General Star Wars News

[mysto]

This is the part that I think both “sides” are missing, or at least one is. On this site it was dismissed as “nothing burger”, if 5-8 million is nothing, please send it my way.

I wasn't talking about money!

All good points, but will she finally let me take her out? No.

Nothingburger.

I am the one who was dismissed. She's so heartless.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

1) I don’t think she is getting/got $10M.

2) Even if she “only” gets $5-8M, that is still a huge win. Many were dismissing her lawsuit as frivolous when she filed. The fact it progressed this far and was resolved in her favor* says this is a victory.

3) “It’s worth it to Disney to have made this go away.” It would’ve been worth it to settle pre-lawsuit, or a year ago. The headlines do not look great for Disney. Making this “go away” hasn’t been great for them.

*LFL’s statement last week was is an about face from where they were when they made their first statement distancing themselves from her in Feb. 2021.

We really have no idea how much money this was settled for.

She would have had to win a case in court saying

a) she was entitled to recur in another season of The Mandalorian.

b) she was entitled to a leading role in another show, which did not yet exist at the time, and still doesn't.

c) she would have been paid an amount comparable to other, more established, actors.

My guess would be Disney offered an amount relative to point a), and they met somewhere in the middle. I suspect her lawyers told her there was a very real chance she would get nothing. I can see the argument that she would have continued on the Mandalorian. Getting paid for another show that didn't happen, not so much.

I don't know that I buy the argument that Disney would throw millions at her because it's chump change to them. If for no other reason than it opens the door for future issues.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

"Huge" is relative here. Also I still don't call it a "win" no matter how you want to frame it, its a settlement there is no "win", both sides walk away without a "win". Now you can say its a "win" for her "side" in the court of public opinion, maybe I'll agree. But as I said before both "sides" will take away whatever they want from this and call it a "win", so not really saying much there.

In the end it remains to be seen what if anything this will do to her career. Casting directors will still likely be less than willing to hire her because of the optics and the potential for future tweets that will blow back on them. And I'd be surprised if she'll ever play Cara Dune again even after this.

So in the end not sure what the "win" is if all she got was some money, end result is still the same.

I can't imagine anyone with any sense would want anything to do with her.

The precedent has been set.

She'll say something offensive. The employer will basically have to say "we disagree with her but we're going to keep working with her because if we don't she'll sue us".

Then, if whatever show it is gets cancelled, strictly due to ratings for example, she'll swoop in with a lawsuit backed by wealthy funders willing to push it as far as they can regardless of how reasonable it is.

 

[Disney Irish]

We really have no idea how much money this was settled for.

She would have had to win a case in court saying

a) she was entitled to recur in another season of The Mandalorian.

b) she was entitled to a leading role in another show, which did not yet exist at the time, and still doesn't.

c) she would have been paid an amount comparable to other, more established, actors.

My guess would be Disney offered an amount relative to point a), and they met somewhere in the middle. I suspect her lawyers told her there was a very real chance she would get nothing. I can see the argument that she would have continued on the Mandalorian. Getting paid for another show that didn't happen, not so much.

I don't know that I buy the argument that Disney would throw millions at her because it's chump change to them. If for no other reason than it opens the door for future issues.

Sure I see your points and agree in some sense. I just don’t see Disney balking at $10M so that is why I said it as a potential figure. People need to understand the reality of Hollywood math, $10M is nothing, that’s is like 5 minutes of footage on most movies these days.

 

[Disney Irish]

I can't imagine anyone with any sense would want anything to do with her.

The precedent has been set.

She'll say something offensive. The employer will basically have to say "we disagree with her but we're going to keep working with her because if we don't she'll sue us".

Then, if whatever show it is gets cancelled, strictly due to ratings for example, she'll swoop in with a lawsuit backed by wealthy funders willing to push it as far as they can regardless of how reasonable it is.

Yep, completely agree.

Wonder if her new buddy Elon will fund a film for her.

 

[erasure fan1]

But that isn't the point, you're backing her "play" here which is putting her up as the poster child for "equality", even if not intentionally.

I think anyone looking objectively knows that because I said equal, isn't shining a positive light on her.

It should again be look at "What happened after the posts, did both react equally?".

