|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 22:42:24 GMT
It amazes me how much flack she is getting for a decision Disney made to go around her contract. There is no entitlement to succeed in capitalism. If Black Widow were released into theaters and failed to make back the costs, it would have flopped financially by its own terms. The idea that Disney has the right to go around their client's contracts to make back their costs is their way of saying they're too big to fail. They may have given her a portion of Disney + sales, but they would be under no legal obligation to because it wasn't in the contract. The idea that they could buy her off after the fact is tantamount to bribing their way out of a lawsuit they know they would have brought on themselves, which they did.
they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:42:48 GMT
It amazes me how much flack she is getting for a decision Disney made to go around her contract. There is no entitlement to succeed in capitalism. If Black Widow were released into theaters and failed to make back the costs, it would have flopped financially by its own terms. The idea that Disney has the right to go around their client's contracts to make back their costs is their way of saying they're too big to fail. They may have given her a portion of Disney + sales, but they would be under no legal obligation to because it wasn't in the contract. The idea that they could buy her off after the fact is tantamount to bribing their way out of a lawsuit they know they would have brought on themselves, which they did.
they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. The open hand is now a closed fist. Disney has begun its pincer move. First things last, cut off all public support she could get from anyone they are currently in bed with. Stone took the sequel and Johnson took the short. Next, rework all future deals to account for streaming revenue - simple but effective. That pretty much leaves Johansson, Olsen and all of their stans to stunt on their own. When you do a deal with the devil, here's what you always need to be thinking about…  Stone took the L and moved on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:53:22 GMT
If they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 23, 2021 22:57:07 GMT
If they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
I don’t care one way or the other. Disney is rich, so is Johansson. The outcome will never affect me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 23, 2021 22:59:07 GMT
Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that. You can not watch movies or TV, then the bastards can’t get your money. Books are nice and free down at the library. Seriously, why does anyone care and how will this change their viewing habits? Frankly, I prefer to stream movies now that we got big screen TVs. If this settlement lowers ticket prices, I might be interested. Otherwise, it’s only because the Black Widow is doing a litigious scissor kick to Uncle Walt that it is the story, not the actual court case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 23:01:00 GMT
Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that. That should have begun after. If Black Widow were the last film Disney ever released only to theaters then they could move on to dual releases or just streaming, which has all those advantages like you said. Disney jumped the gun because they panicked.
We'll see what happens in court, but I smell a too big to fail mentality that doesn't even apply to nations and governments anymore, let alone corporations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 23:03:18 GMT
Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
I don’t care one way or the other. Disney is rich, so is Johansson. The outcome will never affect me. That's your privilege. I can't say I agree but I respect it. For what it's worth, Johansson is rich. Disney signs some of her cheques that make her rich. Disney is not rich. Disney is wealthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 23, 2021 23:05:22 GMT
I don’t care one way or the other. Disney is rich, so is Johansson. The outcome will never affect me. That's your privilege. I can't say I agree but I respect it. For what it's worth, Johansson is rich. Disney signs some of her cheques that make her rich. Disney is not rich. Disney is wealthy. Disney is an empire…whether we like it or not…and we made it so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 23:05:35 GMT
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that. That should have begun after. If Black Widow were the last film Disney ever released only to theaters then they could move on to dual releases or just streaming, which has all those advantages like you said. Disney jumped the gun because they panicked.
We'll see what happens in court, but I smell a too big to fail mentality that doesn't even apply to nations and governments anymore, let alone corporations.
Don't think, too big to fail… think join or die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 23:13:09 GMT
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that. That should have begun after. If Black Widow were the last film Disney ever released only to theaters then they could move on to dual releases or just streaming, which has all those advantages like you said. Disney jumped the gun because they panicked.
We'll see what happens in court, but I smell a too big to fail mentality that doesn't even apply to nations and governments anymore, let alone corporations.
They didn't "panic". They postponed their movies for over a year because of the pandemic. Releasing over streaming was their way of trying to earn a little bit of the cost back... and it was definitely not a hasty decision if it took them over a year to decide. |
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 23:15:49 GMT
That should have begun after. If Black Widow were the last film Disney ever released only to theaters then they could move on to dual releases or just streaming, which has all those advantages like you said. Disney jumped the gun because they panicked.
We'll see what happens in court, but I smell a too big to fail mentality that doesn't even apply to nations and governments anymore, let alone corporations.
