this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023

209 points (98.2% liked)

Movies

7470 readers

78 users here now

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!

Related Communities:

[email protected] - Discussing books and book-related things.

[email protected] - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

[email protected] - LW's home for all things MCU.

While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

209

STRIKE OVER: Actors Make a Deal With Studios After 118 Days (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What a great story it would make, if this is to be our happy ending.

But the story has only just begun. There is no ending yet.

One day, we will all be free.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hope you have enough time to still post on Lemmy Margot!!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

TIL Margot Robbie is an android power user 🤣

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's esteemed Academy Award nominated (and soon, winning) character actress Margot Robbie to you!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to assume "fugitive of the law" is forthcoming. Aspirational, perhaps.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Been there, done that. "Dreamland".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The shitposts won't stop yet. There will just be... less of it.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the articles...

The union is so far being mum on the details of the agreement, which will likely emerge in the next few days prior to the union’s ratification vote.

I wonder why?

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because this is how it's done. They don't shout it all from the rooftops until everything is nice and tidy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We get details of tentative agreements from all kinds of other labor action before those deals are ratified. When the actor were unhappy we sure knew what details they were unhappy about, and they never ratified anything.

Why the need for secrecy now it's all said and done?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It's a tentative agreement. Meaning they have a general framework for the contract, but nothing is signed as certain details are still being worked on. Negotiations are still ongoing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Why the need for secrecy now it's all said and done?

Because it's not all said and done yet lol

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Seems worth a victory lap though, especially considering how hard they worked on it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's only the tentative agreement. This is how it goes every time. Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details. It could still be reversed at this stage.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details.

From the article...

The union is so far being mum on the details of the agreement, which will likely emerge in the next few days prior to the union’s ratification vote.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You just want to argue, don't you? They never announce the details right away. The details may come out but the official announcement won't be until after it's finalized. Same thing happened with the writers strike. The article says the details may emerge, not be officially announced.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You just want to argue, don’t you?

No, not at all. I thought we were having a conversation.

Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details.

I mean that's what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, ...

The union is so far being mum on the details of the agreement, which will likely emerge in the next few days prior to the union’s ratification vote.

, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you're incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.

If someone's seeking a correction doesn't automatically mean they want argumentative combat with you, they just want to resolve the discrepancy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sometimes someone will argue a technicality just to try to appear the smarter person. You're just being a pedant at this point.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sometimes someone will argue a technicality just to try to appear the smarter person. You’re just being a pedant at this point.

You're making assumptions on my intentions without any actual knowledge of me as a person to base them on.

My life is not so minimal that I feel the need to prove my intelligence to strangers on the Internet. All I was looking for was social interaction and conversation (and in this case, clarification) which you know, is what Lemmy is supposed to be about.

And defending oneself is not being pedant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …

But it doesn't, though. The article says the details will likely emerge. Again, that doesn't mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA. The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.

, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.

Exactly, you're looking to win an argument. Neither what I said nor the article are incorrect. They are different statements.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Exactly, you’re looking to win an argument.

So you didn't quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, so please don't put intentions into my mouth that I didn't have.

Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA.

Does it mean it's not either. I'm making the assumption that they're going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they're voting for.

The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.

Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that's accurate that they would put in their story, right?

I mean, this is really blowing all out of intention/proportion. I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn't trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.

Edit: I just got the information I needed off of CNN, where they listed what was in the agreement.

Have a good day.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.

Why would I quote the part I'm not responding to? And it's not like your comment is hidden. It's right above my comment for anyone to see...

Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.

Yep, you're making assumptions. This is also not like an election. There's no 'base" to tell. The people that vote will be told what they need internally.

Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?

Yes, they ask questions and the spokesperson tells them what they need/want to. And off the record wouldn't be published. What are you not understanding?

I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.

If you were trying to learn something new, you wouldn't be trying to prove people wrong with your comments. Come on, man.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would I quote the part I’m not responding to?

You're not being intellectually honest, because your response was to negate mine.

And, CNN broadcasted today, days early, what I was asking about.

I stand by what I've said.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re not being intellectually honest, because your response was to negate mine.

The context is literally right above, nothing's being hidden. What are you talking about? Also, and your initial post wasn't? Give me a break.

And, CNN broadcasted today, days early, what I was asking about.

SAG-AFTRA has still not put out an official public statement, only a statement to their members. The details came out despite this, exactly what I said.

EDIT: You know I can see you downvoting right? I didn't downvote any of your comments.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

The union members generally know what is going on and that is all that matters.

We'll find out once everything goes back to normal and everyone is chatting with TMZ

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they don’t ratify it then it’s not a victory is it?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Good on SAG, I hope they got a good deal (and didn't throw anyone under the bus...)

But, selfishly speaking? I am way more excited for all my favorite media podcasts to get back to watching shows rather than awkwardly finding ways around it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Will be interesting to see what was worked out for AI/deepfakes and residuals.