The New Mutants | August 28, 2020 | Rumors are saying it released, but no one we know saw it

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

I still don't understand why they'd have a contractual obligation, or who they'd owe the obligation to... They own the studio, the property, and the film...  Everything about it is theirs now.... They don't have to do anything they don't want to. I can understand them needing to pay out to producers and directors in the event of the film not being released, and I can envision them deciding to pay whatever penalties their might be, and including that in the write-down Iger just announced... But I don't see Disney buying 20th Century Fox and then having their hands tied as to what they can release and when. They had no problems terminating contracts of high level executives when they took over, I don't see why they'd have a problem killing The New Mutants either... If they can wipe out entire film divisions and whatever contracts were active at those film divisions, they can decide they don't want to release this...

And the movie is supposed to be a full-blown horror movie. PG-13 or not, they're not putting a horror film on Disney Plus... It would go to Hulu if it went anywhere. 

They can't just wipe out contracts without a world of legal hurt. They have to fulfill whatever contractual obligations Fox had. That is business law 101.

They can wipe out a film division,fire all the people in the division, but they are still on the hook for any debts or other contracts that division has.

You don't know very much about Business law, I see.

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, Deja23 said:

It seems that whatever losses Fox would’ve had if they remained independent are now Disney’s. Same with profit. Fox was in the red on Dark Phoenix and Fox = Disney now.  

That is business law 101. When you acquire a business, you acquire the liablities as well as the assets.

[LawrenceBrolivier]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

They can't just wipe out contracts without a world of legal hurt. They have to fulfill whatever contractual obligations Fox had. That is business law 101.

They can wipe out a film division,fire all the people in the division, but they are still on the hook for any debts or other contracts that division has.

You don't know very much about Business law, I see.

They have and they did already... they paid the money out. I'm not saying they're off the hook... I'm saying they've decided just paying out to kill the thing is probably a cost they're fine paying... I don't need to have passed Business Law 101 to see what they've been doing since they picked up Fox... if they don't want to do a thing, they don't do it, and they pay well to get rid of it... 

This scenario where Disney HAS to release a thing they don't want to release because someone... and nobody seems to know who that someone even is, just that it's someone... is going to make them? They paid 71 billion for this company... they're going to do exactly what they want with it. Iger said just about as much in that report himself... 

What entity does everyone think is going to force Disney to release this unfinished movie if they don't want to do it? Nobody seems to know, they're just guessing that such an entity exists.... Why would anyone even want this to be finished as the first Marvel/Disney X-Men entry? 

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

Why would they face any lawsuits? They own the property, they own the studio, they own it all.... It's already a loss. I wouldn't be surprised if the 170mil they're claiming isn't just Dark Phoenix. It 's just as possible that total includes the costs incurred by canceling New Mutants, too....

The 170m is the complete Fox slate and marketing spending on yet to released title and development on yet to be released movie:

 

First the 21CF film studio had an operating loss in the third quarter of about $170 million, which was driven by the underperformance of theatrical titles including Dark Phoenix marketing for future releases and development expenses, partially offset by TV SVOD distribution.

 

I do not remember any studio ever giving any detail on how much a particularly movie made or loss, it tend to be just overall like above.

 

 

[dudalb]

18 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

They have and they did already... they paid the money out. I'm not saying they're off the hook... I'm saying they've decided just paying out to kill the thing is probably a cost they're fine paying... I don't need to have passed Business Law 101 to see what they've been doing since they picked up Fox... if they don't want to do a thing, they don't do it, and they pay well to get rid of it... 

This scenario where Disney HAS to release a thing they don't want to release because someone... and nobody seems to know who that someone even is, just that it's someone... is going to make them? They paid 71 billion for this company... they're going to do exactly what they want with it. Iger said just about as much in that report himself... 

What entity does everyone think is going to force Disney to release this unfinished movie if they don't want to do it? Nobody seems to know, they're just guessing that such an entity exists.... Why would anyone even want this to be finished as the first Marvel/Disney X-Men entry? 

