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

[Andysol]

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.

Eh, so you saying “many see Jared Leto’s performance as cringe-y” qualifies as articulating an argument? Ok.

I had a couple of paragraphs written, but it isn’t worth it. So I’ll say this instead. You want to know one reason Trump won? This right here. Instead of gun reform laws while schools are being shot up, or health care reform or immigration reform. You and other liberals decide to go die on a hill about “cis actors taking trans roles”. Please, tackle the egregious cultural appropriation next. What could be worse in our country?

I’ll pick my crazy over your crazy, any day.


Edited for typos

 

[P@n!K_Sw1tC#]

Delete

 

[Alicia]

I do not wish this discussion to get too far off track, y'all.

 

[P@n!K_Sw1tC#]

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.

You’d be shocked to learn just how many LGBT people vehemently disagree with you, myself included. Calling someone borderline homophobic the way you just did cheapens the meaning of what that actually is. Please learn to speak for yourself.

-Kindly

 

[Skipper Justin]

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.

Umm. No. Look at the big budget films that’s focus on a gay man/woman or transgender person. They are usually played by cis marketable straight people. Even though I loved Love Simon, it was a straight guy playing gay writen by someone who did not have that authentic perspective. LGBTQ is not “adequately” represented.

 

[Mad Dog]

Washington Post writer Megan McArdle has an interesting opinion piece on this crazy twitter and social media stuff. Sorry, I'm an old foggie and don't know how to link, but the story is titled "We need a statute of limitations on bad tweets". And....she has a great observation quote, "Social media develops into a sort of freelance surveillance state" (my bold)...

 

[Alicia]

Washington Post writer Megan McArdle has an interesting opinion piece on this crazy twitter and social media stuff. Sorry, I'm an old foggie and don't know how to link, but the story is titled "We need a statute of limitations on bad tweets". And....she has a great observation quote, "Social media develops into a sort of freelance surveillance state" (my bold)...

Here's the link: James Gunn shows we need a statute of limitations on bad tweets - The Washington Post

(And you just paste the URL directly into a message on the forum and it replaces it automatically with the title/link.)

 

[Clive]

You’d be shocked to learn just how many LGBT people vehemently disagree with you, myself included. Calling someone borderline homophobic the way you just did cheapens the meaning of what that actually is. Please learn to speak for yourself.

-Kindly

Sorry, but no. You don't get to declare flippantly that "eighty percent of Hollywood appears to be gay," derisively, and not get called on it - especially as part of a bad faith argument as to why their actual, tangible representation in media shouldn't matter. There's enough plausible deniability in the wording to keep me from outright saying homophobic, but it's only a few steps away.

 

[P@n!K_Sw1tC#]

...yet that’s exactly what you do about everything else lol :shrug:​

 

[Lucky Planet]

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.

so you are saying that no Cis actor should play an LGTB character ever again. if that's how you feel then okay. thats that. cased closed

if you are okay with censorship of problematic things then thats okay too, i just wanted to know where you stood. you might say this was in ill faith or you might not want to pay much attention to the non important people wanting to ban media, and thats okay too.

but that will eventually grow. regardless of how we feel about it. sure the Gone with the wind example seems small, but do you think that movie will be played 10 years from now? like honestly?

if you think these things are trivial and not of any importance then thats fine, if you are okay with some forms of censorship thats fine too.
I was just pointing out how the goal post keeps going up. because it is. you might not want to pay any importance to it, but this is not going anywhere. political correctness will only grow.


I guess you agree with the cancellation of Bill and Ted in Hollywood then as well?
just a thought. (the show that got them cancelled was called offensive and Homophobic)
is that a bad example? im just asking

I personally am just asking your opinion. you seem very passionate about this subject and the conversation is getting heated. im just wondering about this because the political correctness going on is very confusing

 

[Alicia]

Okay I’m out. It was a nice discussion. But I feel we’ve covered all the angles and arguments on all sides. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

 

[Lucky Planet]

Okay I’m out. It was a nice discussion. But I feel we’ve covered all the angles and arguments on all sides. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

you are right, I think ill follow you out of the thread too, the discussion is only going to turn ugly from now on. I can sense it. I think it's been enough. feels heated already. (i have enough conversation to last 3 pages, but this is getting kinda hostile already, )
I know I replied to fallow with questions but you have the right idea, im going to tap out now anyways :whiteflag:

thank you Andysol for your posts. you were pretty reasonable. I appreciate your inputs in the thread. thanks

it's been informative, too bad the conversation couldn't stay civil. see ya everybody. ut:

 

[TheGentTrent]

Just gonna add the reactions from the GOTG stars before we get locked.