Were both treated equally? I don't know that. If you can show me great, but I've seen nothing that says that. Was pedro made to sit in a meeting with a bunch of conservatives? Was he forced to apologize?... he did go radio silent and she did continue to post. She did take the comparison tweet down and the pronouns stuff, just as Pedro did his. But yes, she didn't go radio silence.

A big issue I have is there's a lot of talk about Pedro on here, and how he stopped tweeting. And that's the big difference. But why? He didn't apologize or anything like that. So I fail to see how posting something so incredibly ignorant is just all of sudden ok because he took it down. So like I said, I can't see that they were given equal opportunity. Let's say she did exactly the same as Pedro, but refused to do the the apology/dei tour. How confident are you we Wouldn't still have seen the same outcome?

 

[Disney Irish]

I think anyone looking objectively knows that because I said equal, isn't shining a positive light on her.

May be, but its not as obvious as you make it seem because its clear that multiple posters here have been given the impression that you're backing her and trying to hold her up as some beacon of "equality". Which is why these discussions have been happening. If it was really just as clear as you make it seem then no one would really be questioning.

Were both treated equally? I don't know that. If you can show me great, but I've seen nothing that says that. Was pedro made to sit in a meeting with a bunch of conservatives? Was he forced to apologize?... he did go radio silent and she did continue to post. She did take the comparison tweet down and the pronouns stuff, just as Pedro did his. But yes, she didn't go radio silence.

A big issue I have is there's a lot of talk about Pedro on here, and how he stopped tweeting. And that's the big difference. But why? He didn't apologize or anything like that. So I fail to see how posting something so incredibly ignorant is just all of sudden ok because he took it down. So like I said, I can't see that they were given equal opportunity. Let's say she did exactly the same as Pedro, but refused to do the the apology/dei tour. How confident are you we Wouldn't still have seen the same outcome?

Looking from the outside in, yes they were both treated equally. And yes the important part is that Pedro went radio silent, she did not. And since Pedro didn't do an apology tour indicates that he wasn't asked, and I suspect it wasn't asked of Gina either. What I suspect was asked was for her to take down the posts and go radio silent, she did not. Her posts were up long after, and she continued to post and retweet inflammatory and conspiracy stuff up until earlier this year when I suspect her lawyers told her to cool it and she finally did.

And so yes my opinion is if she had done exactly as Pedro did and went radio silent nothing would have happened. So yes they were treated equally in my eyes. Disney wanted it all the negative posts to stop, and one party did and the other didn't.

Had Pedro done want she did and continued to post and retweet inflammatory stuff we'd be having a different discussion, and instead talking about him getting "fired".

That is "equal", that is what happened.

 

[easyrowrdw]

We really have no idea how much money this was settled for.

She would have had to win a case in court saying

a) she was entitled to recur in another season of The Mandalorian.

b) she was entitled to a leading role in another show, which did not yet exist at the time, and still doesn't.

c) she would have been paid an amount comparable to other, more established, actors.

My guess would be Disney offered an amount relative to point a), and they met somewhere in the middle. I suspect her lawyers told her there was a very real chance she would get nothing. I can see the argument that she would have continued on the Mandalorian. Getting paid for another show that didn't happen, not so much.

I don't know that I buy the argument that Disney would throw millions at her because it's chump change to them. If for no other reason than it opens the door for future issues.

I don’t think she’d have to show all that to win the case. She needed to show that she was treated differently/less favorably based on her political beliefs (going off memory of the state law) or she was treated differently than her male coworkers who exhibited similar behaviors. As I’ve said before, I think the latter would have been more difficult whereas the former seemed to be a stronger case.

I think the things you mentioned would have definitely influenced damages though had she won. What she “lost” as a result of Disney cutting ties with her is difficult to quantify. I think she could’ve won but received little in the way of monetary damages.

 

[Willmark]

I don't think its surprising that a studio, any studio, doesn't want their "dirty laundry" aired out in court. Heck no company does which is why most of these type of "he said/she said" cases (which Gina's side was trying to make this case) end up settled. So again not surprising the outcome here.

If some want to draw some conclusions out of these results, they are more than welcome to do so. It however doesn't make it true, as there is nothing we can really conclude from this outcome other than both sides agreed to just drop it, no fault was found.

Who said it was true?

 

[Disney Irish]

Who said it was true?

