Pro and Con

“Don’t walk under the ladder, it’s bad luck”, “Knock on wood.” Do these phrases sound 

familiar? If so, you’re aware of superstitions and may or may not believe in them. There is no exact definition for superstition because it is a highly contested topic. However, according to Oxford languages, superstition is a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action, event, or practice. For many, engaging with superstitious behaviors provides a sense of control and reduces anxiety,which is why levels of superstition increase during times of stress and angst relief. Although it may not seem like it, we sometimes unintentionally incorporate superstitions into our everyday lives . For some people, engaging with superstitious behaviors gives them a sense of control and reduces anxiety, which is why levels of superstition increase at times of stress and fear and why I strongly believe that superstitions exist and include many benefits. 

Although most people apprehend that superstitious behaviors are not likely  to change fate, harboring unfounded ideals isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. In fact, superstitions are common and may also help with relieving stress in times of distress. Superstitions allow us to position ourselves away from ourselves and our anxieties. The general public indulges in magical wondering regardless of what is going on in the world. A 2015 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair ballot discovered that only 24 percent of respondents pronounced being superstitious, but 60 percent admitted they say “knock on wood.”

There are many more benefits to superstitious beliefs than originally believed. Superstition can serve as a coping mechanism for many human beings. Relieving our apprehensions with delusion can be a psychological defense. Many common superstitions around the world prove this theory. Superstition is highly widespread within sports in highly competitive environments. Four out of five professional athletes have engaged with at least one superstitious behavior prior to performance.Within sports, superstitions have been displayed to decrease tension and offer a sense of control over unpredictable factors. Additionally, athletes use superstitions to relieve stress and provide themselves with comfort, motivating them to strive to do their best because superstition acts as a psychological defense tool. An example of this is baseball player Larry Walker, The national League MVP in 1997 who was elected to five all-star games.

But what caused this success? According to Walker, this is thanks to his fixation with the number three. He wore the number 33 for his entire career, would only wake up at 33 past the hour, and much more. Walker even got married on November 3rd at 3:33pm. His actions refer to the previous definition of superstition, which is a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or practice based on such. Walker displays the common behavior of someone who strongly believes in superstition, which has since done nothing but provide him with comfort, relief from anxiety, and success. Aside from Walker’s beliefs, many superstitions are used in everyday life. In conclusion, superstitions are subjective to every person based upon their beliefs, experiences, and conclusive feelings. Superstitions are a highly debatable topic. However, I believe in them and you should as well. I strongly believe superstitions are real and serve a great benefit to those who believe in them. Whether it’s in sports, times of fear or worry, or just out of a simple habit, superstitions are a psychological defense mechanism that is used to ease the feeling of anxiety and worry. The many benefits of superstitions are well worth giving them a shot.

“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic,” Disney replied to Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit, which claimed that not receiving additional compensation from the Disney + release of Black Widow was a contract violation. Although it wasn’t a violation, her lawsuit led to an interesting debate: should actors receive additional compensation for the release of their movies on Disney+? 

The answer is no. COVID-19 left box office revenue dropping rapidly. Black Widow, released this July, had the lowest total ticket sales for any Marvel Studios release since 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. The most logical explanation for this staggering drop in revenue is the crippling effect of the pandemic on the movie industry. Rebecca Rubin reported for Variety that as of early September 2021, “the overall domestic box office has reached $1.05 billion in ticket sales, down 42.3% from 2020 and down 81.3% from 2019.” The movie industry took a deep plummet after the pandemic hit, and it will take years to recover from it. The pandemic is still a threat, meaning that the box office revenues may fluctuate in the coming year. Once the pandemic is over, it should slowly stabilize. 

As box office revenues drop, streaming services are thriving. People turned to virtual, at-home entertainment during quarantine, and streaming services  like Disney+, YouTube, and Netflix grew in popularity. Brad Adgate wrote about the pandemic/entertainment correlation for Forbes, explaining that “With shut-downs occurring throughout the globe, consumers relied on digital (video-on-demand, streaming video and electronic sell through) for entertainment. The trend toward digital entertainment was accelerated in 2020 as revenue climbed to $61.8 billion, an increase of 31%.” Increased use of streaming services plus decreased viewership of movies in theatres is a very simple equation, and the best answer is to put movies on streaming services. 

This increased use of digital entertainment should have no impact on actors’ pay. Actors are compensated for the filming of a movie and the release of that movie. The platforms on which the film is released, whether they are movie theatres or streaming services, are of no relevance to their paychecks. Production companies like Disney have the right to release their movie by whatever means will make it the most successful– which, currently, are digital streaming services– and actors are not deserving of additional compensation when that release happens. The controversy around Disney’s compensation of their actors is a baseless argument that ignores the current state of the movie industry.

Disney actors and actresses are suing Disney in response to their films being simultaneously released in theaters and on Disney’s streaming service, Disney+. Movies can be unlocked on Disney+ by subscribers paying a $30 fee for premium access. The revenue generated from Disney+ goes directly to Disney themselves, with none of the profit going into the actor’s pockets. This should not be the case, because actors put in the time and commitment to deserve their compensation. 

Two recent Disney movies, Black Widow and Jungle Cruise, debuted both in theaters and on Disney+. Due to the pandemic, many families have quarantined inside their homes, leaving their only option for watching movies to be on streaming services. According to Screen Rant, Black Widow generated over $500 million, however over $125 million of that total was generated from Disney+ sales, none of which was a part of the actors’ profit. Jungle Cruise generated over $90 million, with only $27.6 million resulting from box office sales. 

Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is another one of Disney’s Marvel movies that premiered recently, however, it did not have a simultaneous release on Disney+ with its release in theaters. According to USA Today, Shang Chi generated nearly $250 million dollars in box office sales, which is just in its first two weeks in theaters. Shang Chi is expected to make its debut on Disney+ on October 18th, giving the movie a 45 day theatrical release before becoming available on Disney+. This provides the actors with ample compensation for their movies because their contacts explicitly dictate the percentage of sales that they will receive from the box office. When Disney+ becomes involved, the water gets muddy. 

Pre-pandemic, the movie release process began in theaters, then progressed to DVD, before being signed with streaming services. Due to the pandemic, this process has been shifted out of order, with viewers wanting immediate access to movies on streaming services. Actors and actresses will spend years preparing for the release of their movie, and they deserve ample compensation for their efforts. Disney argues that their contracts dictate what they receive, however what many companies are realizing is that there is no “pandemic clause” dictating protocols for uncertain circumstances. Actors have worked exceptionally hard to both navigate the uncharted waters of the pandemic and bring amazing characters to life on the big screen. These actors deserve to receive the profit, not Disney themselves.