Current Events > Chappelle's Show gone from Netflix

(+) Yeah! (+)

It is a predatory industry, and the change hes intending to spur is more important than him getting what he should be owed. It is about it not continuing to happen to any new talent, regardless of whether or not they luck into the fame and fortune that he has. Because for every person who is fortunate enough to have transcended that situation and still ended up wealthy, there are many more who have been broken by it, despite talent and hard work, by those who are taking advantage of people who dont and by all accounts shouldnt know any better.

---

CM_Ponch posted...

Lock those corporate boots baby

I love how that's your response instead of a logical rebuttal, yet you somehow feel superior even though you can't refute the fact that he himself dug this hole.
---

Dude makes multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for an hour and half of work. You'd think the whole "Make Jeff Bezos give up his money to charity" crowd wouldn't really give a shit about this.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

Can you even buy the DVDs from a source other than a third party seller? I assume they haven't printed new ones in a decade and all that's left are used copies or ones that were sold as overstock.

$12 complete series on Amazon, bought it a couple years ago for $10
---

Lord_Wombat posted...

I love how that's your response instead of a logical rebuttal, yet you somehow feel superior even though you can't refute the fact that he himself dug this hole.

Show business is designed to trick people into digging their own hole while the people who gave them the shovel benefit.

---

This reminds me of that one episode of Parks and rec

Where Ben makes a deal with a tech company for free wifi. They slipped in a clause that gives them rights to the citizens of Pawnees privact when they knew hed be busy nerding out to the new Star Wars

Then in court he says something like you shouldnt need a law degree for shit like this or something to that effect

---

Perfectinsanity posted...

Dude makes multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for an hour and half of work. You'd think the whole "Make Jeff Bezos give up his money to charity" crowd wouldn't really give a shit about this.

Yeah, I mean I understand why Dave is upset. But it's kind of a stretch for me personally care about one of the richest entertainers on earth having a financial squabble with a giant corporation.

---

KobeSystem posted...

This reminds me of that one episode of Parks and rec

Where Ben makes a deal with a tech company for free wifi. They slipped in a clause that gives them rights to the citizens of Pawnees privact when they knew hed be busy nerding out to the new Star Wars

Then in court he says something like you shouldnt need a law degree for shit like this or something to that effect

Well, reality is you do need a law degree or a lawyer for things like business contracts. Pretty huge failure on the part of Chapelle's lawyer that looked over and approved this contract to his client.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Well, reality is you do need a law degree or a lawyer for things like business contracts. Pretty huge failure on the part of Chapelle's lawyer that looked over and approved this contract to his client.

his whole point of his card sleight of hand analogy is that he felt like no one was being honest to him and that they were either negligent or colluding to get him to do it. I imagine that includes anyone representing him.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Well, reality is you do need a law degree or a lawyer for things like business contracts. Pretty huge failure on the part of Chapelle's lawyer that looked over and approved this contract to his client.

Like Chappelle said the expert he hired is likely a part of the grift.

These things aren't designed for the artists to have any power. People who are up and coming don't really have much of a chance. The system is designed for these sort of contracts to benefit the people up top. Hiring a good lawyer isn't going to change much about that.

These contracts were drawn up before streaming services were a thing as well. So that's not something that can really be prepared for. Regardless it's always the corporation who manages to have control over the work.

---

CM_Ponch posted...

Lock those corporate boots baby

Just my opinion. Viacom are probably assholes, as most corporations are, but he signed the contracts knowing what they said, and at that point he had a couple of movies under his belt and was not a newbie. Sucks for him, but he was paid what he was owed. In what world should he expect more?

---

Darmik posted...

Like Chappelle said the expert he hired is likely a part of the grift.

These things aren't designed for the artists to have any power. People who are up and coming don't really have much of a chance. The system is designed for these sort of contracts to benefit the people up top. Hiring a good lawyer isn't going to change much about that.

These contracts were drawn up before streaming services were a thing as well. So that's not something that can really be prepared for. Regardless it's always the corporation who manages to have control over the work.

