friend, super talented, passionate and kind. I wanted to say something, here it is:


Dear @disney, I would hate for you to come off as hypocritical so I’m suggesting that you remove my voice from an attraction that’s coming to your park. It’s called WORLD OF COLOR - VILLAINOUS, and I reprise the role of Pain, a role I played in HERCULES. You see here’s the deal, years ago I made a lot of sarcastically shocking and offensive jokes. Many that I’m embarrassed about now, and I’d hate to make you guys look bad seeing that I’m openly critical of the president and his administration, and you seem to be taking your lead from some of his radical fringe supporters. I think James Woods may have recorded a voice for this new attraction, too. Why not check out some of his whacky past tweets?! They’re a hoot! 
For the record I do stand with survivors of sexual abuse and I was wondering if you guys are still making money off of your movie POWDER? Asking for a friend.
Thanks, Bobcat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...