Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Scott Ruggels]

This past weekend’s box office numbers. Free Guy, a formerly Fox and now Disney Movie has had a theatrical only release deal, and has some very good numbers, that may bolster Scarlet Johansson‘a case. 

https://ombreviews.com/box-office-tracking/

 

[Greywind]

Jesse Stone : I'm not in the right and wrong business. I'm in the legal and illegal business.

[mattingly]

On 8/20/2021 at 7:49 AM, Trencher said:

In the movie Starlord were just some goof that fell into different adventures and had to be saved by his friends all the time. 

His chief virtue was that: "He is not a complete dick".

 

I think a lot of that comes from parenting. Quill never knew his father, and his mother died young. He was broken from grief, and he longed for paternal approval, and allowed a group of space pirates to lead him around, taking on their values.

 

Cha Cha was deeply loved by his family, and learned that his life was one of integrity and service to others. It's no wonder that he transformed those around him.

[zslane]

12 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

This past weekend’s box office numbers. Free Guy, a formerly Fox and now Disney Movie has had a theatrical only release deal, and has some very good numbers, that may bolster Scarlet Johansson‘a case.

 

That would only help her case if the two movies were considered "comparables" by the industry. They are action/adventure movies, yes, but one is a superspy thriller with female leads and the other is an action comedy starring Ryan Reynolds. Moreover, in order for it to help her legal team in forming an argument, there would have to be some way to demonstrate that the two movies were equally "good" and therefore likely to draw equivalent box office returns. That would be impossible to demonstrate, and so I don't think that argument will get very far.

[Bazza]

 

[massey]

When I saw that pumpkin bomb, my face lit up like a kid at Christmas.

 

And Alfred Molina's Doc Ock was fantastic.  I can't wait for this movie.

[Jhamin]

I would almost say that Strange removing everyone's knowledge of Peter's dual identity is uncharacteristically irresponsible of him.. except that is kinda Mordo's whole beef with him in the MCU.  Also there was that time in the comics where Black Cat's unluck power was starting to "stick" to Spiderman.  When he went to Strange for help the good Doctor noticed and dispelled the unluck without checking where it came from and casually mentioned that it might also affect the source.

Black Cat started regularly getting her ass handed too her now that her unluck based defenses no longer worked reliably.

 

He rarely is reckless in his own comic, but he seems to be when he shows up in other peoples'.

[massey]

You mean Mr “they really shouldn’t put the warnings after the spells” guy just rushes into things?

[csyphrett]

14 hours ago, zslane said:

 

That would only help her case if the two movies were considered "comparables" by the industry. They are action/adventure movies, yes, but one is a superspy thriller with female leads and the other is an action comedy starring Ryan Reynolds. Moreover, in order for it to help her legal team in forming an argument, there would have to be some way to demonstrate that the two movies were equally "good" and therefore likely to draw equivalent box office returns. That would be impossible to demonstrate, and so I don't think that argument will get very far.

The basis of everything is going to come down to can she prove that she had a right to an exclusive theater release, and did the head of streaming know this. Capinek and Iger both made a ton of money on this so it can be shown they acted in their own self interest and not that of the company. On top of this, Disney is still not paying royalties to the Star Wars people, so a pattern of ripping people off can be shown, but I don't know if that will hold up in court

CES    

[archer]

5 hours ago, massey said:

You mean Mr “they really shouldn’t put the warnings after the spells” guy just rushes into things?

 

After the first time it happened to me, I certainly wouldn't rush into things.

 

And I'd certainly have asked Peter what he wanted from the world-altering spell I was warned against casting before I actually cast it.

 

Especially since there didn't seem to be any time pressure on either one of them so that they needed to "cast the spell right now before something disastrous happens!"

 

I mean seriously: who casts a spell which alters the entire world without knowing the desired outcome from casting the spell?

 

You'd basically be casting the spell at random then randomly hoping that it does something that's vaguely like the intended effect, whatever that might or not not be? 😕 

 

====

 

"I'll cast a Wish spell."

 

"Okay, what do you Wish for?"

 

"I don't know, I've never really thought about exactly what I'd want from a Wish spell. Gimme something and we'll see what happens."

 

====

 

And then you cast the world-altering spell that you need to concentrate on without asking the talkative New York teenager to keep his mouth shut during the casting?

[massey]

Eh.  Doctor Strange knew what the spell would do.  It was Peter who didn’t quite understand.  Strange has never had good bedside manner.  I don’t think explaining things to other people is his favorite thing to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, csyphrett said:

The basis of everything is going to come down to can she prove that she had a right to an exclusive theater release, and did the head of streaming know this. Capinek and Iger both made a ton of money on this so it can be shown they acted in their own self interest and not that of the company. On top of this, Disney is still not paying royalties to the Star Wars people, so a pattern of ripping people off can be shown, but I don't know if that will hold up in court

 

It will come down to whether she had a contractual right to an exclusive theatrical release, not whether anyone who made the decision to have a simultaneous streaming release read, or understood, her contract.  Then, of course, she will need to demonstrate the damages suffered (i.e. how well would the theatrical release have done with no streaming, to establish how much this cost her).   By the time this reaches an arbitrator or a court, there should be a lot more movies to argue are more or less comparable.

 

57 minutes ago, massey said:

Eh.  Doctor Strange knew what the spell would do.  It was Peter who didn’t quite understand.  Strange has never had good bedside manner.  I don’t think explaining things to other people is his favorite thing to do.

