Director James Gunn under fire for offensive tweets [Update: Fired]

[Alicia]

As far as what the trend may be leading to here, content of off color comments aside, keeps reminding me of the Nosedive episode of Black Mirror. In the world of the episode everyone can rate everyone on pretty much everything they do using social media. Your rating gets too low and you can't get a job, rent a car, buy a home in a nice neighborhood, etc.

And while attempting to portray a bleak possible future world, Brooker may have hit it a little too close to home. China is actually introducing a points system where your personal ratings can already block you from traveling within the country or getting a job, and will soon control more of your abilities as a citizen. What's scary about the China scenario is that the state itself can change your rating, and may do so if speak out against the government.

The people being targeted here in America seem to be those that speak out against the government, but it isn't the government doing the witch hunting, however the effect is the same. And before you bring it up again, yes Roseanne was for this president, but her incident was organic and happened in real time. The conservatives that are on this witch hunt have turned the progressive's political correctness machine against itself, using liberals' own sensibilities to punish their own kind. I'd say I'm impressed if it wasn't so sickening to watch.

I feel like we're witnessing the start of a new type of strange modern McCarthyism, but instead of alleged communists, we're seeing people targeted and fired in Hollywood for alleged pedophilia. If someone is convicted of actually doing or having inappropriate materials on their computer, then by all means, throw the book at them. But these jokes do not necessarily mean what some accusers think they mean. Offensive as they may be, I keep seeing comments online referring to a vast conspiracy theory about all of Hollywood being pedophiles, and it's starting to sound a little scary. A little McCarthyism 2.0.

This is the world we live in now I guess. 35 seconds into this video sums it up:

 

[Andysol]

As far as what the trend may be leading to here, content of off color comments aside, keeps reminding me of the Nosedive episode of Black Mirror. In the world of the episode everyone can rate everyone on pretty much everything they do using social media. Your rating gets too low and you can't get a job, rent a car, buy a home in a nice neighborhood, etc.

And while attempting to portray a bleak possible future world, Brooker may have hit it a little too close to home. China is actually introducing a points system where your personal ratings can already block you from traveling within the country or getting a job, and will soon control more of your abilities as a citizen. What's scary about the China scenario is that the state itself can change your rating, and may do so if speak out against the government.

The people being targeted here in America seem to be those that speak out against the government, but it isn't the government doing the witch hunting, however the effect is the same. And before you bring it up again, yes Roseanne was for this president, but her incident was organic and happened in real time. The conservatives that are on this witch hunt have turned the progressive's political correctness machine against itself, using liberals' own sensibilities to punish their own kind. I'd say I'm impressed if it wasn't so sickening to watch.

I feel like we're witnessing the start of a new type of strange modern McCarthyism, but instead of alleged communists, we're seeing people targeted and fired in Hollywood for alleged pedophilia. If someone is convicted of actually doing or having inappropriate materials on their computer, then by all means, throw the book at them. But these jokes do not necessarily mean what some accusers think they mean. Offensive as they may be, I keep seeing comments online referring to a vast conspiracy theory about all of Hollywood being pedophiles, and it's starting to sound a little scary. A little McCarthyism 2.0.

This is the world we live in now I guess. 35 seconds into this video sums it up:

1) Loved that episode. If for no other reason then Ms. Howard.
2) Turning the PC machine against the liberals is actually hilarious to me because I cannot stand that machine. And, well, neither can the large majority of America. Liberals have the issues- most people agree with them on the issues- but they can’t get out of their own way with the over-the-top PC and over offended movement. It just makes them look weak. And as you know, Americans aren’t fond of looking weak. If a 16 year old white girl wants to dress up in a Kimono, maybe don’t lose your mind over it. There are bigger issues at hand.
3) Is the idea of pedophilia in Hollywood new, though? With all the Roman Polanski and Woody Allens of the world, amongst a multitude of others (and allegations), it’s been the assumption for a while. And remember that Hollywood didn’t even shun them, they embraced them.

