James Gunn doesn’t agree with other MCU directors’ Guardians Of The Galaxy choices
Also: Of course Chris Pratt texted Gunn Bible verses after learning he'd been fired from Guardians Vol. 3
Aux News James Gunn
There’s been a certain, let’s say, weirdness hanging over the Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 festivities this week. (The movie is getting all of its big premiere events and press screenings done this weekend, ahead of its full release on May 5.) Nobody seems especially unhappy with the movie itself, which is getting warm, if not rapturous reviews. But also: Nobody seems to have forgotten that this is a film that saw its cast go into open revolt against the studio after its primary creative architect—who is now not just working for, but running a rival movie studio—was abruptly fired, and then un-fired, by Disney. So: lots of smiles, but also lots of odd vibes.
Many of which are in obvious appearance, not just on the red carpet—where James Gunn has been unabashed about, among other things, his interest in poaching his Guardians cast to come work for him at DC Films—but in a new profile of Gunn that ran in THR this week. Said profile is full of little tidbits, like, of course Chris Pratt continually texted Bible verses to Gunn after his firing from Guardians 3, which came in the wake of pissed-off right-wingers resurfacing some of the director’s old Twitter jokes back in 2018. (Pratt, we should note, wasn’t just praying; he was also the guy reaching out to each of his castmates to make sure they showed a unified front of support for Gunn in the aftermath of the incident.) Zoe Saldaña and her husband came over to cook Gunn and Jennifer Holland dinner, while also teaming up with Pratt for quiet meetings with Disney to let the studio know how unhappy the cast was with the firing. (Dave Bautista, meanwhile, was way less covert, loudly voicing his anger at the move, which was handed down to Marvel Studios head Keven Feige by his boss at Disney, Alan Horn.)
(Reading between the lines, it’s also easy to see that Feige—who’s been a vocal fan of Gunn for years, and who is quoted liberally in the profile—was using his own considerable clout to get Horn to reverse his decision: Marvel Studios didn’t meet with a single director about potentially replacing Gunn on Vol. 3, and Feige was apparently instrumental in the decision to continue using Gunn’s script for the film, which many see as the first step toward bringing him back.)
To our eyes, though, the most interesting parts of the profile come from Gunn himself, and specifically as regards the unusual position of ownership he holds over the Guardians brand. Nobody in the MCU ecosystem—where writers and directors are typically just another resource to be tapped, swapped, and traded out as needed—is more associated with his characters than Gunn. Which hasn’t stopped other writers and directors from using them—or Gunn himself from having opinions over how they were used. He’s been vocal in the past about his discomfort with Thor being shoved amongst the Guardians with the status quo set up at the end of Avengers: Endgame (including his gratitude to Taika Waititi for getting the God Of Thunder right back out of there with Thor: Love And Thunder). But he also has some thoughts about how his babies acted in the hands of Joe and Anthony Russo—most especially Pratt’s Star-Lord, who, to put none too fine a point on it, pretty much gets half the universe murdered in Avengers: Infinity War.
“They did some things that I wouldn’t have wanted,” Gunn admitted, speaking of the climactic two-parter. Quoting a parenthetical from the profile: “Yes, he says, Star-Lord would have killed Gamora if she asked him to; no, he would not have punched Thanos and doomed the universe.” (Both Pratt and Mantis actor Pom Klementieff apparently phoned Gunn up during the filming of the Avengers movies to get him to sign-off on certain lines or actions their characters were taking, which is kind of wild.) None of which, now, is likely to be a problem for Gunn, who’s apparently okay with whatever new direction the Guardians franchise takes—minus most of the stars, many of whom have said this is their last outing with the characters. After all: DC Films is (with co-head Peter Safran) his baby: As long as his next directorial project, Superman: Legacy, works, he’ll have plenty of lee-way to have final say over how his new stable of characters end up getting used.
92 Comments
Pratt, we should note, wasn’t just praying; he was also the guy reaching out to each of his castmates to make sure they showed a unified front of support for Gunn in the aftermath of the incident.I seem to recall some questioning Pratt’s stance in this, since he was publicly quiet about it, or at least relatively so, considering how Bautista went off.
Ding ding ding. And I’m too lazy to dig it up, but I 99% guarantee you that AVC was going the “PRATT CURIOUSLY SILENT COMPARED TO HIS CASTMATES.” i love Gunn’s line about this:“Dave and Chris are so different in their approaches,” notes James Gunn. “Chris is like, ‘How do we do this methodically and take it one step at a time?’ Dave is like, ‘Fuck you.’ “
Yeah, I know I was using weasel words in my post, but I def. mean AV Club. And their line of reasoning was basically, “Pratt goes to church, so he probably is fine with Disney firing Gunn.”
