SomeOldGuy
Sidekick
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 4,062
- Reaction score
- 2,183
- Points
- 103
Good letter. Rehire Gunn.
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
If they don't bring Gunn back they should pull the plug on GotG3 altogether. I can't imagine what director, after all this vocal support from the cast, would want to step into Gunn's shoes. It would be toxic for all involved.
Brett Ratner? Scott Buck? Steven S. DeKnight? Rian Johnson? Roel Reine?
Because he saw the Last Jedi?Why is Johnson in this list?
The GotG cast is CANCELLED.
The Dark World, The Incredible Hulk and the Ant-Man movies totally exist.This is great. This entire situation has been incredibly ****ed up and I'm glad to see the cast stand by him and not give into self righteous superiority like many have been doing. It could be unlikely, but I'm hoping the cast can put a gun to Disney's head and threaten to not do it if he isn't rehired. They have contracts sure, and it would be a huge legal mess, but in the end, Disney will do whatever it wants to do. If they rehire Gunn, it will because they will have decided to, not merely because of this gesture.
Gunn is the key to these movies success. Without him, good luck getting his replacement and it working. If they do Guardians without Gunn, it could be the first misstep for them as a result.
The Dark World, The Incredible Hulk and the Ant-Man movies totally exist.
What was Ant-Man and Wasp's excuse? t:To be fair on these movies, these 3 films had issues that came up largely in the actual filming or post-production. In the case of Ant-Man, those issues did come in pre-production, but basically at the very end of it after actors were signed, locations worked out, costumes made, etc. In this case, pre-production is still very much in its infancy so in that regard, it is different. Great change can still be made.
What was Ant-Man and Wasp's excuse? t:
Ant Man at least had the benefit of a story from a fantastic writer.
He said it would their first misstep. That is what I was responding to.I'm confused? Did Ant-Man & Wasp have some kind of drama that I am unaware of? Or are you just talking in terms of the quality of the movie itself?
He said it would their first misstep. That is what I was responding to.
Oh I liked it well enough. But it is clearly inferior to what Wright produces, it makes me realize what they passed on.Gotcha. Quality is relative, as with anything. A&W is doing well at the BO (relative to its budget...looks to outperform the 1st one) and I overall thought it was fun. Granted, not on the higher end of my MCU list, but I found it at least entertaining.
Oh I liked it well enough. But it is clearly inferior to what Wright produces, it makes me realize what they passed on.
I feel like TIH is a movie they probably just regret making. It almost felt like a safe fall back in case Iron Man did not work out. Why they filmed it when they did, as opposed to a year later.That is fair. As for your earlier list, I think Wonder Woman shows what we missed in Patty Jenkins, as well. TIH is a bit murkier though. No obvious director change and that just amounted to a few deleted scenes that I don't think tremendously alter the movie.
I wasn't a fan of Ant man and the Wasp.Wright would have never made a movie like Ant-Man and the Wasp. I mean, a movie with a female protagonist? No way.
Funny how they decry mob mentality which is something James Gunn himself has gladly propagated several times
This is great. This entire situation has been incredibly ****ed up and I'm glad to see the cast stand by him and not give into self righteous superiority like many have been doing. It could be unlikely, but I'm hoping the cast can put a gun to Disney's head and threaten to not do it if he isn't rehired. They have contracts sure, and it would be a huge legal mess, but in the end, Disney will do whatever it wants to do. If they rehire Gunn, it will because they will have decided to, not merely because of this gesture.
Gunn is the key to these movies success. Without him, good luck getting his replacement and it working. If they do Guardians without Gunn, it could be the first misstep for them as a result.
First, they are NOT the Guardians of the Galaxy. They are actors who play the role of fictional characters and can be easily replaced.
Second, testifying to Gunn's good character is laughable. Even before these huge amount of pedo/rape Tweets Gunn was proving himself to be a hate-monger and a political hack. James Gunn deserves worse to be honest. So, Disney had better stand by their proper decision to can his ass.
Third, anyone defending Gunn is either doing so out of ignorance or are as much of a low-life as he turned out to be.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You mean to tell me they can't get a director who can write a screenplay laced with juvenile language and turn the soundtrack into a mixtape?
I agree that the environment may be toxic due to the cast, but Gunn's approach to these movies is a bit overstated IMO.
You're undervaluing Gunn's vision and what it takes to make a movie. Those movies are much more than that. First, those things you stated aren't solely what it takes that makes them special. It's a superficial way to see what makes a movie work. The "juvenile humor" and soundtrack are what helps them feel unique, but that's the frosting to a delicious cake. Second, if you think it's that easy to make those things even work, you're mistaken. My point is anyone can just include those elements. But it takes someone to come up with those concepts and properly execute them. Those ideas were inspired. That's part of what great art. The fact an artist can conceive of an idea and see something in something no one else can. By the way, GOTG was the first successful superhero comedy that paved the way for irreverent comic type movies you're seeing now. And that formula isn't easily repeated. Fox is the only one that made it work. It even helped Thor Ragnorak find its footing. Gunn took characters nobody really cared about and made it into something truly unique all around. It's one of the rare comic book movies to take an already great comic concept and finesse it to improve on it. No other director had the vision to put those in in the first place. We had never seen a superhero movie quite like that. His vision and basic approach are so specific towards who he is and his interests and himself. Whether how these movies are executed is your cup of tea or not is fine, I just don't see how people can ignore his contribution to these movies. Because they are him. Anyone following those two movies will just come off as a pale imitation because of that.
The only way to do that is for the next director to make it their own thing. But the problem is their own thing will make the identity of the franchise change. There lies a big problem. The identity of these films have always been Gunn. He made these his own. Guardians is as much a James Gunn movie as The Dark Knight feels like a Nolan movie or the early Spider-Man films being Sam Raimi films. Imagine if another filmmaker made The Dark Knight Rises instead of Nolan. These films have the DNA of their filmmakers within the identity of them, which happen to compliment the material, making them the ideal match. It's lightening in a bottle. I just don't see Guardians 3 working as well without him. This isn't like the first two Thor's where they were trying to find its footing.