The drama surrounding James Gunn’s abrupt firing from Disney due to a series of lurid tweets the director posted almost a decade ago seems to be never-ending. Cast members, colleagues and fans have been coming to Gunn's defense, claiming his ejection from the director’s chair on the forthcoming Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was a huge mistake on Disney’s part. Supporters of Gunn have gone so far as to launch petitions with the aim of getting the director rehired.

This might have had some effect on whether Gunn's script will be used for the next Guardians film, which became a point of contention over the past couple of weeks. Drax himself, Dave Bautista, has railed against Disney for what he feels was a callous decision that will hurt the franchise more than help it. Hell, even comedian Jerry Seinfeld weighed in on the situation, backing Gunn in a broad sense. This sort of outcry was to be expected. A moment like this, which is so widely publicized, set a new precedent for how fans view creators and their relationships with the massive corporations that give them the tools to bring their creative endeavors to life.

RELATED: James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 Script Likely Will Be Used By Marvel

Shortly after Gunn’s firing, Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn issued a statement saying: “The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio’s values.” Now, before we go spelunking in this pop culture quagmire, it is important to point out that what Disney did was by no means illegal (as far as we know). They are a privately-owned and operated corporation that can hire or fire anyone they like as long as it does not breach any agreed upon clause in a legally-binding contract. So, technically, Disney had every right to fire Gunn. But the reasoning cited for doing so does paint the company into a corner.

You Know They Knew

The aforementioned tweets were not “discovered” as if they were some lost relic buried at sea. They’ve been in the digital ether for years. We even wrote about them, when Gunn first came on board with Disney. Gunn, himself has been confronted about the tweets before and has publicly apologized. And slews of his fans who have been following him on social media for the last decade were well aware of the brand of offensive, shock-value humor he was once known for. The guy used to work for Troma “We Perfected Poor Taste” Entertainment, for crying out loud.

Disney pleading ignorance means they are either not being honest with us, or they do zero research on who they hire… like, at all. The only other explanation is that, maybe, just maybe, Disney knew Gunn wrote the live-action Scooby Doo films and cited his intrinsic understanding of talking CGI mammals in film when they hired him. Perhaps the executives passed on watching Super, Slither and Tromeo and Juliette because the talking Great Dane movies were so good they needn’t dig deeper... but honestly, they had to have known. This is a case of a kid acting surprised while opening presents on Christmas morning when in truth they found them in their parents’ closest weeks before. There was no “discovery” here.

Page 2: [valnet-url-page page=2 paginated=0 text='Context Is Key, Especially In Situations Like The James Gunn Firing']

Money Makes the Morals

Where Disney could be shooting themselves in the foot with regards to their stance on the Gunn situation is in claiming the director’s tweets are inconsistent with the studio’s values. Now, this may be true, but firing a person who wrote and directed two highly-successful entries in one of your biggest film franchises over a series of tasteless tweets sets a very dangerous precedent. If James Gunn had actually acted out any of the heinous content from those tweets, then yes, fire him -- and cuff him too, for that matter. But in a world were words can be wielded as weapons that alter careers and endanger the mental health of readers (or even entire nations), maybe random thought-diarrhea on Twitter should be taken with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of context.

Another big point of Disney's moral hypocrisy is that if Gunn’s tweets were so abhorrent to the powers that be, then why would they entertain the idea of using his script? The words on those pages were written by the same man who wrote gross jokes about pedophilia and incest. Is Disney punishing the man or the man’s words? One could argue that using Gunn’s script would show that Disney doesn’t really care about what the director tweeted, but they do care about the interests of their shareholders and turning a profit. They want the next Guardians movie to make all the money, and if a seemingly large and vocal group of fans (and one of the film’s stars) has thrown down the gauntlet and told the studio they will not participate in a third Guardians film without Gunn, Disney is going to compromise somewhere.

Balancing the Scales

Disney hiring Gunn back is also tricky (and probably unlikely) since in doing so the company would basically be admitting they were wrong for firing him in the first place. This would immediately get twisted by some and unfairly rebranded as Disney condoning Gunn’s comments. This would, in turn, push away fans who agreed with Disney’s initial decision and only reinforce the schism between people on the subject. The real issues here are accountability and consistency.

Some will refer to the cancellation of Rosanne Barr’s titular television show after her racist tweet as something that has played out in equal measures. And while there might be a case to be made for that in as much as the words of celebrities lead to their firing, Gunn has apologized for his comments on more than one occasion, while Barr tried to excuse them. Not to mention Gunn was not condoning radical behavior and, while his tweets were in "level 99" poor taste, they were certainly not designed to be taken seriously no matter how unfunny they were.

RELATED: Chris Pratt Says ‘It’s Not An Easy Time’ Since James Gunn’s Firing

Disney has hired many people for positions behind and in front of the camera who have not just said, but done terrible things, and some of those people are still employed there to this day. It begs the question, is forgiveness truly possible in the current online climate or do we just have a collectively selective memory? We all contribute to the ever-growing document that will be chiseled in digital stone, but once the graffiti on that stone starts to overlap, what parts of it should we focus on? Actor Robert Downey Jr. had his fair share of legal issues in the past, but he exercised his personal demons and became a (presumably) better person for it. The world at large has forgiven RDJ, but that forgiveness doesn’t erase the past.

Now, we’re not advocating the firing of Downey in the least. In fact, we’d be cool with him playing Tony Stark until the end of time (yes, he’s that amazing). We just want to put this sort of thing in perspective. The divisiveness on this subject has left Disney in a precarious position, one they might have some trouble navigating. In the end, defining some sort of hierarchy for transgressions is a slippery slope, but surely actions and intentions still speak louder than words, especially when those words are shouted into the deep, dark abyss of the Twittersphere.