SPOILER: The Acolyte -- Disney+ Star Wars -- begins June 5, 2024

[erasure fan1]

Just because there wasn't a dismissal automatically doesn't mean there wasn't equal treatment. All it means is that the court found enough merit on face value for it to move forward to the evidentiary stage. That really doesn't mean much. Lawsuits move forward all the time and still get thrown out later.

I didn't say because it wasn't dismissed there wasn't equal treatment. I said it just means it wasn't as cut and dry as made out to be. And that we will find out if there was equal treatment.

But being equally egregious in your mind has nothing to do with the law however. And as long as Disney followed the law in their termination of Gina, it really doesn't matter if you feel that Disney should have fired Pedro or whatever else to him just to make it "equal" in your eyes. All that matters is what is legal or not.

As I said (god I have to say that a lot) the evidence will come out, and if Disney is not guilty, GREAT, it's over. But I'm not going to say it was handled fairly just because you or any of the others here say it was. Because you don't know for sure it was, just as I don't know it wasn't. That's what we will find out. Yes, I expect people to be treated equally and fairly, that shouldn't be some radical way of thinking. I get it, you guys hate her. My stumbling point is you hate Gina for what she did, but not Pedro. That's just a bit hard to understand.

 

[Disney Irish]

I didn't say because it wasn't dismissed there wasn't equal treatment. I said it just means it wasn't as cut and dry as made out to be. And that we will find out if there was equal treatment.

As I said (god I have to say that a lot) the evidence will come out, and if Disney is not guilty, GREAT, it's over. But I'm not going to say it was handled fairly just because you or any of the others here say it was. Because you don't know for sure it was, just as I don't know it wasn't. That's what we will find out. Yes, I expect people to be treated equally and fairly, that shouldn't be some radical way of thinking. I get it, you guys hate her. My stumbling point is you hate Gina for what she did, but not Pedro. That's just a bit hard to understand.

Can you please find where I said or indicated that I gave any opinion on the content of what either Gina or Pedro said?

I have not, so please do not confuse me with others.

I don't hate anyone, unless they've done me or my family wrong. And even then I try not to hate as that takes too much energy that I rather focus on other things.

My only point here is that had Gina just stopped instead of doubling down and continuing, no matter what was said, that none of this would have occurred and she'd still be employed by Disney playing Cara. That is it, I give no opinion on the contents of what was said by either Gina or Pedro.

 

[erasure fan1]

Can you please find where I said or indicated that I gave any opinion on the content of what either Gina or Pedro said?

I have not, so please do not confuse me with others.

Here's the thing. Your opinion on what they've said is in your responses to me. If you argue against what someone is saying, you don't get to claim you have no opinion on the matter. You absolutely do have an opinion. See

My only point here is that had Gina just stopped instead of doubling down and continuing, no matter what was said

I hate to break it to you. But if you didn't have an opinion, than why would you think she needed to stop? Your opinion is she was wrong with what she did. It's ok to say that, I have. And it's ok to say Pedro was wrong as well. There seems to be a strange avoidance here to say he did something wrong. Maybe he did do what was asked of him like you say. But that doesn't mean he never posted the stuff in the first place. So why is it so hard to say, "yup they both were idiots but I appreciate that Pedro stopped"?

 

[Disney Irish]

Here's the thing. Your opinion on what they've said is in your responses to me. If you argue against what someone is saying, you don't get to claim you have no opinion on the matter. You absolutely do have an opinion. See

No, that is you reading an opinion into what I said without me providing that opinion you think I have whether I actually do or not. I did not and continue to not provide an opinion on the content of what was said. As the contents of what was said are irrelevant to me.

I hate to break it to you. But if you didn't have an opinion, than why would you think she needed to stop? Your opinion is she was wrong with what she did. It's ok to say that, I have. And it's ok to say Pedro was wrong as well. There seems to be a strange avoidance here to say he did something wrong. Maybe he did do what was asked of him like you say. But that doesn't mean he never posted the stuff in the first place. So why is it so hard to say, "yup they both were idiots but I appreciate that Pedro stopped"?

