Even If Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 Gets Made, Dave Bautista Isn't Sure He Wants To Come Back

Dave Bautista as Drax. (Image: Marvel Studios)

Well, this is just a right ol’ mess, isn’t it.

In July, Disney fired James Gunn, after conservative activists resurfaced Gunn’s history of controversial Tweets.

Since then, the Guardians of the Galaxy series that Gunn wrote and directed has been increasingly in flux, with conflicting reports on whether or not the film would use Gunn’s script, and now, reportedly, it being put on hold altogether.

Throughout all of this, actor Dave Bautista (Drax) has been staunch in his support of Gunn, taking to social media and press opportunities to denounce Disney’s actions and come out in favour of Gunn. Previously, he threatened not to do the movie if Disney didn’t use Gunn’s script. Now, it seems he’s not sure he wants to do it at all.

In a recent interview on The Jonathan Ross Show, Bautista confirms that the movie is on hold and further explains his ambivalent position on matters:

There’s a bit of an issue. It’s a bittersweet conversation. No - it’s a bitter, bitter conversation, because I’m not really happy with what they’ve done with James Gunn. They’re putting the movie off. It’s on hold indefinitely.

To be honest with you, I don’t know if I want to work for Disney ... I’ve been very vocal about the way I feel. I’m not afraid to admit the way I feel.

Whether or not Disney was justified in firing Gunn - which is a discussion we don’t have the space for here - this is a right mess now. Guardians was Marvel Studios’ secondary flagship franchise, and now its entire future, along with the support of many of the MCU’s most popular stars, is in jeopardy.

However the MCU looks in the future, it’s probably going to be a good deal different than we expected just a couple of months ago.


Comments

    I like this guy and I love the character Drax.
    A big F U to outrage mobs, well done idiots.

      blame the Alt-Right dude/s who made it happen. Who were more concerned about exposing (the apparent) hypocrisy of the left than the careers they were trying to ruin. And for what, some petty revenge over Rosanne's firing. Morons. The whole bunch of them.

        No, you blame the Left, who are openly (not apparently) hypocritical about such things.

        Look no further than Sarah Jeong's appointment to the New York Times editorial board as lead writer on technology, despite her openly racist tweets.

        They wanted Roseanne gone for her tweets, and got their wish. Yet are fine with Sarah Jeong hired to a prominent position, despite hers. That's called hypocrisy, considering, they are both effectively the same. Racist.

          Rosanne was racist to a single person, attack them PERSONALLY. Sarah tweet's while hardly good werent directed at anyone particular. See just because both involve racism, doesnt immediately make them completely equal. Likewise just because Rosanne was fired because of a tweet, that doesnt mean James Gunn deserves to be also fired because tweets. The situation between is completely different. Once again as awful as his tweets were, he wasnt 9as far as i know) directly them personally at a person.

            So you're saying that as long as you are racist to a whole group of people, that's fine. But if it's a single person, that's a no-no. The left created the #cancel-culture. This is the fruit of that

            The biggest difference was the timeframe. Compare actions in the recent past (days/weeks) to something that happened literally years ago. I think a lot of us are probably thankful that stupid shit we said ten years ago isn't on the internet waiting to time bomb us because most of us grow, and change emotionally and intellectually over the course of a decade.

          I want to be clear, I make no comment on your personal politics nor on whether Gunn's sacking was appropriate or not with this reply, but "when the left does it it's their fault; when the right does it it's still the left's fault because they did it first" is some bad mental gymnastics. If it's wrong, it's wrong for both sides; it doesn't magically become okay because 'they did it first'.

            I get what you're saying. And I agree with the "if it's wrong, it's wrong.." and that is essentially what this alt-right guy has dug through and found what he found. It was literally a "well, if you're going to apply certain rules to people you don't align with, let's apply those same rules to the people you do align with."

            What you are looking at here is reactionary. In which case, you can most certainly point the finger at the person/group/whatever for causing said reaction.