 

[Dhdhddh]

As far as Black Mirror episodes go, this incident reminds me more of ‘Hated in the Nation’ where the fate of an individual is decided by the outrage mob/hive mind. The more I think about that show, the more accurate it seems.

 

[Alicia]

1) Loved that episode. If for no other reason then Ms. Howard.
2) Turning the PC machine against the liberals is actually hilarious to me because I cannot stand that machine. And, well, neither can the large majority of America. Liberals have the issues- most people agree with them on the issues- but they can’t get out of their own way with the over-the-top PC and over offended movement. It just makes them look weak. And as you know, Americans aren’t fond of looking weak. If a 16 year old white girl wants to dress up as Pocahontas, maybe don’t lose your mind over it. There are bigger issues at hand.
3) Is the idea of pedophilia in Hollywood new, though? With all the Roman Polanski and Woody Allens of the world, amongst a multitude of others (and allegations), it’s been the assumption for a while. And remember that Hollywood didn’t even shun them, they embraced them.

Speaking only to point 3: I'm sure Hollywood isn't the only place we see problems like that. And it may not be much different than in all aspects of business, government, and anywhere where there are people that are willing to take advantage of others that are weaker, younger, or lower positions of power.* It's not a Hollywood problem so much is it's a human problem.

It's just easier to notice when it happens with famous people.

*And I do not wish to get into a deeper discussion here on how those in power may take advantage of said power more than regular folk... As we can see from the #MeToo movement, we can take care of that problem without cherry-picking off-color comments on social media. Problems as serious as those should be sorted with actual reports from the abused, discovered evidence on hard drives, and police reports. I don't mean to conflate a witch hunt on Twitter with actual sexual assaults. These are two very different things.

 

[jtsalien]

AgrI still stand by what I said earlier, you can make a joke about anything, especially if it's something you have first hand experience with. Comedy can be important for people to understand differing points of view and can help individuals, groups, and even a nation, to cope with tragedy. But first and foremost, a joke must be constructed in a way that makes the author's intent clear, and secondly, it should probably be funny.

"Comedy is when a man falls down a flight of stairs.... Tragedy is when I get a papercut." - Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks proves your point for you. The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, and a lot of his other work expertly pick about just about every aspect of our culture and laugh at it. And gets away with a lot of jokes not many other comedians could. But the problem is, and where most people fail at this..... It has to be funny

 

[Alicia]

"Comedy is when a man falls down a flight of stairs.... Tragedy is when I get a papercut." - Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks proves your point for you. The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, and a lot of his other work expertly pick about just about every aspect of our culture and laugh at it. And gets away with a lot of jokes not many other comedians could. But the problem is, and where most people fail at this..... It has to be funny

:thumbsup:

 

[Lucky Planet]

Agreed.

Just because I feel it's time for comedy to grow-up a little with the culture, and be more respectful to all people, does not mean we should go back in time and punish those that made jokes in the past we now find out of taste. (And I am certainly against going on a witch hunt for specific types of comments from people that fit a specific type, which is what seems to be going on here.)

I still stand by what I said earlier, you can make a joke about anything, especially if it's something you have first hand experience with. Comedy can be important for people to understand differing points of view and can help individuals, groups, and even a nation, to cope with tragedy. But first and foremost, a joke must be constructed in a way that makes the author's intent clear, and secondly, it should probably be funny.

there were people that were very offended by FRIENDS when they watched it on netflix and that caused a ltiny bit of controversy. a lot of people on twitter were saying how problematic the show was and how maybe it should never be on air.

This happened before the Roseanne thing too, there were people wondering if netflix should get rid of it or if it should never be shown on tv again.

it also reminds me of this comic about Ace Ventura that was going around the same time (ace ventura was another one that caused some tiny drama on twitter)

 

[Clive]

I mean, yeah. Old movies can be homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist. Society's tolerance levels evolve. This isn't news, and I can't quite tell if you're saying it's a bad thing.