Michael Rooker quit Twitter in protest, so I couldn't use his.

 

[Clive]

so you are saying that no Cis actor should play an LGTB character ever again. if that's how you feel then okay. thats that. cased closed

if you are okay with censorship of problematic things then thats okay too, i just wanted to know where you stood. you might say this was in ill faith or you might not want to pay much attention to the non important people wanting to ban media, and thats okay too.

but that will eventually grow. regardless of how we feel about it. sure the Gone with the wind example seems small, but do you think that movie will be played 10 years from now? like honestly?

if you think these things are trivial and not of any importance then thats fine, if you are okay with some forms of censorship thats fine too.
I was just pointing out how the goal post keeps going up. because it is. you might not want to pay any importance to it, but this is not going anywhere. political correctness will only grow.


I guess you agree with the cancellation of Bill and Ted in Hollywood then as well?
just a thought. (the show that got them cancelled was called offensive and Homophobic)
is that a bad example? im just asking

I personally am just asking your opinion. you seem very passionate about this subject and the conversation is getting heated. im just wondering about this because the political correctness going on is very confusing

Ideally? No, they shouldn't. No one's calling for the heads of those who did in the past. Let's be better going forward.

What you're describing isn't censorship. A private theater has the right to screen whatever they want, just as you have the right to screen whatever you'd like in your own home (or venue, or whatever). And yes, I do think that movie will be played ten years from now - it's a ludicrous thought! Racist material aside, it's one of the highest grossing films of all time and a major cinematic achievement in more ways than one. One has to watch it through a lens of understanding of where it came from and why; historical context matters. There's a reason we haven't destroyed (and still actively screen/discuss) Birth of a Nation or, as someone else pointed out, The Jazz Singer.

What you describe as "goal posts" most people would describe as "doing the right thing." Write actual parts for underrepresented/historically oppressed populations and let members of those populations... play the parts. Exercise restraint in how we present older, more insensitive media.

I think the decision to cancel Bill & Ted in Hollywood was a knee-jerk, boneheaded decision. I've watched the clips and would argue they're... cringe-y. Cancel the show bad (and put people out of work)? Of course not. Maybe rethink the joke and come up with something a little funnier? Definitely.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

This discussion has gone in circles and no longer even remotely pertains to the topic. Locking.

 

[Nick]

Opening the topic back up I thought it was notable that Dave Bautista basically said that unless they use James Gunn's script, he's going to ask to be released or quit:

 

[Scott W.]

Opening the topic back up I thought it was notable that Dave Bautista basically said that unless they use James Gunn's script, he's going to ask to be released or quit:

I'm glad this thread has been opened up again and I urge everybody to stay on topic here.

I'm interested to see how Disney deal with this. I'd love to see them rehire Gunn and you have to admire Bautista for potentially putting his career on the line for his friend who gave him his big break.

 

[Nick]

Just a warning that if this thread starts going off the rails, it'll be locked again.

 

[HereWeGo]

I honestly don’t think it would be as big of a PR problem as they think it would be if they rehire him. Like 90% (probably more) of GP have NO IDEA any of this is happening because they don’t care and don’t follow movie news like we do. Honestly, I doubt many of them even know who James Gunn is.

If more of the cast follows Dave, then I could see Iger stepping in and just being like “forget it, just rehire him, who cares.” Because above all else, he wants these films to be profitable. And they won’t be if the cast isn’t on board.

 

[Nick]

I honestly don’t think it would be as big of a PR problem as they think it would be if they rehire him. Like 90% (probably more) of GP have NO IDEA any of this is happening because they don’t care and don’t follow movie news like we do. Honestly, I doubt many of them even know who James Gunn is.

If more of the cast follows Dave, then I could see Iger stepping in and just being like “forget it, just rehire him, who cares.” Because above all else, he wants these films to be profitable. And they won’t be if the cast isn’t on board.

Honestly, I don't think GotG3 will do nearly as well as prior installments if they go on with a different director as fans may boycott. And while the GP may not know any different, the fans are the ones who see the movies multiple times. If there is a large enough boycott and people stick to it, it could have a decent impact on the overall Box Office of the film.