Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dichotomy on September 30, 2010, 12:24:32 PM
-
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212325099.shtml
:O
It was a good show for a while but losing four of the best captains on the show in less than two years might be the death of it.
-
Well with no Phil, Sig or the Hilstrands the show would only have that retards on the wizard.
It's dead.
-
Done
-
Yup, that one's jumped the crab for sure.
-
show has ran its course (parden the pun) last season was enough for me and with the others leaving, so will i
-
Dad always said dont $&%^ where you eat....... Looks like Discovery never heard that saying. I agree that without Phil, the Hillstrands and the Hanson brothers the show is dead......What the heck were they thinking? I wonder what that show brings in in revenue for Discovery? More than $3mil i bet..............dumb arses :mad:
-
The Harris boys signed on for this year, but I'm betting if they can find a way out of it, they will. Johnathan, Andy, and Sig were too good and too close to them for the Harris boys to turn their back. But the Harris boys are in a bad way financially, so they may not be able to get out. Keith Colburn will do anything for a buck, I'll be surprised if he bails. Wild Bill might bail, he's pretty close to Johnathan and Andy.
It's pretty sad, the Discovery Channel has made a ton off of those guys. And their suing Johnathan and Andy for more than they were paying them. About ten times more than they were paying them.
I was still enjoying the show, even though Phil is gone now, but this Bravo Sierra will mean the end of it for me.
-
Dad always said dont $&%^ where you eat....... Looks like Discovery never heard that saying. I agree that without Phil, the Hillstrands and the Hanson brothers the show is dead......What the heck were they thinking? I wonder what that show brings in in revenue for Discovery? More than $3mil i bet..............dumb arses :mad:
Hmmmm.... article is kind of "lacking in details", as they say. Definitely nothing to form any opinion on, like you have.
-
Stupid is as stupid does...
((Discovery Channel Lawyers + Discovery Channel Management) == Stupid) resolves to True
-
I was a big Catch fan, and it never would have been quite the same after we lost Phil.
Truth be told, in some respects its better this way.
I know that the Hanson and the Hilstrand boys are out there. But I don't have to watch it anymore.
Big shots at the Discovery channel make more a month for sitting on there butt than those captains do in a year of hard work. They tried to treat those mavericks the same way they treat all the hollywood stars and wannabe's. That just isn't going to fly. So as far as I'm concerned greed killed it.
Even if it does come back on the air again I won't watch it.
It just isn't going to work like it used to.
To all the boys on the Northwestern and the Time Bandit, this ones for you.
Salute!
I'll miss ya
Y'all be safe up there!
-
Discovery stepped on themselves with golf shoes on this one. They should have spent more time trying to work out their differences before going to the lawyers. WTF were they thinking the others on the show were going to do when the lawyers filed the suit?
Time to cover the hole, the shows been dumped in the cemetary.
-
Hmmmm.... article is kind of "lacking in details", as they say. Definitely nothing to form any opinion on, like you have.
Incorrect.........Im able to form an opinion thank you. Reading your above post, and not knowing you, has given me the opportunity to form another one.
-
I liked the show for awhile, but after the last season, it was beginning to sink (no pun intended)
-
I'm canceling my subscription to Discovery
-
I wouldn't be surprised if they threw this season together with a bunch of unused footage from the last couple of years. They were on the Trailblazer (a local boat) two years ago for the full season and never aired any of it. The rest will really come down to contracts. But being at odds with the fleet isn't worth being on that show.
-
I wonder how much equipment might get 'lost at sea' if Discovery tries to go out on any boats this year?
-
I'm sending the Discovery Channel a note with my regards...................... ....... :devil
-
Incorrect.........Im able to form an opinion thank you. Reading your above post, and not knowing you, has given me the opportunity to form another one.
From that article, nothing is said about who is responsible for the situation, nor why it even happened.
So, what if Discovery payed them 3 million bucks, and they just didn't live up to the contract? As contracted scientist, I am fully aware that if I do not meet my contract on time and budget, I will be negligent in fulfilling the contract I signed, and owe the full balance of the contract in return.
I'm sorry you took it personally. Simply stating fact.
-
never understood the appeal with that show. if you saw one...you saw them all. if anything ... it was like a overly dramatic soap opera...for males. never thought it would last to season #2...so what do I know?
