chezmtghut

I hope this isn't Gunn's direction for GOTG 3. It was nice to see Taika Waititi's cameos as Ratcatcher & there were some descent moments throughout but the most memorable part of this film to me was Grandson's Oh No!!! as the credits started rolling. That song intrigued me more that the movie itself.

On 8/19/2021 at 7:14 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

That looks like Logan with Cable coming through a time dilation portal.

On 8/16/2021 at 9:53 AM, drotto said:

Plus, Old Loki, clearly the true Loki.

Definitely my favorite of all the variant Loki's.

On 8/16/2021 at 10:04 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Episode 5 was so damn comic book-y. E6 was so disappointing.

Episode 5 was amazing & I know I'm in the minority saying that I thought the finale was great. It wasn't the usual CGI blowout battle that everyone was expecting but more of a psychological thriller. Loki has had similar reservations about leaving humanity with free will to the extent that he was willing to defend He Who Remains position against Sylvie out of love. It terrified Loki to know that was the benevolent version of our universe & that unlimited evil variations were about to be unleashed.

On 8/16/2021 at 7:46 PM, Toz said:

Was it just me or did they make a wuss out of Loki.I mean here is the half breed son of a frost giant.Went toe to toe with Thor.Survived being slammed by the Hulk.

At this point I'd almost put Winnie The Pooh up against him

Ya, but then it would be banned in China.

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.

On 8/3/2021 at 2:33 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

But they do reduce the theatrical earnings that would impact the deal between Disney and ScarJo.

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.

On 8/3/2021 at 2:49 PM, Bosco685 said:

Just stepping back like a logical grownup in this situation, I would assume before this even went to press (including a lawsuit) there were behind-the-scenes discussions.

I can't see anyone with a pending Disney's Tower of Terror franchise as the producer thinking, "Oh screw it - I'll just lob a grenade into that arrangement and destroy my relationship with the studio!"

Scarlett Johansson to Produce New Film Based on Disney's Tower of Terror Ride (June 2021)

Did you assume out of the blue Scarlett Johansson did this with no initial Disney discussions?

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.

On 8/3/2021 at 1:45 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

What is the purpose of the hybrid release, though? You guessed it; Bring in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. Which, if you're under contract to receive a payout based on theatrical performance, seems like circumventing the contract to reap rewards with limited financial distributions.

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.

On 8/3/2021 at 4:11 AM, Bosco685 said:

The film is far below the 2.8X-3.0X production budget necessary to say it broke even to account for all costs and revenue share agreements with theaters and talent.

But with lawsuit what was declared was Disney did not honor the agreed-upon contract with a hybrid release schedule. Not a personal attack on its brand by noting 'Disney makes enough money' or knocking its insensitivity to the pandemic.

I get it. You feel her claim is baseless. Meanwhile, from a brand image perspective Disney's response only hurt its case. Not helped it. And as was noted already Iger's leadership approach would have avoided this public fight. What was conveyed by Disney before Johansson's announcement triggered this to go public.

Very poorly handled talent relations.

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.

On 8/2/2021 at 9:46 PM, D84 said:

UPDATED with @paperheart info:

343 million BO - 45% for movie theater take: 188 million

109 million D+ - 15% for Roku, etc: 92 million

Total income: 280 million

Production Budget: 200 million 

So unless the payed less than 80 million on 2 marketing campaigns, it's loosing money.

Of course they could be lying about the budget and that wouldn't surprise me.

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

On 8/2/2021 at 9:15 PM, D84 said:

343 million BO - 25% for movie theater take: 205 million

60 million D+ - 15% for Roku, etc: 51 million

Total income: 256 million

Production Budget: 200 million 

So unless the payed less than 56 million on 2 marketing campaigns, it's loosing money.

Of course they could be lying about the budget and that wouldn't surprise me.

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.

On 8/2/2021 at 8:30 PM, Bosco685 said:

Did she imply Disney dismissed the events of the pandemic and post how much profit it made off Black Widow?

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.