 

[MrRoamer]

there were people that were very offended by FRIENDS when they watched it on netflix and that caused a ltiny bit of controversy. a lot of people on twitter were saying how problematic the show was and how maybe it should never be on air.

This happened before the Roseanne thing too, there were people wondering if netflix should get rid of it or if it should never be shown on tv again.

it also reminds me of this comic about Ace Ventura that was going around the same time (ace ventura was another one that caused some tiny drama on twitter)

*Cough* Wild Wild West *Cough*

Admittedly while the PC movement I think was really just people saying how can we make ourselves as a society more open minded and better... it lost that simple idea and became a much larger beast than people are ill equipped to handle.

A big part of the problem though is the Super PC Crowd and whatever this new thing is don't play by the same rules. One tries to stay within the limits of engagement while the other flips the table and burns everything to the ground.

 

[Lucky Planet]

I mean, yeah. Old movies can be homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist. Society's tolerance levels evolve. This isn't news, and I can't quite tell if you're saying it's a bad thing.

im saying people were wanting to ban those movies from being shown because they got offended. there was a discussion going on that maybe those old movies and shows might have to disappear from streaming. it made enough noise to be covered by some entertaining publications.

do you agree or disagree that they should be taken out of streaming services?

 

[Alicia]

there were people that were very offended by FRIENDS when they watched it on netflix and that caused a ltiny bit of controversy. a lot of people on twitter were saying how problematic the show was and how maybe it should never be on air.

This happened before the Roseanne thing too, there were people wondering if netflix should get rid of it or if it should never be shown on tv again.

it also reminds me of this comic about Ace Ventura that was going around the same time (ace ventura was another one that caused some tiny drama on twitter)

im saying people were wanting to ban those movies from being shown because they got offended. there was a discussion going on that maybe those old movies and shows might have to disappear from streaming. it made enough noise to be covered by some entertaining publications.

do you agree or disagree that they should be taken out of streaming services?

Not sure how this applies in respects to the current conversation, as that is the case of all media (including books written hundreds of years ago for example). A time period should be taken into consideration when consuming classic media.

The Jazz Singer was the first feature film to incorporate synchronized sound, the talkies as they called them back in the day. It is admired and preserved as an important part of film history. It also prominently features a character in blackface, as was common of the era. Should we destroy the film? Or recognize its importance in film history?

From Wikipedia:

In 1996, The Jazz Singer was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" motion pictures. In 1998, the film was chosen in voting conducted by the American Film Institute as one of the best American films of all time, ranking at number ninety.
​

Some exhibitors (like Warner Bros classic cartoons for example) will include a title card before the program, explaining how the film or show was produced in a different era, and do not reflect the views of the current company. That way it can be shown unedited, but with context to the audience.

But again, I fear this is getting too off topic, and is not related to the topic at hand.

 

[belloq87]

Old movies need to be evaluated in the context of the times in which they were made.

GONE WITH THE WIND, for example, is packed with stuff that would today be considered "problematic" (a word I don't really like in this context, but for ease of discussion I'm using it). It is also, however, still a marvelously crafted, sweeping, epic-scale production from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Its "problematic" elements should not prevent its other qualities from being valued and enjoyed.

We can - and should - examine the ways in which standards have changed, and reflect on that, but not at the expense of writing off the entire work. And certainly no film (or book, or painting, or piece of music) should ever be considered so taboo that it can't be accessed for viewing.

ETA: Sorry for continuing the topic drift.

 

[Clive]

im saying people were wanting to ban those movies from being shown because they got offended. there was a discussion going on that maybe those old movies and shows might have to disappear from streaming. it made enough noise to be covered by some entertaining publications.

do you agree or disagree that they should be taken out of streaming services?

Literally no one is saying that. This is a bad faith argument.

 

[Lucky Planet]

Not sure how this applies in respects to the current conversation, as that is the case of all media (including books written hundreds of years ago for example). A time period should be taken into consideration when consuming classic media.

The Jazz Singer was the first feature film to incorporate synchronized sound, the talkies as they called them back in the day. It is admired and preserved as an important part of film history. It also prominently features a character in blackface, as was common of the era. Should we destroy the film? Or recognize its importance in film history?

