"Black Widow" solo MCU movie - Page 23

*Leo656* · 07-29-2021, 09:48 PM

Yeah, it kind of died down but at the beginning of the whole lockdown ordeal there was a lot of scuttlebutt about actors, directors, etc. being concerned that there was no way the studios would be able to pay them the agreed-upon amount as written into their contracts if some of these bigger movies went to the streaming model. Also, lots of concern about what it would mean going forward even after the lockdowns were over; if the theatrical distribution model is removed entirely, then all those billion-dollar grosses go away forever and so does a large chunk of the actors' and directors' profits.

"Extenuating circumstances" or not, when you're talking about tens of millions of dollars, you're not concerned about the "Why". You want your f*cking money. "We agreed to X, and now you're trying to pay me Y? Alright, let's see what my lawyer has to say about that."

It probably also matters to Scarlett because this movie doesn't have the big merchandise and action figure push to go along with it the way those Avengers movies did, so she's not going to make as much on the back-end as she did with those.

Seeing as how her character's already been killed off and they're very obviously going to replace her with the actor who played her sister going forward, I don't think she's ultimately very concerned about "pissing off Disney". WB would still pay her a fortune to be in a DC movie just out of pure spite, the way Disney is trying to court Henry Cavill now since he's all annoyed with WB. It's all about the long game.

She'll be fine. Always get your money. "But... but the pandemic...!" Doesn't matter. If you're promised X, don't settle for Y. Always get your money.

*Andrew NDB* · 07-29-2021, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

and they're very obviously going to replace her with the actor who played her sister going forward

Apparently not. Word is that she'll be the new "Ronin" (what Hawkeye was in the last Avengers movie), not the new Black Widow.

*Leo656* · 07-29-2021, 11:23 PM

You'd know better, you watch these things more closely than I do.

Saw a few more articles about this. Disney is totally in the wrong, here. They're trying to paint Scarlett as "greedy" and everything just for wanting her agreed-upon compensation... "Because the pandemic, though!"

Her lawyer is totally right. The studios love the streaming model because they get to keep a bigger percentage of the profits, and screw over the actors by crying poverty. "We just didn't make enough money to pay you what we agreed, there's no more theaters, you have to just let it go, blah blah blah."

This happened in wrestling, too, when Vince launched the WWE Network a few years ago and actual PPV more or less went away. If a person was paying $10 a month for everything WWE puts out including PPVs, nobody was going to pay $50 just to buy the PPV by itself every month. And a TON of wrestlers had a ton of money contracted to them for PPV bonuses - "If we get This Many PPV buys, you get This Much of a percentage", which for some guys was hundreds of thousands of dollars, which added up to millions of dollars per year. All of a sudden, that revenue stream was gone overnight. The company ended up making MORE money than ever before on subscription fees, but the talent lost millions. AND, since there's no union in that business, there was nothing they could do about it. Coola knows exactly what I'm talking about; it's one of the main reasons CM Punk quit.

So, big corporations using the streaming model as a way to cheat performers out of millions of dollars in promised and agreed-upon payment (while pocketing more for themselves) is nothing new. Luckily for Scarlett, she's in SAG and can afford a shark lawyer. Disney will settle. She'll get something. Maybe not the $20 million or $50 million or whatever she's claiming they screwed her out of, but she'll get a nice chunk of change.

Ultimately, this is a good thing for everyone (except the studios), because with streaming becoming more prominent actors are going to be going over their contracts with a fine-tooth comb to ensure they're getting proper back-end compensation. Studios won't be able to just cry poverty because "there's no theaters!" just to avoid paying people what they owe; actors will demand a percentage of the subscription fees and have it written into their contracts, so no matter what the gross is they'll get paid what they're promised.

...At least until Deepfake technology becomes affordable and convincing enough so that they can just pay $50 to film some cleaning lady miming out the scenes and just CGI Scarlett's head onto it in post-production. Which will absolutely happen eventually. But I figure we're at least, what... 10 years away from that?

*Mayhem* · 07-30-2021, 01:41 AM

Much of the stories I've generally heard about Scarlett (not as bad as Portman but only a few steps down) over the years, I completely agree with her stance regarding payment here and what the contract stipulated. Streaming is basically free money to Disney with a fraction of the outlay, and should be considered in the same way (albeit not at the same pitiful rate) music artists get paid via Spotify etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

...At least until Deepfake technology becomes affordable and convincing enough so that they can just pay $50 to film some cleaning lady miming out the scenes and just CGI Scarlett's head onto it in post-production. Which will absolutely happen eventually. But I figure we're at least, what... 10 years away from that?