At issue to me is not the content of what was said by either Gina or Pedro. To me the issue is the fact that instead of stopping whatever the action was she continued. They both could have been speeding on the Burbank lot, where Pedro stopped and Gina continued to speed. The action itself to me is not the issue.

You seem to think its important and want everyone to acknowledge that Pedro was also guilty of a same transgression. This has been acknowledged multiple times by multiple posters. And I will acknowledge it again here, Pedro shouldn't have posted either. All actors/actresses need to be more aware of their social media presence, and that they can't just say any random thing that pops into their head as they represent not just themselves but the studios they work for. However its not the fact that he also posted something, its the fact that he stopped that is important to me. Had he continued the same as Gina then I'd be inclined to agree with you that he should have been fired as well. Again the contents of the posts aren't at issue with me. I don't care what either of them said. Its the fact that one had a single post and never posted again, the other had multiple (almost to the point of being habitual) posts. That is what lead to her being fired.

Now the only thing left is whether those posts by Gina constitute a protected act or not. And on this I do have an opinion, like others, I don't believe they are. But we shall see.... And by the way before you say it, I would say the same if the roles were reverse and it was Pedro filing that lawsuit. Again the contents of the post don't matter to me in this situation.

 

[erasure fan1]

You seem to think its important and want everyone to acknowledge that Pedro was also guilty of a same transgression.

I'll leave it at this because it really doesn't matter what I say anymore. I don't want everyone to say Pedro was wrong. I want the people who are demonizing Gina and what she did, to acknowledge the same from Pedro. Because if one was wrong, so is the other. And to think it's not, is absolute nonsense. All I can say is for people to own up to their bias.

And as I said, if you oppose what I have said, you have an opinion. I'm not reading into anything. You're hiding behind, "I didn't actually say it so you can't take me to task on it". If a poster said, Disney Irish is totally smart and so knowledgeable. And I said that's not really accurate, you're misinformed. You know what I did there? I said you weren't smart without saying you aren't smart. And if someone then responds to me and says, why do think he's dumb. I then can't say, I never said he was dumb, you're reading into it. Well I could but that would be foolish. I've given my opinion about you wether I said the actual words or not.

 

[flynnibus]

Just because there wasn't a dismissal automatically doesn't mean there wasn't equal treatment. All it means is that the court found enough merit on face value for it to move forward to the evidentiary stage. That really doesn't mean much. Lawsuits move forward all the time and still get thrown out later.

Disney hasn't even responded to the complaint yet! This lawsuit is still in the startup phase. Disney just tried to ask for it to be dismissed first based on their claim of being able to protect their own speech. The whole reasoning can still come back later when they actually flush out and argue what was actually done.

But being equally egregious in your mind has nothing to do with the law however. And as long as Disney followed the law in their termination of Gina, it really doesn't matter if you feel that Disney should have fired Pedro or whatever else to him just to make it "equal" in your eyes. All that matters is what is legal or not.

Her claims go beyond Pedro and reference others to try to substantiate her claim of sexual discrimination too. Her argument (not this poster's) isn't that she didn't just get equal treatment as others.. but she specifically got singled out as a woman vs other examples of men.

But honestly the complaint lacks so much in actual citations of what they claim Disney did.. they just say 'they did X' with very little behind it in the complaint.

 

[flynnibus]

At issue to me is not the content of what was said by either Gina or Pedro. To me the issue is the fact that instead of stopping whatever the action was she continued. They both could have been speeding on the Burbank lot, where Pedro stopped and Gina continued to speed. The action itself to me is not the issue.

Her claims go beyond this too...

The complaint if anyone cares to actually know the examples raised vs hypotheticals...

