Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[ouinason]

If Disney signed a contract stating that the initial release of Black Widow would be theater exclusive, then they are the assholes, end of story.  What I got from this story was that Disney needed to change the release and instead of renegading so that they could do that legally, they just shrugged and did what they wanted and told her to go kick rocks.  

This could also be a hugely inaccurate take on the situation.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

Link

Didn't the Krasinski's have a similar complaint with Paramont regarding A Quiet Place 2?  I know that movie was exclusivly in theaters but their complaint was that the movie wasn't in theaters as long as had been agreed upon.  Can't make as much on the back end if the theatrical window isn't honored.  

Edited to add link.

The interesting part of that story is this quote (although it is from an anonymous person):

The stars are worried that many potential theater fans might wait for the film to be available for home viewing, reducing the box-office receipts

Of course a lot of people will stay home, as they don't want to risk dying to see a movie. And how long do you think they would need to leave Quiet Place 2 in theatres before that concern goes away?

Quote

If Disney signed a contract stating that the initial release of Black Widow would be theater exclusive, then they are the assholes, end of story

 

That is a pretty big if though, since from the articles I have read all we have is her lawyers interpretation of the contract. Either way I doubt this would go to trial since I imagine Disney doesn't want to risk losing big and they don't want to set any kind of precedent. In the end they will probably just settle and future contracts will make it clear that they have the choice what platform to release a movie on, and if an actor wants a cut of streaming dollars they will have to negotiate for it.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[kiddo82]

15 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Of course a lot of people will stay home, as they don't want to risk dying to see a movie. And how long do you think they would need to leave Quiet Place 2 in theatres before that concern goes away?

I'm not a lawyer so I could be speaking 100% out of my ass but a contract is a contract.  And if the contract stated that the film would run exclusively in theaters for x amount of days and the studio pulls it then they are not honoring it.  And if the film is supposed to stay off streaming services for x amount of days after it is removed from theaters and the studio puts it on the streamer anyway then that is not honoring the contract.  I don't think any lay person necessarily cares that say John Krasinski or Scarlett Johansson, who seem to be doing alright for themselves, line their pockets even more, but if they unfairly don't get what they are entitled to because these billion dollar corporations are being fishy then that is a problem in my eyes.  And in my opinion there is a difference between taking a risk on a back end deal and the movie bombing and taking a risk on a back end deal and the parent company siphoning away customers in a way that was already negotiated against.  How many more customers could have/would have gone to the theater in the current climate seems to be irrelevant if these deals simply aren't being honored.

Edited July 31, 2021 by kiddo82

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

because these billion dollar corporations are being fishy then that is a problem in my eyes.

I just personally have a hard time accepting the studios as being complete assholes for not releasing things into theaters in the middle of a pandemic. It would be a very different narrative to me if this was happening during "normal times."

[Kel Varnsen]

8 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I'm not a lawyer so I could be speaking 100% out of my ass but a contract is a contract.  And if the contract stated that the film would run exclusively in theaters for x amount of days and the studio pulls it then they are not honoring it.  

I am curious if an actor's contract would have requirements for a movie to play in theatres for a certain number of days? Because how would that work if a movie tanks on opening weekend? And wouldn't that also go hand in hand with how many screens a movie was showing on, which is also something I would be surprised that actors had any control over.

4 minutes ago, Zella said:

I just personally have a hard time accepting the studios as being complete assholes for not releasing things into theaters in the middle of a pandemic. It would be a very different narrative to me if this was happening during "normal times."

That is part of it for me too. I mean would Johansson rather they released Black Widow last fall? This pandemic will change so many things about how people live their lives for a very long time that I have a hard time feeling bad for an actor that didn't negotiate for a percent of streaming revenue as part of their contract. Especially since how will anyone be able to figure out the damages after the fact. Like I watched Black Widow on D+ with my kids, but even if theatres were open the weekend it came out there is no way I would be going to a movie theatre. So in a lot of cases like that it is not loss of potential box office revenue.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, ouinason said:

If Disney signed a contract stating that the initial release of Black Widow would be theater exclusive, then they are the assholes, end of story. 

