A lot of folks on here really don’t understand movie economics. Of course it turns out that neither do the suits at Disney. First off, this film cost over 300 million to make, has at least another 100 mil in advertising (although that is probably a lie that Disney is trying to sell) and the “Box Office” is the gross…

Clearly the solution here is to create even bigger, more expensive movies and release them fifteen-to-twenty at a time. Audiences will be so bewildered by the sheer number of releases that they’ll have no choice but to watch them all, multiple times over.

It’s honestly quite bad. I usually tell close friends and family members to seek out good stuff, because supporting cinema (and cinemas) is something that I think’s important. I can usually get at least a couple of people to see something they might’ve been on the fence about. To quote Starship Troopers, “I’m doing my…

Whelp, sounds like someone’s headed back to the Jonathan Minors

Judging by the bloopers and the behind the scenes, Breaking Bad looked like a really fun set to be on.  Same with Hannibal.  It seems the darker shows foster the more lighthearted behind the scenes working environments, perhaps out of necessity given the material.

Your ‘other means’ suck.

I will put aside my usual nilistic snark to take a moment to note to you that theft is still theft. Stealing your entertainment via BitTorrent or whatever isn’t the same as stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. Biology doesn’t force you to consume entertainment as sustenance.

It would not. in the 80's and early 90's, no one would have batted an eye.

Sorry, the joke is that the workers do not actually own the means of production even though they should. It’s not a very funny joke, to be fair.

Whatever, Grampa. It isn’t the 1920s anymore, we have moving pictures now.

This sounds crazy, but once upon a time, Comic-Con was not a movie/television trailer delivery mechanism, but a place to meet comic creators, buy comics and nerd schwag and similar stuff.

None of that is impacted by either a writers or actors strike.

How dare you suggest such a thing. Shareholders deserve to get every single penny possible. What’s next, reasonable working conditions and fair pay across the board? No thanks, comrade. Better dead than Red! 

Got it. Abusive workplaces are fine if you enjoy the product.

Luckily, due to the film’s runaway success, it should be fairly simple to divert a paltry $20m of the profits and pay all the animators a $10,000 project bonus. It’s not an excuse for poor labor practices, but at least we can all agree that workers deserve to see some of the fruits of their labor, right?

He may be contractually obligated to do press, and considering that ABC is owned by Disney he may specifically be contractually obligated to do press on ABC shows.

First of all, what an incredibly offensive generalization to make about an entire continent. Second, the vast majority of Americans have an income/net worth that is considerably closer to that of an impoverished person in the developing world than to that of a billionaire. 

Or alternatively, taking an opportunity on a non-scripted show to publicise the strike. I’d say that was being a good ally to the union, and standing by the work he and others did on a scripted show pre-strike. You can say that’s having it both ways, but you can also say that’s being a thoughtful grown up.

You haven’t known loneliness, Bread, until you’ve been in the east wing of your mansion and don’t know which of your seventeen bathrooms in the north wing your wife is banging Eduardo the poolboy in.

Is this how rich white entertainers hook audiences now? By confessing how their excesses humbled them?