From Wikipedia:

In 1996, The Jazz Singer was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" motion pictures. In 1998, the film was chosen in voting conducted by the American Film Institute as one of the best American films of all time, ranking at number ninety.
​

Some exhibitors (like Warner Bros classic cartoons for example) will include a title card before the program, explaining how the film or show was produced in a different era, and do not reflect the views of the current company. That way it can be shown unedited, but with context to the audience.

But again, I fear this is getting too off topic, and is not related to the topic at hand.

the point is that there will be many other celebrities in trouble based on their older comments or roles. this is only gonna get stronger and more aggresive, Look at what happened with Scarlett Johanson and the movie she was going to do next, the outrage machine made her quit, she didnt even say anything, she just got hired for the wrong role. now shes not doing the movie. If people's tweets got them in trouble, movie roles will come next:

Scarlett Johansson drops transgender 'Rub & Tug' role after backlash

Old movies need to be evaluated in the context of the times in which they were made.

GONE WITH THE WIND, for example, is packed with stuff that would today be considered "problematic" (a word I don't really like in this context, but for ease of discussion I'm using it). It is also, however, still a marvelously crafted, sweeping, epic-scale production from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Its "problematic" elements should not prevent its other qualities from being valued and enjoyed.

We can - and should - examine the ways in which standards have changed, and reflect on that, but not at the expense of writing off the entire work. And certainly no film (or book, or painting, or piece of music) should ever be considered so taboo that it can't be accessed for viewing.

ETA: Sorry for continuing the topic drift.

Gone with the Wind was banned from a playing in a theater because of backlash already. so this is Already happening.


Theater bans ‘Gone With the Wind’ for being racially ‘insensitive’

Literally no one is saying that. This is a bad faith argument.

I will have to look over the dozens of tweets but ill take screen shots for you on the people wanting Friends out of netflix,
in the meantime you can look at these

Millennials watching ‘Friends’ on Netflix shocked by storylines | The Independent

Friends: 10 times the classic sitcom was problematic | The Independent

90s sitcom 'Friends' criticised as 'homophobic' and 'sexist'


'Friends' is sexist, homophobic and loves to fat-shame | Cosmopolitan Australia

heres these too

Sinful Cinema: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Most Offensive and Homophobic Football Movie Ever Made | The House Next Door | Slant Magazine

12 Mainstream Movies You Forgot Were Transphobic

'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective' - Older Movies We Love That Are Now Offensive - Zimbio

Most Controversial Movies - Racist, Sexist, Homophobic

 

[Clive]

the point is that there will be many other celebrities in trouble based on their older comments or roles. this is only gonna get stronger and more aggresive, Look at what happened with Scarlett Johanson and the movie she was going to do next, the outrage machine made her quit, she didnt even say anything, she just got hired for the wrong role. now shes not doing the movie. If people's tweets got them in trouble, movie roles will come next:

Scarlett Johansson drops transgender 'Rub & Tug' role after backlash

Gone with the Wind was banned from a playing in a theater because of backlash already. so this is Already happening.


Theater bans ‘Gone With the Wind’ for being racially ‘insensitive’

I will have to look over the dozens of tweets but ill take screen shots for you on the people wanting Friends out of netflix,
in the meantime you can look at these


heres these too

I'm not going to engage in your bad faith argumentation much longer, but I'm not going to say nothing while you continue to spew this inane rhetoric.

Moving down the list...

Scarlett Johannson willingly chose to step down from Rub & Tug after being subjected to intense criticism. That criticism was warranted. There's a strong argument that cis actors shouldn't be playing trans parts. It was a bad call, and she course-corrected. People SHOULD speak out against these sort of baffling casting decisions.

It is perfectly reasonable for a single movie theater to opt not to screen Gone with the Wind due to its (yes, wildly insensitive and racist) content. No one has called for the movie to be destroyed from the public record. You can view it a million other ways.