It’s easy to go the “Fuck you” approach when you’re Batista’s size.
He’s in show business, slick. It doesn’t count for shit
I’m definitely Bautista in my approach to things, and trust me when I say I know that approach doesn’t always work out (just look at my stupid arguments on here), but I never thought Pratt was ignoring it either. The bit about bible verses is a bit much, but I’m happy to see he cared more than he publicly showed.
Pratt doesn’t kowtow or perform for the outrage machine. That makes them mad
no, he would not have punched Thanos and doomed the universe
Wouldn’t he, though? At worst, wouldn’t it have been any of the others? This is an “act first, think later” crew he’s assembled here.
“The guy who shot his dad thirty times approximately 0.00005 seconds after learning he killed his mom would absolutely not have punched Thanos in the face after slowly considering the possibility that he killed the woman he loved.”
Yeah. He would have shot him thirty-one times.
Can I just say, I really don’t understand why Strange did not tell him in advance so that he just doesn’t learn this on the spot. The “act first, think later” guy is the one came up with the plan that almost worked, so he’s definitely not a complete idiot.A lot of Strange’s actions in the film makes it look like the writers did not really know why the guy who single-handedly defeated Dormammu would not defeat Thanos on his own, so they have him act cryptically as if he knows something the other characters don’t know. Which was that Marvel wanted a second film.
Pretty typical prognostication trope, to me. In general, you either have the Oracle of Delphi, who’ll laugh at any fucker trying to outwit fate. Or else you have the Butterfly Effect, where trying to warn someone ahead of time just makes things worse. Strange even tells Tony this in Endgame, when he says that if he tells him whether this is the one they win, it wouldn’t be the one they win.
Strange saw all possibilities. You have to go with the narrative logic that if Strange had forewarned Quill or anyone else, it would not have worked out and blown the one shot. Or if had used the time stone trick like he did on Dormammu, Thanos would have been able to get out of it using the other stones.Let’s say- Quill is restrained and they get the gauntlet off. But now they still have Thanos there and an outmatched team who are unequipped to use it. Thanos overpowers them, takes it back eventually , and kills them all, including Tony, for the trouble they caused. Now there’s no time travel, no one to build an alternate gauntlet, and no hope.You just have to go with it that it’s the only way Strange saw to win.
Strange didn’t see all possibilities, just the millions of ones until he could find something with results he found acceptable.
I would’ve gone with it if we had not seen that Thanos without the gauntlet or his magical helicopter blade gets wrecked by attacks that aren’t physical. Without the Gauntlet, Strange should’ve been able to take him out using the time stone. At the very least they should’ve had an easier time restraining him with Spider-Man, Mantis and Strange. Infinity War Thanos was respectful enough to give everyone ‘fair’ attempts to stop him and only used enough force to survive and eventually win. In comparison, the cocky Endgame Thanos tried to brute force his victory, dominating every physical encounter but nearly got killed by Wanda and was overpowered by Carol until he used the Power Stone like a brass knuckle.
There’s also the fact that Strange’s choice of timeline results in the stones being destroyed, which he may have thought was ultimately worth half the universe being gone for 5 years.Not to mention the possibility that Quill/Gamora try to use the gauntlet to resurrect Gamora the instant that Thanos is dead, and would have likely killed themselves by doing so.
The problem with that narrative logic, with the way it’s used in the film, is that it’s used like a “Get Out Of Jail” card for every decision the characters make without the need to explain anything else. There is no scene where Strange explains what would’ve had happened if Quill had not punched Thanos. There is not even a scene where Strange explains that Quill had to punch Thanos. The only thing we saw is a superhero looking like he selfishly doomed the galaxy because he got caught in the “fridged girlfriend” trope.I would have much preferred if the filmmakers had found another way for Thanos to win that didn’t make Star Lord look this bad.
You’re calling it a problem, but I suspect to the writers that’s a feature, not a bug. Also, how much more exposition do you want? That sucker was already three hours long.
That’s something like 1 or 2 more line of dialogues, at the most.
There’s actually a really simple fix.
You get the same moment as before. Star-Lord realizes Thanos killed Gamora. He comes *thisclose* to ruining the plan…then stops himself. He made a promise to Gamora to do what was necessary to make sure this was done right. So he foregoes his revenge. The gauntlet is about to come off.
And then Nebula, hell-bent on avenging Gamora and not at all clued in on the plan, crash-lands right into the midst of them, ruining everything instantly.
Her failed vengeance remains sympathetic and in-character. Star-Lord doesn’t become the man who single-handedly doomed half the universe. And the plot still works.