*shrug*

It kind of is what it is. Comedy central are the ones who put up the capital and took the risk on Dave Chappelle before he was Dave Chappelle. And it's not completely unfair to say Chappelle show is a very large reason why Dave is who he is today.

And I'm not a contract lawyer but there's got to be language to put into a contract that covers future means of distribution that aren't currently used or even known of. It's literally their job to try and anticipate the unanticipated

---

jumi posted...

Just my opinion. Viacom are probably assholes, as most corporations are, but he signed the contracts knowing what they said, and at that point he had a couple of movies under his belt and was not a newbie. Sucks for him, but he was paid what he was owed. In what world, should he expect more?

they own his name and likeness throughout the universe in perpetuity. they also don't owe him for streaming royalties. he admits as much and says that he doesn't think it's right just because he signed a contract. then he said that he can only speak out against it but that he wants people not to watch it.

Viacom has leverage, but so does he. He's threatening to wage a vendetta againsy Viacom and any streaming service who airs his product and tear them down because he has the pull and voice now that he didn't have then, and, I'm quoting here, "fuck you" if you think he can't do anything about it. So, opinions will fall where they fall.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

And it's not completely unfair to say Chappelle show is a very large reason why Dave is who he is today.

Unfortunately for this argument, the same can be said in reverse. Chappelle's Show put Comedy Central on the map.

---

jumi posted...

Just my opinion. Viacom are probably assholes, as most corporations are, but he signed the contracts knowing what they said, and at that point he had a couple of movies under his belt and was not a newbie. Sucks for him, but he was paid what he was owed. In what world should he expect more?

No I don't think he knew that his TV show could be sold off without any input or residuals nearly two decades after he signed the contract.

It's pretty weird that a random music can stop a show from going to streaming services but the guy who has the show named after him has no power at all don't you think? These are the same corporations who want to stop everything from going to the public domain as well.

Solid Snake07 posted...

And I'm not a contract lawyer but there's got to be language to put into a contract that covers future means of distribution that aren't currently used or even known of. It's literally their job to try and anticipate the unanticipated

The job of the corporation. Who also have the job to own as much as they possibly can of the artist in question.

---

_Savage posted...

Unfortunately for this argument, the same can be said in reverse. Chappelle's Show put Comedy Central on the map.

Lol, not really. I mean it was a colossal hit that obviously helped the channel immensely. But CC had other big shows(to a lesser extent) they also had kind of a corner on stand up specials on until netflix came along.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Lol, not really. I mean it was a colossal hit that obviously helped the channel immensely. But CC had other big shows(to a lesser extent) they also had kind of a corner on stand up specials on until netflix came along.

You must have been a teenager in 2004.

https://ew.com/article/2004/08/20/chappelle-show-makes-comedy-central-success/

---

_Savage posted...

You must have been a teenager in 2004.

https://ew.com/article/2004/08/20/chappelle-show-makes-comedy-central-success/

I was...and i remember watching plenty standup, movies, the daily show, insomniac ect ect.

Yeah Chappelle show was a giant commercial success and growth driver. But it wasn't like comedy central was some fringe network most people had never heard of.

---

daily show averaged a 3rd of Chappelle's show once it got popular and lol @ insomniac which only stoners watched.
---

Never said comedy central wasn't popular, Chappelle's show clearly put it onto a higher tier it was one of the first cable shows to draw ratings similar to a show on broadcast TV
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

But it wasn't like comedy central was some fringe network most people had never heard of.

it most certainly was

---

comedy central was like one step above g4 in terms of "people knowing about it" lol.

---

berlyman101 posted...

they own his name and likeness throughout the universe in perpetuity. they also don't owe him for streaming royalties. he admits as much and says that he doesn't think it's right just because he signed a contract. then he said that he can only speak out against it but that he wants people not to watch it.

Viacom has leverage, but so does he. He's threatening to wage a vendetta againsy Viacom and any streaming service who airs his product and tear them down because he has the pull and voice now that he didn't have then, and, I'm quoting here, "fuck you" if you think he can't do anything about it. So, opinions will fall where they fall.