-
Simply stating fact.
No, as usual you're talking out of your rectal orifice and "stating" conjecture.
FYI, as of the day of the OP, there were over a dozen articles on the subject at hand. Only a fool would assume that no one read any of the other articles.
No, Johnathan and Andy were not paid anywhere near $3 million for one special, any fool with 1/2 a brain would know that, there are dozens of professional actors with hit series that don't get $3 million an episode.
-
No, as usually you're talking out of your rectal orifice and "stating" conjecture.
:aok
-
I'm sure the $3M were estimated total production costs.
I'm also sure this gets resolved (settled).......and all of them go back to work.
this is how deals are negotiated, many times in hollywood.
-
I'm sure the $3M were estimated total production costs.
I'm also sure this gets resolved (settled).......and all of them go back to work.
this is how deals are negotiated, many times in hollywood.
Yeah I'd be surprised if Discovery didn't do something to correct the situation with the captains to get them back on the show, they know that without the Hilstrands or Sig and his crew ratings will drop and would be the death of the show, and that shows a cash cow for them.
-
there's no quote from discovery... just the lawyer of the fishermen. it's a negotiation.
I think when it's all said and done...that "other" show gets scrapped.......and everyone comes back to work with big raises.
I was told a while back that one point of contention the fishermen had a year ago..was that Mike Rowe (the VO guy) makes more than any of them do.
-
I'm sure the $3M were estimated total production costs.
I'm also sure this gets resolved (settled).......and all of them go back to work.
this is how deals are negotiated, many times in hollywood.
I seriously doubt they spent anywhere near $3 million total. It's damned near a cheap documentary. The only "production" is the "After the Catch" show.
I would not be at all surprised if the suits and the lawyers tried to replace them. That you do not understand the "allure" of the show should be a sign of that, the lawyers and suits don't either.
Those guys don't care that much about money. That you don't understand that is another sure sign as to why you don't see the "allure" of the show. They're cut from an entirely different cloth than the vast majority, that's the reason a lot of people really like those guys. Most people don't understand that.
If it ain't resolved by now, it likely won't be, those guys are fishing already, they're out for bait and the early crab seasons already.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Mike Rowe fan also.
But no way that its right that the narrator gets paid more than the captains and crew do.
Personally, Hollywood may expect to negotiate this away and bring it back.
But I'm guessing that Sig and the Hillstrand brothers have maxed out their BS meter's and are done period. Their pride and sense of honor is going to make it tough for them to want to come back.
-
No, as usual you're talking out of your rectal orifice and "stating" conjecture.
Pretty much.
-
No, as usual you're talking out of your rectal orifice and "stating" conjecture.
:rofl
As for last season only watched a few episodes for the obvious reasons. The Time Bandit, and Northwestern are the most interesting boats to watch IMO. Can't really stand the Wizard capt. myself so if it's just him well. Think I've watched every season through the years so i guess I'm a fan of the show. :lol :cheers: Hillstrands
-
Incorrect.........Im able to form an opinion thank you. Reading your above post, and not knowing you, has given me the opportunity to form another one.
LOL..... :rofl NICE ONE!!!!
-
No, as usual you're talking out of your rectal orifice and "stating" conjecture.
FYI, as of the day of the OP, there were over a dozen articles on the subject at hand. Only a fool would assume that no one read any of the other articles.
No, Johnathan and Andy were not paid anywhere near $3 million for one special, any fool with 1/2 a brain would know that, there are dozens of professional actors with hit series that don't get $3 million an episode.
Better watch out Virg, he'll run crying to Skuzzy again...
-
I seriously doubt they spent anywhere near $3 million total. It's damned near a cheap documentary. The only "production" is the "After the Catch" show.
easily $3M....EASILY.
you'd crap if I told you how much just ONE episode of SNL is budgeted for...and that's a live show..on a fixed stage.
to shoot and produce a new series..as they were doing..most likely cost Discovery $3M before the first camera ever rolled.
-
easily $3M....EASILY.
you'd crap if I told you how much just ONE episode of SNL is budgeted for...and that's a live show..on a fixed stage.
to shoot and produce a new series..as they were doing..most likely cost Discovery $3M before the first camera ever rolled.