I would imagine there was some kind of fine print that gives them an out for extenuating circumstances. I can’t imagine Disney (or any other company with good lawyers) draws up a single contract that doesn’t give them an out. It’s like how if you sign up for a cruise there is a disclaimer that the ship doesn’t have to go anywhere. 

3 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

Some thoughts - 

1. I don't follow the entertainment industry closely, but hasn't the film industry been suffering in general for several years (pre-COVID)?  If that is the case, then actors should perhaps be prepared to see salaries drop or at least be differently configured.  Let's face it, the studios/production companies are going to get theirs first.  

This is what makes this whole think really interesting to me. The movie business is really struggling as a whole. For the actors they are probably right but it may be a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. 

[Zella]

1 minute ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Like I watched Black Widow on D+ with my kids, but even if theatres were open the weekend it came out there is no way I would be going to a movie theatre. So in a lot of cases like that it is not loss of potential box office revenue.

Yeah even if they had released it to theater, what guarantee is there people would have attended it? I don't really like going to theaters to watch movies. (Even pre-pandemic, I prefer to watch them at home where I can pause it to look up things on IMDB and not be accosted by strangers in my personal bubble.)

But my brother and I have a tradition of going to the theater to watch Godzilla movies. Because, let's be honest, we just want to see the big guy tear things up on an IMAX screen. But we didn't even have to have a discussion about skipping it this spring. We just weren't going. I don't think we're alone in that, and I don't think they can underestimate the impact that has on box office receipts. 

[DearEvette]

I don't have a nickel in the quarter of the fight between Scarjo and Disney.  But I do think it is odd that Disney would so blatantly breach a contract.  I know they are a mega-corp blah blah blah.  But they have to have a phalanx of lawyers who would tell them.. 'Hey y'all are in breach."

So either they did it blatantly and decided it was an affordable risk and didn't think she would dare raise a stink or the language in the contract gives wiggle room. 

I am wondering if the word 'exclusive' is in the contract?  Because that could be what Disney is banking on.

I think I read somewhere that the contract actually stipulated that the film would get 'wide theatrical release' which according to Scarjo's people is "understood in the industry" to mean exclusive. But I don't know if that means the word 'exclusive' isn't actually there or if the term 'wide theatrical release' has an implicit meaning that includes exclusive. A sort of letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing?

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I don't have a nickel in the quarter of the fight between Scarjo and Disney.  But I do think it is odd that Disney would so blatantly breach a contract.  I know they are a mega-corp blah blah blah.  But they have to have a phalanx of lawyers who would tell them.. 'Hey y'all are in breach."

So either they did it blatantly and decided it was an affordable risk and didn't think she would dare raise a stink or the language in the contract gives wiggle room. 

I am wondering if the word 'exclusive' is in the contract?  Because that could be what Disney is banking on.

I think I read somewhere that the contract actually stipulated that the film would get 'wide theatrical release' which according to Scarjo's people is "understood in the industry" to mean exclusive. But I don't know if that means the word 'exclusive' isn't actually there or if the term 'wide theatrical release' has an implicit meaning that includes exclusive. A sort of letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing?

Per this article from The Hollywood Reporter, which I've found to be the most detailed explanation, no, her contract doesn't say "exclusive." They also break down several reasons why they think her lawsuit is "weak" from a legal standpoint.  

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/

[kiddo82]

36 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I am curious if an actor's contract would have requirements for a movie to play in theatres for a certain number of days? Because how would that work if a movie tanks on opening weekend? And wouldn't that also go hand in hand with how many screens a movie was showing on, which is also something I would be surprised that actors had any control over.

