chezmtghut

Her powers are similar to Reed Richards, so they probably wanted to go in a different direction since Fantastic Four will be introduced within the MCU at the end of phase 4. I don't like all of the changes either, but unfortunately our opinions won't stop Marvel from making them.

Definitely & I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying it doesn't benefit Disney more than what a theatrical release alone would bring them. My position is that funds contributing towards a film during it's theatrical release, should count towards the total theatrical gross. So from Disney's perspective you would step back & make no comment? Alright & maybe that would have been best. Just let the lawyers handle it in court. Whatever discussion there was, I still think insulting Disney publicly rather than keeping things quite through court proceeding resulted in this response.

There's actually no point in my opinion because the subscriptions & streaming fees don't bring more funds than theaters would have. They didn't want to stream simultaneously but felt there was little choice due to the pandemic & regular lock downs. They were against this idea until very recently, as it would have likely meant adjusting the release schedule again.

Her lawsuit could have simply claimed that Disney broke their contract by distributing the film via streaming simultaneously without adding that they brought in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. She made them sound greedy, hiding gross revenue to prevent her from getting her bonus, which I don't agree with. We haven't seen her contract, so I can't say if her lawsuit is completely baseless, but I simply don't agree that they're trying to hide revenue to avoid paying her bonus. I agree that there would have been a higher gross without streaming simultaneously, but I don't agree that it was done to increase Disney+ subscriptions & avoid paying her more money, which seems to be part of the claim. How would you have responded to that claim in Disney's position? I see you have no trouble mounting a harsh defense in these forums. Disney could have simply said that they complied with the contract that she signed, but felt like hitting back in response to her allegations. Should they not have brought up the pandemic when it's the very reason this is even an issue? Otherwise the film would have been out last year & streamed after several months in theaters.

It didn't seem like Disney would need a 200 million budget for that film compared to other Marvel films.

I thought theaters got 20% for the first 2 weeks & then it increases incrementally each week after that. Regardless, BW did worse than the majority of Marvel films.

She did argue that they made a bunch on Disney+ subscriptions though. How would the actual figures or bringing up the pandemic have helped her argument? The truth would sound more like Disney lost money or broke even releasing BW because of the pandemic but Disney+ got extra subscribers to stream it. Would that truth have made her lawsuit seem more or less credible? let's say for arguments sake that 10 million subscribed, do you think they should account for a 1 or multiple year subscription towards her final gross? If I bought a 10 film cinema pass to go & see BW for example, do you think the total cost should counts towards that one film? Maybe an argument can be made to add a monthly total, which may be another 50 - 80 million on 10 million subscribers. Even if you analyze every detail, I still think the total is under 500 million that BW brought in for Disney.

No doubt, but I'm sure many at Disney were just as shocked by her allegations for those exact same reasons.

Was she expecting Disney to write a blank check & ask "how much to make this go away"? Disney isn't owned by the powers that oversee it. They're catering to share holders that want to see returns on their investment. She publicly called out Disney & they're simply defending their image. It's not like her side of the story makes Disney sound anymore endearing than they made her out to be.

The wording there is vague & can be interpreted in many ways. There should have been a private discussion before it was released though rather than an open discussion after the fact. Maybe this is a publicity move to cap salaries?

I'd say she's ensuring that contracts will be structured differently, as no studio wants a lawsuit or bad publicity on their hands. Without streaming revenue, Disney may have held back production on many projects. This will set a precedence that hurts both the studios & actors. Disney would have preferred a BW theatrical run, as they're the ones that really lost revenue by streaming it. The articles I read make it out like Disney purposely tried to keep the box office low to avoid paying her bonus. I remember everyone complaining about them not wanting to stream it a while back, since WB decided to release everything on HBO Max simultaneously. I'm sure Disney would have made much more in theaters & still got plenty of subscribers/streamers at the 6 week mark. There's still no guarantee it would have made her bonus threshold in this pandemic though, especially without China. The only guarantee is that Disney would have made more, so I don't see the release as something malicious against any actors, but a way to appease the fans.

I agree but the contract would have to be pretty specific in stating particular terms for her to win that lawsuit. Unless she was offered a % like RDJ (let's say a 10% bonus on the gross revenue if it hit $500 million in theater & Disney+ sales, which equates to $50 million lost revenue as her lawsuit claims) & the contract specifically claimed that there would be a theatrical release for a certain period of time (let's say 4 months or 16 weeks) before being released via Disney+, her claim may have no merit. China didn't release Black Widow for whatever reason & even without the Disney+ release, there's no guarantee it would have reached $500 million in theaters globally. The only way Disney broke their contract is if her contract said it would be released in theaters for a specific amount of time before release on Disney+. If they were dumb enough to make contracts with all of these big stars under that agreement & stream simultaneously, then they'll have a lot of lawsuits on their hands. I can't imagine that they're offering all of these actors a % of the films theatrical gross though & I don't know why their contracts would state anything about theatrical release times before a Disney+ release unless they were offered a %. I don't believe she would have made anything close to $50 million in bonus revenue either though, even with a pre pandemic Marvel theatrical hit. Maybe she was actually offered an additional 5% bonus if it reached $1 billion, but this film was never going to make that much money & there's no way she can prove it would have, especially due to the pandemic. They would have had to removed the film from their roster for a few more years to try proving differently & everyone knew it was coming out in theaters & Disney+ simultaneously. She could have taken Disney to court to prevent the streaming release, which would have gotten fans upset with her instead. She waited for the release & wants to put all the blame on Disney, when it's the pandemic that decimated theaters. I may be wrong, but it seems more like actors are jumping on the bandwagon in her defense, rather than having actual breach of contracts.

