Super-Twat

[TheLurker]

I propose that we re-name this the, "Vile, uncharitable, psychopathic little shit." thread and commemorate this re-naming by entering one Farage, N. as its newest (re)entrant.  His latest act of evil, mean-minded spitefulness?  Having a go at the RNLI for saving people from drowning in the channel.  Of course these weren't gin-swilling yachties* who'd accidentally bumped into a tanker. Oh dearie me, no. These people weren't white people and furthermore none of them had an account at Coutts.  Christ, but that man creature needs to have civilisation and charity beaten into it with a bloody great stick.  Form an orderly queue...





*Some of my best friends are gin-swilling yachties. 

[andrewc]

I propose that we re-name this the, "Vile, uncharitable, psychopathic little shit." thread and commemorate this re-naming by entering one Farage, N. as its newest (re)entrant.  His latest act of evil, mean-minded spitefulness?  Having a go at the RNLI for saving people from drowning in the channel.  Of course these weren't gin-swilling yachties* who'd accidentally bumped into a tanker. Oh dearie me, no. These people weren't white people and furthermore none of them had an account at Coutts.  Christ, but that man creature needs to have civilisation and charity beaten into it with a bloody great stick.  Form an orderly queue...





*Some of my best friends are gin-swilling yachties.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rnli-donate-migrant-rescue-channel-b1893000.html   



RNLI sees 2,000% daily increase in donations after criticism of asylum rescues in Channel


Charity receives over £200,000 in a day amid surge in support   

[hatler]

I propose that we re-name this the, "Vile, uncharitable, psychopathic little shit." thread and commemorate this re-naming by entering one Farage, N. as its newest (re)entrant.  His latest act of evil, mean-minded spitefulness?  Having a go at the RNLI for saving people from drowning in the channel.  Of course these weren't gin-swilling yachties* who'd accidentally bumped into a tanker. Oh dearie me, no. These people weren't white people and furthermore none of them had an account at Coutts.  Christ, but that man creature needs to have civilisation and charity beaten into it with a bloody great stick.  Form an orderly queue...





*Some of my best friends are gin-swilling yachties.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rnli-donate-migrant-rescue-channel-b1893000.html   



RNLI sees 2,000% daily increase in donations after criticism of asylum rescues in Channel


Charity receives over £200,000 in a day amid surge in support   

That is glorious.

[T42]

  indeed.

[PeteB99]

Tower RNLI crews verbally assaulted last week

https://twitter.com/TowerRNLI/status/1418703723631624199

Farage and Patel might blow the dog whistle but there are a lot of super twats out there at their command

[Beardy]

Well it’s not often that a thread really gladdens my heart, but I find myself smiling mightily having read of Fartarge’s impact on RNLI funding.   

[citoyen]

<crosses Scarlett Johansson off the women-I'd-leave-my-wife-for list>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58017445

[Mr Larrington]

It seems puzzling that ac-TORS do not have some sort of wossname built into their contracts that gives them income from streaming services as well as actual bums on cinema seats.  And if some of them do, then the fault line squarely on the shoulders of Ms Johansson or her minions for failing to negotiate something similar.

[TimC]

It seems puzzling that ac-TORS do not have some sort of wossname built into their contracts that gives them income from streaming services as well as actual bums on cinema seats.  And if some of them do, then the fault line squarely on the shoulders of Ms Johansson or her minions for failing to negotiate something similar.

There's a big effort going on to change the distribution of streaming revenue, as it hugely disadvantages the artists, particularly in music. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that actors' contracts are equally behind the times vis-a-vis non-traditional distribution revenue.

[Beardy]

<crosses Scarlett Johansson off the women-I'd-leave-my-wife-for list>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58017445

I didn’t read the whole article, but I hardly see that a contract dispute with your employer provides grounds for super-twatery. I suspect that his will come down to the difference between moral and legal duties under the contract and that Disney release the stream at the same as the box office outing to maximise their own revenue with no regard to the impact it would have on the actors revenue.

Whether Ms Johansson NEEDS another few millions is a different argument entirely.

[Kim]

Also if there's super-twattery going on and Disney are involved, it's usually safe to assume they're the perpetrators.

[Polar Bear]

<crosses Scarlett Johansson off the women-I'd-leave-my-wife-for list>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58017445

One less body to climb over ...  😉

I suspect that Disney changed the distribution model without considering the impact on numerous rights holders.  Not so many have the resources to push back so it requires a wealthy name or organisation to push.  There will have already been lots of behind the scenes blather before this point.  It's difficult to know which has the stronger case or which is the real super twat here but I would hedge on Disney being the donkeys.

Also if there's super-twattery going on and Disney are involved, it's usually safe to assume they're the perpetrators.