            That's my take from the situation.

            I may have conservative views. But I will apply the same stance on hypocrisy across the board. Hypocrites are the worst.

              (using the indefinite 'you' through this post, not the personal 'you')

              I just don't see "let's see how you like it" as a reasonable response. I genuinely believe that if it's wrong in the first place, doing it back (even as 'let's apply your own rules against you') is hypocritical. That's just lowering yourself to the same level as the people who did the thing you don't like, it makes you no better than them, and perhaps worse, it lowers the quality of discourse across the board because it has more people acting shitty.

              I don't at all believe that we're so animalistic, or that this was such an instinctive moment, that the people involved should somehow be freed of responsibility for their own actions. "He did it first" might cut it in the heat of a fist fight, but it absolutely doesn't cut it here.

                We are a very animalistic species, regardless of how technologically advanced we are.

                  I didn't say there wasn't a component of that, what I said was that I don't believe we're so animalistic that the people involved should be freed of responsibility for their actions. I stand by that, and if you feel otherwise I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.

                The old two wrongs don't make a right adage at play.

                I can understand instinctive, angry, animalistic responses but not when it's a planned, time consuming thing like this. It would have taken quite some time to put together so it's not a spur of the moment rage-snap. It's a deliberate thought out, intellectual action.

              Well the right guy who did this has also tweeted about his belief that date rape isn't a thing, so the hypocrisy is strong in him.

              Human beings are a sum of their contradictions. What some people call hypocrisy, is just a contradiction. EG I can be thoroughly against sexism but that doesnt mean i myself am completely free of sin on that fact. Whether I meant it or not. Does that make me a hypocrite or simply a human being?! Either way that doesnt mean all I ever done to fight sexism in the workplace was a lie or how i feel is flawed. I am just human.

              One side pretending they are righteous and flawless over another is simply laughable.

          Except the Roseanne incident is not really equivalent to the Gunn case though.

          In one case you've got a woman with a history of making offensive statements, who makes a deal to star in a new show on the condition that she stop that behaviour. She then makes another racist tweet and gets fired.

          In the other, you've got a man who has a history of making offensive jokes, but appears to have cleaned up his act (presumably Disney would have known all this when vetting him for the job). He then gets fired for that past behaviour.

          They're only equivalent if you believe that people don't change and shouldn't be given second chances.

            ALOT of people believe this on twitter thats for sure.

              Which part do you disagree with or think is incorrect?

                no no i was simply agreeing with the
                They're only equivalent if you believe that people don't change and shouldn't be given second chances.
                by saying people on twitter SURE DO BELIEVE THAT.

          How can it be hypocritical when the two cases are so different? In one case, a person with a history of offensive behaviour made a very offensive comment against a real person, even though she had been warned about such behaviour. This was not something hidden that came to light, it was something that she basically screamed out into the night.

          The other case involves some dude that got mad over a racist being punished and actively dug out until he found years-old dirt on a prominent figure of the opposing side of the discourse: poor taste jokes with no victims that the speaker had already apologised and strove never to repeat.

          To make an overblown comparison, it's as if someone on trial for assault tried to get a mistrial from the fact that somebody in the jury committed a misdemeanour years before.

        While it is an alt right knob job who led the charge for gunn to be fired. It was the far left who started this train. They were the ones who tried to get people fired over things they said on the internet. So you can't exactly blame the right for returning serve.

          So you can't exactly blame the right for returning serve.

          Every heard of turning the other check? Every heard of being the 'better person'? You cant claim the moral high ground by doing the very thing you are upset over. That is simply immature and moronic.

          Yet notice the difference between how Rosanne handled her news, she refused to apologise, and keeps continuing to kick and scream. There is no responsibility there. Rosanne's thing happened as a current event. As opposed to James Gunn, he apologised and not just one of them lame Hollywood ones, he accepted what he did and what he wrote (even though it happened YEARS ago), he went quietly and respectfully. The only people making a fuss are his friends and co workers. He was fired for old history, when he was younger and not in the position he is in now, while Rosanne was fired for what she said currently.