Read the articles. The beef the Discovery Channel has with Johnathan and Andy is NOT about the series itself. The articles state that it was about a special episode, not a series. And evidently Johnathan and Andy wouldn't sit still for the interviews and such. It seems the Discovery Channel has forgotten what it takes to run those boats. Even if they aren't on the boat, and Scotty or Mike is out fishing the off season, the brothers are working the operation. Johnathan fishes the off season in his own small boat, and Andy works a farm with his wife in the off season.
All of those guys are entirely different from your average guy, and even from your average business owner. That's the appeal of the show. They're some of the few remaining wild men, or renegades. You can only have so much of their life for contrived Bravo Sierra, and then they're going to say enough is enough, and go back to their life.
Added this for your benefit: The Hillstrands failed to finish the spin-off one-time special 'Hillstranded', so Discovery is suing the Hillstrands for $3 million. The show was to follow the men and their adventures while not out crabbing, but according to the suit, they did not participate in interviews required to complete the project.
-
Read the articles. The beef the Discovery Channel has with Johnathan and Andy is NOT about the series itself. The articles state that it was about a special episode, not a series. And evidently Johnathan and Andy wouldn't sit still for the interviews and such. It seems the Discovery Channel has forgotten what it takes to run those boats. Even if they aren't on the boat, and Scotty or Mike is out fishing the off season, the brothers are working the operation. Johnathan fishes the off season in his own small boat, and Andy works a farm with his wife in the off season.
All of those guys are entirely different from your average guy, and even from your average business owner. That's the appeal of the show. They're some of the few remaining wild men, or renegades. You can only have so much of their life for contrived Bravo Sierra, and then they're going to say enough is enough, and go back to their life.
Added this for your benefit: The Hillstrands failed to finish the spin-off one-time special 'Hillstranded', so Discovery is suing the Hillstrands for $3 million. The show was to follow the men and their adventures while not out crabbing, but according to the suit, they did not participate in interviews required to complete the project.
I have to believe the Discovery Channel wouldn't start a project like that without a signed contract with the Hillstrands. If the Hillstrands failed to complete the project after Discovery Channel had spent a lot of money filming the bulk of the special, I can easily understand why Discovery would sue the. The Hillstrands might have a unique occupation, but every captain in crabbing will tell you it is a business, and they have to be businessmen. That is the nature of shooting TV specials and series, they are business ventures. If the Hillstrands failed to complete their obligation, and in doing so would cost the DC a lot of money, then they should be sued. It will now be up to them to give good and sufficient reason for failing to complete their legal obligation that caused serious financial lose to the DC.
-
being that I've been in the industry for more years that I care to mention....let me just say this:
when the network owns the show...they don't have to worry about a "spinoff" or (pilot) being "picked-up" (greenlighted for 13 or more episodes) they can...and do...make that decision ahead of time..and therefore budget, hire, write/script/block, undergo massive pre-production...shoot and edit....shoot/edit/catalog/store B roll, and of course... employ a veritable army of people....so they can then bang-out shows if they feel they have a good product that the public wants. they go into something like this with the idea of it being a series. additionally..discovery only hires and employees union production companies and people. Discovery farms out most of their work..where as NatGeo does not.
so yes...it is in every sense of the word...a series going into it.
Read the articles. The beef the Discovery Channel has with Johnathan and Andy is NOT about the series itself. The articles state that it was about a special episode, not a series. And evidently Johnathan and Andy wouldn't sit still for the interviews and such. It seems the Discovery Channel has forgotten what it takes to run those boats. Even if they aren't on the boat, and Scotty or Mike is out fishing the off season, the brothers are working the operation. Johnathan fishes the off season in his own small boat, and Andy works a farm with his wife in the off season.
All of those guys are entirely different from your average guy, and even from your average business owner. That's the appeal of the show. They're some of the few remaining wild men, or renegades. You can only have so much of their life for contrived Bravo Sierra, and then they're going to say enough is enough, and go back to their life.
Added this for your benefit: The Hillstrands failed to finish the spin-off one-time special 'Hillstranded', so Discovery is suing the Hillstrands for $3 million. The show was to follow the men and their adventures while not out crabbing, but according to the suit, they did not participate in interviews required to complete the project.