That is part of it for me too. I mean would Johansson rather they released Black Widow last fall? This pandemic will change so many things about how people live their lives for a very long time that I have a hard time feeling bad for an actor that didn't negotiate for a percent of streaming revenue as part of their contract. Especially since how will anyone be able to figure out the damages after the fact. Like I watched Black Widow on D+ with my kids, but even if theatres were open the weekend it came out there is no way I would be going to a movie theatre. So in a lot of cases like that it is not loss of potential box office revenue.

But to me that's not really the point if the contract actually was breached.    I chose not to see A Quiet Place 2, a movie that I would have seen in theaters in normal times, for my own reasons.  Still doesn't mean Paramount didn't renig on the terms of the deal with John Krasinski.  Both things can be true.  I can't say for sure that that is or isn't the case though.  And same for the Johansson complaint.  And all the other complaints.  And quite frankly, even if I had the thing in front of me, it might as we'll be in Greek for all I know about it. That's for all the lawyers to figure out.  But I think the creatives have a right to fight it if they feel they have been wronged.

Edited July 31, 2021 by kiddo82

[Cherpumple]

42 minutes ago, MaiaH said:

Isn't the larger issue that studios don't want to pay anything (like royalties or residuals) to creatives for streaming?

That's the impression I got from the articles I've read. The viewing landscape has changed drastically and quickly, and the contracts (for many people, not just multi-millionaire actors) haven't caught up, allowing studios to screw people out of money for their work. It reminds me of when DVD sales for TV show got really big in the early 2000s and suddenly all the music rights had to be renegotiated to accommodate the new format. In most cases it worked out, but some shows had to change the music for the DVDs and others were never released at all due to problems re-acquiring the rights. I get the feeling that a lot of people will be interested in this case due to its precedent regarding streaming rights more than for being for or against ScarJo in particular.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Zella said:

I just personally have a hard time accepting the studios as being complete assholes for not releasing things into theaters in the middle of a pandemic. It would be a very different narrative to me if this was happening during "normal times."

This is where I fall on this. The studios can’t sit on these movies for an indefinite amount of time and a exclusive theatrical release is a bad idea right now. We are in a pandemic and that means that people are going to make less money than they would normally. It sucks for everyone. 

Also, I’m sure the box office was hurt by streaming but I think Covid and the movie itself are a larger factor. The movie is 5 years too late and the reaction wasn’t overwhelmingly positive. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, MaiaH said:

Isn't the larger issue that studios don't want to pay anything (like royalties or residuals) to creatives for streaming?  I feel like ScarJo's lawsuit could help set a precedent or path for other creatives (writers, etc) who have been shut out of being paid for their work once it went to streaming.

I believe so.  I've seen this compared to what happened when VHS tapes became big.  There was no mechanism for creatives to get residuals on the sale of those tapes.  So there might have been something in the contracts for TV viewing/syndication, there wasn't something for VHS/DVD.  And with streaming, they keep things so secretive so no one knows the true value.

57 minutes ago, Zella said:

I just personally have a hard time accepting the studios as being complete assholes for not releasing things into theaters in the middle of a pandemic.

They're assholes for screwing over their creatives.  They can argue unprecedented times but Hollywood has a long history of using shady accounting practices to try and make profitable entities look unprofitable or not as profitable and essentially robbing people who had a stake in the back end. 

40 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

So either they did it blatantly and decided it was an affordable risk and didn't think she would dare raise a stink or the language in the contract gives wiggle room. 

ScarJo has money to fall back on but she doesn't have Disney money.  Disney probably thinks it's an acceptable risk.  They have more money and can keep pushing until it's not worth it to her or offer her a settlement without admitting wrong.

The movie industry is hurting but not really the blockbusters which is the category Black Widow is in.

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Irlandesa

[DearEvette]

19 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:

That's the impression I got from the articles I've read. The viewing landscape has changed drastically and quickly, and the contracts (for many people, not just multi-millionaire actors) haven't caught up, allowing studios to screw people out of money for their work. It reminds me of when DVD sales for TV show got really big in the early 2000s and suddenly all the music rights had to be renegotiated to accommodate the new format.

