teacherpaul Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Take the "K" out of the company's name and you have a more appropriate name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakk9 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So people on this forum don't think contracts should be respected then? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indieke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So people on this forum don't think contracts should be respected then? Yes. But then there is a lawsuit, and then the judge must give outcome, and eventually money payed. Without any outcome distribution is forbidden, and giving the distributors dammage, without anything has been settled. And the public is punished also. Not having the liberty to go to watch something, some have been looking forward to. Also nice tribute to Paul Walker. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Lawrence Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So what did they do to further Ja' career that warrants a payment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Universal International Pictures would never make enough from ticket sales in Thailand to offset the lawsuit so they will just not show it in Thailand and Saha Mongkol Film will get diddly squat and have to pay their lawyers to boot. If the picture is not shown in Thailand, it is possible they don't have a case against the other two defendants. I wonder if Panom Yeerum, alais Ja Panom, has a contract that controls him world-wide or just in Thailand. My guess is that it controls him just in Thailand or, otherwise, they could garnish the income he earned in the US. Too bad for them that they couldn't ask for a reasonable 10-20 % but would rather cut off their nose to spite their save face. I sometimes think Thailand is as litigious as the US. Anyone who wants to see the movie can get it locally on counterfeit DVD anyway. It should be a very interesting movie to watch as one of the lead actors died in a car crash while filming and they use both his brothers as stand-ins and new computer generated images of the actor superimposed over another actor's face for the close-up shots. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/42216/20150326/hollywood-studios-digitally-scanning-actors-bodies-archival.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellacissa Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Ugh. The one movie that my son has been waiting for. He's a Fast and Furious fanatic. We had a whole day planned around going to see it on the first.Of course, that's still 5 days away, so who knows what will happen in the mean time. There's still hope. TiT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indieke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I see nothing about this anywhere then here and one other site. I not have a local newspaper, but nothing is mentioned about this on TheNation or BKK post site. Maybe still a fish, after all, I think this would be not very logical. The link, is the only site, except this one, who mention it. I think you all be 1 st April fooled, as the release date is then. Edited March 27, 2015 by indieke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So people on this forum don't think contracts should be respected then? You make quite a broad accusation that we don't think any contract should be respected. You make quite an assumption abut this particular contract since neither you nor we have seen the actor's contract. I'm willing to bet that Saha Mongkol Film didn't have any contract with Universal International Pictures or the Thai distributor, UIP. I don't see how the Thai distributor is even listed on the suit since it has absolutely nothing to do with hiring actors and how could it know what contracts had been signed by what actors. Unless the actor's contract specifically specifies Thailand and the world, they don't have a case against the actor either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Sounds like most posters in this thread consider that a contract doesn't need to be respected if it concerns a Thai company. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So people on this forum don't think contracts should be respected then? You make quite a broad accusation that we don't think any contract should be respected. You make quite an assumption abut this particular contract since neither you nor we have seen the actor's contract. I'm willing to bet that Saha Mongkol Film didn't have any contract with Universal International Pictures or the Thai distributor, UIP. I don't see how the Thai distributor is even listed on the suit since it has absolutely nothing to do with hiring actors and how could it know what contracts had been signed by what actors. Unless the actor's contract specifically specifies Thailand and the world, they don't have a case against the actor either. Don't you think there might be a chance that the contract between Saha Mongkol and the actor stipulates that he isn't allowed to appear in production with other film companies without the Thai companies consent? Or can footballers under contract with a club just go play with any club they fancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddinChonburi Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Hollywood will take there films elsewhere. No one will ever get paid. Some Thai judge is going to tell Hollywood what to do ? How many countries is this movie showing in ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddinChonburi Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 If some one achieves a ban on another parties ability to carry on his business. Then unless the banning party wins the case with no side judgments Any person or person who suffer financially from the loss of his right to make money using the property banned in a legal manner Has the right to Sue the 1st party, also for loss of income due to his involvement in denying him his legal rights Has someone just opened Pandoras box OH YES !