-
.
-
A one time special is the same as a spin off series? It's one show, a special, single episode spin off.
If you've been in the industry, for more years than you care to mention, and you don't see the difference between a one episode special, and a series, then there's not much point in continuing to converse with you.
-
I have to believe the Discovery Channel wouldn't start a project like that without a signed contract with the Hillstrands. If the Hillstrands failed to complete the project after Discovery Channel had spent a lot of money filming the bulk of the special, I can easily understand why Discovery would sue the. The Hillstrands might have a unique occupation, but every captain in crabbing will tell you it is a business, and they have to be businessmen. That is the nature of shooting TV specials and series, they are business ventures. If the Hillstrands failed to complete their obligation, and in doing so would cost the DC a lot of money, then they should be sued. It will now be up to them to give good and sufficient reason for failing to complete their legal obligation that caused serious financial lose to the DC.
I'm sure the Discovery Channel spent millions of dollars following Johnathan and Andy around with a camera man in their day to day routine off of the boat. :rolleyes:
Yes, crabbing is a business, which is exactly my point. Evidently, the Discovery Channel special became a detriment to the crabbing business. They, Andy and Johnathan, evidently reached the point where the extra interviews and Bravo Sierra began to prevent them from running their business. They are not stupid, if it started costing them money, and potentially their boat, which is their livelihood, they quit.
It is beginning to look like with the death of Phil Harris, the Discovery Channel saw the beginning of the end, and decided to milk it for all it is worth. Typical greed.
Since Sig and Edgar have decided to back Johnathan and Andy, it's a safe bet that the Discovery Channel has begun to try to treat those guys like they own them, or treat them like your average Hollywood personality. That won't work.
The Discovery Channel may win the suit, and the battle, but they can bet they'll lose the war.
-
A one time special is the same as a spin off series? It's one show, a special, single episode spin off.
If you've been in the industry, for more years than you care to mention, and you don't see the difference between a one episode special, and a series, then there's not much point in continuing to converse with you.
You do realize that Deadliest Catch started with a one show special called "Deadliest Season" It was such a hit they then made Deadliest Catch.
Just sayin'
I really don't see why you are so defensive of the Hillstrandts..They are by far my favorite boat on the show, and even I will openly admit that if they made a commitment and didn't live up to, Discovery has a right (both legally and ethically) to sue them to recoup whatever losses they may have incurred.
-
Yeah, I'm quite aware of how the series started. And it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Having been a small business man and dealt with large corporations, I'm sort of a fan of the underdog, as I know how "suits" treat people. They have a tendency to feel you are there to serve them at their convenience, even if it kills you or your business.
-
A one time special is the same as a spin off series? It's one show, a special, single episode spin off.
If you've been in the industry, for more years than you care to mention, and you don't see the difference between a one episode special, and a series, then there's not much point in continuing to converse with you.
whoosh
-
whoosh
Evidently, right over your head.
-
Evidently, right over your head.
Yeah, I'm quite aware of how the series started. And it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Having been a small business man and dealt with large corporations, I'm sort of a fan of the underdog, as I know how "suits" treat people. They have a tendency to feel you are there to serve them at their convenience, even if it kills you or your business.
Wow, such blind reverence. It's called "keeping and open mind, and wait until the facts are known". The facts of this are not known, as of any article I've read. Whatever the Hillstrands did, apparently it did not meet with their responsibilities to whatever contract they signed, hence the suit. It will be up to both parties to prove whether or not there was a breach of contract. Apparently, they didn't "sit" for what they were payed and contracted to do. If the product they agreed to produce required it, and they couldn't do it, then they should not have signed their names on the dotted lines.
Bottom line, if you sign a contract, you take whatever payment is offered and agree to be responsible for a product. If you change your mind, or change your commitment to the project, you will be sued for breach and you will be expected to pick up the cost of whatever the other party can lawfully claim as damages for your breach of contract.
Somehow you expect the rules to be different because you have a personal emotional investment in the parties involved. I bet it would be a whole lot different if we were discussing a couple of "nice" guys that walked on a contract with you personally, or your "small" business.