I believe something similar happened in the publishing industry when ebooks came along.  There was either nothing in existing contracts to accommodate for the new medium or if it did it was too broad.  There was nothing to stipulate what sort of revenue an author could expect given the price point differentials between a print book and an e-book.  It was also exacerbated by rights reversion. In many standard contracts, rights reverted back to the author  after a so many years once a book falls out of print.  But with e-books a book could be considered "in print" even when no physical book was being created so some authors who wanted to get the rights back on certain books would be out of luck.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

The movie industry is hurting but not really the blockbusters which is the category Black Widow is in.

 

Every category is hurting currently. Black Widow is the 2nd highest grossing movie of the year domestically and 5th highest worldwide. It’s the highest movie that hasn’t opened in China. I don’t think the box office would have been that much better with a exclusive theatrical release. 

[Irlandesa]

7 minutes ago, Dani said:

Every category is hurting currently

I was responding to the point about the movie industry struggling even pre-COVID. 

I'm surprised Colin Jost isn't trending with his wife and Michael Che all over the news. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Irlandesa said:

I was responding to the point about the movie industry struggling even pre-COVID. 

Okay. Out of curiosity, how much money does a movie need to make to be qualify as a blockbuster? Before covid I really didn’t think the Black Widow was going to make blockbuster money. I was thinking it would be closer to Ant-Man than Avengers. 

[merylinkid]

22 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I did read on a recent Forbes list that Scarlett is the most UNDERPAID actor for what she brings in.  I think Johnny Depp was the most OVERPAID for what he brings in.  (His films bomb, he makes a lot of money.  Scarlett's movies make bonkers money because they're mostly Marvel, and she doesn't get paid that much in a relative sense.)

I found the Overpaid list, looking for the underpaid now.  The overpaid are all men.

Forbes’ most overpaid actors in Hollywood 2015

1. Johnny Depp: $1.20 per $1
2. Denzel Washington: $6.50 per $1
3. Will Ferrell: $6.80 per $1
4. Liam Neeson: $7.80 per $1
5. Will Smith: $8.60 per $1
6. Christian Bale: $9.20 per $1
7. Channing Tatum: $10.80 per $1
8. Brad Pitt: $12.00 per $1
9. Ben Affleck: $12.30 per $1
10. Tom Cruise: $13.60 per $1

She was the highest grossing actor for 2016.  Her films make the most money, but even the highest paid actresses do not approach the salaries of the men.  Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Lawrence are some of the highest paid ACTRESSES, but when you compare them to the male actors their salaries really pale in comparison.

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45egdid/the-top-grossing-actors/?sh=15f9d062300b

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45egdid/10-will-smith/?sh=423a176654d8

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/08/23/scarlett-johansson-tops-forbes-list-highest-paid-actresses-again/2101802001/

The world's 10 highest-paid actresses made less than half of what the top actors earned:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/08/23/here-are-the-worlds-highest-paid-actresses-they-still-make-less-than-the-top-actors/

I'm not understanding these numbers.    So Johnny Depp makes $1.20 for every $1 earned?   Why is he number 1 then?   Wouldn't Tom Cruise then at $13.60 per $1 be it.  Or am i reading this wrong?

As for ScarJo -- she needs to fire her agent and get a better one.   The contract was done pre-Covid, BUT we ALL know streaming of blockbuster movies is a big deal now.   The simul-release in theaters and streaming is the only new thing.   She should have negotiated back end for BOTH theater and streaming.   She would have made a TON more money.   Also, if she is getting less than her male counterparts, why is she NOT demanding her agent get her more?   Not sure how many Black Widow/Avenger movies she was contractually obligated to do so she HAD to do this movie but she has SOME leverage here, use it.  

But yes, Disney sucks and will get out of paying an extra cent everywhere they can.

