Spoilers Black Widow grade and discussion thread

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.

 

Sure, but the entire 'I doubt it'll make a difference' has stopped too many people to try and make a difference. I agree, it probably won't. But atleast she's trying. And I really appreciate that.

 

...or drop superhero films from this point forward.

 

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.

I think it's a safe bet that whether or not the suit is successful (or more likely settled out of court) going forwards most high level Hollywood talent representatives are going to want to negotiate either a more even split of direct sales across all platforms; exhibitors or digital. Or at the very least clauses to cover this kind of eventuality.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

I've said it many times - people confuse the public image of Disney they like to present with the actual reality of business, in which they are a monster and not shy using its power to its own benefit.

However this applies to Hollywood in general, that whole industry is fake as fuck but on occasion they don't manage to sweep their dirt under the carpet quick enough before it gets to be public enough for people to notice. "Creative accounting" is just one of the many shady things Hollywood does and it worked so far. I can only hope more A listers stand up publicly so maybe something changes.

 

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.

 

Disney could do almost as well (financially) without being assh, er, jerks, to the people that work for them and have worked for them in the past. I just wish they realized that. The PR on this is really bad for them and was an unforced error on their part.

 

Bad PR means little if people keep buying.

 

Ever met one of those annoying pessimists that try and stay positive? I'm one of them..... Are you right? Probably. But I hope you're wrong.

 

Well said. Its the same thing many have said about Amazon's terrible practices with its employees, which has been well covered for years, but the consumer won't stop using the service / filling the company's pockets, so few things ever change, other than some cosmetic alterations to appear as if they care about those who work for the company.

 

You would pretty much have to never shop anywhere or buy anything from any company if you don't want to support a company that cheats and/or treats their workers like shit. Those are pretty much standard business practices for everybody at this point.

 

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.

Curiously, they have no problem with Zachary Levi having done a Marvel movie though.

 

[QUOTE="The Wormhole, post: 13845685, member: 751]

Curiously, they have no problem with Zachary Levi having done a Marvel movie though.[/QUOTE]

Or Willem Dafoe, JK Simmons, Andy Serkis (who was in Black Panther and is now Alfred), Colin Farrell (albeit Daredevil was a long time ago), Zoe Kravitz (Catwoman and X-Men First Class), Djimon Honsou (Captain Marvel and Shazam), Danny Huston (Wolverine and Wonder Woman), Idris Elba (the Suicide Squad and Thor series). Not sure how well the theory holds up, though I can accept that they maybe didn’t want their WW played by someone who’d already played a warrior goddess type.

 

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 think, like you say, it’s probably more to do with the significance of the character as well as maybe their similarity to the one they’ve already played. I can’t imagine, for example, if there’s a Prince Namor film, that Marvel would cast Jason Momoa. Nor is Chris Evans likely to be cast as Superman, or Tom Holland as Robin; then again, Michael B. Jordan keeps being linked to the role of Superman, despite having already been Johnny Storm and Killmonger.

Marvel does seem to be quite relaxed about superhero double-jobbing, having cast two ex-Human Torches (Evans & Jordan), 2 former Batmen (Keaton & Bale), an ex-Catwoman (Pfeiffer) in the MCU, while IIRC Jeffrey Wright was cast in What If... after being cast as Gordon in The Batman (though he’s only a voice actor in What If).

 

Just saw a commercial for Shang Chi, and says ONLY in theaters...wonder if the lawsuit affected that
..

 

This problem has existed since Streaming began, Contracts for residuals and the like didn't include streaming. And there have been legal fights for that.
Scarlett's lawsuit is just another step in that process. From what I read her contract said she gets some % on the backend, and it being dual launched caused the Box Office to be low, and apparently her contract doesn't cover streaming releases. Now back in the day .. long ago when Wonder woman 2 came out, there were new contracts to make sure that everybody was taken care of when it was released to stream. now all the new relases wern't taken care of that way, and the studios not caring.
Its not the money, its the principal of the thing in that she had a contract and they done a ring round to cut her out of money that was due to her. Reguardless of the amount she got paid up front or in the back. This lawsuit needs to happen to make hollywood honest.

 

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".