I haven’t attacked your comments or you. I’ve replied to them. You on the other hand have started with the name calling.
I simply am willing to believe that Disney based on previous behavior have broken their contract, and in scarjos eyes has cost her money. Because why else sue. Sure 50 mil is probably not what she would have made but if she asks for 5 and they settle out of court she won’t get more than her initial claim.
You started the whole assumption on numbers game and then get upset because my points are making assumptions on different numbers. go back up and re read the thread. You even said it’s possible she made more. My first comment was pointing out how a family of four buying move tickets is less income than renting it on Disney plus. Disney just cuts out theater owners and possibly bonuses of cast and crew off theater sales. The points you have made are heavily based on assumption and you are throwing a fit that I’m saying she could be right.
It is literally not just available on Disney+ because someone is sharing a subscription. It’s a separate charge on top of it. So if your buddy is letting you use his sub and you decide to watch it you just charged your buddies credit card.
I never said that because someone is suing someone that they are right. I said because she started a lawsuit with Disney that she probably isn’t doing it frivolously. Disney owns about 36% of market share in the movie industry. If you are a movie star you would not want to burn bridges with a third of your industry for shits and giggles.
This really just breaks down to your don’t believe her.
I believe Disney likely has broken their contract with her. You make claims based off of not knowing how Disney+ works. I point out that’s not how it works. You then claim I ignored your points, (because it requires Disney+ to work differently than it does) re read Disney’s response to the lawsuit (which was never going to say your right we are wrong) and then call me a Simp.
So yeah dude I’m a simp for pointing out that renting from Disney plus is less money being spent at the movies than paying for 4 tickets at the theater and assuming that the lawsuit isn’t lying about the promise of an exclusive theatrical release. And knowing that it isn’t uncommon in a star actors contract to make more off of movie ticket sales than when the film goes to streaming, dvd, Blu-ray, or cable.
Lol, I don't care. You haven't engaged with my points at all and keep repeating the same shit no matter how many times I point out I'd already addressed your argument. It's like you can see the letters, read the words, look up the definitions, use them in a sentence and yet somehow you STILL have no idea what I said.
Taking the time to read yet another wall of text and rebut each point just so you can ignore it and say it again but harder is pointless. Simp harder, you absolute clown.
I haven’t attacked your comments or you. I’ve replied to them. You on the other hand have started with the name calling.
I simply am willing to believe that Disney based on previous behavior have broken their contract, and in scarjos eyes has cost her money. Because why else sue. Sure 50 mil is probably not what she would have made but if she asks for 5 and they settle out of court she won’t get more than her initial claim.
You started the whole assumption on numbers game and then get upset because my points are making assumptions on different numbers. go back up and re read the thread. You even said it’s possible she made more. My first comment was pointing out how a family of four buying move tickets is less income than renting it on Disney plus. Disney just cuts out theater owners and possibly bonuses of cast and crew off theater sales. The points you have made are heavily based on assumption and you are throwing a fit that I’m saying she could be right.
It is literally not just available on Disney+ because someone is sharing a subscription. It’s a separate charge on top of it. So if your buddy is letting you use his sub and you decide to watch it you just charged your buddies credit card.
I never said that because someone is suing someone that they are right. I said because she started a lawsuit with Disney that she probably isn’t doing it frivolously. Disney owns about 36% of market share in the movie industry. If you are a movie star you would not want to burn bridges with a third of your industry for shits and giggles.
This really just breaks down to your don’t believe her. I believe Disney likely has broken their contract with her. You make claims based off of not knowing how Disney+ works. I point out that’s not how it works. You then claim I ignored your points, (because it requires Disney+ to work differently than it does) re read Disney’s response to the lawsuit (which was never going to say your right we are wrong) and then call me a Simp.
So yeah dude I’m a simp for pointing out that renting from Disney plus is less money being spent at the movies than paying for 4 tickets at the theater and assuming that the lawsuit isn’t lying about the promise of an exclusive theatrical release. And knowing that it isn’t uncommon in a star actors contract to make more off of movie ticket sales than when the film goes to streaming, dvd, Blu-ray, or cable.
Enjoy your delusions you have concocted about me.
TL;DR SIIIIIIIIIMP
I summed it up for you at the bottom. Enjoy wearing your Mickey ears
Lol, I don't care. You haven't engaged with my points at all and keep repeating the same shit no matter how many times I point out I'd already addressed your argument. It's like you can see the letters, read the words, look up the definitions, use them in a sentence and yet somehow you STILL have no idea what I said.
Taking the time to read yet another wall of text and rebut each point just so you can ignore it and say it again but harder is pointless. Simp harder, you absolute clown.
I did address your arguments. Your arguments lack the basic understanding of how the film was released on Disney plus. Take your L.