You seem to have problems understanding that Disney ..or anybody else...cannot just void a contract. If Fox had contractual obligations with the actors for a theatrical release..which is is becoming pretty common....then Disney has to either fulfill the contract or buy out the contract. Disney might well decide that buying out the contracts is the cheapest thing to do...the cost would be less then what a theatrical release would cost..but Disney cannot just void the contract without huge legal problems..and damage to their reputation; You don't want to get a reputation for breaking contracts;even a company as big as the Mouse does not want that.

Your whole idea that Disney can do whatever it wants with Fox is mistaken. It still has to honor all legally binding agreements Fox made.Whatever the contract terms, for instance, that Fox had with James Cameron of the Avatar films Disney has to honor. Once again,Business law 101,

As for what entity is going to force Disney to release a movie if they don't want to, the answer is a Court of Law if Disney is contractually obliged to do so. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by dudalb

[LawrenceBrolivier]

12 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You seem to have problems understanding that Disney ..or anybody else...cannot just void a contract. If Fox had contractual obligations with the actors for a theatrical release..which is is becoming pretty common....then Disney has to either fulfill the contract or buy out the contract.

I've never said they could just void the contract, I've only ever said they'll pay whatever it costs to get rid of it. The bolded is exactly what I'm suggesting they're going to do... or have possibly already done, and that is being included in the write-down Iger already mentioned. 

I'm not mistaken about Disney being able to do what it wants... You seem to be mistaken in that I'm suggesting they can do it for free... I've never suggested that. I'm suggesting that it's very possible they've already paid for this incomplete film to just go away. You keep citing Business 101 at me but I'm wondering how you got into that class without passing Reading 101 first, LOL. 

[Macleod]

2 hours ago, dudalb said:

I suspect it would go to Disney Plus rather then Hulu, simply because Disney Plus is where Disney is putting all it's Marvel stuff.

There are stories that Disney has a contractual oblgation, inherited from Fox, for a threatrical release of NM.If so, it is going to be dumped, with as little spent on it as possible.

Yes, but... I'd bet anything that Feige and Co. don't want this to be associated with Marvel or the MCU whatsoever.  Thus, it will go to Hulu.  And very little such "contractual obligations" for theatrical releases exist any more, especially for films made in-house at a studio (i.e. not made independently and picked up by a distributor, which could often carry a theatrical obligation...but even then, there are surely "outs.")

[Macleod]

2 hours ago, dudalb said:

You seem to have problems understanding that Disney ..or anybody else...cannot just void a contract. If Fox had contractual obligations with the actors for a theatrical release..which is is becoming pretty common....then Disney has to either fulfill the contract or buy out the contract. Disney might well decide that buying out the contracts is the cheapest thing to do...the cost would be less then what a theatrical release would cost..but Disney cannot just void the contract without huge legal problems..and damage to their reputation; You don't want to get a reputation for breaking contracts;even a company as big as the Mouse does not want that

 

There are no such things much anymore, especially with the whole distribution game changing a la Netflix, etc... and if there were, none of the actors involved in New Mutants are anywhere near that level to have been able to negotiate such a thing... the only ones that would are the top tier, the Cruises, Rocks, Jolies, Therons, etc.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Macleod

[TalismanRing]

Fox most likely had finance partners on Mutants - every studio does now except Disney.  If they can't pay off those contracts as suggested by @LawrenceBrolivier then they'd most likely be contractually obligated for a certain P&A spend and release as distributor.

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, Macleod said:

actors

I would imagine obligation if any would all be with TSG, Genre Film (Kinberg production company), Kinberg has a producer, banks/financier not with actors.

 

I would also imagine all entities that would be really happy to walk out with some cent on the dollar deal, not expecting to ever make their invested money back.

[TalismanRing]

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I would imagine obligation if any would all be with TSG, Genre Film (Kinberg production company), Kinberg has a producer, banks/financier not with actors.

 

I would also imagine all entities that would be really happy to walk out with some cent on the dollar deal, not expecting to ever make their invested money back.

If Kinsberg wants to work on any scale with Disney again after the debacle of X6 it would behoove him to make that deal.

[RealLyre]

didn't they say they have planned reshoots for New Mutants soon? right after the delay.  

