A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
I have a very hard time thinking that the head of the studio was not at least in on the discussion. Who then? Is it just Iger?

I think we keep forgetting that while this has the appearance of a "knee jerk" reaction, that very well may not be the case. I have a hard time believing that this was not a contingency plan, just like Roseanne likely was. It was a scandal waiting to happen in this environment. The plan was already in place. It just happened to come from an unexpected source.
Click to expand...
Feige’s just a producer in the Disney system, albeit an incredibly successful one who runs a label. He traded Perlmutter, the guy who refused to pay for Zoe Saldana’s childcare on Guardians Vol 1, for Horn and, to a lesser extent, Iger.

Horn, Iger and Zenia Mucha likely made this decision and considering that they are all in their late sixties/seventies don’t understand they just gave ammunition to an online lynch mob. This wasn’t an investigative journalist is about to drop a piece on Gunn being a pedophile, which Disney would have been aware of and been asked to respond. (See Ronan Farrow’s comments on how CBS was well aware of his reporting and gave opportunities to respond to the claims made against Les.) I think the decision was made out of fear and helplessness, Iger succeeds because he controls the narrative, than any zero tolerance policy or contractual thing.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
...considering that they are all in their late sixties/seventies don’t understand they just gave ammunition to an online lynch mob.
Click to expand...

That is where I think we firmly disagree. They didn't give the ammunition. The rise of outrage culture has. I honestly think Disney would have done the same thing no matter if it was a far-right voice or a far-left voice who brought this to attention.

I may not agree with it, but with what I posted above - I understand a little better why they did it, and am totally convinced that they had already made the decision and were just waiting for it to pop.
 
Princess Leia

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Feige’s just a producer in the Disney system, albeit an incredibly successful one who runs a label. He traded Perlmutter, the guy who refused to pay for Zoe Saldana’s childcare on Guardians Vol 1, for Horn and, to a lesser extent, Iger.

Horn, Iger and Zenia Mucha likely made this decision and considering that they are all in their late sixties/seventies don’t understand they just gave ammunition to an online lynch mob. This wasn’t an investigative journalist is about to drop a piece on Gunn being a pedophile, which Disney would have been aware of and been asked to respond. (See Ronan Farrow’s comments on how CBS was well aware of his reporting and gave opportunities to respond to the claims made against Les.) I think the decision was made out of fear and helplessness, Iger succeeds because he controls the narrative, than any zero tolerance policy or contractual thing.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Ronan Farrow, that guy has got some amazing sources. It’s been incredible to see how many major stories he’s broken over the past 2 years.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
So I've mostly been relying on the posts and links here to keep up on the Gunn situation, since you guys have been right on top of it. Then today, a few things, notably the statement put out by the cast - referencing "conspiracy theories" made me want to jump over the divide and take a closer look at what the "other" side was saying.

Most articles I have seen about it have focused on other "conspiracy theories" that that Cernovich guy has apparently pushed, to discredit him, but no one talks about what is supposedly being said about Gunn.

It's funny that I can find very little coverage of it outside of sites that people here would say "that's a conservative site, doesn't count", but it had a Star Trek angle so I was able to find an Ars Technical article about it. This guy Huston Huddleston, who's claim to fame is some nonsense about preserving Star Trek memorabilia, was convicted on June 21st of child **** charges.

It wasn't about joke Tweets everyone is focusing on, but I presume this blog post Gunn made (see, you can't delete things on the Internet, LOL). Given how the guy he is talking about just got convicted of child **** a month ago, and Gunn made a kiddie **** joke that included him...Yeah. I can see the problem.

I certainly don't see any reason to think Gunn is actually involved in anything, but I can also definitely see why someone on either side could have had a problem with the fact that he was joking about the topic with someone who has now been convicted of it. I'm more convinced than ever that Disney had already either made this decision, or had the plan in place should it come up, and the real conspiracy theories are things like "they did it because of the Fox deal" or what have you, LOL.
Click to expand...
Yep, I've read about that too. Everyone assumed Gunn was guilty because someone he knew was guilty.
 
