DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Kai "the spy"]

I wish they'd release a damn movie. I'm tired of legal troubles and corporate shenanigans.

Well, there are rumors that the delay of SHAZAM! 2 was because WB only has enough cashflow to release two more films theatrically for the entire rest of the year. Which does sound kind of counter-intuitive, like "wouldn't another theatrical release bring in new money?", but of course, initially, there are the costs of distribution and marketing.

 

[Christopher]

No, it's not my only basis. But, I'm looking at the considerations and real world realities of the relationship between producers and employers. And it's a big consideration because the investment of resources and time is a major consideration to me.

What resources and time did Zaslav invest in Batgirl before deciding to destroy it for a sleazy tax dodge? None whatsoever. He's brand new to the company. He bought out the studio, came in, and started tearing down a huge amount of what his predecessors invested their resources and time in.

But, objectively, we are looking at ownership and investment of resources, not just emotions, but also material.

You were the one who said it was "not just a legal question but an ethical one." So you're contradicting yourself if you're now retreating to simplistically "objective" standards of the letter of the law or the arithmetic of material value. That's not ethics. That's the conscious avoidance of ethical consideration. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, which means it's not simply objective.

Which takes precedence in this case?

I repeat: It is facile to reduce complex questions to black-and-white binaries. You can recognize that there are legitimate points of view on both sides of an issue without having to pick a winner and loser. It's not a horse race. Understanding is more important than picking a side. Like, understanding that ethics is not as simple as the letter of the law, and that sometimes a breach of the law can be ethically justified, or at least not evil in intent.

 

[fireproof78]

questions to black-and-white binaries. You can recognize that there are legitimate points of view on both sides of an issue without having to pick a winner and loser. It's not a horse race. Understanding is more important than picking a side. Like, understanding that ethics is not as simple as the letter of the law, and that sometimes a breach of the law can be ethically justified, or at least not evil in intent.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm trying to understand people and their perspective. I don't agree but ethically I see the argument. I'm trying to invite discussion not moral rightness.

 

[fireproof78]

I wish they'd release a damn movie. I'm tired of legal troubles and corporate shenanigans.

Too easy ...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Hey TREK_GOD, I was with you up until this point--but you cannot equate illegal with immoral-- or even using the term criminality to make moral judgments about others if you are defining "criminal" as one who violates the law of a specific country. Committing a crime is not always an unethical act.

I disagree; society correctly considers--for example--murder to be both illegal and immoral, and the latter certainly informs / influences the way those who commit those crimes are seen and judged. Criminal behavior or laws do not exist in a nebulous zone without the moral beliefs which were (to a significant degree) the foundation of what is considered acceptable behavior and our laws, and how a violation of that warrants criminal prosecution.

In the case of releasing a movie, I am on the side that it is not worth someone risking their job to try to leak it. It is a movie not the secret to replicator technology.

Agreed.

I also don't it as unethical because piracy are designed to protect the financial profit of selling/distributing a creative work and in this case there is no more profit to be had for anyone. Neither am I going to say somebody is ethically challenged for choosing to watch it if it does get a bootlegged release.

Whether or not IP earns money does not negate the rights of the IP's owners, or grant piracy. On that note, I've heard some Star Wars fans argue that the cottage industry of distributed, original trilogy theatrical version "restoration" projects (e.g., "Despecialized," Project 4K77, etc.) are somehow not theft or piracy because--and again, this is their reasoning--the theatrical versions "officially" no longer exist, and as of 1997, have been "buried", therefore, some argue in favor of flat-out theft & redistribution of the films because they feel "Its our history" / "we grew up on this" to the hollow, "we have a right to.."

Needless to say, the Star Wars theatrical versions are as legally protected as the Special Editions, the endless physical media versions, and that which is available on D+. The theatrical versions forever locked away in some vault does not lose its legally protected status, yet you have the "Its our history" / "we grew up on this" / "we have a right to.."

In this case, I disagree. We are not talking about a person's property but a corporations property that it has chosen to abandon. The creators want their creation seen. The laws in the U.S. declaring corporations are people is also not an "ethical" law but a purely legal one created because of payouts from lobbyist.

WB has not abandoned Batgirl as a character or in any media representations. The character is not in the public domain (where anyone would be able to redistribute it fearing no legal consequences), but the character is their active IP.

 

[Noname Given]

What right does an employer have to screw over dozens of his employees just to get a tax write-off? Maybe technically the movie is his legal "property," but he obviously doesn't care about it, while the people who worked hard on it for months or years care about it a great deal. So who really has more of an ethical right to consider it theirs?

If you consider the film a "work product for hire"; as long as everyone involved was paid what they contracted to be paid (and they were. Also it was designed as a streaming exclusive, so no Box Office proceeds); effectively WB owns the work product and no one was technically 'screwed'..

(Personally I would like to see the film, and if a copy is made available, I'd take a look, but as to the above - just saying...)

