star wars spoiler (caution... spoiler alert)

by **WILLIAMS5232** on Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:04 am

show: this is your last warning spoiler ahead

I mean really, its the same ole song and dance.

by **riskllama** on Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:42 pm

way to ruin it for everyone. asshole...

by **WILLIAMS5232** on Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:14 pm

riskllama wrote:way to ruin it for everyone. asshole...

you had fair warning. sorry... that's all on you.

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:09 am

How about the spoiler where Disney extorts Arclight theaters if they didn't break their contract with Tarantino?

-TG

by **Ltrain** on Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:42 am

dark vader is luke's dad. oh wait, this isnt 1983.

by **Symmetry** on Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:18 pm

Ltrain wrote:dark vader is luke's dad. oh wait, this isnt 1983.

I don't think that was true even in 1983.

by **jimboston** on Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:58 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:How about the spoiler where Disney extorts Arclight theaters if they didn't break their contract with Tarantino?

-TG

Didn't happen.

It's a concoction of Tarantino's by all accounts except his.

I think plenty of theaters would be happy to pick up any slack Arclight couldn't fulfill. I don't buy Disney needing or wanting to do this.

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:02 pm

jimboston wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:How about the spoiler where Disney extorts Arclight theaters if they didn't break their contract with Tarantino?

-TG

Didn't happen.

It's a concoction of Tarantino's by all accounts except his.

I think plenty of theaters would be happy to pick up any slack Arclight couldn't fulfill. I don't buy Disney needing or wanting to do this.

So Tarantino is lying about having a contract with the Cinerama Dome? A theater with 70mm projectors, the only kind of theater he's showing his movie in? C'mon.

What's more believable, that Tarantino constructed this lie for whatever reason, or the corporation Disney* is strong arming their way to more profits by mercilessly marketing another bloated Star Wars cash cow?

*A corporation accused of strong-arming in the past, mind you.

-TG

by **jimboston** on Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:17 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
jimboston wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:How about the spoiler where Disney extorts Arclight theaters if they didn't break their contract with Tarantino?

-TG

Didn't happen.

It's a concoction of Tarantino's by all accounts except his.

I think plenty of theaters would be happy to pick up any slack Arclight couldn't fulfill. I don't buy Disney needing or wanting to do this.

So Tarantino is lying about having a contract with the Cinerama Dome? A theater with 70mm projectors, the only kind of theater he's showing his movie in? C'mon.

What's more believable, that Tarantino constructed this lie for whatever reason, or the corporation Disney* is strong arming their way to more profits by mercilessly marketing another bloated Star Wars cash cow?

*A corporation accused of strong-arming in the past, mind you.

-TG

... from the web...
"Sources say, however, that the Disney had first dibs on the Dome since it had been secured for months and was even given as an option for those who bought their "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" tickets back in October."

It seems to me that either someone at Arclight screwed up... or Tarantino is just being a cry baby. It's equally possible that Tarantino, a known complainer, is just whining because he's not getting his way.

There are two sides to every story.

Why shouldn't Disney hold Arclight to their pre-existing contract???

There are

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:51 pm

It's possible Arclight screwed up. However, pre-sale tickets don't mean jack. They're making the biggest movie in the world, they can sell as many as they like. They also know they can out-muscle anyone in advance. Arclight specifically told Tarantino Disney had a 2 week contract. Either he's lying about that, or Disney just doesn't give a f*ck. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

-TG

by **jimboston** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:36 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:It's possible Arclight screwed up. However, pre-sale tickets don't mean jack. They're making the biggest movie in the world, they can sell as many as they like. They also know they can out-muscle anyone in advance. Arclight specifically told Tarantino Disney had a 2 week contract. Either he's lying about that, or Disney just doesn't give a f*ck. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

-TG

Because you know Tarantino personally?

Also, he could be telling the truth... perhaps someone at Arclight fucked up?
Now Disney is holding them to their WRITTEN CONTRACT, which is more valid in court that a verbal promise that has no proof.

I'm just saying... their are two sides to every story.
Just because Tarantino is whining, doesn't mean he's right.
Just because Disney could walk away from this one theater and still make a killing.. doesn't mean they should.
Corporations generally hold their vendors/supplies/customers to the contracts they sign; they feel they have to or else other people will screw them. So even though they could walk away from this one theater; that doesn't mean they should.

If Tarantino was right; he'd likely be getting his way.

by **riskllama** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:11 pm

I was raised with there being 3 sides to every story. yours, theirs and the truth.

by **jimboston** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:13 pm

riskllama wrote:I was raised with there being 3 sides to every story. yours, theirs and the truth.

OK. I buy that.

So Tarantino complains Disney is strong-arming the cinema, and boxing out his movie. Targeting him personally.

Disney is saying they did nothing, and just expect the cinema to honor the contract it signed.

The middle ground...
Disney is strong-arming the cinema to honor the contract it signed. It doesn't care what movie it's boxing out; they aren't "targeting" Tarantino, they'd act the same regardless of whose movie it was. They are acting in their interest. Tarantino is acting in his own interest too, trying to use public support to get his way... even if his way ultimately forces the cinema to violate it's pre-existing contract with Disney.

If he had a real contract he'd be waiving that around instead of just whining.

It's called the Free Market.

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:34 pm

You seem to be missing the point. Tarantino claims Disney had a 2 week contract at that particular theater, that's it. They aren't "honoring the contract" if they demand it be extended. I doubt they're targeting Tarantino in particular (that is him just whining), but they simply don't give two fucks and want more money.

Like I said, I doubt QT is telling a bald-faced lie about having a contract with the Dome for his movie just to whine about Disney.

-TG

by **mrswdk** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:00 pm

I really thought Hans Solo's son meant he wanted Hans to kill him, not that he wanted to kill Hans.

by **Bernie Sanders** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:15 pm

I'd rather watch Tarantino's HATEFUL EIGHT

by **Symmetry** on Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:21 pm

mrswdk wrote:I really thought Hans Solo's son meant he wanted Hans to kill him, not that he wanted to kill Hans.

If thy Han offends thee, cut it off.

That's some straight up TRUTH from the BIBLE.

Peace

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:25 am

I was really diggin Han Solo's decision in the end. He realized he was the guy's father, and he didn't need to be a Jedi to face his Sith son. He could have easily chose to remain hidden rather than step up call Kylo out so boldly. Even though he realized it could likely cost him his life, Han decided it was worth it for him to try to help his son, and he did not turn his back on fatherhood, he confronted it straight up. Even though it didn't work so well for the Hanster, but Han just may have the last laugh even if it took his death and his son reflecting upon murdering his father for many years to finally pay dividends. Perhaps Kylo will return to Leia crying and apologizing and even citing his father as saving him.