          Two completely different things.

          Idea that you think a troll 'returning serve' is a mature move and to be justified, says so much. Are you the same person now as you were eight years ago? Did you not write or do things you arent proud of now? Do you expect to be fired for what you did then? As opposed to Rosanne who was fired for what she said now?

            Every heard of turning the other check? Every heard of being the 'better person'?

            There are limits though. If one was to turn the cheek consistently, then one would be continuously walked over. What you are suggesting is that the left get to kick and scream and #cancel everyone who doesn't conform to their narrative, and the if the right want to "be the better person" then they are to sit idly by and accept it. That's utterly ludicrous. If that was the case, then EVERY person who did not submit to the same horseradish would be subject to the #cancel culture.

              The flaw in your argument is that the Right also have 'narratives' that they try to sell, that the left have to constantly turn the other cheek too. EVERYONE does it. Yes contradictions and hypocrisy exist. On both sides. It doesnt matter whether you are left or right (hell those sides dont even really exist), if you think the mature way of dealing with something is 'if you cant beat them, join them', I dont know what to say. You end up becoming the very thing you are trying to stand against. The only way forward is to break the cycle. Some one has to be the better side and stop acting like children, but few people these days are capable of backing down.

              See the The Zygon Inversion speech from Doctor Who, about the inanity of being 'justified' and needing to win. At some point you have to step back and realise all the 'sides' thing is rubbish and all the right vs wrong is rubbish, and the 'becoming the very thing you are fighting' is empty and just makes the world worse.

    Whether or not Disney was justified in firing Gunn - which is a discussion we don’t have the space for here

    I read that as "the answer wouldn't conform with our safe space".

      The answer was
      "No, because they were jokes, some very bad jokes, but jokes none the less, but we now live in a time where context doesnt matter and outrage feeds the beast. Alot of companies will bow down to it no matter which side of the divide they fall on, but rather defending on context and providing context, we tend to just defend the side of the fence we are on, quite often to people who dont deserve it."

        "No, because they were jokes, some very bad jokes, but jokes none the less"

        That doesn't excuse it. He was joking about raping a little boy sitting next to him at the movies. I don't care that he just watched the Expendables, rape isn't funny.

        Controversy aside, I'm honestly more relieved that if it does get made, it's with another director. Guardians 1 was great. Guardians 2 was a mess. Hell, the opening credits set the scene. "Hey, here's the guardians fighting a massive extra-dimensional monster! But we'll put it in the background, make it all blurred and just show you baby Groot dancing. Remember baby Groot? Everyone loved baby Groot! Have baby Groot!"

        They took the good bits and made them overbearing. You liked Baby Groot? Here is is doing something wacky! You liked the music? We'll constantly have Quill playing around with his walkman. Have some more baby Groot! Liked Drax's socially awkward/literal only jokes? Let's have some even worse ones! ("Hahaha! I have famously huge turds!")

        Then on top of that, we had about 5 different plots going on. Quill and his adoptive/stockholm syndrome father. Quill and his real father. Gamora and her sister. Rocket and his being alone and his odd sudden relationship with pirate dad. Quill's dad trying to take over the universe.

        PICK ONE.

        Last edited 04/09/18 12:24 am

          That doesn't excuse it. He was joking about raping a little boy sitting next to him at the movies. I don't care that he just watched the Expendables, rape isn't funny.

          Anyone who thinks that tweet about the expendables was about him engaging in pedophilia is either a moron or just willfully ignorant. Its quite obviously a joke over exaggerating the manliness of the Expendables movie. He is making a point about the extreme levels of male action hero stereotypes in the movie by using another extreme.

          I highly suggest you watch this video. Take a look at the tweets in context, Instead of foaming at the mouth outrage

          https://youtu.be/W5moUUFhmZM?t=40s

            @djbear - we've butted heads in the past - but your stance and reasoning of late has me questioning why...

            Keep up the good work.

          As has been pointed out, they're jokes. Whether you get them, or enjoy them is irrelevant. Especially now, ten years down the track. Jokes are often funny only in context. Look at the old Honeymooners show "Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!" It got plenty of laughe at the time but hey that's making jokes about domestic violence. Those people must have been monsters right?

          As for GotG2, I think it was still a good, fun movie thought it was indeed a little ham-fisted with the family metaphors. Yes, it was probably worse than the first, but I'd much rather see Gunn's story used at a minimum and I'd definitely prefer to see him directing again. Especially if we start losing actors if he doesn't direct.

        This is a reply to the person who replied to you. It seems the reply to your comment disappeared while i was writing it so ill leave it here. Bascially this is not a reply to you m2d2

        That doesn't excuse it. He was joking about raping a little boy sitting next to him at the movies. I don't care that he just watched the Expendables, rape isn't funny.

        Anyone who thinks that tweet about the expendables was about him engaging in pedophilia is either a moron or just willfully ignorant. Its quite obviously a joke over exaggerating the manliness of the Expendables movie. He is making a point about the extreme levels of male action hero stereotypes in the movie by using another extreme.

        I highly suggest you watch this video. Take a look at the tweets in context, Instead of foaming at the mouth outrage

        https://youtu.be/W5moUUFhmZM?t=40s

          I didnt even get to read his reply before it was deleted. Ha.
          Its almost that the poster didnt care about context and decided to be outraged because context be damned. Funny that.

            Could be he just edited a spelling mistake an was popped into Auto Moderation. Gotta love that, Correcting spelling mistakes is detected as spam by Allures CMS.

              I guess those gosh darn adbots out there make posts, then edit them into sneaky adverts or something.

                Yeah, i think once you reach a certain amount of posts you should be immune from it. i have about 1.8k posts on here and im not going to suddenly start posting spam and get my account banned.

                  Or if not posts (lest people start spamming to reach that threshold) the age of an account would do it. I can't see armies of adbot accounts waiting, pointed for that 6 month period to expire before descending like a wave of locusts.

                  I think we should have a 30-60 second typo editing window after you hit submit where you can edit your post. After that I don't have a problem with it being moderated. Or hell, use a karma system. We already have points accruing against our posts, if you are positive you can edit without moderation. If not it gets flagged for moderation.

          It's still there, I just edited in an extra line and it's been removed for moderation, woo :/

          Its quite obviously a joke over exaggerating the manliness of the Expendables movie.

          I'm aware, but I'm sorry - rape isn't funny. And the implication that it's okay to rape someone because it's "manly" to do so...still doesn't make raping someone funny.

            If its not funny to you then that's your prerogative. Jokes are highly subjective.

            You don't however have the right to have someone fired because you don't find a joke funny. Do you realise how much of a slippery slope that is? You don't get to censor someone because you don't find their joke funny.

            I highly suggest you watch the video i linked in full.

              1. He hasn't been 'censored'. His employers just don't want to be associated with someone who publicly makes jokes about raping people.
              2. It was a joke about sexually violating someone because "I'm feeling so manly right now". That is never appropriate.
              3. It isn't a matter about the joke being funny or not. Hell, if you got fired for not being funny my shitty puns would have me incapable of getting any sort of employment.

                It is essentially censorship. You are basically telling someone they aren't allowed to say certain things otherwise they will attempt to get you fired. The censorship out of fear. It's holding a gun to someone's head.

                  No it's not. Censorship is the government preventing you from saying/doing/watching/ect something.

                  This is just a natural consequence. If I said something about your mother mating with a dog and you punched me, or threatened to, is that censorship? No. It's just the consequence of doing something stupid.

                  If you go around spouting about finding raping boys hilarious, then yes, people won't want to hire you. How is that hard to understand?

