James Gunn trashes Burton's Batman

[Travesty]

I dunno, these were over 10 years ago, and I....I just don't care. I don't agree with him, but he can have that opinion.

I mean, if I had the chance to direct a Batman movie(lol, that would never happen), people would be pulling up all my posts about the Nolan movies. And for what? Who cares?

What I care about, is the quality of the new DCU movies going forward, not what he said 10+  years ago on facebook.

But that's just me...

[The Laughing Fish]

I dunno, these were over 10 years ago, and I....I just don't care. I don't agree with him, but he can have that opinion.

I mean, if I had the chance to direct a Batman movie(lol, that would never happen), people would be pulling up all my posts about the Nolan movies. And for what? Who cares?

Well, considering it's rather rude of him to dismiss others' films, and THIS same disturbed f***er is now co-CEO of DC Studios, it's not a very good look, is it? As I said, the Keaton-Clooney thing in The Flash seems pretty suspect now.

It's also pretty f***ing hypocritical to complain about B89 and its supposed lack of comic accuracy, as if the other Batman films he praised didn't take liberties from the source material. Hell, his own GOTG trilogy took plenty of liberties from the source material, look at Mantis: https://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2017/08/need-talk-mantis-abuse-guardians-galaxy-2/.

What I care about, is the quality of the new DCU movies going forward, not what he said 10+  years ago on facebook.

But that's just me...

The way WBD's finances are going, I wouldn't keep my hopes up if I were you. Don't be surprised if none of this sh*t gets made. And if it does, expect the same juvenile rubbish you see from Gunn and Safran. If people aren't responding to the likes of Black Adam, Shazam 2, The Flash and Blue Beetle then what makes anyone think that sort of formula is gonna be successful next time?

[BatmanFurst]

I dunno, these were over 10 years ago, and I....I just don't care. I don't agree with him, but he can have that opinion.

I mean, if I had the chance to direct a Batman movie(lol, that would never happen), people would be pulling up all my posts about the Nolan movies. And for what? Who cares?

What I care about, is the quality of the new DCU movies going forward, not what he said 10+  years ago on facebook.

But that's just me...

Ditto

[The Laughing Fish]

I admire your mature and more reasoned perspective.

Still, my objection isn't to his opinion. Rather, it's his tasteless lack of professionalism in expressing it. I don't mind muckraking. I rather enjoy theatricality, trolling, performance art and kayfabe.

But denigrating another professional's work in public like that is just plain tacky. In that town, you're really not supposed to do things like that. Particularly not for influential films like B89.

In addition to all of that, it was only several months ago that Gunn had the audacity to dismiss "a vocal minority for being uproarious and unkind" to anyone who has criticised and condemned every nonsensical, disastrous decision he and Safran have made since they took over as DC Studios chiefs. He even talked back at Martin Scorsese's criticism of superhero adaptations as "theme park cinema" and having a monopoly effect in theatres. But it's okay for him to badmouth over director's movies in such an explicit way. Right.

It's another example of his hypocrisy. I don't care how long ago he made these comments, this attitude of his isn't appropriate for a Hollywood director.

Even if you forget about his sordid past, it's not really boding well between this and his growing list of lies about the status of his Superman and DCU projects, why the hell would anyone trust him to lead a successful franchise? As I said elsewhere, he hijacked it to put more money in his pocket. A CEO who hires himself as writer AND director of a reboot? It's a joke.

[The Laughing Fish]

LOL, Gunn is now in serious damage control. After deleting his entire Facebook account yesterday, it's now reactivated and he's claiming somebody hacked his account.



https://www.instagram.com/p/Cwxt7a-Rlk_/?img_index=2

Right, let's believe somebody went through the trouble to alter dates to write scathing comments about movies and fabricated responses to make him look bad. Is he also going to make the same claim for all of his pedophile, sexist and homophobic comments that he deleted from his Twitter account and his personal blog site?

At this stage, he might as well take it further by saying any screenshots or photographs taken with him and his convicted and accused child sex offenders were Photoshopped. This man is not only disgusting, he's proven to be such a coward and he thinks people are such idiots. Maybe his fanboys are, but anyone with half a brain knows he's a liar.

