By TJ GIBSON
Staff Writer
Boy, has it been an eventful summer for everyone involved in the “Guardians of the Galaxy” film franchise.
Over a month after a multitude of near-decade old pedophilia-themed joke tweets from director James Gunn came to light as a result of some digging by members of the conservative media, the Marvel franchise has not only lost its driving creative force in Gunn after a decisive firing from parent company, Disney, but production on its third installment has now been paused indefinitely.
This decision came only days after Disney confirmed that it would be standing its ground on the firing — despite fervent public support for Gunn from the film’s cast and a petition with over 200,000 fan signatures. It is likely so that Disney and Marvel can figure out exactly what they are going to do with the franchise going forward, particularly as it pertains to the seemingly impossible task of finding an adequate creative replacement for the visionary Gunn.
From the business standpoint that Disney currently holds — that they are a family- friendly company through-and-through and that this means that Gunn’s now “tainted” public image no longer meshes with that of their brand — I suppose this series of moves makes sense, and it’s hard to argue with the business sense of a corporation as consistently successfully as Walt Disney anyway.
But that doesn’t mean that this situation isn’t problematic for an increasing variety of reasons. Firstly, as I’ve already hinted at, James Gunn is an incredibly unique and visionary director whose films have a very distinct look and feel. “Guardians of the Galaxy,” for its part, is not only absolutely no exception to this, but a large degree of its success as a brand is also directly connected in more ways than one to this fact, to James Gunn’s quirky-meets-epic storytelling sensibilities.
Even just this observation alone puts Disney’s decisions here in legitimate question. I mean, will the third “Guardians” still make all of the money? Yeah, probably. But will it maintain the same heart that it’s been critically built on? Almost definitely not, hence why such drastic measures as a full-scale production halt need to be made.
Secondly, that Disney, one of the biggest media corporations in the world (and soon to be even bigger, following the in-progress Fox acquisition), is willing to make changes this massive when put under a little political pressure is troubling. That is, if all that has to be done for them to can one of their most essential filmmakers is that some people get triggered on the Internet, then this doesn’t look great for the future of filmmaking.
After all, the sanctity of free speech is already becoming more and more of a commodity these days as it is, and I’m sure James Gunn is far from the only Hollywood filmmaker with some inappropriate posts buried somewhere deep in his feed.
Finally, and this is what I consider to be the most pressing point in this peak era of the #metoo movement, is whether or not what James Gunn has done is even relevant to anything involving him today, whether we mean in the content he creates or even just him as a person. And make no mistake, James Gunn’s offenses, unlike other recently surfaced alleged ones such as those of Chris Hardwick or Kevin Spacey, are not a matter of proof — after all, the tweets are there for the world to see (or at least they were before they were wisely-if-belatedly deleted) — they are only a matter of relevance.
What I mean here is this: while no sensible human being now is debating the moral or ethical (non)value of Gunn’s inexcusable jokes (myself included), neither was Disney at the time that they hired the known-provocateur to write and direct two back- to-back installments in one of the most successful cinematic franchises of all-time (I’m, of course, referring to the Marvel Cinematic Universe at large, but the billion-dollar-plus grossing of the “Guardians” films alone is nothing to chuckle at, either).
Indeed, I’ll contend that there’s simply absolutely no way that a multimedia heavyweight like Disney doesn’t do their homework on anyone they invest that much capital in, especially when it’s someone best known previously for gross out B-horror flicks such as “Slither” or the lewd Spike TV satire, “PG Porn.” Thus, this means that Disney was fully, explicitly aware of who they were hiring and what he had put out into the world long before his first blockbuster even entered pre-production — and they were okay with it.
And why were they okay with it? Because it didn’t matter. Sure, the man had made some wildly inappropriate remarks in the name of “humor” and was about as intentionally irreverent as they come, but that didn’t mean that he wasn’t an exceptional screenwriter, a passionate and talented director with an equal eye for the whimsy and the spectacular. Or simply one of the most pleasant and joyous directors to work with in big-budget Hollywood, as attested by the many who have worked with him. So, Disney made a choice and they hired him. Over a billion dollars later, it would be one hell of tough sell to argue that the choice was anything but a brilliant one.
But now, suddenly, the script is flipped, and Disney appears to believe that the brilliant decision today is to split with Gunn and distance themselves from him as much as possible in the public eye. Again, fair enough. It’s their company and it’s their past decisions which have made them the Goliath that they are today. But in a world where free speech is an endangered species, everyone’s dirty laundry is aired over the digital landscape, and truly creative visionaries like Gunn are fewer and farther between, this is a very troubling and even kind of scary turn of events. And as a huge fan of the “Guardians” films and Marvel on the whole, it’s really very upsetting.
Thus, since Disney is clear that they are not budging on Gunn’s departure, even if it means delaying production, then this only leaves a few questions remaining, such as: how long will the delay last for? How will the cast and other critical involved parties continue to react as the production eventually moves forward sans Gunn? Most importantly from a fan perspective, who will fill Gunn’s galaxy-sized shoes?
Hopefully, the answers are something along the lines of: not very long, positive reactions and peaceful working relationships, and if it absolutely cannot be Gunn in the director’s chair, then what about the similarly epically whimsical “Thor: Ragnarok” helmer, Taika Waititi? I suppose, like with anything else, time will tell.
But in this fast-moving modern age of massive-budget blockbuster spectaculars, time is fleeting. So figure it out, Disney, even if just so that the silver screen adventures of Star-Lord and gang will live on for as long as and as prosperously as possible.