                  Free expression and free association go hand-in-hand, you can't reasonably defend one without the other. If the lawful consequence of someone's particular choice of expression is that another person or group exercises their freedom to disassociate with that person, that's a natural exercise of both rights. You can be critical of the specific choice to disassociate, as others can be critical of the specific expression Gunn chose, but it's wrong to suggest that one is rightful while the other isn't.

            "And the implication that it's okay to rape someone because it's "manly" to do so...still doesn't make raping someone funny."

            *looks at the tweet again*
            *looks at your quote*
            Sorry, i dont see that a joke is someone offering a statement that its okay to rape.
            Implication. Ha.
            I often wonder, do people ignore context because it clashes with their agenda, do they not understand it or has something happened to them along the way where they were lead to believe jokes are statements of fact.

              The context was he saw a manly, adrenaline-pumped movie.
              The joke was "Wow, I fucked the shit out of the little pussy boy next to me"
              The punchline is that he is so hyped, he turned to the boy next to him and raped him.
              ...how is that funny?

              I'm being serious. How is that supposed to be funny? Please explain it, in your own words, without throwing a youtube link at me. How is raping a boy funny?

                When he says "Pussy Boy" he is not actually referring to an actual child be next to him. He is insulting the person next to him as being a lower male than him by implying he is both a "Pussy" and a child. The fact he has the word "Pussy" in front of it should immediately make that obvious.

                You do realize the Expendables is an MA15+ movie right? What would a young male child be doing watching that?

                You are inferring a meaning in this joke that does not exist. You are inferring this meaning so you have something to be outraged about.

                But it seems to me no matter how much explanation both myself and m2d2 or anyone on planet earth provides for you, You will simply ignore it so you can continue the outrage.

                  He is insulting the person next to him as being a lower male than him by implying he is both a "Pussy" and a child. The fact he has the word "Pussy" in front of it should immediately make that obvious.

                  It is, he's comparing the person to a child, which is an insult. There's nothing funny about that particular barb.

                  It's also whom he then jokes about raping. I notice you haven't actually explained the raping portion and how that is supposed to be funny.

                Im sorry, but just to be clear, do you want someone on the internet to explain to you someone who has claimed HERE that the author of said bad jokes is implying that its okay to rape, when hes never done such a thing, because you dont understand basic comedy. You dont understand in the slightest that a joke is being made that the film is a testosterone wankfest so the jokes is about surreal idea that it made him feel so manly that he decided to sexually assault the person sitting next to him. because "F*CK YEAH! IM A MAN!"
                You want me to explain to you how people have different senses of humour, the fact that gallows humour/dark humour/anti humour exists, all while hes already said they were bad jokes, all while you have doubled down making it pretty damn clear you dont understand comedy in the slightest beyond some bad puns.

                The fact you have also made a point claiming that a JOKE, is the same thing as spouting off intentionally offensive statements about a persons mother and a dog is the same as a joke, makes it pretty damn clear you dont understand humour at all, especially after refusing to click a youtube video.
                So i could sit here on a month of sundays, and you still wouldnt understand.

                  I guess the part of the joke I'm missing is where any sane person would think rape is part of being manly?

                  You dont understand in the slightest that a joke is being made that the film is a testosterone wankfest so the jokes is about surreal idea that it made him feel so manly that he decided to sexually assault the person sitting next to him. because "F*CK YEAH! IM A MAN!"

                  Yes, I don't understand how that is funny. I also don't understand why, something that the vast majority of people wouldn't find funny, or acceptable in public, would then go and post that publicly.

                  Also, if your reaction after watching an action-packed movie is to think about raping someone, you might have a problem.

            Actual rape isn't funny... But a JOKE on any topic has potential to be. Stop acting like they're exactly the same thing, because they're absolutely not.

            It is precisely how the hate mob gets people, ignore any and all context and scream at the top of your lungs like someone seriously believes anything and everything they've ever said.

