Deadliest Catch Losing Three Captains?

[Shuffler]

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.

[MORAY37]

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. 

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

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. 

[Babalonian]

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.

[MORAY37]

More conjecture. We're stunned. Or not. 

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.

[Masherbrum]

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.

[MORAY37]

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".

[eagl]

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...

[eagl]

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?

[eagl]

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.

[MORAY37]

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?

[Tordon22]

Time to move on. It's called swamp people...... good ol' boys from the bayou+gators+missing teeth+shotguns= good entertainment.

[TOMCAT21]

It would royally suck if this does go down, I still got Ice Road Truckers.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

They're back.

[Masherbrum]

They're back.