JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 23 minutes ago, Jill said: Why would a Disney film be available on Amazon lol They were always are available to rent or purchase on Amazon after they left the theatres. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy 14,302 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Chromatography said: not DISNEY being all woe is me about the covid pandemic. fvck out of here. also has NOTHING to do with the suit. trying to milk pity points...disney can piss off LITERALLY THIS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill 31,812 Posted July 30, 2021 Author Share Posted July 30, 2021 Just now, JusKeepBreathin said: They were always are available to rent or purchase on Amazon after they left the theatres. Oh I thought they were referring to Prime Video Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRCF29 8,230 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 It will depend on how the court interprets "theatrical release." This will likely be a precedent-setting case in the streaming era, assuming it doesn't get settled or dismissed early on. In my opinion, "theatrical release" does not cover Disney+, for two key reasons: 1) Once a customer purchases the movie, they have unlimited access to the movie. This is different than when a customer purchases a ticket through a movie theater box office, because they only have access to the film for its runtime, and would need to make a separate purchase if they wished to see the movie again; and 2) Streaming services like Disney+ are, in effect, a collection of digital (i.e. non-physical) DVDs, and DVDs would never be considered a part of "theatrical release." Disney paying her a portion of the $30 fee to view the movie on Disney+ doesn't mean that they are fulfilling the alleged contractual obligation to release for an exclusively-theatrical run. It just means they're paying her a portion of the profit from non-theatrical relase Don't Call Me Gaga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRCF29 8,230 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 It's not entirely accurate to suggest that the pandemic has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Disney likely wouldn't have switched to a hybrid release for movies if the pandemic hadn't shuttered theaters for a year and reduced theater capacity when theaters did open back up. Don't Call Me Gaga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 53,157 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 11 hours ago, SchwineLove said: Ok now i'm confused on who should i pick side. Theres the mistake right there. Society now seems to think u ALWAYS have to pick a side Theres plenty of cases where both sides have a valid view point or where both are partially in the wrong... or when we just dont know every detail... Either way u dont always have to pick a side. Its perfectly ok to be neutral sometimes. This dispute isnt affecting anyone outside Disney or Scarlet anyway so let them figure it out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchwineLove 1,375 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Economy said: Theres the mistake right there. Society now seems to think u ALWAYS have to pick a side Theres plenty of cases where both sides have a valid view point or where both are partially in the wrong... or when we just dont know every detail... Either way u dont always have to pick a side Thanks! It calms me to think that to not pick a side is also an option. And to not care is also an option (at least at not so urgent humanity issue) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 Don't you think it's all for the hype? lol Scarlett got 20 million dollars for this, so her position is stupid in this situation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley 60,456 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 I mean Disney would want to earn as much money as possible right? They probably did what they could, it's not like Disney wanted the pandemic to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBannedShadow 3,424 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 5 hours ago, skaxboy said: ‘Had it not been streamed, people would have pirated the eff out of a theater recorded copy’ Theater recorded copies are a thing of the past. The movie was available in dolby atmos 4k even before release trough torrents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 12 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said: This sucks Robert Downey Jr made $20M plus 8 percent from End Games back end points and that was an ensemble cast. He made around $75 Million. This movie she is carrying alone the $15M to $20M is a given she probably had a contract that is about 6 to 8 back end points. So she would make about $1 for every $40- $50 the movie makes after her initial $15M - $20M this movie could easily be on the same page to make anywhere from $900M- $1 Billion dollars. I'm previous reports about her salary she is said to be earning $15M upfront. So those additional $5M are probably already from profit. Which is not alot compared to other actors Marvel movies. People keep mentioning how much she already made like it matters. This is about a multi billion dollar company screwing a female actress out of tens of millions of dollars and saying, "but the pandemic" while simultaneously making a huge profit off new memberships from Disney+ and premier access. They are totally robbing her of her money. If it were Amazon you guys would be digging Bezos's grave right now. What with the LMAO reaction @lego? Are you just harassing me like you normally do with your friends or is there some reason behind it? "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petie Estie 5,741 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 I don't care how many millions she gets, I truly don't, but I hate that their response doesn't address the actual ****ing contract. Did the contract guarantee a theatrical release or not? that's all that matters! Call your therapist...it's Petie Estie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsterofFame 1,797 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 18 hours ago, Jill said: “There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,” Disney said in a statement Thursday. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” To me, this reads as: "We changed things to do our best due to the pandemic, but we refuse to change Scarlett's part of the deal. Please feel sorry for us despite performing amongst the best of all entertainment companies during the pandemic." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bling 31,709 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 Based on what I've read, Disney's claims make the most sense (TO ME) given the likely % of people that have access to open theatres or that would risk their health to go to a theatre during a global pandemic. If Disney did not provide the option for owning the film for $30 on Disney+, she would, undoubtedly, be making much less money. People just aren't going to the movies like they used to, even before the pandemic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyaway 15,350 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 They're mad because it's threatening their cash cow with Disney+. If this awakens more lawsuits, streaming will change because everyone will ask for a part of the revenues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.