[orza]

20 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I'm not understanding these numbers.    So Johnny Depp makes $1.20 for every $1 earned?   Why is he number 1 then?   Wouldn't Tom Cruise then at $13.60 per $1 be it. 

No, it is the other way around. Tom Cruise brought in $13.60 at the box office for every dollar he earned whereas Johnny Depp only brought in $1.20 for every dollar he was paid.

[letter8358]

Colin Jost seemed awfully quiet when his controversial friend Michael Che and his wife ScarJo are making headlines. He is not naive. He knows what's up. He just chose to keep quiet on the whole thing. However, he should have said something on Michael Che. Remaining quiet on that....Hell, no! I understand the other one is his wife, but the Michael Che thing....please! 

[Katy M]

29 minutes ago, letter8358 said:

Colin Jost seemed awfully quiet when his controversial friend Michael Che and his wife ScarJo are making headlines. He is not naive. He knows what's up. He just chose to keep quiet on the whole thing. However, he should have said something on Michael Che. Remaining quiet on that....Hell, no! I understand the other one is his wife, but the Michael Che thing....please! 

I don't know who he is, but I applaud him keeping quiet on anything that isn't his direct actions.

[letter8358]

Two actors derailed Michael Mann's Miami Vice reboot

One had diva behavior and the other had addiction problems. What could go wrong?

[Ms Blue Jay]

Are white people ever labelled as Divas, or is it just Black or Brown people all the time?  🙄

[Blergh]

17 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Are white people ever labelled as Divas, or is it just Black or Brown people all the time?  🙄

Well, Jack Nicholson and Barbra Streisand have been labeled as divas. . .

 

 While I have no idea of what went on re the set between Mr. Foxx and others, sometimes a cigar is ONLY a cigar just as someone can be termed a diva because that's what they ARE. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Blergh

[Rootbeer]

23 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Isn't that always the risk when you take percentage of something vs a fixed payment? Especially since the studio and their distributor control the marketing of a movie and the number of screens it is in.

It is, but, as mentioned above, the option Disney chose didn't cut into THEIR share of the profits at all since they found a way to keep all the money.  Since ultimately distribution was always their bailiwick, Johannsen's only option was to file suit when they refused to negotiate her deal when they chose a method of distribution that deliberately cut her out of the profits while protecting or even enhancing the studio's cut.

And, if she indeed was smart enough (or her reps were), to include a clause that required Disney to renegotiate the deal if the film was not first distributed to theaters; she deserves her day in court.

 

[Leeds]

36 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Well, Jack Nicholson and Barbra Streisand have been labeled as divas. . .

 

52 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Are white people ever labelled as Divas, or is it just Black or Brown people all the time?  🙄

Cher.  Madonna.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

And, if she indeed was smart enough (or her reps were), to include a clause that required Disney to renegotiate the deal if the film was not first distributed to theaters; she deserves her day in court.

She didn’t include that clause. When Disney+ was announced she was told that they would negotiate if the movie wasn’t going to get a wide theatrical release like Disney’s other movies. 

It comes down to exactly how that last part is interpreted and if the standard changing due to COVID impacts the interpretation. It did get a wide theatrical release that is consistent (or better) with how Disney movies are released in the pandemic. But it’s clearly not what anyone expected when the contact was signed. 
 

The filing is available to be read if anyone is interesting. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Guest

[DearEvette]

49 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Are white people ever labelled as Divas, or is it just Black or Brown people all the time?  🙄

Apparently he was considered a diva because he insisted the studio fly him private instead of commercial,  he had an entourage, he insisted on equal pay with Colin Ferrel (he was being paid less), he refused to do dangerous stunts, and he peaced out when the security situation in the DR got dangerously volatile.

Sure blame the two actors but spin it so the director was a make-do guy.  But in reality Meanwhile Michael Mann who reigned over an increasingly chaotic set, was writing stuff at the last minute so nobody knew what their scenes would entail, changed his mind on a dime, send out contradictory instructions on the regular, nobody dared question or contradict him and, oh, yeah,  hired local gang leaders and military as their security.  A security force that... escalated violence in a confrontation with local police.