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney hasn't even responded to the complaint yet! This lawsuit is still in the startup phase. Disney just tried to ask for it to be dismissed first based on their claim of being able to protect their own speech. The whole reasoning can still come back later when they actually flush out and argue what was actually done.



Her claims go beyond Pedro and reference others to try to substantiate her claim of sexual discrimination too. Her argument (not this poster's) isn't that she didn't just get equal treatment as others.. but she specifically got singled out as a woman vs other examples of men.

But honestly the complaint lacks so much in actual citations of what they claim Disney did.. they just say 'they did X' with very little behind it in the complaint.

Which makes it actually worse for her case, but I'll just leave it there. As I rather not get into specific examples.

Anyways I don't see this case going very far beyond where it has, let alone a judgement against Disney.

 

[networkpro]

Not a surprise, but Deadline has posted an article that The Acolyte has been canceled.

 

[raysum]

Not a surprise, but Deadline has posted an article that The Acolyte has been canceled.

That is great news....terrible what Disney has done to Star Wars.

 

[doctornick]

Not a surprise, but Deadline has posted an article that The Acolyte has been canceled.

Well the killed off all the interesting characters so no loss.

 

[Tha Realest]

Not a surprise, but Deadline has posted an article that The Acolyte has been canceled.

‘The Acolyte’ Canceled: No Season 2 For Disney+’s ‘Star Wars’ Series

The story of The Acolyte will not continue, with LucasFilm opting not to proceed with Season 2 of the Star Wars offshoot starring Amandla Stenberg.

deadline.com

 

[Tha Realest]

I don’t think there’s going to be a second season.

Even some of the staunchest defenders are scratching their heads at that finale, and the haters seem pretty ambivalent about the whole thing by now.

…

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

The show was just okay but I still think they should either commit to giving these series a conclusion or making seasons that are more standalone.

An incomplete story isn't great for the franchise nor does it instill incentive to watch future shows, knowing we may end up with a lack of closure.

 

[Tha Realest]

The show was just okay but I still think they should either commit to giving these series a conclusion or making seasons that are more standalone.

An incomplete story isn't great for the franchise nor does it instill incentive to watch future shows, knowing we may end up with a lack of closure.

Maybe. I also think a lot of showrunners intentionally leave things with a cliffhanger to induce a renewal.

 

[networkpro]

Maybe. I also think a lot of showrunners intentionally leave things with a cliffhanger to induce a renewal.

IMHO the better show runners make the longer running series have a main focus for a season with a resolution of whatever portion of an arc has been decided but leaving the major theme hanging. I didnt see enough development of the "witches" and why there were important or even declared that they were really just poorly organized and dressed Night Sisters doing "witchy things" in a backwater force nexus.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Maybe. I also think a lot of showrunners intentionally leave things with a cliffhanger to induce a renewal.

It's definitely a thing, but more I think for broadcast TV where a network orders a show but doesn't have the same level of creative oversight. They just buy 22 episodes or whatever of a show.

Lucasfilm/Disney is producing this show in house so they could certainly dictate it be more of a standalone season one.

Did Andor do better in the ratings? Some people didn't like it because it was a different type of show, but I believe they came in with a plan to do a two season story.

 

[Tha Realest]

It's definitely a thing, but more I think for broadcast TV where a network orders a show but doesn't have the same level of creative oversight. They just buy 22 episodes or whatever of a show.

Lucasfilm/Disney is producing this show in house so they could certainly dictate it be more of a standalone season one.

Did Andor do better in the ratings? Some people didn't like it because it was a different type of show, but I believe they came in with a plan to do a two season story.

I think Andor was planned for like five seasons, but they agreed to pare it back to what amounted to two seasons during the first season’s production. They knew it would be renewed but only once.

 

[Trauma]

Garbage show gets canceled.

Who could have ever guessed how bad this show would be ?

 

[Joel]

It must not be needed for money laundering purposes anymore.