 

Strange and Stark were neck and neck for "most arrogant MCU hero".  The full scenes may be more telling, but it looks like Peter said "can you take away everyone knowing I'm Spider-man", which Strange assumed, without confirming, meant "remove that knowledge from everyone".  When that assumption slipped out, and Peter grasped its implications, the trouble started.

[zslane]

9 hours ago, csyphrett said:

The basis of everything is going to come down to can she prove that she had a right to an exclusive theater release

 

Subject to the force majeure clause, of course.

 

She was probably offered an eight-figure "make-up" payment early on but her agency recommended she decline it and litigate instead. Regardless of how the lawsuit goes for her, she will be seen as toxic to the rest of Hollywood for some time to come. Don't be surprised if five or six years down the line you start seeing YouTube videos with subject lines like, "Whatever happened to Scarlett Johansson"?

[Ternaugh]

3 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

Subject to the force majeure clause, of course.

 

She was probably offered an eight-figure "make-up" payment early on but her agency recommended she decline it and litigate instead. Regardless of how the lawsuit goes for her, she will be seen as toxic to the rest of Hollywood for some time to come. Don't be surprised if five or six years down the line you start seeing YouTube videos with subject lines like, "Whatever happened to Scarlett Johansson"?

 

According to the article posted previously, Disney is including the $60 million from streaming into the box office figures for the purposes of calculating her bonus.

[zslane]

That's mighty generous of Disney. Unfortunately, accepting the money without contention means that Disney can continue to keep their streaming data secret. That's the real target of this lawsuit--apart from whatever power play against Chapek's leadership may be in motion as well. The practice of keeping streaming statistics secret is the primary means by which the studios keep control of streaming revenue. By insisting that back-end deals include participation in subscription revenue, the studios would be forced to open the books on that and "play fair". Though I'm sure they'd manage to invent more creative accounting to compensate.

[Greywind]

I wonder if Wong was off to get his clock cleaned by the Abomination after his warning not to cast the spell.

[archer]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Regardless of how the lawsuit goes for her, she will be seen as toxic to the rest of Hollywood for some time to come. Don't be surprised if five or six years down the line you start seeing YouTube videos with subject lines like, "Whatever happened to Scarlett Johansson"?

 

Disney is trying to exploit what they see as a flaw in her contract to keep from paying her part of the money that she earned.

 

I see no reason for other studios to avoid her just because she and her lawyers want her employer to live up to what they see as the contractual obligations.

 

It's pretty simple to avoid this kind of problem if both sides want to. Or work out this kind of problem is both sides want to.

 

And not every studio even has a subscription service that they sell their movies on.

[zslane]

Which part of her contract is being exploited to keep her from being paid money she has earned? Streaming subscription revenue was never in her contract as a participation source.

 

Her lawyers are going after Disney in the exactly same way they would go after any studio who would do the same thing in Disney's position (which is all of them). That's why they will avoid her (and any other actor who tries the same thing.)

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Strange and Stark were neck and neck for "most arrogant MCU hero".  The full scenes may be more telling, but it looks like Peter said "can you take away everyone knowing I'm Spider-man", which Strange assumed, without confirming, meant "remove that knowledge from everyone".  When that assumption slipped out, and Peter grasped its implications, the trouble started.

 

As one reviewer of the trailer remarked, "When the Sorcerer Supreme is casting a spell to change the world, and he tells you to stop talking, a smart person stops talking."

 

And yes, Stephen Strange has the title of "MCU's smuggest a**hole" pretty much to himself now.

[csyphrett]

2 hours ago, zslane said:

Which part of her contract is being exploited to keep her from being paid money she has earned? Streaming subscription revenue was never in her contract as a participation source.

 

 

We dont know. But if it was for Exclusivity, then Disney knew they couldn't put the movie on their streaming service on the same day it was getting released. This is different from Bill Nye's case on the grounds that a service wasn't there. This is a whole another case where Disney knew their actions would break her contract and did it anyway. What we're going to see is Disney agreeing to pay a sum to hush things up rather than even get to a courtroom.

CES  

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

As one reviewer of the trailer remarked, "When the Sorcerer Supreme is casting a spell to change the world, and he tells you to stop talking, a smart person stops talking."

 

Ah, the old D&D question.

 

An intelligent person knows he should stop talking.

A wise person shuts up.

[Ragitsu]

On 8/20/2021 at 7:18 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

I’d have to agree. I used to spend about $50 a month for comic books, even after I moved to L. A. but that tapered of to less than  $10 after 2007, then mostly independents. It dropped to nothing in 2016. The old writers and artists aren’t around much any more and the quality of writing is just awful, especially in the last 4 years. 

 

All I do these days is collect omnibuses (i.e., thick hardcover-bound reprints) of comic book runs from the year 2000~ and before.

[Okman]

On 8/24/2021 at 10:10 AM, Bazza said:

 

Can't wait!

Thank you.

สล็อต

[zslane]

Anyone else get the feeling that this Dr. Strange isn't really Dr. Strange at all, but Mysterio posing as Dr. Strange? Assuming that Keaton returns as the Vulture, we'd only be missing one of the Sinister Six: Mysterio. And the most obvious place for him to be hiding is in plain sight.

[Scott Ruggels]

12 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

All I do these days is collect omnibuses (i.e., thick hardcover-bound reprints) of comic book runs from the year 2000~ and before.

 That's a very sound plan.

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Anyone else get the feeling that this Dr. Strange isn't really Dr. Strange at all, but Mysterio posing as Dr. Strange? Assuming that Keaton returns as the Vulture, we'd only be missing one of the Sinister Six: Mysterio. And the most obvious place for him to be hiding is in plain sight.

 iF they did form the Sinister Six, that would make this an awesome movie.