Friday, October 13, 2017

Why Ticket Prices Look Like Medical Bills...

(TMZ) Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.  
According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance." 
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
But wait: where does the money come from that Harvey uses to pay those amounts?
From what the company pays him.

That's what NYFC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia used to refer to as "a self-greasing axle".

So, when you've got producers paid by a company, who can get reimbursed for this year's indiscretions from next year's paycheck, (or this year's bonus) how do you think that works?
If you go to one of the two or three movies every year (out of a couple of hundred) actually worth seeing first-run, you're feeling it in your wallet. (Don't worry, the rest of you are subsidizing it with your cable bill, RedBox, or the price of DVD/BDs.)

And best of all for Harvey? The fine is a personal tax write-off as a "business expense".

The classic producer joke has two Hollywood producers eyeing an attractive starlet going by, and one says to the other, "Boy, I'd really love to screw her!"

The second one says, "Out of what?"

In Harvey's case, clearly he's going for the single entendre punchline.

And it's paid for at the box office.


George True said...

I do not understand this sudden piling on Harvey Weinstein. First of all, I never heard of him before all this recent brouhaha. But then I have never followed Hollywierd.

So this guy is a married, cheating, womanizing cad. So what? So is Bill Clinton. The media never made a big deal out of him.

Back to the Hollywood producer Weinstein. So he is a classic casting couch, aspiring-starlet pressuring scumbag producer. Again, so what? This has been going on in Hollywood for as long as Hollywood has existed. How come all of a sudden it is such a big taboo with the left media? After all, when BJ Clinton got caught in his peccadillos, the very same media said, "Hey, it's just sex, what's the big deal?".

And how come they are now zeroing in on this one particular guy, Weinstein, whose reputation has been known for decades? This type of out of control sexist pig caddishness is known to be widespread not only in Hollywood, but also in government and media.

So for the third and final time, so the f*** what !! I simply DO NOT CARE about young starlets being pressured for sex by some horndog producer. It's not like his personal reputation and the Hollywood casting couch hasn't been known to one and all for as long as anyone can remember. I guess the left is willing to sacrifice even one of their own bigwigs if they can all get enough cultural Marxist virtue signalling mileage out of it.

Aesop said...

Let me explain, George...

Xyore said...

Very nice post