            I don't even find Gunn's old jokes funny myself. Not because of the content but because they're just bad jokes, but I also don't get to go around deciding for others what they're allowed to find funny.

          I'd edit my post to add this, but since that hides away my post - I'm not "foaming at the mouth." I'm perfectly calm, and don't like the insinuation that because I don't find raping someone funny I'm barking mad. It is possible to disagree with someone without being rabid. Weird, huh?

            You're ignoring the fact that these jokes, regardless of how funny they may or may not be, we're made what, a decade ago? Are we holding people accountable for things they said back then? I probably told some stupid jokes ten years ago that I wouldn't find funny today. I guess I should go tell my boss so he can fire me.

              Are we holding people accountable for things they said back then
              That is now the world we live in. Stuff done in a different era, under a different set of social mores, is judged on the standards of today rather than the time they were made.

              Its ridiculous. How can you possibly know what the socially acceptable standards will be 10 years from now? 10 years ago, while tacky, it was acceptable to make bad jokes online. Social media was only new, and nobody understood the future consequences. It was no different to making a bad joke at the pub.

              Only now we're seeing that it isn't. Those past comments in the dawn of social media are now costing people their careers and livelihoods. We're moving into Black Mirror territory now, and its scary.

              Compare all this to Season 3 Ep 1. We're not far from it with all this.

                Christ, as a white person, I am being made to feel responsible and sorry for the transgressions of a select few when they arrived in Australia years ago.

                The entire climate this day and age is fucked, there is no other way to describe it.
                Its ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.

      I read it as "No matter what comment we make on this, we're going to get slammed for it, so we won't make a comment"
      And look, not making a comment got them slammed.

      Seriously though, this article is reporting on Bautista's current position within the controversy, not the controversy itself. There are plenty of other articles on that (and plenty of well-argued opinions in this comment thread, too. Well done on being mostly civil within your obviously passionate stances guys!)

    Well, frankly, I can't blame Dave for how he feels. Actions like what Disney pulled make for a toxic workplace. If Disney had taken a more forgiving stance, it would foster a more family-like environment, which is what Disney is supposed to be all about.

      The craziest part is that they knew about the tweets. They acknowledged them back before GotG1 came out! But because insane people who don't like his politics exist, and Disney are acting like hypocritical morons, James Gunn gets fired.

    Bautista makes the movie, I can't imagine it without him.

    Part of me is sad he won't be part of such a great movie.
    The other part is happy he's sticking to what he believes in despite the consequences. I think that's really honourable.

      I was stoked when I saw the letter from all the cast backing Gunn. I doubt however, that they would all boycott appearing in the film. I can't help but think it'd be hugely destructive to refuse to work for Disney considering just how big a company they are.

      I wonder what their contracts say too? Actors are often tied to multiple movies so I wonder whether they would face financial penalties if they refused to appear in GotG3?

      I have to agree - the whole joke about going over ones head - No it wouldn't I would just catch it line, endeared me to him more than any other character, he makes the movie.

      Its dead in the water if he walks.

      A man with morals and ethics - not blinded by the money.

        I really liked his character in the first one, but his dialogue was much worse in the sequel.

    Disney knew about the tweets and actually acknowledged them prior to the hiring of Gunn for GOTG, which to me, makes this whole situation hypocritical and insipid. If this were entirely new information, I'd be of an entirely different opinion, but they backtracked and changed their mind, that to me, changes the landscape of their opinion as well.

    Disney took the stance of 'we're a family friendly company and this doesn't fit our corporate image' once it became large scale news, to shirk off the responsibility of media backlash. I think Gunns jokes were disgusting, but they were also made ten years ago, which is quite a while. I've seen people on here, including myself, say jokes and say things in the decade or so I've been here, which don't leave us the same we were back then.

