Ghostbusters, anything Amy Schumer, etc. Google is free. You can use it just as well as me or anyone else.
Sorry, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I was a bit confused I guess, haha . When I asked "what movie?" I guess I was referring to what movie that's been changed BECAUSE of the backlash.
I've re read your comments and you're right. I get what you're saying now. Certainly a little controversy isn't a bad thing.
Aside from the controversy has there ever been a studio to actually change something because of it??? Interesting to see what will happen with Sonic. I'm going to re-watch the trailer now.
Okay, so... Sonic looks more human like. Not sure what the big deal is.
r and Adam Sandler movies were getting horrible reviews and ratings, so they ended up axing that feature)
Funny and I was thinking some of his recent netflix movies have actually been decent. The Do-Over was really pretty good for example.
The upcoming one with Jennifer Aniston looked pretty good?
I like most of his stuff too. You'll always have the group that hates just for the sake of hating though (like everybody that automatically thinks 2600 ET sucks but can't tell you why)
- Danny Masterson on The Ranch was let go because of a rape allegation (or several, maybe?) that had been handled years prior (and found not guilty I believe?)
- Roseanne with her racist tweet got her fired from her comeback show
Masterson wasn't found not guilty, they just didn't have the evidence to charge him for the crime(s). Some of the allegations were more recent, and some were investigated at the time and reopened when the recent stuff came to light (apparently the Church of Scientology might have had a hand in shutting down the older investigation.) But the crimes themselves were over a decade ago, and it's hard to prosecute a crime like that.
Roseanne was more of an internal thing with her ultimate boss, Disney. You don't do anything to tarnish the Disney brand unless you can bring the stock price up. James Gunn could, Roseanne couldn't.
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right? That's just straight bonkers that they yanked him off the show, Rooster was the best and his out was lame as s***. Good news is the Ranch should have a new season/part sometime soon.
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right?
No, he wasn't.
The producers of the show do have the right to pull him off of their show if they don't want to work with him, depending on the contract (I suspect there was a broad morality clause in place.) Masterson may or may not be able to appeal to arbitration, depending on if his contract allows it. And of course viewers have the right to not watch the show if they object to how he was treated.
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right?
No, he wasn't.
The producers of the show do have the right to pull him off of their show if they don't want to work with him, depending on the contract (I suspect there was a broad morality clause in place.) Masterson may or may not be able to appeal to arbitration, depending on if his contract allows it. And of course viewers have the right to not watch the show if they object to how he was treated.
AFAIK, he was just removed from acting on the show - I believe he's still a producer.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
He would be under contract, which with a carefully worded morality clause would negate most termination laws (he did read and sign it, presumably.) As long as it doesn't affect a protected class, they would probably have every right to remove him from in front of the camera.
I get the point that you don't like that companies aren't adhering to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. And ... they really don't have to.
And yes, fan backlash can affect a production company's bottom line. That's always been the case. The backlash might be swifter today, but there's always been that concern (the original Star Trek got a third season from fan letters.) Ultimately, fans are the consumers. They can walk away. So can you.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
Yes...but many celebrities/actors don't have control over their public image when accusations are made, of course if they are guilty they caused the grief...but as we know that's not always the case and is bullshit.
Money is TOO powerful, it causes an ungodly amount of unethical behavior and always will. People will always try to find ways to take it from others, and companies will always find ways to further protect themselves from losses.
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
He would be under contract, which with a carefully worded morality clause would negate most termination laws (he did read and sign it, presumably.) As long as it doesn't affect a protected class, they would probably have every right to remove him from in front of the camera.
I get the point that you don't like that companies aren't adhering to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. And ... they really don't have to.
And yes, fan backlash can affect a production company's bottom line. That's always been the case. The backlash might be swifter today, but there's always been that concern (the original Star Trek got a third season from fan letters.) Ultimately, fans are the consumers. They can walk away. So can you.
Actually, in some states, they would HAVE to. I'm sorry you feel the opposite way and that you're okay with fucking with folks lives that didn't actually do anything wrong?
Here's an idea, you can also walk away. See how simple that logic is, yet how dickish it sounds?
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
It's not just in the entertainment industry. It's also where I work (which isn't entertainment).
It's in our clause.
They also have to fire you for a reason, even though we're an "at will employment" state, not just haphazzardly like some folks are 100% okay with.
Actually, in some states, they would HAVE to. I'm sorry you feel the opposite way and that you're okay with fucking with folks lives that didn't actually do anything wrong?
Here's an idea, you can also walk away. See how simple that logic is, yet how dickish it sounds?
Not if there is an employment contract in place that both sides have agreed to adhere to. As long as the employment contract doesn't violate a state law (mostly regarding protected classes), they can fire you for breaking a morality clause. Or not wearing a pink shirt if the contract says you show up in pink every day.
