Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[JD]

I don't know, but it seems to be a common practice in children's TV. Remember how Justice League became Justice League Unlimited after two seasons? Similarly, Young Justice gets a new subtitle every year, and I remember Cartoon Network had a practice of restarting/retitling shows like Ben 10 every few seasons. So it doesn't seem implausible that Disney would do the same thing.

We're not really talking about reboots here, just rebrandings. DeKnight's point is that it is the same show, but the retitling allows the studio to treat it as a separate show from a contractual standpoint so that they can reset the pay levels. Regular cast and crew are supposed to get raises every year a show is in production, so treating it as a new show lets them lower the pay instead.

This isn't the same situation, as far as I know those were all new seasons of the same series, with the same creative team, cast, and I believe all or most of them continued the previous seasons story arcs.
Based on everything we know about Born Again, it's a new series, with a new creative team, and a new story, and so far the only connection to the Netflix series is Cox and D'Onofrio, who don't even appear to be playing the same versions of their characters.

 

[Christopher]

This isn't the same situation, as far as I know those were all new seasons of the same series, with the same creative team, cast, and I believe all or most of them continued the previous seasons story arcs.

Yes, and that is exactly the thing DeKnight is criticizing. One example he cited in the ongoing Twitter discussion was The Suite Life of Zack & Cody being retitled The Suite Life on Deck and purported to be a spinoff when it's actually a direct continuation.

You're still missing the point that DeKnight is not talking exclusively about Daredevil. He's simply using it as an example to call attention to the wider problem.

Based on everything we know about Born Again, it's a new series, with a new creative team, and a new story, and so far the only connection to the Netflix series is Cox and D'Onofrio, who don't even appear to be playing the same versions of their characters.

Which doesn't matter in terms of the contractual issue DeKnight is discussing. The plot and the in-story continuity differences are abstract and only matter within the fiction. In real-world terms, Cox and D'Onofrio have been hired for what is effectively a continuation of the same job they did before, a job they have years of experience with, yet are being paid for it as if they were new hires.

By analogy, let's say someone does a job for a certain company for several years, and then another company hires them to do the same job for them, specifically because of their prior experience doing that job for the other company. Wouldn't you expect that company to pay them commensurately with their experience, rather than treating them the same as they would a less experienced new hire? The fact that they're doing the job in a new context doesn't mean it isn't building on their past experience doing that same job elsewhere. So it's disingenuous to pretend it's a brand-new start unconnected to what came before.

 

[JD]

Yes, and that is exactly the thing DeKnight is criticizing. One example he cited in the ongoing Twitter discussion was The Suite Life of Zack & Cody being retitled The Suite Life on Deck and purported to be a spinoff when it's actually a direct continuation.

You're still missing the point that DeKnight is not talking exclusively about Daredevil. He's simply using it as an example to call attention to the wider problem.




Which doesn't matter in terms of the contractual issue DeKnight is discussing. The plot and the in-story continuity differences are abstract and only matter within the fiction. In real-world terms, Cox and D'Onofrio have been hired for what is effectively a continuation of the same job they did before, a job they have years of experience with, yet are being paid for it as if they were new hires.

By analogy, let's say someone does a job for a certain company for several years, and then another company hires them to do the same job for them, specifically because of their prior experience doing that job for the other company. Wouldn't you expect that company to pay them commensurately with their experience, rather than treating them the same as they would a less experienced new hire? The fact that they're doing the job in a new context doesn't mean it isn't building on their past experience doing that same job elsewhere. So it's disingenuous to pretend it's a brand-new start unconnected to what came before.

Oh OK, I just went back to the article, and I think when I skimmed through it before I missed the exact quote from DeKnight, and now I understand what he was talking about in general, but I still disagree about it applying to Born Again, since it's not a continuation of the Netflix show. Obviously the contracts for Born Again are going to be on Season 1 terms, because it will be Season 1.

 

[Christopher]

I still disagree about it applying to Born Again, since it's not a continuation of the Netflix show. Obviously the contracts for Born Again are going to be on Season 1 terms, because it will be Season 1.

But that's exactly what Disney wants you to think. That's the scam DeKnight's talking about -- they hire actors to play the same characters they've been playing, but they change up the storyline enough to pass it off as a spinoff or a distinct show. The point is not that it isn't different; on the contrary, the point is that they make it nominally different in order to have an excuse for resetting the contracts. From the actors' standpoint, they're still continuing in the same job but getting paid less.