    But what makes me revile Disney even more? What makes me think the House of Mouse will eventually come crashing down no matter how much they expand? Decisions like this which are utterly transparent in their hypocrisy. People scream James Gunn is a pedophile. He's not. He has made some disgusting tweets, but he's never actually been convicted and at worst, shown a tendency for a disgusting topic. No charges, no label of pedophile should be applied or you weaken the impact on those who actually are when a label is applied. Now... I digress, if they shun James Gunn (heh... sorry about the rhyme), for something done 10 years ago, let's cast that net back 20 years ago then. In the 1990's, Disney hired Victor Salva, for their movie POWDER.

    Victor Salva, if you didn't know, was actually *sent to jail* after he admitted to and was convicted in 1988 of the sexual molestation of Nathan Forrest, the 12-year-old actor and star of his film “Clownhouse.” Around 1995, only 7 years or so later, after he served his sentence, Disney approached Salva to direct their movie, knowing FULLY that he had molested a young tween. They had him work with teenagers on this movie, they had him direct it, they had him release it for them and didn't replace his working name with an 'Alan Smithee' credit as per union rules when there's a dispute over directorship, but let his name remain 'Victor Salva'.

    So why is this important? Because if you're siding with Disney at all in this? If you're condemning James Gunn and saying 'But 10 years doesn't matter!' then using that metric, 20 years doesn't either. One man made some shitty jokes, but another company hired an actual, legit pedophile who raped a child yet takes the moral high horse against Gunn. Fuck Disney, fuck their hypocrisy.

    I hope DC, who slowly appear to be getting it together with Aquaman, Wonder Woman 1984 and Shazam see fit to back a giant truck up to James Gunns house and beg, absolutely beg him to work for them on New Gods...

      Disney was full of racists and sexist most likely Harvey wienstien types for years, yet they can change there image.

        God forbid they remember how badly Eisner is remembered and what he did there...

      Let's go back further.

      Maybe we should boycott Disney completely. I mean... they did release "Song of the South".. Which was controversial in 1946 and if we have learnt anything from today's movements it is exponentially more controversial now.

      I agree with most of what you say, but the bit about "Alan Smithee" isn't quite right: a studio can't unilaterally remove the director credit like that under the union rules.

      It would have to be the director requesting his name be taken off the work, and even then it only happens if they can show that the final work doesn't reflect their vision for the film due to interference (i.e. they can't just do it because they think they made a bad film).

      With that said, their decision to work with Salva is enough to support your argument.

        Yep I got that backwards, my apologies. Was kinda meaning to say they should've let him go and optioned him the right to remove his name, but didn't put that in. My entire bad. But yeh the main point still stands :)

          It isn't obvious that would work either. The director would have to petition the DGA to have his name removed and prove that Disney's interference prevented him from fulfilling his creative vision. And if Disney interfered enough to meet that criteria, why hire Salva at all?

          The union rules are there to achieve two goals: (1) to ensure directors are properly credited for their films, and (2) giving production companies some certainty that if they employ a director they can use that name in their marketing.

          Just look at the game industry for examples of why you might want to impose these kinds of rules: you don't have to look far to find a game where employees who may have spent years on a project but left before completion have their name stripped from the credits (and with it, confirmation of what they've listed on their resume).

            It still confounds me, despite all this, that Disney has opted to take this high road. I get the image they want to pursue, but they have more than enough skeletons in their closet to fill Auschwitz twice over. Having a few friends who have worked with Disney in the past, they're *more* than confident in the next decade we're going to be hearing from the kids who worked in the early 2000's on their Disney channel programs about issues on those involving various goings on. Sure can't wait for that bomb to drop...

            But either way, Disney has no right to be spanking this moral high horse, they should rehire Gunn, simply get him to do the appeasing 'apology tour' and state that the issue has been resolved, then move forward with Guardians 3 in my opinion personally.

      Sadly he only served 15 months too. Which really seems inadequate for the situation. The guy went on to do Jeepers Creepers which I really enjoy but even it has some creepy "vibes" to it.

