Support NeoGAF

[Captin Quacker]

Well this certainly changes things

Tarantino should have gotten more info before jumping on Disney

TWC should have informed Tarantino

But despite that doesn't change all these fanboy responses in this thread

 

[Jonm1010]

How does ethics have anything to do with normal business behavior? Business behavior is aimed at maximizing profits. Ethics never get into that equation.

Tarantino can take the Cinerama Dome up on the clause in the contract that states what penalties are in effect in case of breach of contract, but that's about it. Cinerama obviously decided that breaching contract and taking the penalty was a better business-decision than upholding their contract.

I realize that since I was last here new info came out painting Quentin as a liar, but to revisit this conversation started when we were operating under the earlier assumptions.

That would of been a very gross violation of business ethics on the part of Disney. Also it is worth noting that once again you were purposefully leaving out the context in which that decision was made. Which would of been one made under threat and extortion in the Oxford dictionary sense.

Again, I know things have changed but you are still presumably going to bat for a company that would be willing to pull such tactics.

Just because something is legal under the law does not make it ethical or right. Chalking any and all actions that are legal under the law as just "normal" behavior is to take a sociopathic approach to decision making and actions. Your argument is basically "if I can get away with it, it is morally and ethically just." That is a horrendous precedent to operate under.

 

[linsivvi]

I'm not going to argue this anymore - I'm not victim blaming, I'm voicing my opinion about his choice and blaming Disney.

And now it all doesn't matter because, according to the article above, Tarantino was wrong about the entire thing.

Yeah well, seems like it's been a waste of time debating this.

Damn it, Tarantino!

 

[TheSeks]

I mean, its pretty clear why. Does Tarantino think Hateful Eight was going to make the theater more money in the near term than Star Wars and that the Weinstein company will bring them more money in the long term?

No, but if the theater was booked to show his film, it's pretty bad form to go "yeah, no. About that contract? *rips it up*"

Double so that Disney strong-armed them into doing that for the sake of making more bank. Surely having the theater half-and half wouldn't have ate into Disney's bottom line, even if the theater only scheduled two showings of Hateful 8 that week per day?

 

[aerts1js]

Yeah; it's bad form on the theater but what did expect was going to happen here!?

 

[Ridley327]

Harvey is to blame? That's kind of amazing, actually.

 

[Jonm1010]

Yeah; it's bad form on the theater but what did expect was going to happen here!?

1.) you should read the thread before posting, then you would know about the new info that came up.

2.) operating under the assumptions in the OP(which aren't true, hint, hint) in such a hypothetical you are essentielly victim blaming. The other relevant parties reneged on a contract due to the third party entering into the discussion using threat of economic repercussion to strong arm the theater into an agreement. In this hypothetical(since the OP isn't true) the only truly condemnable party would of been Disney.

 

[inner-G]

Distasteful.

It was a Kill Bill joke


If he never had a real contract though, he just looks whiny.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

I was kind of wondering how this was going to pan out. I mean the movie is releasing more or less the same week as one of the biggest movies of all time. They had to know theater space was going to be a problem. I know Tarantino movies are successful, but you really don't want to share space with Star Wars.

 

[liliththepale]

If there had been a contract broken, TWC would have filed a lawsuit, not just let Tarantino complain about it. It was pretty clear from the beginning that Disney was in the right.

 

[DeathyBoy]

If there had been a contract broken, TWC would have filed a lawsuit, not just let Tarantino complain about it. It was pretty clear from the beginning that Disney was in the right.

TWC are using this as 'free' marketing for the film. Cheapskates.

 

[ginger ninja]

No, it's a pretty simple appraisal. I'm not claiming anything is over, just that the Star Wars franchise, and the idea that it's somehow "special", can go fuck itself.

You pretty much wrote star wars is responsible for decline of artistry in Hollywood and some other shit. If that's not hyperbole extreme, I don't know what is.

For the record, i don't even know all the details here and I still think it's a very scummy thing to do for disney.

 

[ito007]

Perfect picture. Disney has really turned into a greedy and shitty company. Maybe they always were. Their brands have turned junk as well, ESPN etc. Their only success really comes from buying up other successful brands, Pixar, Marvel, now Lucasfilm.

It's one thing if there was no agreement in place, but Disney essentially strong armed the theater into breaking their contract.

Their success is actually coming from the "junk" brands like ESPN, which is one of their highest profit brands. the other ones make money too but it would be a mistake to say their success only comes from buying other successful brands.