Lynne Ramsey's follow-up to Kevin isn't happening.

...what her reasoning is, as well as what this means for her career, remains to be seen.

She committed career suicide; IMO. Nobody is going to want to put up millions of dollars to fund her films after a stunt like this. If she wanted to leave the project, there's a professional way of doing so.

Unless she pulled out for medical reasons, I have to agree with Ian that this is only going to harm her career. Will be interesting to see what statement her side will put forward in the days ahead.

Gavin O'Connor (WARRIOR, THE AMERICANS pilot) will apparently replace Ramsey on JANE GOT A GUN.

Maybe she had some sort of nervous breakdown like Rivette.

I'll admit it. I laughed at the thread title.

I laughed too, but it could also be named Jane Hasn't Got a Gun.

Dammit, I was really looking forward to this film. I couldn't believe they replaced Ramsey with Gavin O'Connor (of all people) the day after she quit and that he was going to start shooting one day later, after not being involved in pre-production at all. According to that Playlist piece, the daughter of the producer of the project was also Ramsay's manager... until yesterday. Can't wait to see what happens tomorrow. I can only assume that Portman will be playing the villain now, Lena Dunham will take the Portman role, and Spike Lee will take over as director.

On Friday, the film will be rebooted as a multi-camera comedy.

The producer's assistant is supposedly sending out emails begging people to make positive comments about them in the Deadline article about this debacle.

These ridiculous comments certainly make that seem plausible:

lol forever

We Need to Talk About Kevin was a big disappointment for me. Gavin O'Connor did a fantastic job directing Warrior. As a director he elevated what was a fairly pedestrian script and made it much better than it had any right being. It was a big flop at the box office but I was VERY impressed with his work as director and have wondered what he could do with better material. Maybe it sounds like one of the deadline comments that Jeff is making fun of but I think it's true.

O'Connor seems like a reliable journeyman (which is likely why he was brought in), and he's probably a great guy, but I haven't seen anything approaching artistic ambition in any of his films. We Need to Talk About Kevin was a bit of a disappointment for me too, but Ramsay directed the hell out of it. Put it this way -- I don't think the guy who made Miracle and Warrior (perfectly fine movies) has a Ratcatcher or Morvern Callar in him.

The whole situation is a shame, but I'm far from convinced by the whole "Ramsay's a crazy mess, Scott Steindorff is a producing genius, superdirector Gavin O'Connor saves the day" story that somebody is trying very hard to craft.

However it's intended, I get a gut 'ugh' reaction whenever I see a woman director referred to as 'difficult', particularly in the context of 'oh she's difficult, I'm so glad a reliable man is taking over'

So she's no-showed on the first day of production, and left the project in what appears to be the most unprofessional way possible, but we should be hesitant to call her 'difficult' because she's a woman?

There won't be equality until we can call it like we see it with everyone regardless of their gender/race/etc. From where I'm sitting, unless something else comes out, Ramsay was/is being difficult.

Understanding where matrix is coming from, I think you may be missing his point, but truly, I think you should be hesitant to call her difficult because you don't know the full story behind her leaving the production, nor I'd think, her manner on-set.
Though biased by my love of her films, I find it hard to believe anything said about the situation in that article (or the comments), when it's a wholly one-sided story. The quotes from the producer very much read like someone urgent to get their foot in the door first, making anything Lynne Ramsay might relate later potentially suspect.
The whole thing's unfortunate, as it would've been great to see another film from Ramsay so soon.

We badly need to hear her side of the story, but I agree that it doesn't look good. I'm racking my brains trying to think of another example of a director walking off a project in similar circumstances - i.e. at the worst possible time in terms of money having been spent and/or committed, and with no apparent prior warning.

Wrong. Anyoone that has done Women's Studies 101 will tell you that, as long as institutionalized sexism and misogyny contiues to exist in our society and permeate our culture, we are perpetuating sexist stereotypes of women when we use such descriptors as "difficult", especially when there is a long history of the word being negatively associated with women. It doesn't matter if the woman in question actually was being difficult or not. It's akin to calling a woman a "bitch". Simply inappropriate.

And this is coming from an uneducated man that thinks Ramsay is a borderline hack, so I would be the last to defend her

Let's not forget that the standard US/UK director's contract allows for a director to be fired at any stage of the production with or without cause. There are probably more cases of this being done without screams of career suicide, despicable professionalism etc etc regarding unscrupulous producers. This has happened many times very very late on after considerable development and pre-production time has evolved.
So in a sort of perverse way I find it quite gratifying that the roles have been reversed somewhat. However I think that since it is easier for the production arm to control the PA and flow of information it may well be to Ramsay's detriment whereas ironically the reverse situation of being fired by overbearing producers can sometimes be an enhancement to a director's image.
Re the gender debate any director with an opinion is deemed 'difficult' by production - it goes with the job description.

Anyone that has done living in the real world will tell you that we are perpetuating being inauthentic and ridiculous people if we avoid treating each other equally and fairly

Von Sternberg on Claudius.

Treating people equally and fairly in a world in which racism, sexism, transphobia, and all sorts of other means by which people are put unfairly into unequal positions means taking those things into account and understanding that, for instance, a black person putting on makeup to look white doesn't have the same effect as a white person doing blackface. So too with language- some language is freighted with meaning and implied narrative, and referring to a woman as 'difficult' is an example of that kind of language.

Particularly as the original context was that Ramsay is 'rumored to be very difficult'- which means that it's not referred specifically to not showing up, which absent of any explanation does seem wildly unprofessional, but to her personality and method of working in general. That's a term that, like 'bitch', gets slapped on women who insist on asserting themselves all the time, and it makes me cringe to see it, even from some anonymous asshole.

Men are described as "difficult" all the time. Google "david o russell" and "difficult", for example.

Very true, and it's a good point. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that certain words carry inescapable connotations with them, especially in certain contexts. So while I don't doubt there was no sexist intention behind calling Ramsay 'difficult' (I hear it all the time to refer to actors, directors, ect.), there is still an unavoidable sexist baggage that comes with the word. It's problematic in spite of intention.

Would that we lived in a world where words can be applied neutrally to anyone, but we don't, and real equality does not involve stripping words of their meaning or re-purposing them or ignoring the unpleasant connotations. It means creating a society in which people can no longer imagine the context in which such connotations could be present because that stuff has become so far removed from the discourse. I'm not holding my breath for it, tho'.