Well, you have to really decide how much Strange knows. He watched 14 million+ timelines in just a few minutes and he didn’t really have time to ponder that timeline for long.
For all we know, he only saw an image of Stark snapping his fingers and Thanos getting dusted and just came away with the message: “Tony Stark has to live, no matter what.”
As for the short-term plan, I assumed the very first action after they get that Gauntlet off is for Strange to portal it far away and they probably defeat Thanos. So, in that sense, Quill did ruin things.
BUT… it is in character for him. It was earned anger. And someone had to be the Boromir for the story to move along.
The thing is, Strange had already looked at the time stone. He knew Peter was going to react like that. It was all part of the plan. With that said, Strange is an extremely selfish person, so was letting Peter wail on Thanos the right thing to do or was it a way to accomplish his goals? Only he knows. Also, I agree with you about the writers essentially nerfing Strange. He was weaker in both movies than his character really is.
It is obvious that Strange went for the one timeline where the only person on Titan that would die was the one who annoyed him earlier in the movie by being the exact same character type right down to the elaborate facial hair.
To be fair, he didn’t exactly ‘defeat’ Dormammu so much as pull a universal equivalent of turning off the heater during winter to get unwanted houseguests to leave. MCU Strange isn’t exactly ‘powerful’ so much as he’s crafty.
Though I will say that I want to know what went wrong if they actually defeated Thanos on Titan. If they got the gauntlet off of him, there should’ve been nothing stopping Strange from rapidly aging/de-aging him until he was dead or using magic to outright kill him. I mean, pre-Scarlet Witch Wanda almost killed him by herself and all she knew how to do at that point was telekinesis, smashing things, and some mind manipulation.
I think the answer there is that there was no scenario where Thanos is defeated on Titan. We saw Quill’s plan “almost” work until he loses his temper, but I think Strange saw millions of variations of the fight on Titan and they lose in every single one of them. No matter when Quill learns that Gamora died to give Thanos the Soul Stone, he’s overcome with grief and can’t participate in the battle. Strange can’t give him a heads up beforehand or Quill will do something else reckless that causes the Avengers to lose.It was only once Strange started looking at timelines that proceeded from Strange willingly giving the Time Stone to Thanos that he found the timelines where Thanos spares Stark and snaps his fingers, leaving Stark to invent time travel five years later.So Star Lord *had* to lose his temper to create the conditions that led to the only timeline in which the Avengers win. All other versions of the fight end with everyone else on Titan dead, and the universe permanently snapped.
That confuses a lot of people, but timey wimey stuff is hard. Look at how many people don’t get how Dr. Manhattan works.
Strange can see into every universe, so he saw into our universe, where he would not get his own sequel unless Avengers Endgame made a ton of money. He then acted accordingly.
Yeah, I don’t know what character Gunn thinks he wrote and directed but it isn’t Starlord as he has been depicted in the MCU.
Ah yes, Keven Fiege, Kevin Feige’s non-union equivalent.
He’s only one of the most prominent executives in Hollywood for over a decade, why would a storied pop-culture website get his name right?
To speak it or spell his name correctly three times is to make him appear!
If Gunn is truly thinking of pinching some Guardians for DC films, then I nominate Bautista for Lex Luthor.
Jesus, it is startling how much sense that makes. Bautista totally has the stillness and contemplativeness to make that work.
Huh. Large David … My first thought is he’s too big and muscly, but Dave has come so damned far as an actor. He could pull it off. And he’d look damn fine in a classic Lex suit. Not the gene Jackman goof shit, but imagine him like Superman TAS Luthor?
I kind of meant it as a joke and then got more into the idea. Lex should be menacing as well as smart, and I think DB can pull that off.
I do feel that this characterization would run too close to being a Kingpin clone. Like when Frank Miller would draw Lex and it looked like off-brand Fisk.
And Lex has been known to get swole in the past. He’s never Batista big but I could see a spin on the character that works with someone built like a brick wall.
As long as he can snatch some cakes, I’m down:
Fun fact: the repetitively redundant prose of that book stuck with Craig McCracken long after he read it, and inspired Mojo Jojo’s similiarly-redundant speech patterns.
I want him stealing the cakes to be a throwaway gag in the intro, then at the end a post-credits scene where, after Luthor’s been foiled (but not captured – sequel, baby!) where he’s stuck in a safehouse, bawling, and stuffing his face with the cakes in a pity-binge.
I can get behind this nomination
I like Gunn and I like the Guardians movie, but his (admittedly mild) complaints that Starlord wasn’t consistent with his characterization of him are a little rich, considering Gunn’s characterization has fuck all to do with the comics character.
