Not convinced that’s what she’s done. Again that kind of polorizing language prevents reasonable discussion. It all sounds a bit Orwellian.
Asking fans to keep repurchasing the same books is also a sign of decline. At some point, even the most ardent fan will say "you know, I already have ten copies of this series" and stop purchasing.It's a multi-media franchise at this point like star wars is. The books themselves are still selling strongly (the illustrated editions and the MinaLima Editions being the most recent offerings, not counting the spin-off books)
I’m not demanding anything. I just think we should be disagree more agreeably. Phrases like hate speech used to discuss having an opinion in a current debate is Orwellian. The article also posted a correction starting that she said activism not the people had things in common.Well, luckily it's all documented! Or perhaps you prefer this source? For future reference- stating facts is not polarizing, or Orwellian, or "purethink" (as she puts it), just accurate. To be clear, comparing people that advocate for trans rights (human rights) to Death Eaters seems a bit more polarizing to me. I wonder who did that?
To put this in perspective, though, there is some irony in the idea we are literally about to begin Pride Month and there are people that are demanding a reasonable discussion about giving more money to a person who repeatedly and publicly advocates against some of the most disempowered and marginalized people in society, all the while threatening legal action to prevent that reasonable discussion of her own words.
Free speech for her, money for her, pain for everyone else. Got it.
The article you linked is extremely biased by the way, shallow, poorly explains it’s points and seems to rely on who liked what tweet and which celebrities said what in response. When it isn’t deliberately misrepresenting what she has said. Her targets as far as I can see are people who shut her down or men who might abuse legislative protection to abuse women. That’s not transphobia.
Well it is the company that tried cutting Scarlet Johansson's cut of the profits, not so long ago.I'm guessing it has more to do with paying residuals than a tax break but I could be way off base.
Well it is the company that tried cutting Scarlet Johansson's cut of the profits, not so long ago.
Talent or creatives, it reveals the culture of the company. That doesn't tend to change drastically from leader to leader. It simply illustrates that the bottom line is more important than the art, and to what degree.That was a Chapek maneuver. Iger is much better with talent.
The residuals issue is just something that is becoming more common with streamers; unless there was already a deal to buy out residual rights from the beginning (something Netflix did with a lot of their projects), we are looking to a cost/benefit analysis.
What really will anger most creatives is when they feel they are getting affirmatively screwed out of money or if their projects get cancelled close to completion (like Batgirl).
The fact that they're redoing all of their cartoons as not-particularly-good live action remakes -- they're redoing seven year old Moana next -- spells that out pretty clearly.It simply illustrates that the bottom line is more important than the art, and to what degree.
Talent or creatives, it reveals the culture of the company. That doesn't tend to change drastically from leader to leader. It simply illustrates that the bottom line is more important than the art, and to what degree.