He has pull with Netflix, who he works with. It's a bit unrealistic to expect other streaming services to drop the show after they already paid for the license.

It's also folly to expect Viacom to budge on this when their partnership with Chappelle ended on terrible terms. If he had been a trooper and fulfilled all his obligations, it'd be sympathetic for him to want them to throw him a bone now and give him a cut of the streaming profits. But the dude bailed on them mid-production, resulting in all sorts of drama and loss of profit. Of course they're flipping him the bird now in every legal capacity.
---

Graycap posted...

He has pull with Netflix, who he works with. It's a bit unrealistic to expect other streaming services to drop the show after they already paid for the license.

It's also folly to expect Viacom to budge on this when their partnership with Chappelle ended on terrible terms. If he had been a trooper and fulfilled all his obligations, it'd be sympathetic for him to want them to throw him a bone now and give him a cut of the streaming profits. But the dude bailed on them mid-production, resulting in all sorts of drama and loss of profit. Of course they're flipping him the bird now in every legal capacity.

lol since when does a 'good relationship' mean corporations and executives will change contracts out of the goodness of their hearts? They have it locked. They wouldn't budge unless they think budging will get them more money.

I mean c'mon man. There's been more than one story of a manager outright betraying singers that work for them and that's someone they spend a lot of time with.


---

Sucks how even though Netflix is "sticking it to Viacom," ultimately it's still the consumers that pay the price. We lose something to watch on Netflix, and it's not like the monthly price is gonna go down. In fact it's going up soon lol

---

Hes changed his story about why he left the show multiple times. Hes making it sound like he didnt get paid much for the show when he did in fact make millions (millions less than he wants because no one expected the show to blow up like that, but still millions). It makes perfect sense for his initial contract to be in comedy centrals favor because no one knew whether or not the show was going to work out. When it became obvious that it was popular, they offered him 50 million and he turned it down. He walked away from them trying to pay him. And hes acting like he didnt understand the contract when hed been in show business for well over a decade with multiple shows/movies and comedy specials under his belt by then.

I love his comedy but I have a hard time siding with him on this. Morally, yes it feels a bit wrong that he doesnt make any royalties from the show. But I dont quite think hes a victim here.

Upload to youtube probably makes viacom really upset

dodgefan91 posted...

Hes changed his story about why he left the show multiple times. Hes making it sound like he didnt get paid much for the show when he did in fact make millions (millions less than he wants because no one expected the show to blow up like that, but still millions). It makes perfect sense for his initial contract to be in comedy centrals favor because no one knew whether or not the show was going to work out. When it became obvious that it was popular, they offered him 50 million and he turned it down. He walked away from them trying to pay him. And hes acting like he didnt understand the contract when hed been in show business for well over a decade with multiple shows/movies and comedy specials under his belt by then.

I love his comedy but I have a hard time siding with him on this. Morally, yes it feels a bit wrong that he doesnt make any royalties from the show. But I dont quite think hes a victim here.

Yeah it's a one sided take but that doesn't mean he isn't a victim. It's not a black and white thing. Both sides can be lying or have done bad things but that doesn't mean he can't still be a victim. The power imbalance is heavily in favor of the corporation here and even if he is making it out to be more one sided and unfair than it actually was that doesn't mean he wasn't taken advantage of.

---

This topic is a trip. Chapelle was the victim of borderline predatory behavior yet people want to side with one of the most shitty corporations in the country.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Comedy central are the ones who put up the capital and took the risk on Dave Chappelle before he was Dave Chappelle

Dave Chappelle was a stand up comedy giant and even acted in movies before he had the Chapelle show

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

This topic is a trip. Chapelle was the victim of borderline predatory behavior yet people want to side with one of the most shitty corporations in the country.

Must be all those years of bootlicking on this lame-o site under CBS ownership.

---

Chappelle is right and more entertainers should speak out about the awful practices in their industry.
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

he gets no royalties from it fuck viacom tbh glad Netfilx pulled it

That's fucking stupid. He signed a deal that didn't give him royalties. That's on him.

buddhamonster posted...