They didn't "panic". They postponed their movies for over a year because of the pandemic. Releasing over streaming was their way of trying to earn a little bit of the cost back... and it was definitely not a hasty decision if it took them over a year to decide. If they weren't panicked they could have delayed them a little longer, including subsequent projects. Regardless, they tried earning back some of their costs at the expense of a contract.
I for one think this was a worthwhile conversation. Spaghetti and all. Feel like wrapping it up? I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 23:43:26 GMT
They didn't "panic". They postponed their movies for over a year because of the pandemic. Releasing over streaming was their way of trying to earn a little bit of the cost back... and it was definitely not a hasty decision if it took them over a year to decide. If they weren't panicked they could have delayed them a little longer, including subsequent projects. Regardless, they tried earning back some of their costs at the expense of a contract.
I for one think this was a worthwhile conversation. Spaghetti and all. Feel like wrapping it up? I do.
And how much longer would they have needed to delay in order for you to conclude that they weren't panicking in your own subjective opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 23:58:16 GMT
If they weren't panicked they could have delayed them a little longer, including subsequent projects. Regardless, they tried earning back some of their costs at the expense of a contract.
I for one think this was a worthwhile conversation. Spaghetti and all. Feel like wrapping it up? I do.
And how much longer would they have needed to delay in order for you to conclude that they weren't panicking in your own subjective opinion? I'll take that as a no. What would you like as an answer? 1 year and 24 minutes, precisely? Come on, man. I thought I was literal but if I thought I had to choose my words this carefully I'd hire a proofreader.
Do you know for a fact, an incontestable fact, that this was not a result of panic? No you don't. You don't because you can't. You can deduce based on what you do know, but you don't know what factors inside the board rooms may have ebbed and flowed and graduated into a panic. You don't know any more than I do, and if me saying I don't know is what you need to hear to let it go, you got it. I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.
We are in wait and see mode, so lets wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 24, 2021 0:10:26 GMT
That's your privilege. I can't say I agree but I respect it. For what it's worth, Johansson is rich. Disney signs some of her cheques that make her rich. Disney is not rich. Disney is wealthy. Disney is an empire…whether we like it or not…and we made it so. And we have to direct that empire to serve us as consumers. Do you want to see Scarlett pocket a cool 50 M for essentially doing nothing on top of her 20 M fee for services? Or, and wait for it, cause you're going to love this… do you want another two episodes of your favorite Marvel Disney+ series at no extra cost to you? That's what 50 M buys in the streaming economy. Unjustified and inflated profit sharing deals for talent is not good business. I don't think Scarlett Johansson, God bless her hips, has been worth 50 M potato chips let alone dollars at the box office for a long long time. Just ask Fortune magazine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 24, 2021 0:12:18 GMT
And how much longer would they have needed to delay in order for you to conclude that they weren't panicking in your own subjective opinion? I'll take that as a no. What would you like as an answer? 1 year and 24 minutes, precisely? Come on, man. I thought I was literal but if I thought I had to choose my words this carefully I'd hire a proofreader.
Do you know for a fact, an incontestable fact, that this was not a result of panic? No you don't. You don't because you can't. You can deduce based on what you do know, but you don't know what factors inside the board rooms may have ebbed and flowed and graduated into a panic. You don't know any more than I do, and if me saying I don't know is what you need to hear to let it go, you got it. I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.
We are in wait and see mode, so lets wait and see.
Yes, we both weren't in the boardrooms and so we can never be too sure. Which is why you, stating like it was a fact, that Disney did the decision in a panic is completely baseless. At least my claim that they didn't do it due to a panic is based on a number of observable facts like: 1. They waited for over a year before releasing BW on streaming. People don't normally have the patience to wait that long when making panicked decisions. 2. A lot of thought and research obviously went into this before they made their decision, as proven by the multiple times they wanted to release BW but decided to postpone it again and again. That points to someone being careful, not someone who's jumping the gun. 3. There have been multiple movies Disney had release on D+ prior to BW, therefore they already have experimental data to pull from before releasing BW. That's not something that you do as a panic decision. In comparison, what proof do you have to back up your claim that Disney's decision was based on them panicking? As for what I'm expecting from you, well, to be honest I'd settle for a nice objective discussion based on nothing but facts. A discussion where you don't resort to assumptions and subjective opinions. For example, you claimed that Disney was panicked otherwise they would have delayed longer than the over 1 year of delay they already made. That's a purely subjective opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 24, 2021 0:23:10 GMT
I'll take that as a no. What would you like as an answer? 1 year and 24 minutes, precisely? Come on, man. I thought I was literal but if I thought I had to choose my words this carefully I'd hire a proofreader.