Reminds me a little of Damon Wayans being labelled a diva on the set of Lethal Weapon in all their BTS drama because he refused to do dangerous stunts and insisted they honor the health accommodations he was lawfully mandated under the ADA. Another instance where the real blame lie with the person in charge, the showrunner, who had no control over his own show.

Big question is why is Yahoo news regurgitating an old article from Slate from 2006 and spinning it as a hit piece on Jamie Foxx and Colin Ferrell?

[GaT]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't know who he is, but I applaud him keeping quiet on anything that isn't his direct actions.

Well, he's Scarjo's husband, so it definitely concerns him.

[Shannon L.]

Fans React To George And Amal Clooney Expecting Another Baby

 

[Zella]

I like a lot of Michael Mann's movies (his Last of the Mohicans is an all-time favorite and I love Heat and Manhunter too), but he is a notorious pain in the ass to deal with. Just based on some of the on-set issues I've read about with multiple films of his, I think it's disingenuous for him to act like only the actors were the problem.

I don't doubt Farrell was an issue with the drug abuse, but nothing Foxx did seems especially disruptive or beyond the pale. Leaving is technically disruptive, but I would have high-tailed it out of there too after that incident. No movie is worth dying over. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Zella

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

Well, he's Scarjo's husband, so it definitely concerns him.

I was actually speaking more about the Michael Che stuff as that was what the commenter I quoted was complaining about him not speaking about.

[supposebly]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Sure blame the two actors but spin it so the director was a make-do guy.  But in reality Meanwhile Michael Mann who reigned over an increasingly chaotic set, was writing stuff at the last minute so nobody knew what their scenes would entail, changed his mind on a dime, send out contradictory instructions on the regular, nobody dared question or contradict him and, oh, yeah,  hired local gang leaders and military as their security.  A security force that... escalated violence in a confrontation with local police.

Sounds like it's a good thing Colin Farrell can't remember what was going on while being high or drunk most of the time ;-). 

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

As for ScarJo -- she needs to fire her agent and get a better one.   The contract was done pre-Covid, BUT we ALL know streaming of blockbuster movies is a big deal now.   The simul-release in theaters and streaming is the only new thing.   She should have negotiated back end for BOTH theater and streaming.   She would have made a TON more money.   Also, if she is getting less than her male counterparts, why is she NOT demanding her agent get her more?   Not sure how many Black Widow/Avenger movies she was contractually obligated to do so she HAD to do this movie but she has SOME leverage here, use it.  

But yes, Disney sucks and will get out of paying an extra cent everywhere they can.

To me the other thing that hurts her case is the fact that even pre pandemic I remember reading about other actors getting a piece of the streaming/on demand action for their movies. If she didn't try to get that, well then that is on her and her agent. Especially if the language about being in theatres first isn't really clear. 

[NowVoyager]

3 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Fans React To George And Amal Clooney Expecting Another Baby

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9844801/George-Amal-Clooney-shut-speculation-theyre-pregnant-child.html

Their representative denies that Amal Clooney is pregnant. 

[Rootbeer]

7 hours ago, GaT said:

Well, he's Scarjo's husband, so it definitely concerns him.

I would expect that his wife's attorneys have very clearly instructed him NOT to make any public statements about the suit.  That's standard advice in a suit like this.  Anything he says publicly could be used in court by the defense to paint a different picture than the one the plaintiffs want to provide.

Or, you know, just because his wife is involved in a lawsuit doesn't mean he is compelled to express his thoughts on the subject to the press.  Because that's true, too.

[Rootbeer]

6 hours ago, Katy M said:

I was actually speaking more about the Michael Che stuff as that was what the commenter I quoted was complaining about him not speaking about.