Depends if Scarlett owns the rights to her own (literal) image. If she does, uh huh, won't happen without her being paid tons. Wiling to bet she does.

*Leo656* · 07-30-2021, 02:00 AM

Does Mark Hammill own the rights to his own image? Did Disney have to consult him before they Deepfaked him for The Mandalorian? I'm sincerely asking, I don't know.

That's definitely the Endgame Scenario for studios, though. That's why they're getting people used to it Now. They don't like dealing with actors or their agents asking for tons of money, or whiny fans who cry about recasting. They want it to be a situation where if they're making a Superman movie, for example, they can just film the janitor in a mocap suit and then staple Chris Reeve's head on it. "Problem Solved".

Once the technology becomes cheaper than hiring a "name" actor, that's exactly what it's going to be like from then on.

*Allio* · 07-30-2021, 03:21 AM

Now this was an interesting theory for the film. in the movie Red Guardian was telling the story of how he fought Captain America in the 80’s but people believe he is Lying about it. But later on he does ask Natasha with sincerely if Captain talked about him.

Now basically the theory goes, barring the head scratching time travel craziness, that the Captain America that Red Guardian fought was William Burnside that pretended to be Steve Rodgers when Marvel retconned Captain America “Commie Crusher” phase in the comics.

~~Sumac~~ · 07-30-2021, 05:24 AM

I always felt like replacing real actors with CGI doubles or "deep fakes" is the end route for the industry, since 2000s.

Technically, I don't see nothing unusual about it and studios can have literally immortal actors, who don't age or don't ask for rise. Though it would be interesting, if someone would try to give him rights.

*sdp* · 07-30-2021, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumac

I always felt like replacing real actors with CGI doubles or "deep fakes" is the end route for the industry, since 2000s.

Technically, I don't see nothing unusual about it and studios can have literally immortal actors, who don't age or don't ask for rise. Though it would be interesting, if someone would try to give him rights.

Not as extreme as your thoughts but I definitely think we're going to see "actors" who aren't real in the future, so that anyone can interpret them, perhaps in the next 10 years. But before that, deep fakes and stuff like that has improved dramatically, we'll see old/dead actors reprising roles of beloved movies very soon, in the next 5 years or so. Star Wars movies with the original actors, James Bond with sean connery etc.

*Leo656* · 07-30-2021, 08:15 AM

We shouldn't.

*The Deadman* · 07-30-2021, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Yeah she knew the possibility existed which is why she confirmed in her contract with them that they would NOT do so. They told her they would not, and did it anyway. Breach of contract.

Hope other actors rise up and sue Disney into the ground.

There's still a pandemic going on. Either Disney wanted it to go into movie hell until it ended or throw it in theaters/Disney+. They chose the latter.

*Leo656* · 07-30-2021, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Deadman

There's still a pandemic going on. Either Disney wanted it to go into movie hell until it ended or throw it in theaters/Disney+. They chose the latter.

...Knowing full well that THEIR profits were "protected" but they likely wouldn't have to pay ScarJo any "bonuses" that were dependent on the theatrical gross.

Let's not pretend their decision was made purely for altruistic reasons. They knew they'd get to keep a bigger share and avoid a payout. Shaaaaady.

The movie literally should've been made and released almost 10 years ago anyway, sitting on it for six more months wouldn't kill 'em. They already "sabotaged" whatever earning potential it had by waiting until nobody cared anymore before they bothered making it. So they'd already f*cked Scarlett over, now they double-f*cked her. I'd be mad if I were her, too.

*Coola Yagami* · 07-30-2021, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

...Knowing full well that THEIR profits were "protected" but they likely wouldn't have to pay ScarJo any "bonuses" that were dependent on the theatrical gross.

Let's not pretend their decision was made purely for altruistic reasons. They knew they'd get to keep a bigger share and avoid a payout. Shaaaaady.

The movie literally should've been made and released almost 10 years ago anyway, sitting on it for six more months wouldn't kill 'em. They already "sabotaged" whatever earning potential it had by waiting until nobody cared anymore before they bothered making it. So they'd already f*cked Scarlett over, now they double-f*cked her. I'd be mad if I were her, too.

If they were double-****in' her, why wasn't I invited?