Do you know for a fact, an incontestable fact, that this was not a result of panic? No you don't. You don't because you can't. You can deduce based on what you do know, but you don't know what factors inside the board rooms may have ebbed and flowed and graduated into a panic. You don't know any more than I do, and if me saying I don't know is what you need to hear to let it go, you got it. I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.
We are in wait and see mode, so lets wait and see.
Yes, we both weren't in the boardrooms and so we can never be too sure. Which is why you, stating like it was a fact, that Disney did the decision in a panic is completely baseless. At least my claim that they didn't do it due to a panic is based on a number of observable facts like: 1. They waited for over a year before releasing BW on streaming. People don't normally have the patience to wait that long when making panicked decisions. 2. A lot of thought and research obviously went into this before they made their decision, as proven by the multiple times they wanted to release BW but decided to postpone it again and again. That points to someone being careful, not someone who's jumping the gun. 3. There have been multiple movies Disney had release on D+ prior to BW, therefore they already have experimental data to pull from before releasing BW. That's not something that you do as a panic decision. In comparison, what proof do you have to back up your claim that Disney's decision was based on them panicking? As for what I'm expecting from you, well, to be honest I'm kinda waiting for at least a single post from you where you concentrate on objective facts instead of just relying on assumptions and opinions. I mean, you're saying 1 year's wait isn't enough to declare that they weren't panicking. That's your opinion and based on nothing else, which is why I was asking what length of time would make it not a panicked decision. Okay, "I don't know" may have been what you thought you needed to hear, but what you really need to hear is this: calling my opinion subjective does not mean that yours is neutral.
Nobody is without bias, nobody is influence-free or a blank slate. You're a smart guy but not an exception to the human race. Neither am I, so in that regard, we're even. Give up, watch some TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 24, 2021 0:30:20 GMT
Disney is an empire…whether we like it or not…and we made it so. And we have to direct that empire to serve us as consumers. Do you want to see Scarlett pocket a cool 50 M for essentially doing nothing on top of her 20 M fee for services? Or, and wait for it, cause you're going to love this… do you want another two episodes of your favorite Marvel Disney+ series at no extra cost to you? That's what 50 M buys in the streaming economy. Unjustified and inflated profit sharing deals for talent is not good business. I don't think Scarlett Johansson, God bless her hips, has been worth 50 M potato chips let alone dollars at the box office for a long long time. Just ask Fortune magazine. It is serving the customers. That’s why they’re so rich. No one is forced to go to Disney World. Supply and demand. What’s Johansson’s paycheck got to do with that anyway? She’ll have her day in court, and in the meantime, the movies and TV shows get released. That’s what I care about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 24, 2021 0:38:07 GMT
And we have to direct that empire to serve us as consumers. Do you want to see Scarlett pocket a cool 50 M for essentially doing nothing on top of her 20 M fee for services? Or, and wait for it, cause you're going to love this… do you want another two episodes of your favorite Marvel Disney+ series at no extra cost to you? That's what 50 M buys in the streaming economy. Unjustified and inflated profit sharing deals for talent is not good business. I don't think Scarlett Johansson, God bless her hips, has been worth 50 M potato chips let alone dollars at the box office for a long long time. Just ask Fortune magazine. It is serving the customers. That’s why they’re so rich. No one is forced to go to Disney World. Supply and demand. What’s Johansson’s paycheck got to do with that anyway? She’ll have her day in court, and in the meantime, the movies and TV shows get released. That’s what I care about. Her paycheck has nothing to do with this. It's her "performance" bonus that's a bit dubious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 24, 2021 0:42:32 GMT
It is serving the customers. That’s why they’re so rich. No one is forced to go to Disney World. Supply and demand. What’s Johansson’s paycheck got to do with that anyway? She’ll have her day in court, and in the meantime, the movies and TV shows get released. That’s what I care about. Her paycheck has nothing to do with this. It's her "performance" bonus that's a bit dubious. I’ll say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2021 0:00:32 GMT
|
|