Since apparently reading the article is hard, the gist of it is Chappelle get's no money from the show, and when he told Netflix that he was upset by that, they pulled it down on his behalf.

He goes on to basically say fuck Viacom, and if you care at all about him you will boycott Chappelle's Show until he gets paid what he's owed.

He already got everything he was owed, which was everything in the deal.

---

Zeus posted...

That's fucking stupid. He signed a deal that didn't give him royalties. That's on him.

He already got everything he was owed, which was everything in the deal.

he acknowledged all that. he's saying it's still wrong because no one can be reasonably held to that standard in a position like the one he was in when he signed it. you may disagree, but that's his hill to die on, so to speak.

---

Dave is giving Netflix way too much moral credit.

We make more money off Dave than we would off Chappelles Show is as far as they thought it through.
---

EffectAndCause posted...

Dave is giving Netflix way too much moral credit.

We make more money off Dave than we would off Chappelles Show is as far as they thought it through.

They could just do both though.

I think its way bigger than Chappelle. Netflix has made itself the home of comedians in general recently, and Chappelle is seen as a god in stand up comedian circles, so he was appeased. If he didnt have that kind of influential pull, Netflix wouldnt have cared. Theyve weathered complaints from plenty of entertainers before.

---

Zeus posted...

He already got everything he was owed, which was everything in the deal.

The deal was signed before streaming was a thing and they're using his likeness and name to make money off of his creation. It was a bad deal then and an even worse one now.
---

TheoryzC posted...

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CH-rR9znT3g/?igshid=uxej7ft50iwz

I feel like Dave is being a real fucking baby here.

Yeah it might have not been the big payout you're looking for, but Viacom also took a chance on your show. It just happen to blow the fuck up.

Now they should pay him royalties on the show. But at the end of the day there couldve been no show, no royalties, and Dave not being nearly as popular(or rich)

---

Stop saying they took a chance. He made it clear HBO told him to gtfo and now they want to make money off his image.

The irony is if this was a game dev fighting against publishers you guys would do a whole 360

hyperpowder posted...

I feel like Dave is being a real fucking baby here.

Yeah it might have not been the big payout you're looking for, but Viacom also took a chance on your show. It just happen to blow the fuck up.

Now they should pay him royalties on the show. But at the end of the day there couldve been no show, no royalties, and Dave not being nearly as popular(or rich)

I think his real grudge is toward HBO with Viacom acting as a proxy. He is transparent that a lot of this is about his feelings. That's the reason he uses all of the analogies and comparisons to times when bullies and grifters took something.

---

South Park put Comedy Central on the map. Chappelle Show certainly helped, but South Park made CC.

berlyman101 posted...

That's the reason he uses all of the analogies and comparisons to times when bullies and grifters took something.

I think the point is people say the same shit about bullies and grifters.

"Dave should have known better than to bet his $60 with a grifter!!!!!"

Maybe, but does that make it right? Is it ok to scam people because they should have known better?

WingsOfGood posted...

Stop saying they took a chance. He made it clear HBO told him to gtfo and now they want to make money off his image.

The irony is if this was a game dev fighting against publishers you guys would do a whole 360

If a game dev canceled production of the third game in a series midway and then wanted the other games to be removed from Steam over not being entitled to royalties from purchases because the games were made before Steam existed I'd lol and still buy the games.
---

What a cry baby bitch

CADE FOSTER posted...

Viacom owns his likeness and name in purpetuity forever they fucked him on that contract he was a kid he didnt know better

Viacom is shit, but 28 is hardly a kid.

---

"Do not get between a person and their paper"

*gets between Viacom and Netflix*

Look Dave, you signed a contract. It's nobody's fault but your own you fucking baby.

thrashmetal14 posted...

South Park put Comedy Central on the map. Chappelle Show certainly helped, but South Park made CC.

Oh please. Matt and Trey are white guys, there's a limit to how edgy they can be.

And South Park was only watched by stoners and kids. Actual adults enjoyed Chappelle's Show.
---