Will COVID-19 end theatrical movies

[inisideguy]

You're off in your own little word here arguing with yourself then it seems as nothing you've said here has anything to do with literally anything else here.

I don't see it that way. Lots of people here wanted Disney to release this straight up. During a pandemic so it could make more money at the box office. Disney had a choice to make and they made it. Scarjo is suing them because she only got 20 million.

[numberthirty]

No I am not kidding why do you care what F9 made at the box office? Are you a theater owner?

Again, you seem intent on having a discussion that doesn't really have much to do with it.

Long story short...

- That film points to that a film could do just fine during a pandemic.
- A woman is going to court based on that her contract largely based her compensation on how the film did in theaters.
- A company kicked the legs out from under that even though other films did just fine during the pandemic.

That is why you were asked if you are kidding.

The film in question points to that the lady filing suit absolutely has a valid case.

[inisideguy]

No one's against the choice...Like I said you're arguing against yourself here.

So you just want Disney to honor a contract when the situation totally changed that is your argument?

[thwhtGuardian]

I don't see it that way. Lots of people here wanted Disney to release this straight up. During a pandemic so it could make more money at the box office. Disney had a choice to make and they made it. Scarjo is suing them because she only got 20 million.

You're conflating issues that aren't related.

Scarlet isn't suing because she doesn't think streaming is good, and she's not suing because she thinks they should only release movies theatrically...she's suing because she had a contract and she believes it was infringed upon.

[numberthirty]

I don't see it that way. Lots of people here wanted Disney to release this straight up. During a pandemic so it could make more money at the box office. Disney had a choice to make and they made it. Scarjo is suing them because she only got 20 million.

Politely, that is just incorrect.

She is suing because the company seemingly did not abide by a contract they had entered into.

[inisideguy]

Again, you seem intent on having a discussion that doesn't really have much to do with it.

Long story short...

- That film points to that a film could do just fine during a pandemic.
- A woman is going to court based on that her contract largely based her compensation on how the film did in theaters.
- A company kicked the legs out from under that even though other films did just fine during the pandemic.

That is why you were asked if you are kidding.

The film in question points to that the lady filing suit absolutely has a valid case.

So all you are arguing is that Scar Jo should get paid a certain amount of money based on what you think the film would have done at the box office if released without same day streaming. You don't care that Disney did same day streaming. But you want Scar jo to get 50 million based on what you think it would have made. Ok

[numberthirty]

So you just want Disney to honor a contract when the situation totally changed that is your argument?

Yes.

..........

[thwhtGuardian]

So all you are arguing is that Scar Jo should get paid a certain amount of money based on what you think the film would have done at the box office if released without same day streaming. You don't care that Disney did same day streaming. But you want Scar jo to get 50 million based on what you think it would have made. Ok

...that's how contracts work...that you don't understand that is baffling.

[inisideguy]

Politely, that is just incorrect.

She is suing because the company seemingly did not abide by a contract they had entered into.

Because there is a freaking pandemic going on. And there are a lot of people dying. If this is some moral crusade to honor contracts regardless of the situation I can't be down with that.

[inisideguy]

...that's how contracts work...that you don't understand that is baffling.

But its a projection. No one knows what this makes without same day streaming. 100 million more? 200 million more? 500 million more?

[thwhtGuardian]

Because there is a freaking pandemic going on. And there are a lot of people dying. If this is some moral crusade to honor contracts regardless of the situation I can't be down with that.

...it's not a moral crusade it's how the legal system operates in a basic way.

So you can't be bothered by the very basics of our society?

[thwhtGuardian]

But its a projection. No one knows what this makes without same day streaming. 100 million more? 200 million more? 500 million more?

That's what the lawyers argue to decide. Again, this is very basic stuff that you just aren't seemingly capable of grasping for some odd reason.

[numberthirty]

So all you are arguing is that Scar Jo should get paid a certain amount of money based on what you think the film would have done at the box office if released without same day streaming. You don't care that Disney did same day streaming. But you want Scar jo to get 50 million based on what you think it would have made. Ok

Sure I do.

It is the entire reason they are being sued.

One of two things should have taken place...

- Stick to the initial contract, and give the film the theatrical run that other films had no problem with getting which would honor the contract they entered into.

- Decide to go with a theatrical/streaming same day release which, by it's very nature, breaks the contract that they entered into. Knowing that they decided to break the contract even though they did not actually need to, compensate the woman who signed the contact that the company knowingly broke.

[inisideguy]

...it's not a moral crusade it's how the legal system operates in a basic way.

So you can't be bothered by the very basics of our society?

Again you are arguing that she should get a certain amount of money based on projected box office. What if this thing would have made 1.5 billion? Then Scarjo suing for 50 million is getting under paid. In your opinion Disney should have released this straight into the theater, not give their fans a choice, to honor Scarjo. Then give her a percentage of that box office. While screwing over the fans who did not want to go to the theater in a pandemic. But no one knows what this would have made. No one. People can project. But thats it.

[inisideguy]

Sure I do.

It is the entire reason they are being sued.

One of two things should have taken place...

- Stick to the initial contract, and give the film the theatrical run that other films had no problem with getting which would honor the contract they entered into.

- Decide to go with a theatrical/streaming same day release which, by it's very nature, breaks the contract that they entered into. Knowing that they decided to break the contract even though they did not actually need to, compensate the woman who signed the contact that the company knowingly broke.

Compensate her what based on some hypothetical box office that may have happened? Sorry I have to run Ill pick up convo later. Just my opinions no offense to anyone.