And it's not me being dickish, it's that the alternative is to introduce legislation that overrides a company's right to do business and construct contracts that they and their clients agree to follow. Do you want THAT level of government intrusion into the private sector? Because where does it end? I don't like companies firing people for some perceived breach in a morality clause, but the alternative, the government stepping in to say what companies can and cannot do in regards to employment contract approval, is worse.
Enough people already bitch about government oversight.
And the walk away part is that people who watch the shows can stop watching to send a message, or even counter the backlash with a backlash of their own. It works, just ask James Gunn. Maybe Roseanne didn't have the clout.
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
I don't like it, either, but as I stated, the remedy to it is to introduce legislation that negates a company's ability to construct an employment contract. It just opens up a huge can of worms.
May I ask where you went to law school? Even speaking in generalities, everything you are talking about is objectively inaccurate at best.
Originally posted by: Boosted52405
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
There are plenty of tort laws that cover this, including malicious prosecution. There is also plenty of defamation laws. The issue you probably have issue with is the barrier of entry to these, as well as the likely social backlash.
"Live-action 'Sonic The Hedgehog' movie is changing after complaints
A lot of people aren't excited for the Sonic The Hedgehog movie after seeing the trailer. Because of this, the movie is taking a new turn with just six months left until its release.
According to Ars Technica:
"After acknowledging the support of film studio Paramount and game company Sega, [Jeff] Fowler included a pretty telling hashtag: '#gottafixfast.' It's not just a riff on the series' iconic 'gotta go fast' slogan but rather a stark admission that Fowler's vague suggestion for a 'changed design' is running headlong into a six-month timeframe."
As to what freaked people out about the new Sonic, many complained that the new Sonic's unusually long legs and alarmingly human-like teeth were a bit strange for their tastes."
So will the disc version include both the original design and "updated " effects? Even if the movie is a let down, I would be curious to see the old vs new.
Comments
Funny and I was thinking some of his recent netflix movies have actually been decent. The Do-Over was really pretty good for example.
People like to rag on Sandler, but his movies have a following and generally turn a profit. Even Pixels did decent business.
Ghostbusters, anything Amy Schumer, etc. Google is free. You can use it just as well as me or anyone else.
Sorry, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I was a bit confused I guess, haha . When I asked "what movie?" I guess I was referring to what movie that's been changed BECAUSE of the backlash.
I've re read your comments and you're right. I get what you're saying now. Certainly a little controversy isn't a bad thing.
Aside from the controversy has there ever been a studio to actually change something because of it??? Interesting to see what will happen with Sonic. I'm going to re-watch the trailer now.
Okay, so... Sonic looks more human like. Not sure what the big deal is.
r and Adam Sandler movies were getting horrible reviews and ratings, so they ended up axing that feature)
Funny and I was thinking some of his recent netflix movies have actually been decent. The Do-Over was really pretty good for example.
The upcoming one with Jennifer Aniston looked pretty good?
I like most of his stuff too. You'll always have the group that hates just for the sake of hating though (like everybody that automatically thinks 2600 ET sucks but can't tell you why)
- Danny Masterson on The Ranch was let go because of a rape allegation (or several, maybe?) that had been handled years prior (and found not guilty I believe?)
- Roseanne with her racist tweet got her fired from her comeback show
Masterson wasn't found not guilty, they just didn't have the evidence to charge him for the crime(s). Some of the allegations were more recent, and some were investigated at the time and reopened when the recent stuff came to light (apparently the Church of Scientology might have had a hand in shutting down the older investigation.) But the crimes themselves were over a decade ago, and it's hard to prosecute a crime like that.
Roseanne was more of an internal thing with her ultimate boss, Disney. You don't do anything to tarnish the Disney brand unless you can bring the stock price up. James Gunn could, Roseanne couldn't.
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right? That's just straight bonkers that they yanked him off the show, Rooster was the best and his out was lame as s***. Good news is the Ranch should have a new season/part sometime soon.
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right?
No, he wasn't.
The producers of the show do have the right to pull him off of their show if they don't want to work with him, depending on the contract (I suspect there was a broad morality clause in place.) Masterson may or may not be able to appeal to arbitration, depending on if his contract allows it. And of course viewers have the right to not watch the show if they object to how he was treated.
Man, they got it all wrong. Sonic has greasy white arms, not blue ones.
Imagine if they actually did put in a subtle Chris Chan reference. They won't, but good god that would be brilliant if they did.
My vote is for macegate
Oh my god coffee almost went everywhere. That made my day! XD
Yet Masterson was never convicted of anything, right?
No, he wasn't.
The producers of the show do have the right to pull him off of their show if they don't want to work with him, depending on the contract (I suspect there was a broad morality clause in place.) Masterson may or may not be able to appeal to arbitration, depending on if his contract allows it. And of course viewers have the right to not watch the show if they object to how he was treated.