Hey, if Cubed can have Melissa Benoit, and Leo gets Stephanie McMahon, let me have my Scarjo.

*Leo656* · 07-30-2021, 09:48 AM

Knew THAT sh*t was comin'.

~~Sumac~~ · 07-30-2021, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp

Not as extreme as your thoughts but I definitely think we're going to see "actors" who aren't real in the future, so that anyone can interpret them, perhaps in the next 10 years. But before that, deep fakes and stuff like that has improved dramatically, we'll see old/dead actors reprising roles of beloved movies very soon, in the next 5 years or so. Star Wars movies with the original actors, James Bond with sean connery etc.

There was already push for stuff like that with Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Sky Captain and the World of the Future (sic?) in early 00s.

Technology just wasn't there. It is not quite there yet, but we are getting closer and closer.

*Coola Yagami* · 07-30-2021, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumac

There was already push for stuff like that with Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Sky Captain and the World of the Future (sic?) in early 00s.

Technology just wasn't there. It is not quite there yet, but we are getting closer and closer.

Kinda worries me cause eventually we'll get to the point where we won't know what's what anymore. People can easily deepfake whoever is president at the time and be like 'Americans can kiss my ass' or whatever, or like if you wanted to cancel... say Keanu Reeves, they can deepfake him saying horrible racist cancellable **** and claim it was really him. IDK man.

~~Sumac~~ · 07-30-2021, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Kinda worries me cause eventually we'll get to the point where we won't know what's what anymore. People can easily deepfake whoever is president at the time and be like 'Americans can kiss my ass' or whatever, or like if you wanted to cancel... say Keanu Reeves, they can deepfake him saying horrible racist cancellable **** and claim it was really him. IDK man.

Well, this is inevitable future.
Unless you believe in goodwill of all humans to never use this technology for the nefarious purposes (ahhahahahahaha).

I assume, governments will create some new divisions to deal with this ****, but there is no doubt, that as always, this new abilities will be abused by elites and like with medieval story records, we most likely will never know what is truth and what is fake.

*ranger_scout* · 07-30-2021, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Hope other actors rise up and sue Disney into the ground.

We might add Emma Stone to that list. She is thinking about suing Disney for the hybrid release of Cruella.

https://www.cbr.com/emma-stone-cruel...disney-rumors/

*Coola Yagami* · 07-30-2021, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

We might add Emma Stone to that list. She is thinking about suing Disney for the hybrid release of Cruella.

https://www.cbr.com/emma-stone-cruel...disney-rumors/

Ahhhh ya beat me to it.

*ranger_scout* · 07-30-2021, 01:01 PM

Johansson’s lawsuit is indeed a game changer, but legally it might be weak.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...it-1234990644/

*ranger_scout* · 08-06-2021, 08:55 PM

The SAG-AFTRA president is taking Scarlett Johansson's side.

SAG-AFTRA President On Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit: “Disney Should Be Ashamed”

07-29-2021, 09:48 PM	#441
Leo656 The Franchise Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,696	Yeah, it kind of died down but at the beginning of the whole lockdown ordeal there was a lot of scuttlebutt about actors, directors, etc. being concerned that there was no way the studios would be able to pay them the agreed-upon amount as written into their contracts if some of these bigger movies went to the streaming model. Also, lots of concern about what it would mean going forward even after the lockdowns were over; if the theatrical distribution model is removed entirely, then all those billion-dollar grosses go away forever and so does a large chunk of the actors' and directors' profits. "Extenuating circumstances" or not, when you're talking about tens of millions of dollars, you're not concerned about the "Why". You want your fcking money. "We agreed to X, and now you're trying to pay me Y? Alright, let's see what my lawyer has to say about that." It probably also matters to Scarlett because this movie doesn't have the big merchandise and action figure push to go along with it the way those Avengers movies did, so she's not going to make as much on the back-end as she did with those. Seeing as how her character's already been killed off and they're very obviously going to replace her with the actor who played her sister going forward, I don't think she's ultimately very concerned about "pissing off Disney". WB would still pay her a fortune to be in a DC movie just out of pure spite, the way Disney is trying to court Henry Cavill now since he's all annoyed with WB. It's all about the long game. She'll be fine. Always get your money. "But... but the pandemic...!" Doesn't matter. If you're promised X, don't settle for Y. Always get your money. __________________ "I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know."* nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/