-
I'm sure the Discovery Channel spent millions of dollars following Johnathan and Andy around with a camera man in their day to day routine off of the boat. :rolleyes:
I'm sure the $3M amount has more to do with lost advertising revenue and not so much about how much money Discovery sank into production costs.
-
I'm sure the $3M amount has more to do with lost advertising revenue and not so much about how much money Discovery sank into production costs.
they can't sue for potential gross revenue...as they can easily fill the time slot with other programing.
however, that said..if the show already ran for a season..and discovery sold future ads to sponsors, based on their ratings from the previous season, they would be entitled to the difference in those revenues...if they were significantly larger than normal revenues for what they typically broadcast.
-
You do realize that Deadliest Catch started with a one show special called "Deadliest Season" It was such a hit they then made Deadliest Catch.
Just sayin'
I really don't see why you are so defensive of the Hillstrandts..They are by far my favorite boat on the show, and even I will openly admit that if they made a commitment and didn't live up to, Discovery has a right (both legally and ethically) to sue them to recoup whatever losses they may have incurred.
I can see why most, including myself are defensive of the Hillstrand's. They lost a good friend during the Opelio Season and were then expected to have a camera in their face, without the opportunity to attend the CatchCon and the various Festivals throughout the Country, let alone be able to grieve over the loss of Phil?
Discovery could have EASILY said: "Take all of the time you need and when you're ready to do the ONE-OFF SPECIAL "Hillstranded", we'll resume the project". But to be driven by the dollar and throw ethics out the window is asinine.
It's called "class" and Discovery Channel doesn't have it. I support Sig's "banding together" as it shows solidarity towards "what is right".
-
I know all the facts. I can't relay them to yall here, now. The agreement for the use of the crystal ball was that I never reveal beforehand, anything I see in it.
-
I can see why most, including myself are defensive of the Hillstrand's. They lost a good friend during the Opelio Season and were then expected to have a camera in their face, without the opportunity to attend the CatchCon and the various Festivals throughout the Country, let alone be able to grieve over the loss of Phil?
Discovery could have EASILY said: "Take all of the time you need and when you're ready to do the ONE-OFF SPECIAL "Hillstranded", we'll resume the project". But to be driven by the dollar and throw ethics out the window is asinine.
It's called "class" and Discovery Channel doesn't have it. I support Sig's "banding together" as it shows solidarity towards "what is right".
The Hillstrands signed a dotted line. End of story. What is "right" is them upholding their side of an agreement to which they entered in of their own free will, and presumably were compensated on the front end of the project.
-
The Hillstrands signed a dotted line. End of story. What is "right" is them upholding their side of an agreement to which they entered in of their own free will, and presumably were compensated on the front end of the project.
More conjecture. We're stunned. Or not. :rolleyes:
-
Mmmm, conjecturing.
For the record, we call them contracted productions. Fancy terms like series and feature nobody except the producer's or greenhorns give a hoot about until the project gets taken seriously enough that FIRST those of us in the crew and cast start worrying about if we get to be officiated into our respective unions of trade.
Typicaly the "stars" get a lump sum of money at the begining of the production, and then another lump sum or a % based on how far it goes from there. The most important and signifigant of which should be the first lump sum, since most productions don't make it past the editor's table. Only the biggest and "already made" worry about the later of those two payments, because they know the productions they get will get to a point that they're generating revenue.
-
More conjecture. We're stunned. Or not. :rolleyes:
Actually, not conjecture. It's the way contracts proceed in the entertainment industry, as well as most industries in general. (including my own) The contract is front loaded with money, back loaded with incentives, if there is a product that is being made for sale.
-
Actually, not conjecture. It's the way contracts proceed in the entertainment industry, as well as most industries in general. (including my own) The contract is front loaded with money, back loaded with incentives, if there is a product that is being made for sale.
So you've seen the contract "they signed"? I didn't think so.
-
So you've seen the contract "they signed"? I didn't think so.
If there are lawyers involved now, they signed a contract. Of course I have no intimate knowledge of their contract.... but you're defending them as if you do as well.
You're defending their actions from the point of "heart" not "fact".
-
The Hillstrands signed a dotted line. End of story. What is "right" is them upholding their side of an agreement to which they entered in of their own free will, and presumably were compensated on the front end of the project.