 

[Christopher]

If you consider the film a "work product for hire"; as long as everyone involved was paid what they contracted to be paid (and they were. Also it was designed as a streaming exclusive, so no Box Office proceeds); effectively WB owns the work product and no one was technically 'screwed'..

If everyone involved were emotionless robots, maybe. A number of people involved with the film have made statements about how hurt they are by this. Go back and read Ivory Aquino's tweets linked earlier in the thread. This was particularly painful to the people who saw this as a chance to give much-needed representation for their communities. Unlike the execs, these aren't cold-blooded business moguls only in it for dollar signs, but creative, artistic people who do their work out of love or passion or because they have something to say to their audience. You can get your contractually entitled payment and still be deeply screwed, yes, absolutely, because there are other things of value in this world beyond money.

 

[theenglish]

I disagree; society correctly considers--for example--murder to be both illegal and immoral, and the latter certainly informs / influences the way those who commit those crimes are seen and judged. Criminal behavior or laws do not exist in a nebulous zone without the moral beliefs which were (to a significant degree) the foundation of what is considered acceptable behavior and our laws, and how a violation of that warrants criminal prosecution.

We can disagree on this, but I will say that I didn't say there was no overlap between laws and ethics. I said that they do not equate-- more specifically, not all laws are ethical.

Whether or not IP earns money does not negate the rights of the IP's owners, or grant piracy. On that note, I've heard some Star Wars fans argue that the cottage industry of distributed, original trilogy theatrical version "restoration" projects (e.g., "Despecialized," Project 4K77, etc.) are somehow not theft or piracy because--and again, this is their reasoning--the theatrical versions "officially" no longer exist, and as of 1997, have been "buried", therefore, some argue in favor of flat-out theft & redistribution of the films because they feel "Its our history" / "we grew up on this" to the hollow, "we have a right to.."

Needless to say, the Star Wars theatrical versions are as legally protected as the Special Editions, the endless physical media versions, and that which is available on D+. The theatrical versions forever locked away in some vault does not lose its legally protected status, yet you have the "Its our history" / "we grew up on this" / "we have a right to.."

I am in agreement in all of this; I am just saying it is not morally/ethically wrong. In other words, I don't believe you'd go to hell (if hell existed) for downloading a movie, but you would go to hell for killing a person.

WB has not abandoned Batgirl as a character or in any media representations. The character is not in the public domain (where anyone would be able to redistribute it fearing no legal consequences), but the character is their active IP.

Same as my previous comment.

 

[fireproof78]

If you consider the film a "work product for hire"; as long as everyone involved was paid what they contracted to be paid (and they were. Also it was designed as a streaming exclusive, so no Box Office proceeds); effectively WB owns the work product and no one was technically 'screwed'..

This is my feelings as well. That people feel wronged is something I sympathize with, but short of arguing to WB the emotional damage of their employees is worth whatever financial loss and ability to continue to function as the company to make movies. At this point, with the way WB is being gutted I can only suspect that they are massively in the red and need to turn around or no longer be a company.

Ultimately, while people see it as cold financial decisions, the reality may be quite severe. WB appears quite overextended right now, and vulnerable.

 

[JD]

Wow, that's a bad design, reducing it to a simple binary. That can lead to very misleading data by exaggerating the difference between positive and negative assessments. This is why Rotten Tomatoes' aggregate audience percentages for a movie are often so radically different from the critics' aggregate, even when their actual reviews aren't so different if you actually read them -- because the audience ratings are a 5-star system while the critic scores are reduced to a simple up/down binary, so the critical score is stripped of nuance.

I admit it's been a while since I did the Shrek screenings, and the questions are a bit more complicated than I had thought. I found this on online, I believe it was from one of the Dark Knight movies

"Nothing wrong" may be a bit of an oversimplification. The general idea behind civil disobedience is that if a law or practice is unjust, it may be necessary to break the law to protest or change it, but you still accept that you're committing a crime of your own and choose to take responsibility for that act by surrendering to the law and accepting any legal penalty for your actions. It's not so much that you deny you did anything wrong, as that you accept that the lesser wrong was necessary to change the greater wrong.

Although there is an element of symbolism to it, because behaving extra-morally by accepting the punishment for your crimes shows the public that you're not doing it out of contempt for law and order or out of selfish reasons, which helps counter your opponents' attempts to paint you as the villain.

OK, that's a fair point.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I like the "Cheesy in a good way" and "Cheesy in a bad way" checkboxes. There also seems to be many more ways to say the movie is too slow than too fast.

 

[YLu]

It's not about fans deserving to see it. It's about the cast and crew deserving to show the world the creative work they poured many months of their sweat and blood into. That's who I care about. And it's only at the cost of... well, what exactly? Discovery still gets its tax write-off regardless! A.K.A. the only reason they're doing it! It costs nobody! No one's been able to name a single person it would harm.

This isn't like Stephen King choosing not to re-publish old works because he's embarrassed of them. At least there I can respect his decision because it's his baby. But if a publisher used legal shenanigans to block a work of his from ever seeing the light of day, hell yes, I'd support him leaking it.