I don't see what Colin Jost could contribute to the conversation at this point.  He works on a TV show with Che, he doesn't need to make a statement anymore than anyone else on the show needs to make one.  I hope they all have very strong opinions on the topic that they share with Mr. Che, but I don't think they need to do so publicly.

[Vermicious Knid]

I...don't even have words for this. Management of the new Virgin Hotel and Casino, also the people who came up with the idea in the first place, demonstrate spectacularly bad taste with 27-A Musical Adventure.
 

Quote

 

They changed the music, then they changed the world. 27 – A Musical Adventure honors the music icons gone too soon at the age of 27: Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Robert Johnson, Jim Morrison, and Amy Winehouse...

Throughout the show, the audience is taken on a retrospective journey of sight and sound, showcasing each artist’s respective contributions to our musical landscape. The show culminates with the artists all performing together on one stage in a rock concert like no other.

 

Am I alone in thinking this is a horrendous idea?

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

I...don't even have words for this. Management of the new Virgin Hotel and Casino, also the people who came up with the idea in the first place, demonstrate spectacularly bad taste with 27-A Musical Adventure.
 

Am I alone in thinking this is a horrendous idea?

[Luckylyn]

5 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

I...don't even have words for this. Management of the new Virgin Hotel and Casino, also the people who came up with the idea in the first place, demonstrate spectacularly bad taste with 27-A Musical Adventure.
 

Am I alone in thinking this is a horrendous idea?

That sounds horrible.

I’m having flashbacks to a Stephen King short story “You Know They Have One Hell of a Band” where a character ends up trapped forever  in a town filled with dead famous musicians.  

[SmithW6079]

19 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Are white people ever labelled as Divas, or is it just Black or Brown people all the time?  🙄

Sorry, the race card is not applicable here. 

A diva is "a vain or undisciplined person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team."

It applies to anyone who exhibits this behavior. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by SmithW6079

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

It applies to anyone who exhibits this behavior. 

In theory, yes.  But often times words with "generic" meanings get disproportionately applied to people of certain genders or races or those people can get the label for less egregious behavior....i.e. a man is a diva for refusing to come out of the trailer while a woman gets the label for asking for an extra water bottle while filming in 100 degree heat. 

I would say white males get that particular label less but it's largely lobbied at women. 

21 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Reminds me a little of Damon Wayans being labelled a diva on the set of Lethal Weapon in all their BTS drama because he refused to do dangerous stunts and insisted they honor the health accommodations he was lawfully mandated under the ADA. Another instance where the real blame lie with the person in charge, the showrunner, who had no control over his own show.

Yep.  At least in that instance, it was the white actor who got the boot.

[aradia22]

Quote

When she agreed to take a cut of the box office, she was banking on making more money. And not unreasonably. But there's nothing to say that without a pandemic that something else might have popped up that would have affected the box office receipts. Like the movie getting slammed by critics and audiences and people avoiding it in droves or even some controversy being attached to the film or one of the actors and that causing people to steer clear. When she made that decision, if she didn't accept that there was a chance it would backfire, then maybe she needs to opt out of those agreements and go back to a flat fee. She took a calculated risk--and it didn't pay off the way she expected to, as often happens in business decisions. 

Granted, I'm saying this as someone who doesn't keep up with Marvel but does follow the box office but... I'd expected this to be in the Ant Man/Doctor Strange level even pre-pandemic. Yes, Black Widow is the only female Avenger. But Wonder Woman has already gotten 2 movies out while people were waiting for any woman-led superhero movie. And ScarJo has a lot of controversies. And Black Widow and Hawkeye were always mocked for not being as powerful or visually flashy so I don't think people were as excited for special effects or action sequences. AND Disney is cutting into their own bottom line by releasing Marvel shows on Disney+. I think she would have made more money had it been a theater exclusive but how much more is definitely in question.

Also, I think any argument that Black Widow pulled in more Disney+ subscribers is on shaky ground. More people are probably watching Frozen and Moana.