You're sure that is all there is to the story? As in, you read the contract and know exactly what happened so that the contract terms were not fulfilled? You're sure the production team didn't try to arrange the failed interviews at a time or place that was impossible for the Hillstrands to attend? Or maybe there was another dispute that led to an attempt to terminate the agreement on mutually agreeable terms, and the lawyers stepped in and prevented the contract from being terminated (I've seen that before a few times, usually on grounds of "fiduciary responsibility")?
Not picking on you Moray, but a few people in this thread sure are making statements as if they have the whole story through personal experience and/or contact with both parties in the dispute. You sure seem to be one of them, but you're not the only one. It's pretty stupid to make firm blanket statements like "end of story", when not only is that statement made out of ignorance (not stupidity, but ignorance, as in lack of factual knowledge), but it ignores a multitude of other equally likely possibilities involving the disputed contract performance (or lack thereof).
Pop a chill pill and here, have some cream soda :) None of us were there but a bunch of people sure seem to identify with the crabbers a whole lot more than they do with corporate lawyers who are suing some people for more money than they have. Maybe we ought to see what the real story is before placing the blame on any particular party, eh?
Besides, if I was going to have to make a snap decision on who to trust, some boat skipper or a hollyweird lawyer, I sure wouldn't choose the lawyer. That boat skipper lives or dies, quite literally, on the trust he builds with his crew. The lawyer gets paid no matter who gets thrown under the bus and the worst that could happen to him is having to move his practice to another state if he gets disbarred...
-
Actually, not conjecture. It's the way contracts proceed in the entertainment industry, as well as most industries in general. (including my own) The contract is front loaded with money, back loaded with incentives, if there is a product that is being made for sale.
You were there, read the contract, and witnessed the manner in which the film crew complied with their contractual obligations? You have personal knowledge that the Hillstrands willfully failed to comply with their obligations? You've seen the accounting that documents the $3 million worth of damages? I suppose you've seen the phone records and listened to taped conversations between both parties and their agents, so you know for sure which side is responsible for the contract failing to be completed?
Really?
-
I'm not taking sides but holy cow, there is some obtuse "proof by repeated assertion" going on in here. They are guilty and liable because there *must* have been a contract and they *obviously* are fully at fault for failing to fulfill their obligation!
Or on the flip side, the assertion that Discovery channel is making tons of money off of the boat crews and not fairly compensating them, so it is somehow ok for them to back out of contracts, is likewise obtuse.
Facts gentlemen. Not very many facts being stated, just a lot of "must have been" opinions being repeatedly asserted as proof of one or another extreme viewpoint.
-
Let me make myself crystal clear.
I am simply saying they obviously signed a contract. I don't know what that contract entailed, but presumably they did know what it entailed. A contract is a binding agreement. Discovery would have made sure a contract was in place before anything happened, as standard business practice.
I'm not saying they are guilty or innocent of anything. I simply made the statement that they must have completed that act. Whatever happens in the suit, it is up to the courts to decide whether there was a breach on either party's behalf. That's how it works. Obviously, Discovery thinks there is a breach. Time will tell if there is.
I think it's pretty crazy, all in all. Yes, they should have made more for their time on the boats. The $75,000-$100,000 each boat received to appear on the regular show was a bit low, IMO. Of course, there aren't many small businesses that wouldn't mind taking on a camera guy and a sound guy, to knock off 75K to 100K of their overhead, are there?
-
Time to move on. It's called swamp people...... good ol' boys from the bayou+gators+missing teeth+shotguns= good entertainment.
-
It would royally suck if this does go down, I still got Ice Road Truckers.
-
They're back.
-
They're back.
:aok
-
straight from the discovery channel web site
UPDATE: (Friday, 10/8/2010) The Discovery network has just announced that The Hillstrand Brothers and Sig Hansen are returning to Deadliest Catch. See the statement here.
:rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock
-
Time to move on. It's called swamp people...... good ol' boys from the bayou+gators+missing teeth+shotguns= good entertainment.
Swamp people?
You have got to be kidding me?
Some idiot dad is proud of his 20 something toothless illiterate son because he can finally hit an alligator in the head with a 22 rimfire at point blank range...you find that entertaining?
The show is a joke, largely comprised of manufactured drama...