AFAIK, he was just removed from acting on the show - I believe he's still a producer.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
He would be under contract, which with a carefully worded morality clause would negate most termination laws (he did read and sign it, presumably.) As long as it doesn't affect a protected class, they would probably have every right to remove him from in front of the camera.
I get the point that you don't like that companies aren't adhering to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. And ... they really don't have to.
And yes, fan backlash can affect a production company's bottom line. That's always been the case. The backlash might be swifter today, but there's always been that concern (the original Star Trek got a third season from fan letters.) Ultimately, fans are the consumers. They can walk away. So can you.
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
Yes...but many celebrities/actors don't have control over their public image when accusations are made, of course if they are guilty they caused the grief...but as we know that's not always the case and is bullshit.
Money is TOO powerful, it causes an ungodly amount of unethical behavior and always will. People will always try to find ways to take it from others, and companies will always find ways to further protect themselves from losses.
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
He would be under contract, which with a carefully worded morality clause would negate most termination laws (he did read and sign it, presumably.) As long as it doesn't affect a protected class, they would probably have every right to remove him from in front of the camera.
I get the point that you don't like that companies aren't adhering to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. And ... they really don't have to.
And yes, fan backlash can affect a production company's bottom line. That's always been the case. The backlash might be swifter today, but there's always been that concern (the original Star Trek got a third season from fan letters.) Ultimately, fans are the consumers. They can walk away. So can you.
Actually, in some states, they would HAVE to. I'm sorry you feel the opposite way and that you're okay with fucking with folks lives that didn't actually do anything wrong?
Here's an idea, you can also walk away. See how simple that logic is, yet how dickish it sounds?
It's not that they didn't want to work with him, they just didn't want the lash back.
Which is also within their rights.
It sucks for Masterson, but part of living in our society is that we allow companies the freedom to do this. We can always take our dollars elsewhere if we don't like it.
Yes and no. Depends on the state. Idk California law, but there are wrongful termination laws in place in a lot of places.
But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that fan backlash has, and will continue to, change things in media, regardless if someone is guilty or not.
It’s actually turned me off to modern television / movie watching.
I would be very surprised if people working in the entertainment industry didn't have a contract clause related to "don't have a bad public image" that covers this kind of stuff.
It's not just in the entertainment industry. It's also where I work (which isn't entertainment).
It's in our clause.
They also have to fire you for a reason, even though we're an "at will employment" state, not just haphazzardly like some folks are 100% okay with.
Actually, in some states, they would HAVE to. I'm sorry you feel the opposite way and that you're okay with fucking with folks lives that didn't actually do anything wrong?
Here's an idea, you can also walk away. See how simple that logic is, yet how dickish it sounds?
Not if there is an employment contract in place that both sides have agreed to adhere to. As long as the employment contract doesn't violate a state law (mostly regarding protected classes), they can fire you for breaking a morality clause. Or not wearing a pink shirt if the contract says you show up in pink every day.
And it's not me being dickish, it's that the alternative is to introduce legislation that overrides a company's right to do business and construct contracts that they and their clients agree to follow. Do you want THAT level of government intrusion into the private sector? Because where does it end? I don't like companies firing people for some perceived breach in a morality clause, but the alternative, the government stepping in to say what companies can and cannot do in regards to employment contract approval, is worse.
Enough people already bitch about government oversight.
And the walk away part is that people who watch the shows can stop watching to send a message, or even counter the backlash with a backlash of their own. It works, just ask James Gunn. Maybe Roseanne didn't have the clout.
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
I don't like it, either, but as I stated, the remedy to it is to introduce legislation that negates a company's ability to construct an employment contract. It just opens up a huge can of worms.
"No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
Wall of employment law talk
May I ask where you went to law school? Even speaking in generalities, everything you are talking about is objectively inaccurate at best.
For the record I am not bashing the #METOO movement, specifically just bothered by the limited protection laws that seem to be in place for those wrongfully accused.
There are plenty of tort laws that cover this, including malicious prosecution. There is also plenty of defamation laws. The issue you probably have issue with is the barrier of entry to these, as well as the likely social backlash.
A lot of people aren't excited for the Sonic The Hedgehog movie after seeing the trailer. Because of this, the movie is taking a new turn with just six months left until its release.
According to Ars Technica:
"After acknowledging the support of film studio Paramount and game company Sega, [Jeff] Fowler included a pretty telling hashtag: '#gottafixfast.' It's not just a riff on the series' iconic 'gotta go fast' slogan but rather a stark admission that Fowler's vague suggestion for a 'changed design' is running headlong into a six-month timeframe."
As to what freaked people out about the new Sonic, many complained that the new Sonic's unusually long legs and alarmingly human-like teeth were a bit strange for their tastes."
https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/05/24/sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-delayed-until-february?fbclid=IwAR1gC3CePFueaWYU3SsFIha5xJ-xnHIZnrd-jMSduaiipSWkcibdpkvrilM