All the Money in the World | 25th of December, 2017 | Wahlberg's gotta get paid

[Kvikk Lunsj]

2 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

Personally I do not believe businesses should be allowed to sack people (or refuse to hire them) based on unproven allegations.

 

equally I think Harvey Weinstein should not have been sacked from his company.

If it bad for business and the company fears a lost they will sack anyone. 

[Plain Old Tele]

Moderation:

 

Please take the greater sexual harassment conversation to its thread in The Real World. 

[Deja23]

Delete

Edited November 9, 2017 by Deja23

[John Marston]

2 hours ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

 

 

I agree with you that I'm not too fond of hanging someone based on allegations alone, especially because in some

of these cases the allegations are rather vague 

 

 

But instead of categorically denying the allegations (as Charlie Sheen is doing), Spacey says that he doesn’t remember if he did or not, and apology to the victim (if he did). That’s basically an admission of guilt! The fact that he has come out as gay is clearly a distraction and an attempt to deflect from what he’s actually most likely guilty of. You’re right in that he hasn’t actually been convicted or lost a law suit in a court of law. However in the court of public opinion, he did this to himself. Even Michael Jackson (who was stupid enough not to understand the problem of allowing children to sleep in a grown man’s bed) still flat out refuted  any notions that he ever acted inappropriately with children, before eventually being exonerated in a court.

 

[4815162342]

26 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

Personally I do not believe businesses should be allowed to sack people (or refuse to hire them) based on unproven allegations.

 

Unless the contract requires dismissal to be "for cause," companies can fire someone for almost any reason.

[a2k]

1 hour ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Now that there are half a dozen stories about him, no reaction from him could have saved him. But if he was innocent, he could have left out "improving himself" part out of equation. Also wrong coming out timing.

Fortunately he didn't retweet this in reply to the allegations.

 

[Plain Old Tele]

26 minutes ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

Moderation:

 

Please take the greater sexual harassment conversation to its thread in The Real World. 

 

Ahem.

[dudalb]

14 hours ago, filmlover said:

This is insane and completely unprecedented. Holy fucking shit.

 

And for anyone baffled as to why they're doing this, the movie would've been a completely lost cause that made zero money with Spacey because no one wants to see him in anything now (delaying the film wouldn't have fixed that). Now I just really hope the movie itself is worth it for Scott and Sony to go through all the trouble.

It makes little sense from a business point of view. This was never going to be a big box office hit,and reshooting what probably amounts to most of the film probably gauarantees the fim will end up in the red.

I can see doing something like this is the case of the Star Wats Han Solo movie, but not for a film like this.

Frankly, I think Scott and Universar are pretty much screwed ,and am skeptical this move will save it at the box office. And I doubt "Publicity" of this kind is going to  add much to the box office.

Anybody who works in the PR'Marketing industry will tell you what a crock of shit the whole "Any Publicity is Good Publicity" routine is.

Edited November 9, 2017 by dudalb

[RandomCat]

8 minutes ago, dudalb said:

It makes little sense from a business point of view. This was never going to be a big box office hit,and reshooting what probably amounts to most of the film probably gauarantees the fim will end up in the red.

I can see doing something like this is the case of the Star Wats Han Solo movie, but not for a film like this.

Frankly, I think Scott and Universar are pretty much screwed ,and am skeptical this move will save it at the box office. And I doubt "Publicity" of this kind is going to  add much to the box office.

Anybody who works in the PR'Marketing industry will tell you what a crock of shit the whole "Any Publicity is Good Publicity" routine is.

Which would be the case if it was about Spacey molesting young men. Now, it's about the movie ditching Spacey and replacing him, why it's Good publicity, and not bad publicity. (Also, it's Sony, not Universal)

[dudalb]

I still don't have a lot of faith this film will make back it's now swollen budget.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, dudalb said:

I still don't have a lot of faith this film will make back it's now swollen budget.

 

How much do you assume they're spending on the reshoots?

[dudalb]

47 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

Unless the contract requires dismissal to be "for cause," companies can fire someone for almost any reason.

And if anything, the contracts in the entertainment industry have "Morals  Clauses" which say it you do anything that hurts the companies image, they can fire you.

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

 

How much do you assume they're spending on the reshoots?

I have no idea, but just from common sense...you are reshooting a major role....it is going to add a substantial amount to the budget.

It is a lot like the situation with the "Han Solo" film.

[Jake Gittes]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I have no idea, but just from common sense...you are reshooting a major role....it is going to add a substantial amount to the budget.

It is a lot like the situation with the "Han Solo" film.

Spacey only shot 8-10 days and his is a supporting role. 

[Deja23]

Just now, dudalb said:

I have no idea, but just from common sense...you are reshooting a major role....it is going to add a substantial amount to the budget.

It is a lot like the situation with the "Han Solo" film.

 

They're reshooting a role that originally took 8-10 days to film. The movie had already been edited, so they just need to reshoot the exact scenes that have the character in them, which should take less than 8-10 days and shouldn’t inflate the cost substantially. 

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, dudalb said:

I have no idea, but just from common sense...you are reshooting a major role....it is going to add a substantial amount to the budget.

It is a lot like the situation with the "Han Solo" film.

 

But it isn't. Assuming the information in the various articles is correct, you basically have about a week's shooting to cover Spacey's role. (He was scheduled for 8 days out of the shoot). Because you might be able to re-use various shots within scenes he was in, you don't literally need to cover exactly the same material or coverage either.

 

It's very different from replacing a director mid-production, or re-conceiving the third act of a movie (to name two recent examples). I mean, it'll probably add several million dollars to the overall budget but it's not like it's going to massively balloon it.

[dudalb]

I thougth the Spacey role was bigger, given that the marketing and plotline make it seem like J Paul Getty is the main character.

OK, I revise my opinion, it will be only a minor addition to the budget.

[dudalb]

Christopher Plummer is still an incredible actor, and giving good performances at the age of 88.....

 

I guess Somewhere in his wicked childhood, he must have Done Something Good.....

[baumer]

26 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Christopher Plummer is still an incredible actor, and giving good performances at the age of 88.....

 

I guess Somewhere in his wicked childhood, he must have Done Something Good.....

 

Yep. Hes Canadian. 😉

[CoolioD1]

plummer's been doing some of the best work of his career in his 80s. can't think of many actors that's true of. and this is great casting. even without the allegations spacey always looked ridiculous for this part. they oughta keep that level of prosthetic make up outta movies like this. serious kidnapping drama with a weird cartoon man at the centre no thanks.