      I'm all for believing in rehabilitation and redemption, but the hypocrisy is so strong here. All I can assume is that Disney is literally slave to the dollar. They look at the negative press and just refuse to back Gunn. In contrast, Salva's offence and subsequent rehiring were largely pre-internet or at least pre-social media. So while there was a backlash it was much more restrained and didn't have a chance to spread. So they ignored it.

    As someone who was actually unfortunate enough to have a monstrous cretin do something horrible to me in my younger years (sorry I still find it difficult to speak plainly about it) I still stand by Gunn and his shitty jokes. Why, You ask? A- because it was a joke. And a joke doesn't traumatize you (or it goddamn shouldn't anyway) and B- I refuse to label myself a victim. It's not a defining characteristic and laughing at dark shit like this personally makes me feel stronger. If I give the topic gravitas, I feel like I'm giving it strength instead. So dear outrage mobs, if you're crusading on behalf of people like me, EFF RIGHT OFF! I don't want your brand of bullshit. And EFF Disney too.

      I can only upvote once, but consider this worth a hundred <3

    I don’t get why conservatives are so upset about what is obviously locker room talk.

      It is a tit for tat situation much like people being annoyed by Trump's locker room talk. I just roll my eyes at it all and just continue with my mediocre existence.

    What are the odds that Disney backflip and bring Gunn back? It's starting to look like this particular golden goose may stop laying, and that's something that corporations care about more than some offensive tweets from the distant past.

      None they doubled down, had a meeting with Gunn and said your still fired your never coming back.

      Disney will be on the wrong side of history on this one, but they are used to it so should feel natural

    Just want to say that even though I support and agree with Dave Bautista He is biting the hand that feeds him, he is perfect as Drax but can he do much else, mad respect for a guy that is potentially ending his career for his principles.

      Sorry have you seen Bushwick? or Bladerunner 2049? He has acting chops, this is not the end of his career. He will work again in Hollywood.

      Bautista has an already established action career. He wont be hurting after leaving Disney.

        He also had a dozen years wrestling, and being one of the headliners wouldn't have been scrounging for a dollar. I don't think he'd be hurting if Disney blacklisted him either.

          Indeed. They're always trying to get him back, plus he's established himself as a formidable MMA fighter as well. Anyhow I think we've proven he's got no worries lol

      I dunno man, he's become a pretty excellent character actor over the last few years. If this slows him down I'd be surprised.

        @hansoloai @Weresmurf @grunt

        Not just saying he won't get hired but with the people behind Gunn getting fired might target him, he might also quit acting over it

          That's very much a possibility. When people up high keep shitting on you, you either keep getting shat upon or you get out of the way. I can't see Bautista being the kind to keep getting shat upon...

      I disagree about his acting ability (you could have said the same about The Rock or Arnie when they started their careers). However, I do wonder what it'll do to his career. Apparently there are only six major corporations* controlling something like 90% of Hollywood and he's gonna be pissing off one of them.

      It's hard to imagine Disney would ever hire him again, even assuming he'd be willing to work for them again. It's also not hard to imagine other big studios looking at his actions and saying "Nope, he's a risk that we don't want to deal with." So yeah, it could become a problem getting work in the future.

      * And Disney has been planning to buy out Fox, so it'd become 5.

      Incidentally people, this isn't a comment that requires downvotes. They lead to moderation if they get too high. Let's think a little more before we do that please as it does have consequences for others?

    Can we go back ten years when political ideology didn't permeate in every facet of our lifes? I am done with all the tu quoque as if both sides don't routinely pull this shit all the time.

    Am I the only one that gets so sick and tired of hearing the terms "left", "alt-right" etc slapped onto everything?
    It's fckn stupid.

      not the only one mate, its become the new way to align yourself. Both extremes are abhorrent as one another, and generally those who cry the loudest on both sides.

    Seriously, this guy is nothing without Disney, talk about career suicide.

    And I'm a fan of the guy!

    the series needs to die anyway so let it end.

    its a silly goof ball movie that can't decide it it wants to be serious or a comedy

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now