Harry was Dexter's conscience keeping him in check. I think there will be multiple voices in this revival, including the Trinity killer & other victims of Dexter. They're not coming back as characters.

I've enjoyed the shows to date but this looks like it will be the best series Marvel has produced.

I never actually paid attention to her name in the show, but I know Ravonna is Kang's love interest.

Dexter's brother was definitely his greatest adversary as a killer & Doakes as a cop. If he didn't try to kill Deb, I imagine their relationship growing over the seasons to the point where Dexter would become much more evil that the show portrayed him to be. He didn't know much about his own background at the time & really pieced it together through the seasons.

I think this will all tie into to Kang the Conqueror & the TVA is an artificial intelligence he set up to maintain his dominion over the timeline. Since Kang is not omnipotent, he needs minions (AI & mind wiped variants) to prevent anyone more powerful than himself from disrupting a timeline that keeps him in power. The Avengers may have been a means to avoid facing Thanos himself. Mobius mentioned Demigod in reference to Loki in this episode & according to Vedic scriptures, people had mystic powers to curse, enchant, transfigure into different forms, etc... just like the comics. My view on the reptilian variant is that he was transfigured by his own power or another powerful character. It seems Marvel is revealing that death is just an illusion, like our established perception of reality. The clan of Loki's are likely in a parallel universe or distant timeline that the TVA weapons are programed to send people. If you think of everything as energy rather than matter, it's easier to conceive of how someones energy can be transported to distant places, in a similar manner to sending a radio signal.

Maybe the Enchantress is just considered a variant of Loki in the sense that she is an aspect of his powers? I don't think it's two characters combined, but rather that they're showing a feminine aspect of the same power is superior. This would also align with the female empowerment narrative the MCU has been working towards.

They introduce a character named Muchi in the latest episode which is another Sanskrit word interestingly enough. I happened to see a movie starring Jim Carrey, Jason Momoa, Keanu Reeves & Giovanni Ribisi called "the bad batch" this past week about an outcast society of cannibals somewhere in Texas. I watched it thinking there may be some reference to the naming of this new Star Wars series.

They could have easily made the Ancient One a young wise Tibetan, but they were more concerned with China screenings than politics. It's interesting how they don't have issues pushing other political agendas though. He should also consider this comment for gender washing characters also. If Groot was a flower instead of a tree of Rocket was a chipmunk instead of a racoon, I'm sure that it would annoy people as well. The collective outcry would have made a smaller impact though.

They should give Drax a streaming series to fill in some of those gaps.

Now they're turning the speed force itself into a villain this season. I had a feeling that's where this was leading. They want to turn the demigods into antagonists & humanity as protagonists to make us believe humanity is earths saviors, when we're the ones destroying this planet in the first place. I have no doubt that this is why DC has been rittled with problems. Savitṛ or Savitar is another name of Surya the Sun God & 108 is a sacred Hindu number. Interestingly enough, DC just happen to create him as a villain for Flash comics vol. 2 #108 back in 1995.

Since you have an education in biology, what is your opinion on the concept of disease & viruses being related to abnormal vibrations that our bodies adapt to, thereby creating mutations within our cells? Consider how computer viruses work by altering electrical vibrations. I believe the body is an advanced machine & the radiation that we bombard ourselves & others with through the use of modern tech is causing all of these problems. Sure, it can be argued that the entire universe is producing different forms of radiation, but our planet is protected from most through different layers of atmospheric pressure, acting as a force field. We're diminishing those protective layers in what most label as global warming. To protect ourselves from this greater radiation, we're taking vaccines to alter the radiation of our cells, but that's not a solution in my opinion. We fight cancer (a form of abnormally radiating cells) with chemo (a form of radiation treatment), killing healthy cells in the process. Fighting fire with fire doesn't put out flames, it only increases them. If this pandemic is hypothetically being caused by abnormal levels of electrical current (our body functions on infrasound vibrations), wouldn't cutting back be the logical solution, rather than increasing it's strength with 5g networks on a global scale? What if these new networks can increase the mutability of cells? Should we just keep relying on new vaccines to protect us rather than avoiding the poison that's causing it?

I didn't realize they were bringing the Snyder verse to a close. Retaliation for Snyder saying he didn't need to fight Netflix on Army of the Dead's final cut?

No doubt. Not to mention that movies with low production costs & high returns are what studios really need, considering the market.