Bullshit, I don’t buy that for a second. Because documentary’s that get sold to HBO or that are developed “in-house” have contracts that are signed by everyone interviewed stating what the documentary is about. If it’s not disclosed to the interviewee HBO and the production co. would be on the hook with a massive lawsuit. HBO and their lawyers would never risk losing a lawsuit if disclosures weren’t forthright. And it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out Codemonkey is a silent, uncredited producer, of the doc.
I sign and have signed these contracts personally with every major studio in Hollywood, Disney, Warner Bros., Fox, Dreamworks, Sony, Paramount, etc., so when you say that “I’m talking out of my ass” I’m not going to argue with you, I guess you would know (umm, okay). Here’s what I do know, I know damn well what I’m agreeing to when I sign these contracts, I know what I am to expect and what I am releasing my rights to and/or more specifically “the terms” of the contract/agreement.
The producers would be in breach of contract if they said to Ron “we want to interview you about free speech in a documentary about free speech that will be titled Freedom of Speech.” And two weeks later tell him (or better yet, not tell him at all), oh we decided to make a documentary about Q instead and we’re going use parts of your interview from the “Freedom of Speech” doc you thought we were making. Uh uh, get out of here with that shit. You’d be laughed out of a court of law if you tried - as a producer - to do an end-around on a client/work for hire like that. Unless Ron agrees and signs a new contract stating he consents that his likeness can be used in this newly re-branded Q doc, they can’t use his footage. So, he knew and is acting surprised for whatever reason… probably for the exact reason you stated, he’s “a publicity hound.”
If I signed a contract with Disney to make “Beauty and the Beast Part II” and I did what I was hired to do for them and then six months later they decide to change direction and turn it into “Beauty and the Beast” the “porno” I can guarantee you that they would be in breach of my original contract 100% without first having me sign an agreed upon amendment contract. It’s not unusual to sign amended contracts after the fact because something that was originally agreed upon was changed.
Also, Ron doesn’t have the clout to have a final edit clause and that goes for almost everyone in Hollywood, with the exception of people like Tom Cruise - who is always a producer even if not credited as one on screen. Cruise is in the edit bay from start to finish ever since “Days of Thunder” so he’s not concerned about how he is portrayed. But my theory is Ron was brought on as an uncredited consultant/producer for this HBO project from the beginning anyway so this is all for naught.
Not necessarily, he agreed to be interviewed and signed a contract agreeing to take part in the interview/filming. And unless he has it in writing that they can't ask him if he's Q or even insinuate, then they are free to speculate.
I can say I think 4liberty is Q, hey everybody, 4liberty is Q! You are Q right? Good luck proving defamation.
The production value and symbols in the trailer, the white rabbit and 'into the storm', etc. The fact that HBO has been putting out pro redpill stuff lately. I'm not confident it will be, but I'm hopeful.
Didn't we just learn it's from codemonkey?
Nope. He’s interviewed in it and wasn’t aware they were going to hit him up about Q in it. He thought it was about free speech.
Bullshit, I don’t buy that for a second. Because documentary’s that get sold to HBO or that are developed “in-house” have contracts that are signed by everyone interviewed stating what the documentary is about. If it’s not disclosed to the interviewee HBO and the production co. would be on the hook with a massive lawsuit. HBO and their lawyers would never risk losing a lawsuit if disclosures weren’t forthright. And it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out Codemonkey is a silent, uncredited producer, of the doc.
I sign and have signed these contracts personally with every major studio in Hollywood, Disney, Warner Bros., Fox, Dreamworks, Sony, Paramount, etc., so when you say that “I’m talking out of my ass” I’m not going to argue with you, I guess you would know (umm, okay). Here’s what I do know, I know damn well what I’m agreeing to when I sign these contracts, I know what I am to expect and what I am releasing my rights to and/or more specifically “the terms” of the contract/agreement.
The producers would be in breach of contract if they said to Ron “we want to interview you about free speech in a documentary about free speech that will be titled Freedom of Speech.” And two weeks later tell him (or better yet, not tell him at all), oh we decided to make a documentary about Q instead and we’re going use parts of your interview from the “Freedom of Speech” doc you thought we were making. Uh uh, get out of here with that shit. You’d be laughed out of a court of law if you tried - as a producer - to do an end-around on a client/work for hire like that. Unless Ron agrees and signs a new contract stating he consents that his likeness can be used in this newly re-branded Q doc, they can’t use his footage. So, he knew and is acting surprised for whatever reason… probably for the exact reason you stated, he’s “a publicity hound.”
If I signed a contract with Disney to make “Beauty and the Beast Part II” and I did what I was hired to do for them and then six months later they decide to change direction and turn it into “Beauty and the Beast” the “porno” I can guarantee you that they would be in breach of my original contract 100% without first having me sign an agreed upon amendment contract. It’s not unusual to sign amended contracts after the fact because something that was originally agreed upon was changed.
Also, Ron doesn’t have the clout to have a final edit clause and that goes for almost everyone in Hollywood, with the exception of people like Tom Cruise - who is always a producer even if not credited as one on screen. Cruise is in the edit bay from start to finish ever since “Days of Thunder” so he’s not concerned about how he is portrayed. But my theory is Ron was brought on as an uncredited consultant/producer for this HBO project from the beginning anyway so this is all for naught.
Okay, so since the documentary claims Ron Watkins is Q even though he denied it, I guess he can sue HBO. https://www.the-sun.com/news/2522119/qanon-leader-q-revealed-ex-8chan-administrator-ron-watkins/
Not necessarily, he agreed to be interviewed and signed a contract agreeing to take part in the interview/filming. And unless he has it in writing that they can't ask him if he's Q or even insinuate, then they are free to speculate.
I can say I think 4liberty is Q, hey everybody, 4liberty is Q! You are Q right? Good luck proving defamation.
Thanks. I'm still hopeful it'll be more than a hit piece.
Synopsis already said the doc illustrates the dangers of unfettered free speech. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Did it? Ugh, I must've misread it. It thought it was pro free speech.
The production value and symbols in the trailer, the white rabbit and 'into the storm', etc. The fact that HBO has been putting out pro redpill stuff lately. I'm not confident it will be, but I'm hopeful.