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) If he has breached his contract then there has to be some sort of comeback on him. Not sure banning the film is the way forward, but as the whole franchise is a pile of stinking horse dung, I can live with it. Never heard of the actor though, is he that famous? Worldwide I mean. He wasn't till this film. Now the only thing the small dodgy production house will do is make him more famous and even less likely to work for them ever. They will accept a settlement to break the contracts after they eventually realize they can't win the whole shooting match and eventually they understand they WILL lose face, one way or another, in the whole thing. How dare he grab for the brass ring and not take them along for the ride. Contracts are meant to be broken, and clearly their's has NOT stopped him from taking an American contract and getting a real career happening. And clearly the American production companies lawyers were not worried about the dispute. If Saha Mongkol Film had ANY real leverage outside of Thailand he would have been stopped from playing the roll, he wasn't stopped at all. Now all they can try to do is recoup from his earnings in the Thai market. That this penalizes every Thai's who wants to see the film, is NOTHING to these numpties, they've lost face and the only thing to make them whole, in their small minds, is to try to take his face via his money changing hands to theirs. Never mind that they piss off their LOCAL market for action films, but blocking the blockbuster. But as noted, people will see the film in Thailand from 100, 100 baht sources. And Saha Mongkol Film makes NOTHING. unless they are also bootleggers. Edited March 27, 2015 by animatic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realenglish1 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Typical lousy Thai reporting. "Breach of Contract " for what . Not paying for something ? Forgetting to pop some popcorn WHAT? If you are going to write a story about a news item You must have a beginning middle and end. This does not have a proper beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddinChonburi Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 More is how does a judge ban the right for this movie to play ? this added revenue would be part of the lawsuit. Really bad move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellacissa Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I know in the states, movie theater companies have contractual obligations with the production companies with regards to what films are shown and when. For instance, Universal Studios might have a contract with Cinemark to show certain films in exchange for advertising and promotional money.This being Thailand, I'm not sure if that's true or not. But, if it is, then multiple contracts will be broken by not showing the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Srikcir Posted March 27, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2015 The court had no business suspending the show of the movie simply because of an unrelated contractural disagreement between an actor who is also in the movie whose producers have no legal connection with Saha Monkol Films. Universal Studios did not breach any contract and should not be considered a defendent in the tiff between the actor and Saha. I hope Universal files an objection to the suspension. The contract issue is strictly between Saha and the actor. If the actor loses the suit, he may have to compensate Saha with all his own F&F movie compensation. But it would not be the responsibility of Universal to compensate Saha. The actor is an independent contractor responsible for his own legal actions! Ironically, by suspending the showing of the movie, the Court has potentially diminished the actor's ability to pay damages to Saha if it is upheld in the suit, assuming the actor receives any movie residuals. Stupid and amatuerist court behavior. If the movie is not shown, then revenues are lost. Universal would then have the right to counter sue Saha for false or frivilous lawsuit if its named UNiversal as a defendent that would effectively destroy Saha. However, I doubt such a lawsuit would cover Universal's lost earnings. The message to global producers is "don't use Thais in your productions" if you plan to show in Thailand. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indieke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I say it again. Has this be confirmed? You are all talking about this in a serious way. It would be a very weird decision. Nothing logic about it. A film banned, because of a legal action against the company? Then why not ban all movies from Universal? Why there is still nothing on the major Paper websites? Why does the Major complexes, still announce the movie on Wednesday? I think that it will be a good April fish, as everybody has been talking about this coming out. Two weird things, just a radical decision for actors that played in this months ago, and the film coming out on..... 1st of April......... I think we better wait for more info on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellacissa Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I say it again. Has this be confirmed? You are all talking about this in a serious way. It would be a very weird decision. Nothing logic about it. A film banned, because of a legal action against the company? Then why not ban all movies from Universal? Why there is still nothing on the major Paper websites? Why does the Major complexes, still announce the movie on Wednesday? I think that it will be a good April fish, as everybody has been talking about this coming out. Two weird things, just a radical decision for actors that played in this months ago, and the film coming out on..... 1st of April......... I think we better wait for more info on this. Oh, I'm hopeful that it is an April Fool's joke. Although, if it is, someone will probably sue someone else for slander or something. But, I've seen stranger things happen here, so I'm not discounting the rumor altogether, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikiea Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 try and collect...the self appointed PM said the other day yo "trust" the legal system. are we to trust this type of theft in the legal system. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlQaholic Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) No worries you can buy the movie for 50 baht at most markets Or just download it in HD from the usual pirate site using torrent, all free, and then you can use the 50 baht to buy a beer to drink while watching the movie in your big screen high definition home theater. Edited March 27, 2015 by AlQaholic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just1Voice Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 No problem. Someone from Hollywood will make Saha Monkol Films "an offer they can't refuse", and everything will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelepulse Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Hello torrent sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 Not so fast: Court forbids Furious 7 release in Thailand By Coconuts Bangkok Photo: Universal Pictures BANGKOK: -- Nowhere are people more excited to see Tony Jaa next week in Fast & Furious 7 than here in Thailand, except now they won't be able to. The Civil Court has barred the movie from being shown due to ongoing litigation by Sahamongkol Film International against Tony for allegedly breaking his contract with the Thai cinema juggernaut to take the role in Hollywood. His contract is valid until 2023. In 2013, Sahamongkol Film went to court to demand THB1.6 billion compensation and 7.5 percent interest from the action star and requested the court to block the release of movie when it opens next week. Full story: http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2015/03/27/not-so-fast-court-forbids-furious-7-release-thailand -- Coconuts Bangkok 2015-03-27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkerry Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So what did they do to further Ja' career that warrants a payment? Saha Mongkol Film produced and distributed Ong-Bak and Tom Yum Goong, two of the biggest money making Thai films ever, but hard to believe even huge hits like those could have generated 1.6 billion baht. Sounds more like they're been taking lessons in maximizing revenue from the Phuket jet ski operators. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellacissa Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 "Suwat added cinemas are welcomed to negotiate with Sahamongkol Film. If the negotiation is satisfactory, the company may withdraw their complaint, Matichon reported."And there it is, folks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony125 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Couldn't care less about this film or the actor. However, the Court completely messed this up by damaging all parties. They could have frozen all the revenues from the screening of the film until the claim was fully adjudicated. Instead, the Court is effectively stealing money away from all the parties, by depriving them of cinema screenings, while most people will watch the film on pirated DVDs. Absolute stupidity. Totally agree there is no reason to stop the movie being shown it only deprives the public a chance to view and shoots themselves in the foot because if the want a piece of the revenue you don't stop the selling of tickets you file an injunction to freeze the assets untill the court rules on the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crickets Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 1.6 billion baht for using a thai actor in a film. He was probably just an extra in it anyway. Im guessing he wont be cast in the next thai propoganda film riding a elephant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spermwhale Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 How can a court order a movie not made in Thailand shuttered because of a pay dispute between a Thai company and the producers of a move in the US? There's a serious disconnect and defies logic... Oh wait... this Thailand. And all this for a two-bit actor who is not a start in the film and has a minor role?Not that I planned on watching this movie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheard Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Can't sue Universal Pictures because your actor under contract decided to except an offer Via his agent. Universal used actor in good faith. So with Universal out of law suit would you except a bowl of noddles and a Leo instead? Because If you want to sue Universal you have to file case in California. Not Thailand knucklehead. Then you can't bribe judge or witnesses and need green card for Thai lawyer plus he has to to pass California bar exam. By then you will be dust and Thailand a real democracy. Thailand a real democracy? Hang on a moment, that would mean free speech. I know you're talking a long time frame here, but that free speech thing ain't comin' to your screens for a real long time I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.8d1a71394325b508272291755f4e1850.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now