On 8/2/2021 at 8:23 PM, Bosco685 said:

Write a blank check? Most probably not.

Revealing how much she was paid while implying she was dismissive of a pandemic like it did? That was probably the surprise. Especially with her years associated with Disney.

That was probably the shocker. Without even an, "Welcome to Disney, and remember it's a small world!"

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

On 8/2/2021 at 3:16 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

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.

On 7/31/2021 at 8:09 PM, Bosco685 said:

“Something has gone wrong,” said one industry veteran. “I just find it absolutely stunning and amazing that they didn’t resolve this short of her suing. Disney does not want to get in a fight with Scarlett Johansson.”

 

According to the suit, Johansson’s contract guaranteed a “wide theatrical release” for “Black Widow,” meaning the film would be shown on at least 1,500 screens. Johansson’s lawyers argue that everyone understood that to mean an “exclusive” theatrical release, under which “Black Widow” would not be available on other platforms for at least 90 to 120 days.

 

To bolster their argument, the suit includes a 2019 email between the actress’s legal team and Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi, in which the studio attorney promised a traditional theatrical bow “like our other pictures,” while adding “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”

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?

On 7/31/2021 at 2:20 PM, drotto said:

Another thought......

 

Does SJ see the writing on the wall?  Is she acknowledging that her chance and possibly any actors chance of making 20 million plus per film may be gone.  She is trying to take one last giant fist full of cash from the pile, before the pile shrinks forever. 

 

Emma Stone and Emily Blunt same thing.  Get that cash now, because nobody, no matter how big will be seeing $20 million anytime soon.  If that time comes again, the prime of their careers will likely have passed.

 

The day of the movie star is passing, and right behind it are the massive paydays for a select few were able to get. New contracts will be for far less money, and structured with the new streaming reality in mind.  For good measure, movie companies will start adding much more restrictive cluases. 

 

 

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.

On 7/30/2021 at 5:26 PM, piper said:

I have no issues with the lawsuit.  If Disney is not aligning with the terms of the contract, then it is entirely ScarJo's right to pursue litigation.

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.

3 hours ago, s-man said:

!!!!!!Spoilers ahead!!!!!

 

 

 

After watching the latest episode, I was left wondering was the young Sylvie supposed to get away?  It seemed pretty easy for her to release herself from Ravonna's grasp and use the portal to escape.

And was she aware of what the weapon sticks did when used on someone?  She didn't seem to concerned when one was used on Loki.

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

On 6/29/2021 at 7:33 AM, fantastic_four said:

One thing I thought the show never got entirely right was to create a really great enemy for Dexter.  If Dexter is a twisted Batman, they never found his Joker.

They made some REALLY strong attempts and cast actors I usually like or love including John Lithgow, Ray Stevenson (LOVE LOVE LOVE him as Pullo in Rome), and Jimmy Smits, but none entirely nailed it as a foe.  His brother as the enemy of the first season was probably the best, although Lithgow as an older, more experienced killer was interesting.  I love Clancy Brown, too, but I'm skeptical just based upon somewhat flat previous attempts at a foe for Dexter--but if the story is right he could absolutely be fantastic.  Doakes was probably the best overall adversary, but he was a cop so it's complicated to think of him as an evil character given that Dexter himself is infinitely more evil than Doakes.

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.

4 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

I know nothing about the Time Variance Authority from the comics.  Anyone familiar with the story want to throw a hypothesis in the ring as to why those Timekeepers were androids, who's running the TVA, and where all those variant Lokis are?

Hypotheses about how a Loki variant could be a caiman/alligator/crocodile are appreciated as well.  

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.

42 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That's interesting.  I wonder why the TVA thinks she's Loki then?  Looking up the origin of this version of Enchantress I see she was created by Loki, so maybe they merged the two characters together for the MCU.

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.

40 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

That quote is all over the place now.

Even with Fandom that has over 400K followers. Way to go!

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.

8 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Someone will show up with the Feige whiteboard backstory how all the perfect magic is baked in by default.

10...9...8... 

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.