[The Laughing Fish]

While Gunn attempts to trick us as if we're all stupid, here is another Facebook post from 2016 that expresses his distaste for the Joker-Waynes twist yet again. The only difference is he expresses his opinion in a more professional manner this time around:



Is Gunn gonna say this post from 2016 was hacked too? LOL!

If Gunn wants to badmouth other movies, fine. But he should own these opinions, instead of desperately trying to avoid accountability for his statements.

As for hating the idea of Joker killing the Waynes? He can hate it as much as he wants, but A) other Batman films he gave faint praise for are also guilty of breaking the tropes of characters to suit their stories, and B) Ego the Living Planet isn't Star-Lord's father in the comics, so this is yet another example of Gunn's hypocrisy.

As usual, however, shill media are protecting Gunn for his comments. As you can see from this video that discusses his conduct online, some deadbeat blog site is once again putting the onus on the fans and lecturing everyone about "everyone being entitled to their own opinion"...yet at the same time, hypocritically saying Gunn has a point about his scathing comments on B89.

[The Joker]

While Gunn attempts to trick us as if we're all stupid, here is another Facebook post from 2016 that expresses his distaste for the Joker-Waynes twist yet again. The only difference is he expresses his opinion in a more professional manner this time around:



Is Gunn gonna say this post from 2016 was hacked too? LOL!

So the guy who takes liberties with characters that he himself adapts into films, as well as the arcs within, somehow chooses to be critical of other filmmakers who do the very same thing?

Interesting flex.

[The Laughing Fish]

I forgot to call Gunn out on his bullsh*t yet again when he said on Instagram that "he hadn't posted on Facebook for so long". In the Twitter video I shared in my second post of this thread, you can see he made many posts on Facebook this year, including a tribute to Arleen Sorkin when her death was reported a few weeks ago. I had another look at his account, and every post he made this year has now been deleted. A Peacemaker group selfie from last year is now listed as his latest post. It seems to me he deleted all of the 2023 posts in an attempt to make his claims of getting hacked sound credible, but that quickly falls apart under scrutiny when you see his anti-B89 comments were posted in 2012 and 2016.

Again, this is an obvious damage control. And a laughably bad attempt at that.

[The Laughing Fish]

Okay, F this guy. I realize being a loudmouth is his brand. But he needs to respect the people who paved the way for him. Gunn wouldn't have his job today if Burton did have a job in 1989.

I had to revisit this because it made me remember something else. While it is the first time that somebody like Gunn denigrated B89 and everyone who worked on the film in such a crude manner, it's not the first time B89 was compared unfavorably by somebody in the industry.

David Goyer once spoke about how he and Nolan "earned the trust" of the comics writers they were consulting with while coming up with ideas for the Batman they were making. To paraphrase, he said none of the previous screenwriters had bothered to do that, and had the nerve to say "they dismissed the comics and their creators".

https://www.indiewire.com/2013/09/david-s-goyer-says-he-had-to-tell-christopher-nolan-what-the-batman-canon-was-for-the-dark-knight-trilogy-93286/

This is laughably hypocritical of Goyer. He used Henri Ducard - the character that Sam Hamm created when he wrote the Blind Justice comic - and fused him together with Ra's al Ghul as the same man in Begins. Like Joker in B89, Ducard/Ra's played a huge part in Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. IIRC, Ra's even revealed he tried to destroy Gotham City via economic poverty, which indirectly led to a desperate Joe Chill shooting the Waynes in that botched robbery.

There's a lot to complain about Sam Hamm's writing nowadays. But the fact of the matter is his work actually influenced Goyer and Nolan more than one may realise, so Goyer trying to make himself the only screenwriter who respected the comics - while using a character created by the very same B89 story writer he tacitly described as dismissing the medium and its creators - is ironic.

I remember Goyer even made some comments about B89 less of a film and more of a marketing product, or something around those lines, but those comics creators remarks are perhaps the most laughable. And yet, they're nothing compared to the foul-mouthed rants of that creep James Gunn.

[The Laughing Fish]

The next time you remember Gunn calling B89 an atrocious film, feel free to remind yourself this is the man who thought it was a brilliant and funny idea to have Adam Warlock saying he wants to urinate on the dead bodies of his vanquished enemies and have sex with their corpses:

Deleted scene or not, this is yet another example of why Gunn has zero credibility, or taste. And to think people trust this man in charge of DC. If Hollywood was a decent industry he would've been blacklisted a long time ago.