Because the comics and movies are entirely different but the mcu characters are the same characters in different movies? Your comment makes no sense.
Honestly this is why I wonder if Gunn is right for mainstream DC. It seems like his skill with adapting comic characters is basically to take the very basics of the comic character and then just do his own thing. It works great for more obscure characters like the Guardians, most of the Suicide Squad or Peace Keeper. Not sure it will work with Superman and I don’t think Gunn would even try that approach.
On the other hand, nobody has tried an actual Superman adaptation in decades – without trying to revise the character or tie it directly into the 70s continuity – so there’s plenty of room to succeed.
apples to oranges
Was anyone but the most diehard Marvel fan expecting his Starlord to be faithful to the comics?Wanting a consistent character in the shared movie universe seems a reasonable concern for the guy responsible for that particular intepretation of him. If it were a reboot or something it’d be one thing, but I get not being happy they handed Quill the idiot ball in Avengers so he could get half the galaxy murdered.
Gunn handed Quill the idiot ball from his first appearance. His criticism of how the Russos depicted Quill is only valid if you ignore how he depicted Quill in the movies he himself directed.
Quill not being the smartest character in Guardians of the Galaxy isn’t the same as holding the idiot ball. It also doesn’t really have any pay off like his moment with Ego or Thor picking to wound Thanos over a killing blow (something he had to live with the consequences of picking a more vengence-minded option, while Quill doesn’t since they snapped him anyway.)
As far as most MCU conversations go, the comics have fuck all to do with the MCU. Which is not what I think it should be, but they’re pretty much never mentioned except to explain easter eggs or forecasting, I think admitting the more of influences might take some glamour from it or something (or god forbid, kicking back something to the comic creators).
That doesn’t really matter in this context, though. Every MCU character is a different character from the comics version. That doesn’t mean you can write the individual character inconsistently.
How is Quill written inconsistently? Hell, Gunn says Quill would have shot Gamora if she asked him to and that’s what he tried to do before Thanos came in and stopped him.
I mean, Star-Lord’s own characterization within the comics are so widely inconsistent that you can sort of just roll with it. He’s gone from anti-heroic space cop to depressed war veteran to decent space cop with PTSD to Chris Pratt’s rendition to space hippie with sun powers to now just being a space cowboy.
everyone here seems to be missing your point entirely.
I know, but I’m too old and tired to internet fight about it.
Movies. Are. Not. Comics.
Comics. Are. Not. Movies.
Every review I’ve seen has been glowing, more AVClub trying to spin a narrative
Oh, fuck off, Gunn. Quill did try to kill Gamora and Thanos used the Reality Stone to stop it.For someone who thinks child fucking and dead Jews are funny, he’s awful demanding. As for Pratt, the people that actually work with him are fine. Bryce Dallas Howard especially sings his praises for looking out for her economically.
Yes, he says, Star-Lord would have killed Gamora if she asked him to
I just wanted to point out that when Thanos nabbed Gamora Star-Lord DID try to kill her. He pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. Only bubbles came out though due to Thanos’ use of the reality stone.
Yea exactly what is this guy on
Considering how they made Star Lord look like an actual idiot and cause the end of the universe temporarily, I’d say I agree. I get they needed a device to allow Thanos to be beaten on Titan, and it made sense. But it was made worse by Peter kind of just being unbearable that entire movie.
Sstar-Lord has been an idiot since the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. That’s all on Gunn.
Agree to disagree.
they’re kind of all idiots, frankly.
He shot his father like 30 times impulsively in 2….
I could see Pratt as Booster Gold in the DC Universe. Ten years ago I would have said Nathan Fillion was the perfect choice, but he’s probably a bit old for the role now. Pratt as a full of himself ex-janitor from the future who steals a power suit to try to make it big in the past seems right in his wheelhouse.
But Alan Tudyk can still play Skeets.
The Guardians characters were noticeably unfunny in the Avengers movies. As if they were written by a team which had no writing talent.
There’s talent like writing jokes and talent like assembling established characters into 6 hours of green-screen shit. Unsurprisingly, the guys who think computers should write movies are in the latter camp.
