Maybe, but when a super rich person tries to sue a super rich corporation, that doesn't help the guest cast on some Disney+ show. Screwers gonna screw.
...That's not to say she shouldn't sue. Just that I doubt it will help "the little people" out at all.
She could go from being the Black Widow to the Black Canary.
In this case, the "little people" generally don't get residuals based on either box office or downloads, just a flat fee for services rendered; so it's neither here nor there for the vast majority of them.Maybe, but when a super rich person tries to sue a super rich corporation, that doesn't help the guest cast on some Disney+ show. Screwers gonna screw.
...That's not to say she shouldn't sue. Just that I doubt it will help "the little people" out at all.
In this case, the "little people" generally don't get residuals based on either box office or downloads, just a flat fee for services rendered; so it's neither here nor there for the vast majority of them.
Actually yes it does because it sets a precedent in civil case law. So when someone sued for this type of things claims the cases without merit and tries for a dismissal on certain legal grounds a plaintiff's lawyer can point to this case and say, "there's grounds for a case like this because the case like this was adjudicated before.Maybe, but when a super rich person tries to sue a super rich corporation, that doesn't help the guest cast on some Disney+ show. Screwers gonna screw.
...That's not to say she shouldn't sue. Just that I doubt it will help "the little people" out at all.
Pretty sure they're already doing that regardless. On the print side of things especially there's a bunch of authors that have done work and Disney is refusing to pay.Sure, but if it's easy enough for Disnip to f-word the big names, consider how easy it is for them to royally butt f-word the 'no-ones'.
Pretty sure they're already doing that regardless. On the print side of things especially there's a bunch of authors that have done work and Disney is refusing to pay.
This thing with ScarJo won't impact that one way or the other, it's just business.
Bad PR means little if people keep buying.
That likely wouldn't happen anyway. DC has a thing against using actors from Marvel movies. The director of The Batman while discussing the casting of Robert Pattinson in an interview noted that policy and added "do you have any idea how hard it is to find established actors who haven't done a Marvel movie these days?" There's also a rumor they flat out refused to let Jamie Alexander even audition for Wonder Woman because of her association with Marvel.She could go from being the Black Widow to the Black Canary.
Hmm, now that you put it that way, maybe it is just a case of they don't want someone from Marvel as one of their iconic superheroes? Would certainly explain why the director of The Batman would make a point about DC not wanting a Marvel actor for Batman.
Another thought I had was maybe they were referring to the MCU specifically, since many of the actors you mentioned did Marvel movies that weren't part of the MCU, but then that still wouldn't explain Andy Serkis, Djimon Honsou or Idris Elba.
For that matter, what about this thing about Scarlett Johansson apparently not being allowed to take part in another superhero franchise? Does that not apply to all MCU actors? Djimon Honsou in particular did Marvel and DC movies that were only a month apart in their release dates, and he's also in The King's Man.
I saw that too but it was from a Hong Kong advertisement. They don't have Disney plus in Hong Kong so I thought that's why it said "only in theaters".Just saw a commercial for Shang Chi, and says ONLY in theaters...wonder if the lawsuit affected that
..
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.