Oh, it'd be illegal? Driving one mph past the speed limit is illegal. Some states have decided it's a great idea to make abortion illegal. Internet fan fiction is illegal. I do not give a fuck that it's illegal.

Oh, and in related DC live action news... Neil Gaiman's revealed he leaked the script to a terrible Sandman adaptation to the internet years ago, in order to prevent it from getting made.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...ason-2-release-good-omens-calliope-1234580270

Get to tut-tuting him for his horrible behavior and demanding he face prosecution, folks...

 

[Christopher]

This is my feelings as well. That people feel wronged is something I sympathize with, but short of arguing to WB the emotional damage of their employees is worth whatever financial loss and ability to continue to function as the company to make movies.

Oh, come on. Zaslav's slash-and-burn tactics are doing far more damage to WB's movie-making ability than a Batgirl leak possibly could.

Not to mention that Zaslav wants the financial loss. That's the whole insane reason this happened in the first damn place -- he cancelled the movie to artificially manufacture a "loss" that he could report on his taxes in order to get a write-off. He has deliberately chosen to lose money on Batgirl. As long as this is a tax write-off, WB isn't allowed to make any money off of Batgirl. So it makes no sense whatsoever to say that leaking the film for free would in any way deprive WB of profits. At this point, there is no legal way for anybody to make money from the film. So it's really an arbitrary choice whether to bury/destroy the footage or to release it for free to the public. It should make no monetary difference to WB either way.

Ultimately, while people see it as cold financial decisions, the reality may be quite severe. WB appears quite overextended right now, and vulnerable.

It's vulnerable because of the awful things being done to it by the guy at the top. I don't understand why you choose to blame the far less powerful subalterns whose ability to do damage is far more minor.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

We can disagree on this, but I will say that I didn't say there was no overlap between laws and ethics. I said that they do not equate-- more specifically, not all laws are ethical.

But the foundation of a legal system is based on accepted moral values predating organized law, otherwise there would be little to standard of what a group, community or nation views as illegal / criminal.

I am in agreement in all of this; I am just saying it is not morally/ethically wrong. In other words, I don't believe you'd go to hell (if hell existed) for downloading a movie, but you would go to hell for killing a person.

True, Hell has no vacancies for illegal downloaders (well, not yet.. ), but on our earthly plane, stealing is viewed as a serious moral failing, especially when theft is born not out of necessity (e.g. a homeless person taking food he could not pay for), but out of fan-motivated entitlement, as if there's a need to possess / experience a product in defiance of the law (including the property owner's right to determine the accessibility of his property).

 

[Tuskin38]

Some laws exist because the law makers were dicks, not all of them have to do with 'morals'

 

[Mr. Adventure]

My sister's kids use their computers sitting on Herman Miller type chairs that cost hundreds of dollars new. I saved them from the dumpster when a neighboring office was renovating and remodeling. I guess I stole them because they were still in transit to the dumpster with a tip given to me by the janitor since I was one of the few there that would say hi to him and knew him by name. Those have been really nice chairs... though the world has seemed to fall apart quite a bit since then so maybe I'm to blame for undermining our legal foundations.

Oh, and in related DC live action news... Neil Gaiman's revealed he leaked the script to a terrible Sandman adaptation to the internet years ago, in order to prevent it from getting made.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...ason-2-release-good-omens-calliope-1234580270

Get to tut-tuting him for his horrible behavior and demanding he face prosecution, folks...

I had the same thought when I read that lol

 

[Samurai8472]

Sorry if this got lost in the mix

Dan Lin is 'in the mix' to run DC

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563058665250103297

 

[JD]

But the foundation of a legal system is based on accepted moral values predating organized law, otherwise there would be little to standard of what a group, community or nation views as illegal / criminal.

Not accepted moral values, the "moral" values of the people passing the laws. Just look at all the controversy over what happened with Roe v Wade, the majority of people wanted it to continue, but since the people in the Supreme Court didn't like it, they overturned it anyways. It's all about what the people in power want, not "accepted moral values".
And that's in the US, if you go to dictatorships, then the laws are all about keeping the dictator in power, and have nothing whatsoever to do with "accepted moral values".

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not accepted moral values, the "moral" values of the people passing the laws. .

Just what do you think was the foundation of law--particularly law involving the treatment and interaction of people? Do you believe it was created, authored & established entirely apart from any accepted moral beliefs in a culture or society? Moreover, when someone established laws against murder for one example--do you believe only those who passed the law held the moral belief that murder was wrong, or did it represent a broader consensus among the population?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Oh my god, how hard is this? Yes, some laws align with humanistic values, like the one against murder, but that does not mean all laws do. Laws are passed to structure the society, not because of morality. You can't have people killing each other, as that would break society apart, so that's why there's a law against murder.

Jesus, law and morality, a lot of snobbish communities use the law to criminalize feeding and/or sheltering the homeless, not to mention criminalizition of being homeless. That's just an example of how some laws can be immoral.

If you need a law to decide whether something is moral or not, then that throws a very dark shadow on your personal morality.