People really understate this, but the right wing smear campaign against Gunn has got to be one of the biggest fuckups in the history of the already momentously stupid “culture wars.”Recall: Guardians 2 came out. It was good but the general consensus was that it wasn’t as fresh or clever as the first. Its box office take was strong so a third movie was certain, but people weren’t nearly as jazzed about that as they’d been when the second film had been announced.Then some right wing clowns start attacking Gunn because he made fun of Trump a few times, and Disney fires him (because they were still in their “randos on Twitter are our real masters” era which also gave us Rise of Skywalker.) Since he’s suddenly available, DC snaps him up, he makes one movie for them, which doesn’t even make that much money but is so excellent that they put him in charge of the entire company. And in the interim, Disney realizes they fucked up, they hire Gunn back to do Guardians 3, and now that movie, regardless of its quality, is going to look like a triumph for Gunn because of all the drama he overcame to get it made. Oh yeah, and he gets to be in charge of the world’s second biggest superhero brand now. None of that would have happened if a bunch of MAGA morons hadn’t gone after him.Tl,Dr: The right-wing smear campaign against James Gunn backfired so spectacularly that it ended up helping make him one of the most powerful people in Hollywood.
you’re right about everything except the general consensus about guardians 2 at the time. i remember feeling like i was taking crazy pills because everyone loved it so much and considered it vastly superior to the original.
Huh. That’s funny, the vibe I picked up was that people thought it was fine, but kinda the same as the first one. Which is also how I felt, so perhaps I’m just biased.
I know one person who thinks Guardians 2 was better than 1, and when he mentions it he prefaces that he is aware he is in the minority with his opinion.
It is. The first movie’s shit – the biggest success of Guardians 2 was making me like the Guardians.
see that’s funny because i find them way less likeable in the second one!
Well yea because the whole right wing smear campaign was based on their idea that “the left wing” are all unreasonable folks rearing to “cancel” anyone who doesn’t exactly tow an imaginary line regardless of context, age of the whole thing , situation, or whether the person in question heartily apologises and actually changes their behaviour (aka how they themselves act). But most people on the “left wing” aren’t actually like that so when james gunn handled it by just going essentially ”yea im sorry it was a long time ago and i provably don’t act like this anymore but it wasn’t right then and it isn’t right now” and people were like “oh that’s perfectly reasonable actually” and ceased to have a problem with him, so he was reinstated Thus the whole thing was doomed to fail because the assumptions of the people who did it were off from the start
Gosh. I hope he’ll be able to sleep on his pile of money.
Money is surprisingly uncomfortable to sleep on. Lots of paper cuts and it smells like blood.
Yes, the real joy comes from swimming through it.
Yeah, under other directors, they’re far less annoying.
Agree. I didn’t much like the Guardians films and I enjoyed them most in the Avengers films.And if Gunn doesn’t think Peter is a hothead who’d act emotionally upon learning of the death of his girlfriend, I’d advise him to watch his own movies.
But he’s gotta agree the videogame handled them pretty well, right?
My favorite part is that Alan Horn had been happily retired, secure in his legacy as a revered legend in the business. Then Disney brought him back, and now he’ll forever be known as the guy who fired James Gunn because a bunch of Nazis told him to.
i’m not worried about superhero fatigue but i am worried about james gunn superhero news fatigue.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t have a mind of your own and are incapable of skipping some James Gunn news.
Sorry, but a full on Guardians-Thor team-up movie would have been great, not the quickly rushed through prologue we got in the lousy recent Thor movie.
noone really complained about it at the time (mostly because they were complaining about everything else in thor 4) but considering the marketing i also thought it was a pretty annoying bait-and-switch.i felt bad for hypothetical kids who love the guardians and were expecting something closer to hulk’s role in the previous one.
I’d feel bad except I don’t believe those hypothetical kids exist.
You don’t think that the superhero team that’s got the talking raccoon and the big tree man with a catchphrase is the favorite of a bunch of kids?
You don’t think that the superhero team that’s got the talking raccoon and the big tree man with a catchphrase is the favorite of a bunch of kids?
Said profile is full of little tidbits, like, of course Chris Pratt continually texted Bible verses to Gunn after his firing from Guardians 3,
which came in the wake of pissed-off right-wingers resurfacing some of
the director’s old Twitter jokes back in 2018. (Pratt, we should note,
wasn’t just praying; he was also the guy reaching out to each of his
castmates to make sure they showed a unified front of support for Gunn
in the aftermath of the incident.)
Two things:
1. Why do you frame the “texting bible verses” like it’s some kind of bad/unwanted thing? There is not even the slightest hint in the article that Gunn wasn’t appreciative of it. For all you know, those verses could have been very meaningful for Gunn to receive from a good friend.2. This must hurt you to write about Chris Pratt doing good things for all the shit this site likes to try and pile on him. If it turns out that he is actually a good and decent guy, it makes all that shit you’ve written look really dumb.
Chris Pratt being a good friend and Chris Pratt being a conservative shitheel are not actually mutually exclusive. I don’t know the guy, I can’t speak to whether either are true, but I’ve known plenty of conservatives who are lovely to those in their in-group.