Another actress canceled by Disney

Post Reply New Topic

Who has been misrepresented in what they have said?

Disney didn't renew her. That's their decision not the "many".

The disapproval of the fans towards Ms Kennedy was not for her politics (nor solely from "right wing" fans as insinuated), and is based around the content being produced (centered around the sequel movies).

What the fans (who have kept the franchise alive) had been expecting (and hoping to see) was the re-uniting of the original cast (where possible) - Han, Luke, Leia. This was prevented (if it was even a part of the plans) through the death of one of the trio, but could have been excused for this reason. Unfortunately, the treatment of these characters, being presented in such a different manner to that which was expected, impacted on the attitude of the fans towards her. The following gives some indications of the issues the fans had with the sequel trilogy:
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-sequel-trilogy-wasted-opportunity-luke-skywalker-han-solo-leia-organa/

Had the fan's wishes\hopes been incorporated in the movie, most fans would have overlooked any other "political" statements being made.

There is also the problem with sequels rarely matching up to that which proceeded them (Ghostbusters, for example, had a sequel that doesn't receive anywhere near the level of praise as the original did - for good reason, in my personal opinion), which also didn't help matters, too.

Is there even evidence that she is responsible, or is there some other reason that she was singled out over a bunch of other people that could have responsibility for what is not liked?

Because a lot of the people that choose her as the one responsible like to blame the downfall on things like there being too strong women or something.

Other than the fact that she was a producer for all 3, and co-chair (later president) of Lucasfilms who make the movies, you mean (It's not that hard to look...)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars#Film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucasfilm#Subsidiary_of_Walt_Disney_(2012%E2%80%93present)



I've heard similar explanations elsewhere for why Ms Carano was fired: That she was a strong, independant woman, not a weak, compliant one...

it appears my prophecy about Carano's action figures has come true
It also recently became known that Hasbro has canceled the Gina Carano Cara Dune action figures thought to be because Carano got fired from Star Wars as Hasbro only has canceled production on the Cara Dune figures.

That's my thinking, fans have been baying for head since the last trilogy and the Gina Carano incident might have just been an excuse to sink the dagger.

So they sucked because there were strong independent women that the reactionaries hate because of this one person and not the directors, but they fired Carano because she is that? The thing is that most of these reactionaries don't like her because she is a strong woman, my understanding is that they hate women that might defy roles that they might threaten the masculinity of a man, and because she did not get her contract renewed after sharing their politics saying anti-Semitic or crazy conspiracy theories, and making fun of people over pronouns.

I don't see much evidence of a conflict of interest in her removal though. Kathleen Kennedy is pro-female so it looks bad if she was the one who removed the main female character in the Mandalorian. Rosario Dawson's character on played a cameo in one episode so it doesn't make sense to blame Kathleen Kennedy.

You may need to do some more research then...Cara Dune was a character who a large number of fans liked, and was written specifically for Ms Carano, with her being the only person invited to audition for the part. The politics of the actress had no bearing on people's opinion of the character, hence her firing causing such an issue amongst fans. The fact she was fired as a result (apparently) of her political views simply added another group to that of the existing fans who were agrieved by her firing. Labelling Star Wars fans as "reactionary" doesn't exactly show a high level of understanding of the issues (Star Wars, as seen by the fans, or her firing), either.

Your description of her (and her character) indicate a minimal knowledge of her (both as a person, and as a character in the show), too...I cannot imagine that anyone with any degree of knowledge of her (or her character) would claim that those upset at her firing were people who "hate women that might defy roles that they might threaten the masculinity of a man"...


Setting aside the fact she found out the same way everyone else did ("Social" media), indicating the company didn't have the common courtesy to contact her in advance (indicating a weakness, at least in character, by those who made the decision to fire her and not to let her know personally)... And it was a "Lucasfilm executive" who made the decision, with those responsible for the show's casting not being part of the decision.


So you're saying we should have "thought police" to punish those who don't follow the "party line"?

That does seem a rather dictatorial\authoritarian approach... I suppose, though, you'd have no problem should a "right wing" party gain control of the mechanism and enforce their political viewpoints in the same way, punishing those who disagreed?