Princess Leia

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
Wait you know who he is, right? You should read his Wikipedia page. He has had...quite a life.
Click to expand...
Oh I knew about his parents, I just had no idea he was so young. Also, when I read that his partner was Jon Lovett, my mind went to this Jon Lovitz...
2A6F383A-9BB3-47F6-AADB-64B22EFD266E.jpeg

Verrrrrry different man :hilarious:
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
Yep, I've read about that too. Everyone assumed Gunn was guilty because someone he knew was guilty.
Click to expand...

I get that is the extreme assumption to jump to - but you have to admit. That doesn't look good, even if you don't leap to that conclusion. It isn't just that he talked about this guy on his blog, but that he talked about in him context making a joke about watching child years ago...with someone who just now got convicted of...child committed years ago. I mean, I thought the Bieber stuff was the worst of it.

I think it was extreme of them to do, but again - I can totally see why even if they don't think he actually did anything (and I personally don't) that given that the circumstances around that tweet have changed dramatically - I can see why they were ready to pull the trigger, and likely have more information than we do about it.
 
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Feige’s just a producer in the Disney system, albeit an incredibly successful one who runs a label. He traded Perlmutter, the guy who refused to pay for Zoe Saldana’s childcare on Guardians Vol 1, for Horn and, to a lesser extent, Iger.

Horn, Iger and Zenia Mucha likely made this decision and considering that they are all in their late sixties/seventies don’t understand they just gave ammunition to an online lynch mob. This wasn’t an investigative journalist is about to drop a piece on Gunn being a pedophile, which Disney would have been aware of and been asked to respond. (See Ronan Farrow’s comments on how CBS was well aware of his reporting and gave opportunities to respond to the claims made against Les.) I think the decision was made out of fear and helplessness, Iger succeeds because he controls the narrative, than any zero tolerance policy or contractual thing.
Click to expand...
Zenia is the best there is at what she does.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
That is where I think we firmly disagree. They didn't give the ammunition. The rise of outrage culture has. I honestly think Disney would have done the same thing no matter if it was a far-right voice or a far-left voice who brought this to attention.

I may not agree with it, but with what I posted above - I understand a little better why they did it, and am totally convinced that they had already made the decision and were just waiting for it to pop.
Click to expand...

See...that bothers me too. It's "let's capitalize on this while we can, and then bail when the crap hits the fan". I'd much rather it have been a knee-jerk, panic reaction.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
See...that bothers me too. It's "let's capitalize on this while we can, and then bail when the crap hits the fan". I'd much rather it have been a knee-jerk, panic reaction.
Click to expand...

I also think it takes some of the air out of the "Roseanne was different" argument. Yes, the blog post was old, but the context of it changed recently. It still doesn't make it exactly like Roseanne (I will specify even though it seems silly, just so someone doesn't think I am saying otherwise LOL), but it also isn't exactly truthful to say "out of the blue after ten years" as everyone keep insisting, either (including myself, I've been critical of the firing since the beginning). And given these details, I am more sure than ever that they also both had in common that these were contingency plans just waiting to be sprung.

I have no doubt that the blog post is what made the decision, at least from the information we have available to us. And I am sure Disney did an internal investigation once this became public a few months ago. If it was just the tweets, I don't think they would have had the same reaction plan in place.
 
brb1006

brb1006

Well-Known Member
So who else is expecting a new teaser for The Lion King 2019 and Toy Story 4? I'm having a feeling they might finally drop it the day Christopher Robin gets released in theaters this Friday.
 
Last edited:
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
This project is a defication on a classic.

Just rerelease the 1955 film in theaters every Valentine’s/lovers day year worldwide. Much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Everything in me wants to agree...and while they may not all be my cup of tea...they do seem to be dong a good job with these films (B&tB, Christopher Robin, etc).

The public certainly likes them, at least - and on the bright side, they aren't superhero or Star Wars movies! ;)
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom