Dave Bautista tweeted Sunday that he will appear in the third film because he is "obligated" to do so, but added that it's "pretty nauseating to work for someone who'd empower a smear campaign by fascists cyber-Nazis."
Dave Bautista on Sunday said he would appear in the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, but he is not happy about it.
A Twitter user asked the Drax actor if he would return to the Disney franchise after writer-director James Gunn was fired weeks ago after old, offensive tweets were resurfaced by Trump supporters.
Bautista — who, along with the rest of the cast, penned an open letter asking Gunn be reinstated immediately — said he would play Drax once more, but simply because it is a contract obligation.
"I will do what I'm legally obligated to do but @Guardians without @JamesGunn is not what I signed up for," the actor wrote on social media. "GOTG w/o @JamesGunn just isn’t GOTG."
In the same post, he took a jab at Disney.
"It's also pretty nauseating to work for someone who’d empower a smear campaign by fascists #cybernazis," Bautista wrote. "That’s just how I feel."
While all the main cast has commented on the situation, Bautista has been the most vocal about his disgust, sharing numerous tweets on the matter.
After Disney announced Gunn would not be back for the Marvel film, the director and writer of the first two Guardians films said he accepted their decision.
A number of stars and a throng of fans came to Gunn's defense and shared their outrage over his termination.
In the tweet heard around the world, Dave Bautista responded to a question concerning his plans to return to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 even if director James Gunn isn’t rehired. The actor/wrestler replied that he would honor his contract but that a third Guardians movie without its writer/director wouldn’t quite be the same and that it was “pretty nauseating” to work for a company (Walt Disney) that would “empower a smear campaign by fascists #cybernazis.” Fair or not, that pretty much sums up the situation.
Whether Gunn’s old jokes about (among other things) pedophilia merited dismissal in a vacuum, the nature of how this played out, with old bawdy jokes unearthed by conservative trolls in a specific intent to use an indifference to context and theoretical hypocrisy to punish a vocal critic of the Trump administration, colors the whole event in an unpleasant light. Nonetheless, I have argued that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 doesn’t need James Gunn to be a hit. But does it even need cast members who would rather not return?
Let’s assume for a moment that the core cast members of Guardians of the Galaxy really don’t want to return considering last month’s shocking developments. Walt Disney and Marvel may be able to let them go if they really don’t want to come back. In fact, considering the uncertain future of the MCU following the “series finale” that is next year’s Avengers 4, this situation may represent a chance to experiment with the notion of soft reboots for Marvel’s most popular franchises. Guardians 3 can be a test case.
Rocket doesn’t have to be voiced by Bradley Cooper and Groot doesn’t have to be voiced by Vin Diesel. While we’re assuming that the events of Avengers 4 brings back the half of humanity wiped out by Thanos’ finger-snap of doom at the end of Infinity War, there is no law saying that Gamora (who was tossed off a cliff by her adopted father so that he could earn the Soul Stone) can’t stay as dead as Loki. Karen Gillian, Sean Gunn and Pom Klementieff can come and go as they please.
The big question is whether general audiences will flock to a Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 which doesn’t prominently feature Chris Pratt’s Star-Lord and Dave Bautista’s Drax. It’s a calculated risk, but offering a third Guardians of the Galaxy movie without the three core humans (Pratt, Saldana and Bautista) might cause only a slight dip in the overall box office. However, even acknowledging a potential loss in short-term revenue, it might be worth it not to force disgruntled actors to make and promote a movie that they didn’t want to make.
Even if the actors all show up and are super-duper professional on set, can we really expect them to stay silent during the press tour, especially if they were only there due to contractual obligations? Gunn’s removal is surely going to be a topic of discussion and a guy like Bautista (who clearly doesn’t care about offending King Mickey within the parameters of polite discourse) isn’t going to give the softball answer to a hardball question. Disney may not want to force them into this situation if they don’t wish to be there.
Moreover, one of several Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 credit cookies set up a potential second team. There’s no law saying that a third Guardians movie can’t involve the outer-space adventures of Sylvester Stallone’s Stakar Ogord, Michael Rosenbaum’s Martinex, Ving Rhames’ Charlie-27 and Michelle Yeoh’s Aleta Ogord. Throwing those folks into the movie, along with Groot, Rocket and (if he renews his MCU contract) Chris Hemsworth’s Thor, would arguably yield a solid return no matter who wrote and directed it. Obviously, Gunn’s worldbuilding script would have to be scrapped, but c’est la vie.
First, it would allow any Guardians of the Galaxy cast member who genuinely didn’t want to return to not be forced back. Second, it would allow Marvel to test the concept of a soft-reboot. Going forward, would audiences accept someone else (an established character or otherwise) in the Iron Man suit for further Iron Man adventures? Could someone else “be” Thor or “be” Captain America? I would presume that most audiences would, even if a different character is not the same thing as a new actor (Mark Ruffalo) playing an established character (Hulk).
Sure, Marvel is going to introduce new heroes and possibly reintroduce the X-Men and the Fantastic Four down the line. But it would be awfully nice for Marvel to know that the general audience would still show up for a new group of Guardians of the Galaxy in relatively similar numbers compared to the first two movies. That would allow them the potential for a new Captain America trilogy (starring Sebastian Stan or Anthony Mackie) or a new Iron Man/Iron Woman trilogy with someone else using Tony Stark’s tech.
If the Marvel brand is strong enough, then, sad to say, the Guardians of the Galaxy cast is as expendable as its writer/director. I am not arguing that Disney should arbitrarily replace them, as that would be some truly awful PR and a blow to the company’s reputation. But if Disney isn’t going to rehire James Gunn, they can at least consider not requiring disgruntled cast members to return to the fray. It would prevent a potentially compromised movie and allow Marvel to test the soft-reboot waters for whatever lies after Avengers 4.
After the “Guardians of the Galaxy” cast released a statement supporting fired director James Gunn, Dave Bautista, who plays Drax in the franchise, has shared his personal thoughts on the matter and called the situation “pretty nauseating.”
Bautista wrote on Twitter Sunday that he’ll still act in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” because he’s “legally obligated,” but that the franchise without James Gunn is “not what I signed up for.”
“[Guardians of the Galaxy] without James Gunn just isn’t [Guardians of the Galaxy],” he wrote.
“It’s also pretty nauseating to work for someone who’d empower a smear campaign by fascists #cybernazis,” Bautista continued, referring to right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich, who unearthed Gunn’s 10-year-old tweets. Many viewed Disney’s firing of Gunn as capitulation to Cernovich and his followers.
“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” star Kurt Russell also weighed in on the firing recently, saying that maybe “we’re getting a little too sensitive on maybe some of the wrong people.”
Gunn was let go from future “Guardians” projects after old tweets that made jokes of pedophilia and rape were unearthed and circulated on the Internet. Though a petition signed by thousands was formed to rehire the director and numerous celebrities, including the “Guardians” cast, spoke out against the exit, Disney has no plans to bring Gunn back on board the franchise.
The ousted director apologized for his tweets hours after the firing.
“My words of nearly a decade ago were, at the time, totally failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative,” Gunn said. “I have regretted them for many years since — not just because they were stupid, not at all funny, wildly insensitive, and certainly not provocative like I had hoped, but also because they don’t reflect the person I am today or have been for some time.”
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Zoe Saldana was among the cast members to voice support for James Gunn
The stars were on board, the contracts had been signed, and the third Guardians of the Galaxy movie was scheduled to begin shooting in early 2019.
But Disney's recent firing of director James Gunn has left the franchise somewhat up in the air.
The 52-year-old was let go after some distasteful jokes he made a decade ago (covering paedophilia, 9/11, the Holocaust and rape) resurfaced on Twitter.
But while the tweets may have been misjudged, members of the cast (along with 365,000 fans who have signed a petition) argued he shouldn't have been sacked.
"I will do what I'm legally obligated to do, but Guardians without James Gunn is not what I signed up for," tweeted Dave Bautista, who plays Drax, on Monday.
"It's also pretty nauseating to work for someone who'd empower a smear campaign by fascists #CyberNazis. That's just how I feel."
Over the weekend, co-star Kurt Russell added his voice to the defence of the director, telling Variety: "I do think we're getting a little too sensitive on maybe some of the wrong people."
"[Gunn] has a wonderful heart and a wonderful mind. I hope he is forgiven."
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Gunn's tweets made light of rape and paedophilia
There's no doubt Gunn's original tweets were distasteful, and certainly intended to provoke. But, many argued, they were intended as jokes nonetheless.
"It's important to draw a line between ill-conceived jokes in poor taste and actual acts of paedophilia," wrote Screen Rant's Stephen M Colbert.
"By all accounts, Gunn has actually grown and changed significantly since he originally made the jokes, embracing the more family-friendly nature of his work with Marvel."
At the time of the tweets, Gunn was embarking on a career as a comedian - one whose jokes were actively intended to be edgy and politically incorrect.
He later drifted from stand-up comedy, going on to write and direct the first Guardians film, a huge hit for Marvel when it was released in 2014. A sequel, released last year, was also successful.
But, once his old tweets had been dredged up, several fans expressed outrage.
"Sexual abuse is not funny in the least bit, it affects people's lives forever," tweeted Linz, while Ivan wrote: "Disney was right to fire him as their movies and theme parks are aimed at the very same children that he 'jokes' about raping."
Disney was quick to sever ties with the director.
"The studio needed to act quickly," Karen Krizanovich, a reviewer and journalist who also works in the film industry, tells BBC News. "Whether firing was the best thing is questionable.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Dave Bautista described the backlash against Gunn as a "smear campaign"
"The only thing that's certain is that all studios are on a steep learning curve."
Gunn had previously apologised for some of his misjudged tweets in 2012, but that was prior to the success of the Guardians franchise and so didn't attract much attention.
The recent rediscovery of the tweets, however, received much more publicity - and were difficult to overlook in the zero tolerance age we now see on social media.
After his sacking, the director issued an apology, saying he understood the business decision taken by Disney.
But not long afterwards, a petition was set up calling for Gunn to be reinstated, while principle cast members - including Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel - jointly voiced their support for Gunn in a joint statement.
Given that Gunn had successfully directed two Guardians films prior to the tweets resurfacing, many argued, why should he now be banished from the franchise?
"It is very easy to react to any slight or misunderstanding without taking a breath to consider both actions and consequences," Krizanovich says.
"Hopefully we're working to a point where these cases will be fewer (or none) and what cases there are like this will be handled with more subtlety."
Image copyright ImageNet Image caption Chris Pratt plays Star-Lord/Peter Quill in the Guardians franchise
PR expert Mark Borkowski says there can often be ways for stars to return to their careers after a scandal - provided the situation is handled well.
"You disappear for a while, you look for help, you're contrite, and as long as the conduct doesn't return, you have an opportunity to re-gather your brand and look again," he explains.
"But I think what we're beginning to see are these peaks and outrages don't sustain. Because the audience move on very quickly to the next thing.
"If that person truly reflects odious views, there is no hope for them. But some people make mistakes in their youth when they're not really on top of what they're doing. They don't have the advice, they're not famous, and these things come back to haunt them."
He adds: "I do think there is generally a massive overreaction, and bad publicity doesn't seem to sustain... everybody has a way back."
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Actor Kurt Russell said he hoped Gunn would be forgiven
That way back, however, is unlikely to come in the shape of him being rehired for the third Guardians film.
One person close to the matter told Variety: "I don't see Disney re-hiring him.
"Those tweets were so horrible and Disney has a different standard than other studios."
Krizanovich says: "Rehiring Gunn is unlikely as the studio is probably not going to want to be seen to be talked down."
"Film production is collaborative. Film crews are very tribal so the fact that the actors are standing by the director isn't surprising.
"Ideally some middle ground could be reached. Either way, it is great exposure - negative or positive - for the next film."
Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk.