"You keeping using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means"

What, precisely, was "anti-semitic" (ie: showing hostility or discrimination towards those of the Jewish religion)? Read as written, it compared conditions those faced in the early-mid 1930's as an analogy of where attacking people for a personal characteristic (then - religion, now - political views) could lead, but was not harmful, nor discrimantory towards any person or group...It didn't even mention which political views were being spoken of, and could as easily be read to refer to those on the left being reviled by those on the right, as the other way (and we've seen situations recently where actual violence has been taken against people of each side for their political views as a result of the polarization going on).


If they're so "crazy", then they are unlikely to get many people to agree, so there shouldn't be any issue with them...It would obviously be a simple matter to present evidence showing how they were incorrect in responce to them.


I'm guessing what lead up to that slipped your study of the event...That "Beep\Bop\Boop" (or whatever she posted) was the responce to months of people trying to pressure her to include pronouns in her profile when she did not wish to do so (or, in simple terms, attempting to bully her to do as they wished)... Had people acknowledged her desire not to post anything in that line, instead of feeling that what they wanted another person to do was more important, then there wouldn't have been anything to complain about.

Some people can be bullied to do what the mob wants them to do, some fight back against the bullies...

When I call people reactionaries I am referring to reactionaries, not to Star Wars fans in general. I myself am a Star Wars fan, been so since I could watch the movies and have some pretty extensive knowledge, and especially a long history with a lot of the games. I find it incredibly stupid to claim I am not a true fan or something, and I could go into pretty good detail to explain the problems with the sequels as I see them; trying too hard to stick to an idea of what people liked, a lack of seeming agency for things that could have been discussed, and ignoring what the previous movie did with a whole bunch of aspects that feel like they come out of nowhere.

I already expressed a dislike that her character has seeming to be gone going forward because she was let go, I do like how she is differently built from some sort of standard, and lord knows Star Wars could use proper strong female characters. But I understand that the bad press around how she has acted outside on Twitter might be things Disney would want to distance itself from.




It was hardly out of nowhere, she had been stirring up trouble for a while, and had even been told by people that she should be careful.




No one was policing her thoughts, and there was no roving bands people attacking Conservatives that would lead to some Nazi styled concentration camps against them. You might be surprised to learn that certain groups marginalised by conservatives have themselves been punished for quite a while, like a homosexual or transgender teacher could get fired for just being themselves. The difference is that those things are harmless, while Gina's stuff is the sort of thing that led to an attempted insurrection.




Do you have evidence that she was bullied? Did she understand that in doing what she was she was essentially bullying by doing something an apache helicopter joke, which people like myself find rather offensive. Please tell me how I should not feel offended, I would love to hear how she is the real victim by doing something that dehumanises us.

I can't find a copy of the exact tweet now, but this gives an overview of what happened:

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/gina-carano-mandalorian-holocaust-trump-covid-b1800802.html

And:

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/star-wars-mandalorian-gina-carano-trans-pronouns-bio-twitter-disney-b436015.html

It's interesting that one person taking a single action with a Twitter "Bio" like this is considered "bullying"... How would you describe the actions of a group of people who attacked a single person for expressing their beliefs\opinions as well as seeking to have them fired for having expressed those beliefs\opinions?

A lot of public figures online receive harassment online, she isn't special just because she perceived some people asking if she would put pronouns in, and excuse making a mockery of the whole thing, for people that did nothing. Would a person be allowed to make mockeries of autistic people just because autistic people were a bit forceful to them. The line of thinking excuses all the feminists to make sweeping comments against men just because they were harassed by some.

And her statements are hardly proof that she was unprovoked harassed like she says.

Wow, this conversation is still going? A contracted professional makes extreme unprofessional public statements using her platform, which are contrary to the policies of her employer, has her contract terminated then conservatives that share her extreme views get upset. Yet, I see no outcry when a librarian burns conservative books and gets fired from the library they work at. Am I detecting a little hypocrisy and faux moral outrage?

This conversation is doubly ironic as conservatives conveniently forget the blackballing in Hollywood where they systemically excluded people with political affiliations who did not even make public statements. Or maybe they forgot their treatment of the Dixie Chicks and Colin Kaepernick. Human nature is ugly, but at least own up to your principles and actions.

Yeah ... amazing, is it not?

10 pages of posts, and what-is-her-name is still out of a job.

Maybe they should have typed louder!

Has anyone seen any good movies lately?

lol I've been done with this thread for days now. But members still entitled to argue and bicker and disagree and post their opinions so I never asked for it to be locked.