But more 'families' will watch it, period. How many more families or individuals will decide to stick it on since they're subscribed anyway whereas they wouldn't have considered paying movie prices for it? It's likely she got paid more than she would have if it HAD just been theater sales.
I don't want to make excuses for 'the mouse' of all people, but the "they broke contract and underpaid her" angle seems to be entirely fabricated from assumptions.
It’s an extra charge on top of the subscription and it costs less than 4 movie tickets. It’s a deal for the family but she makes less money since they are now paying less. Doesn’t matter how many people see it. It matters how many people buy a ticket. It would be like buying 2 tickets and going to the back fire exits and letting 2 more of your friends in from Scarlets perspective based on her contract.
I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument, but I doubt it would be even remotely in the region of 50 million in damages
I literally addressed your points in the 1st post. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that she would have earned significantly more if she were compensated entirely through theater ticket sales.
I made 2 good points that you ignored:
a greater number of subscribers may have watched the movie than the number lost from theater tickets
there are many people who might watch it on someone elses' subscription but never would have watched the movie otherwise(people like me).
Unless you are privy to some information that nobody else other than Disney lawyers would be, you're talking out your ass, 'cuz there was nothing in the linked article.
The fact that she’s suing them over a same day release on the streaming platform is reason enough to believe that she is making less money off streaming than theaters. Because who the fuck would want to get in a legal battle with the Walt Disney Company if they didn’t think they had a good case. She may be rich but she’s not frivolous lawsuit with one of the largest companies in the world rich.
People watching it off someone else’s subscription does not give her more money.
And her contract stated (according to cnbc) that the film were to receive an exclusive theatrical releases which it did not
Suing someone doesn't mean you are correct. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and she DEFINITELY has the capital to throw around a few frivolous lawsuits if she thinks she can get attention from it.
Your assumption is that she even expects to win. The US womens' footy team sued FIFA or whoever for 'underpaying' them even though they have better contracts than the men for the same money. If they thought they had a chance of succeeding, they were deluded- same as ScarJo is if Disney isn't lying through it's teeth.
I already explained how "people watching off others' subscriptions" doesn't necessarily lose her money- you're just ASSuming. Disney stated that they increased her earning potential by also releasing on Disney+. I assume they actually have some facts and figures to back up what they say, unlike you.
Stop simping for a woman who doesn't even know or care who you are, and worst of all, stop making me defend fucking Disney!
But more 'families' will watch it, period. How many more families or individuals will decide to stick it on since they're subscribed anyway whereas they wouldn't have considered paying movie prices for it? It's likely she got paid more than she would have if it HAD just been theater sales.
I don't want to make excuses for 'the mouse' of all people, but the "they broke contract and underpaid her" angle seems to be entirely fabricated from assumptions.
It’s an extra charge on top of the subscription and it costs less than 4 movie tickets. It’s a deal for the family but she makes less money since they are now paying less. Doesn’t matter how many people see it. It matters how many people buy a ticket. It would be like buying 2 tickets and going to the back fire exits and letting 2 more of your friends in from Scarlets perspective based on her contract.
I literally addressed your points in the 1st post. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that she would have earned significantly more if she were compensated entirely through theater ticket sales.
I made 2 good points that you ignored:
Unless you are privy to some information that nobody else other than Disney lawyers would be, you're talking out your ass, 'cuz there was nothing in the linked article.
The fact that she’s suing them over a same day release on the streaming platform is reason enough to believe that she is making less money off streaming than theaters. Because who the fuck would want to get in a legal battle with the Walt Disney Company if they didn’t think they had a good case. She may be rich but she’s not frivolous lawsuit with one of the largest companies in the world rich.
People watching it off someone else’s subscription does not give her more money.
And her contract stated (according to cnbc) that the film were to receive an exclusive theatrical releases which it did not
Suing someone doesn't mean you are correct. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and she DEFINITELY has the capital to throw around a few frivolous lawsuits if she thinks she can get attention from it.
Your assumption is that she even expects to win. The US womens' footy team sued FIFA or whoever for 'underpaying' them even though they have better contracts than the men for the same money. If they thought they had a chance of succeeding, they were deluded- same as ScarJo is if Disney isn't lying through it's teeth.
I already explained how "people watching off others' subscriptions" doesn't necessarily lose her money- you're just ASSuming. Disney stated that they increased her earning potential by also releasing on Disney+. I assume they actually have some facts and figures to back up what they say, unlike you.
Stop simping for a woman who doesn't even know or care who you are, and worst of all, stop making me defend fucking Disney!