Just ignore the story and continuity issues. This is about employment. Imagine that you worked for a company for several years, and then instead of promoting you, they reassigned you to do essentially the same job in a different office and decreased your pay under the pretense that you're just starting a new job. Would you be satisfied with that arrangement?

 

[Timby]

Oh OK, I just went back to the article, and I think when I skimmed through it before I missed the exact quote from DeKnight, and now I understand what he was talking about in general, but I still disagree about it applying to Born Again, since it's not a continuation of the Netflix show. Obviously the contracts for Born Again are going to be on Season 1 terms, because it will be Season 1.

This is what we call a distinction without a difference.

 

[JD]

But that's exactly what Disney wants you to think. That's the scam DeKnight's talking about -- they hire actors to play the same characters they've been playing, but they change up the storyline enough to pass it off as a spinoff or a distinct show. The point is not that it isn't different; on the contrary, the point is that they make it nominally different in order to have an excuse for resetting the contracts. From the actors' standpoint, they're still continuing in the same job but getting paid less.

Just ignore the story and continuity issues. This is about employment. Imagine that you worked for a company for several years, and then instead of promoting you, they reassigned you to do essentially the same job in a different office and decreased your pay under the pretense that you're just starting a new job. Would you be satisfied with that arrangement?

But that's not what's happening, because they're not playing the same characters. They're basically playing new characters who happen to be based on the same characters from the comics.

 

[JD]

And just to be clear, I'm not defending Disney doing what DeKnight is talking about, because that is complete bullshit that needs to stop, I'm just saying that's not what's happening here.

 

[Rich Watson]

This is what we call a distinction without a difference.

Did Disney make the first "Daredevil" series? If the answer is 'Yes' he has a point; if it's 'No' he doesn't.

(Hint: The answer is 'No'.)

 

[Christopher]

But that's not what's happening, because they're not playing the same characters. They're basically playing new characters who happen to be based on the same characters from the comics.

That's not how fiction works. A character is the same character regardless of the continuity or interpretation. Certainly that's true from a legal standpoint, which is why Disney would sue the pants off you if you tried to publish a Daredevil story and claimed it was a different character because it was in your own version of the continuity.

Also, you're making an assumption. It's still ambiguous whether the new show will acknowledge anything from the previous continuity or not. But it doesn't matter either way, because you're still focusing on absolutely the wrong thing. It's not about fannish concerns like what continuity a character occupies. That's abstract and irrelevant. This is a question of employment, of people's ability to make a living. Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio have been hired for these jobs because of their prior experience playing these roles. It's absurd to pretend there's no connection. It's the same job in a slightly different context, a continuation of what they did before, but for less pay.

Did Disney make the first "Daredevil" series? If the answer is 'Yes' he has a point; if it's 'No' he doesn't.

(Hint: The answer is 'No'.)

Wrong, the answer is yes. I repeat what I said two days ago: Daredevil was produced by Marvel Television and ABC Studios, both of which were owned by The Walt Disney Company. It was distributed by Netflix but not produced by them.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

How does the new Frasier, Night Court, etc treat the crew's contracts? Starting at season 1 or season 12 and whatever?
How many years does it take, Admiral, until it's no longer wrong?

 

[Christopher]

How does the new Frasier, Night Court, etc treat the crew's contracts? Starting at season 1 or season 12 and whatever?

Night Court only has one actor in common with the original series, and it's decades later, so I don't think it works as a comparison. (I wasn't aware of the Frasier reboot, but looking it up, it seems like a similar situation.) Legitimately reviving a long-gone show is one thing; retitling a continuing show and pretending it's new in order to reduce cast and crew pay is something entirely different. They shouldn't be equated.

Granted, there's been a gap of a few years between Daredevils, but as I said, DeKnight is merely using it to call attention to a larger practice, which is where the focus should be. Splitting hairs about whether it applies perfectly to Born Again is missing the entire point.

Anyway, citing other examples doesn't prove that it's right. DeKnight's whole point is that this is a widespread practice. Many industry norms are unjust; that's the whole reason unions need to exist.

 

[JD]

That's not how fiction works. A character is the same character regardless of the continuity or interpretation. Certainly that's true from a legal standpoint, which is why Disney would sue the pants off you if you tried to publish a Daredevil story and claimed it was a different character because it was in your own version of the continuity.

But wouldn't different adaptations be separate entities legally? Again, not

Also, you're making an assumption. It's still ambiguous whether the new show will acknowledge anything from the previous continuity or not. But it doesn't matter either way, because you're still focusing on absolutely the wrong thing. It's not about fannish concerns like what continuity a character occupies. That's abstract and irrelevant. This is a question of employment, of people's ability to make a living. Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio have been hired for these jobs because of their prior experience playing these roles. It's absurd to pretend there's no connection. It's the same job in a slightly different context, a continuation of what they did before, but for less pay.