Um, have you not been reading this thread the last couple days. Posters have been trying to draw conclusions based on the outcome. I've been the one who has been consistently trying to say there is no conclusions to be draw from this, its a settlement. But yet we have posters insisting several conclusions can be drawn.

If you can't see it, maybe you have them blocked, I don't know

 

[Willmark]

I’m aware, I was not clear on who you were referring to.

 

[erasure fan1]

May be, but its not as obvious as you make it seem because its clear that multiple posters here have been given the impression that you're backing her and trying to hold her up as some beacon of "equality".

This is just not true. I've made it pretty clear what the issue is. The only way to get the idea I'm supporting her, is to blatantly ignore the things I've said. And that's what you and these multiple posters have done. I've said what my thoughts are on this situation as clear as I can make it.

At least I have clear enough vision to know they're both wrong.

And by the way, I'm not fighting the good fight for her. I've said more than a few times what she said was stupid.

It wasn't stupid? Or was that not harsh enough for one of the worst people in the world? I guess at least I can say she was wrong.

you told me I'm sticking up for one of the worst people in the world, even when I said what she did was wrong.

That still won't change my mind that what Pedro did was equally as egregious as Gina.

Your opinion is she was wrong with what she did. It's ok to say that, I have.

They both said dumb things. I don't care what party each side with. If I'm going to call out Gina for what she said, I'm obligated to call out Pedro

The statements are equally wrong

I can't say Disney was right in how they handled this. They could have ended season 2, went in a new direction without cara dune, while not saying anything. As you have said a myriad of times, she wasn't under any contract. And just moved on. What they did was go out of their way to make an example out of her. They didn't need to make that statement, they made a choice to make it. They wanted everyone to know what side they're on. The problem is you then open yourself up to scrutiny, right or wrong. Especially when the appearance is they're treating one side different than the other.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is just not true. I've made it pretty clear what the issue is. The only way to get the idea I'm supporting her, is to blatantly ignore the things I've said. And that's what you and these multiple posters have done. I've said what my thoughts are on this situation as clear as I can make it.









I can't say Disney was right in how they handled this. They could have ended season 2, went in a new direction without cara dune, while not saying anything. As you have said a myriad of times, she wasn't under any contract. And just moved on. What they did was go out of their way to make an example out of her. They didn't need to make that statement, they made a choice to make it. They wanted everyone to know what side they're on. The problem is you then open yourself up to scrutiny, right or wrong. Especially when the appearance is they're treating one side different than the other.

Welcome to the human experience, where we flawed humans don't always see things the way others intended. Just like you don't see Disney's statement about Gina as them trying to distancing themselves but rather not treating her equally. Others don't see what you post as not supporting her. Which is ironic when you say they should have been quiet but yet you don't want to be associated with her either and so want to make it clear that you in no way support her, which is exactly what Disney was trying to do also. Hmm, a little pot calling kettle situation I think....

 

[erasure fan1]

Welcome to the human experience, where we flawed humans don't always see things the way others intended. Just like you don't see Disney's statement about Gina as them trying to distancing themselves but rather not treating her equally. Others don't see what you post as not supporting her. Which is ironic when you say they should have been quiet but yet you don't want to be associated with her either and so want to make it clear that you in no way support her, which is exactly what Disney was trying to do also. Hmm, a little pot calling kettle situation I think....

At this point I have to think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I said they should have been quiet because I believe they should have social media policy to avoid this type of situation. As I said when all this started. But you're apposed to that as well, shocking. So to avoid the bad press and terrible look, they could have disassociated from her and not looked like hypocrites. I know, I know, your perfectly fine with it as long as Disney is.

.

 

[Disney Irish]

At this point I have to think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I said they should have been quiet because I believe they should have social media policy to avoid this type of situation. As I said when all this started. But you're apposed to that as well, shocking. So to avoid the bad press and terrible look, they could have disassociated from her and not looked like hypocrites. I know, I know, your perfectly fine with it as long as Disney is.

And how would that be any different? Gina would have still lashed out like she did because she felt slighted and say that Disney "fired" her for posting on social media, I expect though it would have been worse because she then would have been calling them "cowards" for not saying anything publicly. Which would have still prompted Disney to make a statement, likely the same statement they made. So the end result would probably still be the same up that point.