07-29-2021, 11:23 PM	#443
Leo656 The Franchise Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,696	You'd know better, you watch these things more closely than I do. Saw a few more articles about this. Disney is totally in the wrong, here. They're trying to paint Scarlett as "greedy" and everything just for wanting her agreed-upon compensation... "Because the pandemic, though!" Her lawyer is totally right. The studios love the streaming model because they get to keep a bigger percentage of the profits, and screw over the actors by crying poverty. "We just didn't make enough money to pay you what we agreed, there's no more theaters, you have to just let it go, blah blah blah." This happened in wrestling, too, when Vince launched the WWE Network a few years ago and actual PPV more or less went away. If a person was paying $10 a month for everything WWE puts out including PPVs, nobody was going to pay $50 just to buy the PPV by itself every month. And a TON of wrestlers had a ton of money contracted to them for PPV bonuses - "If we get This Many PPV buys, you get This Much of a percentage", which for some guys was hundreds of thousands of dollars, which added up to millions of dollars per year. All of a sudden, that revenue stream was gone overnight. The company ended up making MORE money than ever before on subscription fees, but the talent lost millions. AND, since there's no union in that business, there was nothing they could do about it. Coola knows exactly what I'm talking about; it's one of the main reasons CM Punk quit. So, big corporations using the streaming model as a way to cheat performers out of millions of dollars in promised and agreed-upon payment (while pocketing more for themselves) is nothing new. Luckily for Scarlett, she's in SAG and can afford a shark lawyer. Disney will settle. She'll get something. Maybe not the $20 million or $50 million or whatever she's claiming they screwed her out of, but she'll get a nice chunk of change. Ultimately, this is a good thing for everyone (except the studios), because with streaming becoming more prominent actors are going to be going over their contracts with a fine-tooth comb to ensure they're getting proper back-end compensation. Studios won't be able to just cry poverty because "there's no theaters!" just to avoid paying people what they owe; actors will demand a percentage of the subscription fees and have it written into their contracts, so no matter what the gross is they'll get paid what they're promised. ...At least until Deepfake technology becomes affordable and convincing enough so that they can just pay $50 to film some cleaning lady miming out the scenes and just CGI Scarlett's head onto it in post-production. Which will absolutely happen eventually. But I figure we're at least, what... 10 years away from that? __________________ "I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/

07-30-2021, 02:00 AM	#445
Leo656 The Franchise Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,696	Does Mark Hammill own the rights to his own image? Did Disney have to consult him before they Deepfaked him for The Mandalorian? I'm sincerely asking, I don't know. That's definitely the Endgame Scenario for studios, though. That's why they're getting people used to it Now. They don't like dealing with actors or their agents asking for tons of money, or whiny fans who cry about recasting. They want it to be a situation where if they're making a Superman movie, for example, they can just film the janitor in a mocap suit and then staple Chris Reeve's head on it. "Problem Solved". Once the technology becomes cheaper than hiring a "name" actor, that's exactly what it's going to be like from then on. __________________ "I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/

07-30-2021, 03:21 AM	#446
Allio Foot Elite Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 4,085	Now this was an interesting theory for the film. in the movie Red Guardian was telling the story of how he fought Captain America in the 80’s but people believe he is Lying about it. But later on he does ask Natasha with sincerely if Captain talked about him. Now basically the theory goes, barring the head scratching time travel craziness, that the Captain America that Red Guardian fought was William Burnside that pretended to be Steve Rodgers when Marvel retconned Captain America “Commie Crusher” phase in the comics. __________________

07-30-2021, 08:15 AM	#449
Leo656 The Franchise Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,696	We shouldn't. __________________ "I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/

07-30-2021, 05:24 AM	#447
~~Sumac~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 6,129	I always felt like replacing real actors with CGI doubles or "deep fakes" is the end route for the industry, since 2000s. Technically, I don't see nothing unusual about it and studios can have literally immortal actors, who don't age or don't ask for rise. Though it would be interesting, if someone would try to give him rights.

07-30-2021, 09:48 AM	#453
Leo656 The Franchise Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,696	Knew THAT sht was comin'. __________________ "I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know."* nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/

07-30-2021, 01:01 PM	#459
ranger_scout Foot Elite Join Date: May 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 3,054	Johansson’s lawsuit is indeed a game changer, but legally it might be weak. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...it-1234990644/

08-06-2021, 08:55 PM	#460
ranger_scout Foot Elite Join Date: May 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 3,054	The SAG-AFTRA president is taking Scarlett Johansson's side. SAG-AFTRA President On Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit: “Disney Should Be Ashamed”