citylawyer
CityLawyer
citylawyer

As a fellow multiracial person, I’m pretty uncomfortable that you feel a need to “rep” us here and center our feelings in a conversation that is specifically about the exclusion of dark-skinned Black women from media representation. I agree that it’s not the responsibility of individual actresses to turn down roles,

It’s depressingly predictable how when a systemic problem is being addressed people are quick to derail the conversation by highlighting how it inconveniences individuals. She has to consult with publicists who she pays precisely for image management? Quelle horreur! Nowhere in this article does it imply that mixed

Must be fun over there in 1999. We left “all women just need to support each other” feminism behind for good reason. Flattening women’s issues into a fantasy sisterhood leaves many people out. Can anyone point out to me where Beetz was blamed? This article is about casting decisions, which you are absolutely correct,

It’s weird how defensive light skinned POC get when the issue of colorism comes up. If Scarlett Johansson gets taken to task for taking roles she shouldn’t, Zazie Beetz, Zoe Saldana etc should also rethink if they are right for these roles as well. Nowhere does this article lay the blame on Beetz. Using her picture is

I am hesitantly excited about the new Game of Thrones series. It was really just the last couple of seasons that tarnished GoT in the end, those showrunners aren’t involved in this one, and hopefully the new ones have learned from those mistakes. Right? RIGHT??

I may be personally disappointed by the fact that Mulaney and his wife got divorced because, through his comedy, I was somewhat invested in the running narrative of “John Mulaney is happily married, and he and his wife love one another.” Particularly when so much stand up comedy doesn’t use as a central conceit how

I am finding this all a bit reaching and mega-judgmental. Maybe he changed his mind about being childfree, it’s an opinion, you can change it, it’s not Scientology (to me anyway). He has been through a life-changing year, maybe he has different ideas about what is important in life than he did 2 years ago? And maybe

Olivia Munn is 41 and I’m guessing she wanted to have a baby so she made it a priority to have one. I have no reason to believe whats-his-butt wasn’t a willing partner. Maybe they didnt think it would happen so quick or maybe they didn’t think it would happen at all. If the relationship doesn’t work out (god forbid)

All it takes is one off day for the negative stuff to pull you under. 

I follow her on Instagram and she is putting herself out there all the time and seemingly in control of ignoring the assholes. But I’m sure the assholes are constant and generally she’s comes off as fiercely strong and positive. I’m sure sometimes it hits her harder than others and I think it’s OK for her to share

Yes that’s all I could think while reading this (or any story about inheritances) - the entitlement that some people think they have to money that someone else earned is laughable.

That remains to be seen. The contract for one needs to be produced as evidence for one to see the exact terms dictating the film’s release. Granted there are any number of clauses within that a film could be indefinitely or permanently shelved if certain conditions came about for example extremely bad press caused by

Exactly! I’m not mad at Johanssen or her lawyers for wanting more money, but for Jez to attempt to brand this as anyone being on the right or wrong side of history, even tongue in cheek, is dumb.

I’m not necessarily arguing that she is wrong, it just seems bizarre to me that Disney is on the “wrong side of history” for not forcing people to convene in public during a pandemic since a single rich person might have gotten even richer if they had.

I find the wording of the complaint so strange, though. No one would have predicted the timing or length of the pandemic in the first place, so to make a prediction that everything would be fine for a theatrical release in “a few months” *and* that the market would recover are both incredibly bold assumptions.

alleges that Disney interfered with that deal by releasing the film on Disney+ both in order to draw new subscribers to its streaming service and to avoid paying Johansson the “very large box office bonuses” she would have been owed if it was released solely in theaters.

Depends on the contract. There are plenty of situations where ‘acts of god’ are covered in various ways. Global pandemic probably isn’t in her contract, but there probably are a lot of things around what happens if the movie can’t be released for certain reasons. Most likely, she won’t get the money on the

There is likely a Force Majeure clause and Disney will claim the pandemic triggered it. Not sure if a court will buy it, but is one way they could go. 

Not defensible from a moral (or PR/talent relations standpoint), but from a legal standpoint what likely matters is the language of the contract, not an after-the-fact email.  If the contract isn’t specific about the form of release, it may not matter much if she was told something afterwards that turned out not to be

I saw the story earlier somewhere else and it omitted the fact that she died by suicide at 20. Everything about this story is nightmarish.