Maybe Disney would be seen as less of a hypocrite in your mind if it happens that way. But I don't think this goes the way you think it does.

Again you are bending the argument. I've been consistent in my stance. It's not pot call the kettle. You can argue that until the cows come home, but if you really think that the handling of this was just disassociation from her, I sure can't convince you otherwise. This was a political statement 100%. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. I'd be making the same argument if the "sides" were reversed. But as you say, I guess I'm just better than everyone.

In the end we both see things differently, and that is perfectly fine.

 

[easyrowrdw]

I said they should have been quiet because I believe they should have social media policy to avoid this type of situation. As I said when all this started. But you're apposed to that as well, shocking. So to avoid the bad press and terrible look, they could have disassociated from her and not looked like hypocrites.

Yeah. I think if Disney doesn’t say anything they’d have been in a better spot. Carano could make statements and sue either way. But I think Disney’s public statements gave her a stronger case.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yeah. I think if Disney doesn’t say anything they’d have been in a better spot. Carano could make statements and sue either way. But I think Disney’s public statements gave her a stronger case.

Yeah but the part that is failed to be realized is if Disney stays quiet initially that once she starts making statements and sues that is going to trigger a response from Disney.

In the end sometimes it better to get out ahead of something and put out a statement than it is to put one out after. Its seen as being weaker to make a statement after the fact. And then we'd be talking now about why didn't Disney put out a statement ahead of it to distance themselves from her.

So no matter what Disney is damned if they do and damned if they don't, someone is always going to be "upset" here no matter what happens.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Yeah but the part that is failed to be realized is if Disney stays quiet initially that once she starts making statements and sues that is going to trigger a response from Disney.

In the end sometimes it better to get out ahead of something and put out a statement than it is to put one out after. Its seen as being weaker to make a statement after the fact. And then we'd be talking now about why didn't Disney put out a statement ahead of it to distance themselves from her.

So no matter what Disney is damned if they do and damned if they don't, someone is always going to be "upset" here no matter what happens.

No, I considered that. Disney doesn’t have to respond publicly. And if there’s a lawsuit, they definitely don’t want to make public statements. That gives them more cover. Regardless, Disney is bigger than Carano. They don’t need to get into a publicity battle with her.

 

[Disney Irish]

No, I considered that. Disney doesn’t have to respond publicly. And if there’s a lawsuit, they definitely don’t want to make public statements. That gives them more cover. Regardless, Disney is bigger than Carano. They don’t need to get into a publicity battle with her.

Disagree, because we've seen Disney make plenty of statements even if involved in a lawsuit. So they may not "have to" but they usually do, and usually at the request of the lawyers/PR people, as do most corporations in a similar position. As again not making a statement can be seen as weakness or in some cases looking like you have something to hide. Which we've seen many times in history when someone makes a "no comment" comment. Or even such as in this case where you want to distance yourself from a potentially toxic situation.

 

[erasure fan1]

And how would that be any different? Gina would have still lashed out like she did because she felt slighted and say that Disney "fired" her for posting on social media, I expect though it would have been worse because she then would have been calling them "cowards" for not saying anything publicly.

Because at that point she has no leg to stand on. Once they chimed in with their statements, they drew a line in the sand. So now I'll throw it back to you. You keep telling me, she had no contract, season 3 wasn't written, she wasn't announced to even be in it. so how could it be worse? By your posts, she wasn't planned to be in it. So it's a simple statement for Disney. "This is what we had planned all along". The only way that doesn't fly, is if you're completely wrong and there was tangible plans as I've said. So you need to pick a lane and stay in it. So if what you keep arguing is true, Disney would have absolutely NOTHING to worry about.

Sure there's a group that would do their rage against Disney. But that's just the world we live in, so no big deal. Just remember, if everything I've said is wrong and I have no proof people would think the statements are equal. Then how can you say

"it would have been worse because she then would have been calling them "cowards" for not saying anything publicly."

The correct answer is, YOU CAN'T. Did you ask everyone in the world? How did you come up with that information? Can you post a link to it? Did I miss a news story?
You see, everything you are arguing against me, is exactly what you're doing. And it's funny, while pulling up all the, I'm not sticking up for Gina posts you and the others ignored. That came up multiple times. You saying I'm wrong while doing exactly what you say I do. Just some food for thought.