No one of consequence is actually campaigning for these shows or films to be removed or destroyed. It is fair to reexamine pop cultural artifacts in light of evolving sociopolitical norms and publish those findings. It does not mean we are calling for the heads of the writers, directors, and actors who participated in the making of those pieces of media, and if it does, then that's preposterous - but no one is doing that in good faith, and certainly not in the articles you've listed.

Consider moving out of your bubble a bit.

 

[Miketheboss]

There's a strong argument that cis actors shouldn't be playing trans parts. It was a bad call, and she course-corrected. People SHOULD speak out against these sort of baffling casting decisions.

lol, I literally can't. So then gay people shouldn't be playing straight roles? Or Americans shouldn't play British roles. Beyoncé shouldn't play Nala for the live action Lion King.

 

[Andysol]

Scarlett Johannson willingly chose to step down from Rub & Tug after being subjected to intense criticism. That criticism was warranted. There's a strong argument that cis actors shouldn't be playing trans parts. It was a bad call, and she course-corrected. People SHOULD speak out against these sort of baffling casting decisions.

There isn’t an eye roll emoji big enough to translate how I feel about this paragraph.

There’s many things I could say to this, starting with Dallas Buyers Club. But instead, I’ll just vehemently disagree and say- let’s move on before this devolves into something even more off subject.

 

[Clive]

There isn’t an eye roll emoji big enough to translate how I feel about this paragraph.

There’s many things I could say to this, starting with Dallas Buyers Club. But instead, I’ll just vehemently disagree and say- let’s move on before this devolves into something even more off subject.

It is generally understood that historically oppressed peoples (that includes LGBQT, people of color, etc.) are offered a proportionally tiny number of substantial roles in film & television projects (yes, even today) that suit their identities. That's a fact: there aren't a whole lot of roles for people who are not white, cis, and/or straight. It's insulting when the few roles that do pop up are taken by white, straight, cis actors (i.e. ScarJo for Rub & Tug). So yes, they do tend to be afforded greater flexibility in casting... because otherwise the parts don't exist. Playing a white American versus a white British person isn't an actual controversy, and you know it. Knock it off with the bad faith argumentation.

It's painful you think the existence of Dallas Buyers Club is an actual point in your favor. Many see Jared Leto's performance as cringe-y, and many are deeply disappointed that he won an Oscar for the performance (just as we've come to regret many award-winning performances rooted in insensitivity or unfortunate realities of the era).

Let me know when you or Mike can articulate actual arguments.

 

[Miketheboss]

It is generally understood that historically oppressed peoples (that includes LGBQT, people of color, etc.) are offered a proportionally tiny number of substantial roles in film & television projects (yes, even today) that suit their identities. That's a fact: there aren't a whole lot of roles for people who are not white, cis, and/or straight. It's insulting when the few roles that do pop up are taken by white, straight, cis actors (i.e. ScarJo for Rub & Tug). So yes, they do tend to be afforded greater flexibility in casting... because otherwise the parts don't exist. Playing a white American versus a white British person isn't an actual controversy, and you know it. Knock it off with the bad faith argumentation.

It's painful you think the existence of Dallas Buyers Club is an actual point in your favor. Many see Jared Leto's performance as cringe-y, and many are deeply disappointed that he won an Oscar for the performance (just as we've come to regret many award-winning performances rooted in insensitivity or unfortunate realities of the era).

Let me know when you or Mike can articulate actual arguments.

Hollywood seems to be like 80% gay but yeah, go on. Seems like their are far less straight males represented but what do I know.

I hate the term people of color. Is white, light brown, tan not a color? LMAO. About representation, 23% of the population is LGBT. 14% is "Black". So if you see 20% of Hollywood to be LGBT, then they are adequately represented.

 

[Clive]

Hollywood seems to be like 80% gay but yeah, go on. Seems like their are far less straight males represented but what do I know.

The fact that you're resorting to wild, borderline homophobic generalizations instead of actually engaging with the argument or providing your own is all I need to know.