• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)


  • Total voters
    185
Nic Pizzolatto makes more in a year than you'll earn in your lifetime.

If so, he's a rare exception to the rule.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/30/opinion/hollywood-writers-guild-strike.html
Luckily, the W.G.A.’s health insurance plan is structured so writers bank points that let us keep coverage between jobs, or else my family’s financial solvency would have been in serious doubt. The W.G.A.’s members make on average around $250,000 a year — and that’s before taxes, union dues and commissions to agents, managers and lawyers. The reality is that the seemingly big paychecks of Hollywood have to last through the lean periods that nearly every writer experiences.

Traditionally, one of the biggest buffers against that volatility is residuals: the money that writers earn from the reuse of our work, encompassing everything from cable and syndicated reruns of old television episodes to airlines licensing movies for in-flight viewing. The formulas used to calculate the money owed for various forms of reuse are complicated and vary widely across platforms. As a result, the payments can be relatively tiny or very large — and one of the more delightful parts of being a working screenwriter is opening your mailbox and seeing the distinctive green envelope that residuals come in, not knowing if the check inside will cover an In-N-Out burger or your mortgage payment.

But the odds of a big check that bails out a writer in dire financial straits are growing ever longer. Programming is moving increasingly away from theatrical, broadcast and cable to streaming platforms, which typically pay residuals at a far lower rate. This is why one of the major areas in our current negotiation is bringing streaming residuals more in line with broadcast and cable rates.

The issues being hashed out at the bargaining table include increasing the minimum compensation for writers and strengthening so-called span protection, which ensures that writers are paid fairly if the time spent creating a TV episode extends beyond two and a half weeks, as the industry shifts from the 22-episodes-a-year world of network television to the eight-episodes-every-18-months-if-you’re-lucky model embraced by streaming companies. The W.G.A. is also pushing to address the proliferation in streaming television of so-called mini rooms — writing staffs that are smaller in size and active for a shorter duration than a traditional writers’ room.
 
It is my understanding as well that the strike involves proper residual payments for new methods of distribution in the same way the nineties strike was about home entertainment and the 2007 strike was apparently about digital services that have evolved since then.

That's a major part of it, but there's a lot more, such as the erosion of the writers' room system that's vital not only for steady employment but for the training of future writers, producers, and showrunners. Also the threat of studios using AI programs to write drafts and then hiring writers to polish them into filmability, which would presumably mean the writers got paid less, as well as undermining the quality of TV and movies.

Here's a full list of the WGA's proposals and the studios' responses (or lack thereof): https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1653272585252257793
 
Stating facts not allowed. Noted.

This kind of sass isn't necessary. You were being unnecessarily condescending by talking about another poster's lifetime earnings.

Now ends the derail, or else warnings will follow.
 
Given how there are Grifters slagging off the Marvels so hard, it's rather sad that for whatever reason Brie Larson is somehow still getting more hate than Ezra Miller is.

I was talking about Larson with one of my cinema buddies, and we both just didn't get the hate against both her and Captain Marvel. I thought it was a great movie, and really enjoyed both the character and Larson's performance as Danvers.
 
Nic Pizzolatto makes more in a year than you'll earn in your lifetime.

And some Hollywood producers will earn more in a week than he earns in a year. And even if he does earn a huge amount (and his back catalogue isn't that extensive) so what? Doesn't mean all writers do and that's the point of the strike. It's not rocket science.

I was talking about Larson with one of my cinema buddies, and we both just didn't get the hate against both her and Captain Marvel. I thought it was a great movie, and really enjoyed both the character and Larson's performance as Danvers.

As Danvers she's a bit of a dick BUT no more of a dick than Tom Cruise is as Maverick, she was playing a smug hot shot jet jockey and did it really well, it's just that some people don't like that kind of attitude in a female character.

My only problem is how powerful Captain Marvel is (which before anyone says anything is the same reason I'm not the biggest Superman fan in the world either) but even then I could be mistaken (I read somewhere that technically Wanda is the most powerful Avenger but don't know how true that is, and clearly Strange is no slouch)
 
And some Hollywood producers will earn more in a week than he earns in a year. And even if he does earn a huge amount (and his back catalogue isn't that extensive) so what? Doesn't mean all writers do and that's the point of the strike. It's not rocket science.



As Danvers she's a bit of a dick BUT no more of a dick than Tom Cruise is as Maverick, she was playing a smug hot shot jet jockey and did it really well, it's just that some people don't like that kind of attitude in a female character.

My only problem is how powerful Captain Marvel is (which before anyone says anything is the same reason I'm not the biggest Superman fan in the world either) but even then I could be mistaken (I read somewhere that technically Wanda is the most powerful Avenger but don't know how true that is, and clearly Strange is no slouch)

Wanda is definitely the most powerful Avenger in the MCU at this point. She just took a while to get there. The potential was obviously there for a long time, but before learning her powers better she was a glass cannon who could easily be neutralized. Afterwards, Strange could barely touch her (and he is also one of the most powerful Avengers).
 
Which is why the angle they are going with is an interesting one in the Marvels.
They are not depowering her at all from what we’ve seen.
But using her powers causes her to put Kamala and Monica in harm’s way (who are not helpless at all, mind you, though not on the same power level as Carol).
So she has to make careful choices when and where to use her powers and I am looking forward to the ensuing hijinx.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top