[Crs97]

Also, there was a lot of buzz from people who declared they weren’t interested in Black Widow’s back story after knowing  her fate in Endgame.  Proving damages will be difficult with all the variables.

[SunnyBeBe]

Sometimes, I feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. How in the hell can you live in 2021 and not realize using slurs against people is unacceptable?  Matt Damon? Are you kidding me?  His own daughter has to call him out on it a few months ago!  It really makes me think his IQ is pretty low. What a disappointment.  Glad I discovered what he’s really like.  Ughh
😔https://www.tmz.com/2021/08/01/matt-damon-stopped-using-homophobic-slur-f-word-recently/

Edited August 2, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[supposebly]

Oh, he lost me a while ago when he mansplained diversity to Effie Brown, a black film maker.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2015/09/14/matt-damon-interrupted-a-black-filmmaker-to-mansplain-diversity-to-her/77543406/

Funny, that article ends with him saying he should shut up more. Apparently, he still hasn't learned that lesson.

[Stats Queen]

On 7/30/2021 at 10:28 PM, Zella said:

sort of feel like ScarJo and Disney are both being unreasonable. 

 

On 7/30/2021 at 10:28 PM, Zella said:

 

I sort of feel like ScarJo and Disney are both being unreasonable. 

When she agreed to take a cut of the box office, she was banking on making more money. And not unreasonably. But there's nothing to say that without a pandemic that something else might have popped up that would have affected the box office receipts. Like the movie getting slammed by critics and audiences and people avoiding it in droves or even some controversy being attached to the film or one of the actors and that causing people to steer clear. When she made that decision, if she didn't accept that there was a chance it would backfire, then maybe she needs to opt out of those agreements and go back to a flat fee. She took a calculated risk--and it didn't pay off the way she expected to, as often happens in business decisions. 

 

I totally agree. Disney does not have a good track record on how they treat regular employees. 
However, I agree she took a calculated risk that didn’t pay off because there is no way in the world of COVID that people are actually going to the theatre.  The whole landscape has changed and there is no way that the revenue from streaming could match an actual theatrical release.

Full disclosure- I am not a fan of Disney as an employer nor am I fan of ScarJoh in general.

But, there are so many people that are underpaid and others who have a hard time being able to work in a job that can’t be done remotely while their kids are required to be learning remotely.

I find it incredibly tone deaf.

[Irlandesa]

On 7/31/2021 at 12:50 AM, Dani said:

Okay. Out of curiosity, how much money does a movie need to make to be qualify as a blockbuster? Before covid I really didn’t think the Black Widow was going to make blockbuster money. I was thinking it would be closer to Ant-Man than Avengers. 

Something doesn't need to be on The Avengers level to be a blockbuster.  Ant Man is being used as as example of not a blockbuster but Paul Rudd is filming a second sequel in London right now.  They're doing it because the first made 500 million and the second made 600 million.  Heck, even Doctor Strange made close to 700 million dollars worldwide. 

56 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Sometimes, I feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. How in the hell can you live in 2021 and not realize using slurs against people is unacceptable?  

Yeah.  I'm not surprised.  It's not even that he doesn't learn but he doesn't want to learn.

[SunnyBeBe]

1 hour ago, supposebly said:

Oh, he lost me a while ago when he mansplained diversity to Effie Brown, a black film maker.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2015/09/14/matt-damon-interrupted-a-black-filmmaker-to-mansplain-diversity-to-her/77543406/

Funny, that article ends with him saying he should shut up more. Apparently, he still hasn't learned that lesson.

Well, I’ve considered myself a Matt Damon fan until now.  Another disappointment.  

[letter8358]

New claim in new book about Aaliyah during that fatal plane crash: She was drugged

I remember the plane being laden with heavy equipment that caused the crash, but I am not sure about the drug part. I know the pilot was inexperienced with the toxicology report finding alcohol and cocaine. Either way, such a tragedy. What do you think?

Edited August 2, 2021 by letter8358