The title has the urban viewer expecting that "the swamp people" might eat their young when the bayou floods...or dog is on the menu...
Instead we are served up with a weak cast of characters plying placid waters in tin john boats with rotten meat and rim fire rifles...some taking risks firing on free swimming gators in deep water with virtually no hope of recovering the animal...
And of course the gutting and skinning of the gators and how they are made into hand bags and boots is conspicuously absent...that would be the true reality of it...
Swamp people...enjoy it if you like it...thankfully it will be off the air shortly...
Out
Oneway
-
I'm also sure this gets resolved (settled).......and all of them go back to work.
this is how deals are negotiated, many times in hollywood.
LOS ANGELES— Capts. Sig Hansen and Johnathan and Andy Hillstrand have agreed to return to "Deadliest Catch," ending a legal stalemate that threatened the Discovery hit reality series. "We're happy we worked everything out with Discovery." "We're happy we worked everything out with Discovery," the trio told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "A deal's a deal. We're heading up to Dutch Harbor to start filming the new season of 'Deadliest Catch' and hopefully it will be the best one yet."
Hansen and the Hillstrands had quit the show in response to a $3 million lawsuit filed by Discovery against the Hillstrands for allegedly refusing to finish work on a planned spinoff special. As part of the settlement, Discovery's lawsuit will be dropped.
"I'm extremely pleased that we were able to resolve our clients' situation with Discovery," the trio's lawyer Jeff Cohen said. "The captains are very excited about the new season."
Terms of the settlement are not being disclosed, but both Cohen and a Discovery representative said they were happy with the results of the negotiations. Also as part of the deal, the Hillstrands have agreed to finish work on "Hillstranded," the spinoff that prompted the standoff.
-
thanks for the update
-
LOS ANGELES— Capts. Sig Hansen and Johnathan and Andy Hillstrand have agreed to return to "Deadliest Catch," ending a legal stalemate that threatened the Discovery hit reality series. "We're happy we worked everything out with Discovery." "We're happy we worked everything out with Discovery," the trio told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "A deal's a deal. We're heading up to Dutch Harbor to start filming the new season of 'Deadliest Catch' and hopefully it will be the best one yet."
Hansen and the Hillstrands had quit the show in response to a $3 million lawsuit filed by Discovery against the Hillstrands for allegedly refusing to finish work on a planned spinoff special. As part of the settlement, Discovery's lawsuit will be dropped.
"I'm extremely pleased that we were able to resolve our clients' situation with Discovery," the trio's lawyer Jeff Cohen said. "The captains are very excited about the new season."
Terms of the settlement are not being disclosed, but both Cohen and a Discovery representative said they were happy with the results of the negotiations. Also as part of the deal, the Hillstrands have agreed to finish work on "Hillstranded," the spinoff that prompted the standoff.
My translation: "Our Discovery Channel lawyers screwed up so badly that we ended up settling with them on paying them more than the money they originaly wanted, the right to do things their way and at their own pace - so long as they eventualy do it, and reimburse them for all legal costs incurred on them as a result of our incompetence... and all in exchange not revealing to the media how badly we messed up and not to ever mention this matter in any future production."
Sounds like the captains had Discovery over the barrel they wanted them to be, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hillstrand's and Sig and some pretty fancy and compfy looking new captain chairs this season now.
-
word has it..the kids from Jersey Shore are getting ready to do this very same thing.
-
it was all a hoax to get more viewers ummm....
-
Swamp people?
You have got to be kidding me?
Some idiot dad is proud of his 20 something toothless illiterate son because he can finally hit an alligator in the head with a 22 rimfire at point blank range...you find that entertaining?
The show is a joke, largely comprised of manufactured drama...
The title has the urban viewer expecting that "the swamp people" might eat their young when the bayou floods...or dog is on the menu...
Instead we are served up with a weak cast of characters plying placid waters in tin john boats with rotten meat and rim fire rifles...some taking risks firing on free swimming gators in deep water with virtually no hope of recovering the animal...
And of course the gutting and skinning of the gators and how they are made into hand bags and boots is conspicuously absent...that would be the true reality of it...
Swamp people...enjoy it if you like it...thankfully it will be off the air shortly...
Out
Oneway
So do you like the show or not? :huh