[TalismanRing]

31 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

didn't they say they have planned reshoots for New Mutants soon? right after the delay.  

No, Disney never said that.  

 

And after the debacle with X7 Disney throwing more cash after another Fox dog doesn't make much sense.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by TalismanRing

[cookie]

Isn't Dark Phoenix technically X7? X-Men 1, United, Last Stand, First Class, DoFP, Apocalypse...

[dudalb]

23 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

Fox most likely had finance partners on Mutants - every studio does now except Disney.  If they can't pay off those contracts as suggested by @LawrenceBrolivier then they'd most likely be contractually obligated for a certain P&A spend and release as distributor.

Might come down to Disney deciding that just paying the penalties  for not going with a threatical release might be cheaper then releasing the film.People don' t realise how expensive it is to release a film.

 

[dudalb]

23 hours ago, RealLyre said:

didn't they say they have planned reshoots for New Mutants soon? right after the delay.  

No, Disney never made any announcements about New Mutants having reshoots. Fox may have but not Disney. 

And even if Disney did, they would have cancelled the plans after what happened with Dark Phoenix. Disney had no legal obligation to reshoot the film and would see no reason to throw away good money after bad.

THat NM costs so little makes it expendable in a way that DP was not.

 

[Panda]

this is never coming out in the cinema is it?

[dudalb]

12 minutes ago, Panda said:

this is never coming out in the cinema is it?

That's the big question.

Fox treated it like it belonged in a toxic waste container, and Disney is doing the same. Word is the film it a real mess,much worse then Dark Phoenix was, and even with major reshoots it is probably unsavable.

And this is where it's modest 40 Million budget works against it. It's disposable . Disney has no reason to spend a lot of money to try to save it. They don't have a big investment in it, 

Irony is more expensive a film is, the more likely a studio is willing to spend big bucks to try to save it, but the less a film costs, the more likely a studio is to just write it off, not worth risking money to try to save it since it's a pretty small investment.

It is interesting that Fox kept putting off the reshoots for this, but jumped right in with the expensive reshoots for Dark Phoenix. Reason:they had a 150 Million investment in DP and could not just write that off;they had to try to save it. But NM they had no big investment in.

I predict if it does get a thereatrical release, it will be done with as little money as possible being spent on it by Disney. Just dump it and forget it, except for what tax write offs you can get for it.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by dudalb

[TimmyRiggins]

What are you people even discussing here? Yes, the film is coming out, how much more do you need? Josh Boone and the cast certainly wouldn't be all of a sudden liking IG posts about the film and people being excited about it (when they haven't done so in a long, long time) if Disney changed its mind.  

 

Accept that, why are you even going in circles for pages discussing really nothing at all, with no added information, and discussing over and over again how the film is going to fail (it won't), how it will suck, bla bla, you aren't tired of it? 

 

God, it'd be refreshing to talk to people who actually  have something to say and positive things to say. 

[Macleod]

58 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

What are you people even discussing here? Yes, the film is coming out, how much more do you need? Josh Boone and the cast certainly wouldn't be all of a sudden liking IG posts about the film and people being excited about it (when they haven't done so in a long, long time) if Disney changed its mind. 

Is it?  Coulda fooled me... 😉   Who's "excited"..?  Online?  Does that translate into automatic tickets sales?  Oh, we can't buy tickets, yet?  Oh, the release date keeps shifting?  Oh, FOX will become a mostly-streaming distributor now?  Sounds convenient! 

 

And basically, the film has already "failed," going by rumblings, so I'd expect its actual release to be similarly low-key underwhelming, like...oh yeah, like Dark Phoenix.  These two projects were clearly doomed from the start. 

 

But I respect your rah rah tenacity in the face of almost certain disappointment. 

 

And no, no representative of the studio ever said anything about reshoots.  They usually don't.  KINBERG did.  But as we should all now know (especially post-Dark Phoenix), KINBERG probably won't get exactly what he wants.

 

Then again, Hollywood has a history of allowing creative mishaps to "fail upward"...

Edited August 9, 2019 by Macleod