Spinning them off into their own independent companies would make more sense than a sale to another party.

Ah yes, “Kung Fu Panda 4” — the smash hit by which all other movies are measured.

Not blaming the actor for taking the role. I’m blaming the marketing department for relying on the same “bankable” faces over and over.

My point was that even if Seyfried’s marvel movie had flopped:

• There are plenty of other franchises to try for.
• It wouldn’t have injured her career.

I’m sure the actors in “The Eternals” will find other roles. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them show up in another franchise like Star Wars, Star Trek, DC, or another Marvel movie. Remember when Ryan Reynolds was Green Lantern? Now he’s Deadpool.

I can see success being an influence in marketability. But most actors move from flop to flop without hurting their career. (As long as they aren’t the reason that the film flopped because they gave a lousy performance.)

There are plenty of actors who have played multiple franchise roles. If one role flops, you just move into the next.

Honestly it’s one of my pet peeves. Sure, Pedro Pascal is a fun actor, but does he have to show up in every franchise? Same with Benedict Cumberbatch. When the same actor plays multiple “super heroes” it can take you out of the story.

As an actor, why do you care if the film flops? You have a job to do, you do it, and you get paid. If you do it well, it rarely hurts your career if the movie flops.

Now if she was being paid by getting a percentage of the film’s box office, that would be a different story.

Because this is all Disney knows how to do anymore. Take something previously successful and make prequel after remake after sequel. Most of these used to be “direct to video”.

Whoopsie! I guess that’s why Steve Jobs had a policy of not announcing things that weren’t ready to ship.

I get ya. It was a rallying cry for revolution, not really anything that ended up in writing as law.

Could be comments on an instance you’ve blocked, or that your instance has blocked, or that haven’t propagated to your instance yet.

I wonder how this is legal? Sounds like taxation without representation.

I’m down with democratic capitalism as long as there are strong regulations and socialized services like medicine, fire, police, utilities, and roads. Does that make me a democratic socialist?

I also believe that everyone should pay their fucking taxes.

The USA has been on a downward slide after Reagan deregulated everything. There were a couple of tries at course correction afterward, but the current regime is going to dismantle everything as fast as they can.

deleted by creator

Sounds like a great way to get evidence thrown out of court.

Studios didn’t own the streaming or broadcast TV channels then. Now they make more money by selling the property through channels they own and control.

I’m not seeing a lot of this thankfully — makes me wonder if a lot of these anti-Canada posts are coming from a particular instance I’ve already blocked.

That’s a great illustration, whoever made it.

Thirties. I was skinny, had thick hair, and I didn’t hurt all over.

Citing “Daily Caller” in your press release definitely deserves an eyeroll. 🙄

China is selling these at cost or lower to put competitors out of business. They deserve to be tariffed. There are also reports of forced labor being used to build these. Wouldn’t want to drive something made that way.