I'm of that persuasion too.

[citoyen]

Whether Ms Johansson NEEDS another few millions is a different argument entirely.

This is my beef. It just sticks in the throat a bit when Hollywood megastars quibble over the odd million like this. Not that I ever imagined Scarlett Johansson was in the business for purely artistic reasons, but it's still disappointing to find that she has feet of clay.

Per Kim, I dare say Disney are also guilty of being twattish here as well. It's not an either/or situation.

I think my real problem is in how this kind of dispute is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with the world in general.

[Kim]

On the other hand contractual disputes happen all the time in all sorts of industries.  They just aren't newsworthy unless there's a famous person involved.

[citoyen]

I suspect that Disney changed the distribution model without considering the impact on numerous rights holders.  Not so many have the resources to push back so it requires a wealthy name or organisation to push.

Do you imagine that her motivation is to be some kind of Robin Hood figure? Even if she wins, is there likely to be any trickle down benefit to others?

[grams]

If she loses then the money stays with the Disney Corporation*. I'm not sure how that's preferable.

(* and the lawyers)

[citoyen]

If she loses then the money stays with the Disney Corporation*. I'm not sure how that's preferable.

I find it hard to care who has the greater 'right' to the money when we're talking about such obscene sums.

Something definitely needs to be done about making sure artists/performers get a fairer share of the income from streaming services, but I'm sceptical that this case will make a difference to anyone other than Scarlett Johansson (and, as you say, the lawyers).

[Polar Bear]

I suspect that Disney changed the distribution model without considering the impact on numerous rights holders.  Not so many have the resources to push back so it requires a wealthy name or organisation to push.

Do you imagine that her motivation is to be some kind of Robin Hood figure? Even if she wins, is there likely to be any trickle down benefit to others?

Of course not: that would be fanciful at best.

What I am suggesting is that in essence she could set the legal precedent in terms of not only her earning now but how the industry distributes earning to all interested parties in the future.  It is how the cumbersome legal system tends to work and why for instance Trades Unions have been so beneficial even for non-members.  Somebody has to have the money to take the case and set the precedent. 

Her motives are extremely unlikely to be altruistic but her actions could well turn out to be.

[TimC]

Whether Ms Johansson NEEDS another few millions is a different argument entirely.

This is my beef. It just sticks in the throat a bit when Hollywood megastars quibble over the odd million like this. Not that I ever imagined Scarlett Johansson was in the business for purely artistic reasons, but it's still disappointing to find that she has feet of clay.

Per Kim, I dare say Disney are also guilty of being twattish here as well. It's not an either/or situation.

I think my real problem is in how this kind of dispute is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with the world in general.

Extrapolate her issue to those actors in the movie who are on far lower paypackets, and you might see why it's a legitimate beef.

Edit: what PB said.

[chrisbainbridge]

Whether Ms Johansson NEEDS another few millions is a different argument entirely.

This is my beef. It just sticks in the throat a bit when Hollywood megastars quibble over the odd million like this. Not that I ever imagined Scarlett Johansson was in the business for purely artistic reasons, but it's still disappointing to find that she has feet of clay.

Per Kim, I dare say Disney are also guilty of being twattish here as well. It's not an either/or situation.

I think my real problem is in how this kind of dispute is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with the world in general.

Extrapolate her issue to those actors in the movie who are on far lower paypackets, and you might see why it's a legitimate beef.

Edit: what PB said.

But also why Disney is not keen to make these changes.  I think that small upfront and percentage of takings is normal for the stars but less common for others. 

[ian]

If she loses then the money stays with the Disney Corporation*. I'm not sure how that's preferable.

I find it hard to care who has the greater 'right' to the money when we're talking about such obscene sums.

Something definitely needs to be done about making sure artists/performers get a fairer share of the income from streaming services, but I'm sceptical that this case will make a difference to anyone other than Scarlett Johansson (and, as you say, the lawyers).

I don't disagree on the sums, it seems bonkers that anyone needs hundred of millions. I could get by on half that.

But I see her point, and if the studios get room to wiggle, they'll wiggle, and that shafts everyone down the chain.

[Pingu]

BONG! Super-Twats embroiled in unfettered neoliberalistic capitalism. BONG!

[hatler]

(Having not watched ITN news in, oooooo, about 20 years, do they still do the BONGs thing ?)

[citoyen]

BONG! Super-Twats embroiled in unfettered neoliberalistic capitalism. BONG!

Yep, that’s pretty much what it comes down to.

I’m really not persuaded by the argument that it will lead to positive changes for people down the food chain but we’ll see.

[rafletcher]

Lord Digby Jones, Baron Jones of Birmingham

https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1421164856527437825