Setting aside the Cox/D'Onofrio situation for a second, wouldn't the fact that this is being produced by a new studio, with new producers make it a new show? And it's a new show, then it's not a continuation of their old jobs.


Wrong, the answer is yes. I repeat what I said two days ago: Daredevil was produced by Marvel Television and ABC Studios, both of which were owned by The Walt Disney Company. It was distributed by Netflix but not produced by them.

But Born Again is being produced Marvel Studios, which is a separate studio from Marvel Television. Or would Disney being the parent company be the only thing that matters in this situation?

Just ignore the story and continuity issues. This is about employment. Imagine that you worked for a company for several years, and then instead of promoting you, they reassigned you to do essentially the same job in a different office and decreased your pay under the pretense that you're just starting a new job. Would you be satisfied with that arrangement?

Wouldn't this be more like quitting a job for one company and then years later getting hired years later for a similar position for a different company? Which I actually did do, and I believe at the second job I did start at a lower pay level than I was at when I quit the first job. I also went back to the first job after I quit the new one, and I when I went back I also started at a lower pay level than when I quit.

 

[Timby]

I think some folks are forgetting that Jon Bernthal is also reprising his role of the Punisher.

This is clearly carrying the DNA of the Netflix shows.

 

[Mage]

I think some folks are forgetting that Jon Bernthal is also reprising his role of the Punisher.

This is clearly carrying the DNA of the Netflix shows.

Wait, what? When did that happen??

 

[Tosk]

This is clearly carrying the DNA of the Netflix shows.

They even use the Daredevil main theme in She-Hulk.

 

[Christopher]

But wouldn't different adaptations be separate entities legally?

The adaptation would be, but all adaptations have to license the character from the same owner, because the character is legally the same entity no matter how they're reinterpreted. The producers of the adaptation may have the rights to the adaptation itself and anything original to it, but they're only borrowing the pre-existing character and universe from the original owners. (Which is why Marvel can no longer publish comics about ROM the Spaceknight, since they no longer have the license to the toy character, but they can still use the Dire Wraiths and other concepts they created for the ROM comics, since those are original to Marvel. And it's why DC didn't publish any Batman '66 comics for decades, because that was a 20th Century Fox show and DC didn't have the rights to its original characters like King Tut or Egghead.)

Or would Disney being the parent company be the only thing that matters in this situation?

Yes, that is Steven DeKnight's point, that this is a Disney practice.

 

[Timby]

Wait, what? When did that happen??

Reported in March.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Agents of SHIELD debuted 10 years ago today.

ETA: As I happen to remember that day well, I should note that this is also the 10-year anniversary of the release date of the Iron Man 3 blu-ray, which makes today also the 10-year anniversary of the Agent Carter one shot.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

This whole thing is messy and not well explained. DeKnight's Spartacus series had a different subtitle each season yet is said to be different with what Disney is doing with Born Again. Which makes sense, it seems ridiculous that it would come down to the title alone to determine what is a new show. Did Enterprise contracts reset when the show was called Star Trek Enterprise? Would this new series not be confusing being labeled as Daredevil Season 4?

It sounds like there is an issue with how contracts are done and what constitutes a fair restart to be able to start over with payouts and so on but instead of addressing that there's just a focus on Disney having a new title for this show.

 

[Christopher]

This whole thing is messy and not well explained. DeKnight's Spartacus series had a different subtitle each season yet is said to be different with what Disney is doing with Born Again. Which makes sense, it seems ridiculous that it would come down to the title alone to determine what is a new show. Did Enterprise contracts reset when the show was called Star Trek Enterprise? Would this new series not be confusing being labeled as Daredevil Season 4?

The whole point is that it shouldn't come down to title alone. That's why DeKnight calls Disney's practice a scam, because they're treating their retitled, slightly reformatted continuations as new shows when they're actually not. The point is that if they were honest about it, they would admit they're continuations and pay the cast and crew accordingly, as was done in the other cases you mention.

It sounds like there is an issue with how contracts are done and what constitutes a fair restart to be able to start over with payouts and so on but instead of addressing that there's just a focus on Disney having a new title for this show.

Again, that's the point -- that Disney uses new titles as an excuse for restarting the contracts. And DeKnight is saying a new title shouldn't be enough justification to do that.