It's not uncommon for an actor to claim their best work is on the cutting room floor. It certainly isn't unique, or even more frequent with Disney.
It's not uncommon for an actor to claim their best work is on the cutting room floor. It certainly isn't unique, or even more frequent with Disney.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
The door is open now, we’ll probably see more lawsuits.
Marvel has a history of not allowing directors to bring their vision to the screen; instead opting for a more uniform approach to their films.
Edgar Write was developing an Ant-Man movie for years, and was in pre-production when he left the product, citing creative differences. Patty Jenkins was in talks to direct Thor: The Dark World, but again passed due to creative differences.
Heck, since Phase 1 marvel has more often than not hired workman directors who will churn out what the studio wants, rather than their specific visions. I think the biggest departure we'll get from that is Doctor Strange 2, because it's Raimi, and he's proven his success in the superhero field with his Spider-Man films.
Of course, it's saying now that Emma Stone is going to do the same than Scarlett because of the release on both platforms (Movie Theaters and Disney+) of the Cruella Movie, also Emily Blunt for Jungle Cruise
https://cosmicbook.news/emma-stone-e...unt-sue-disney
Last edited by Charlie_1981; 08-01-2021 at 12:44 AM.
Her representatives are saying she was estimated to earn $70m from this had it gone to theatres first. So there must have been tracking/projections on just how much this film could have made. But the film was already delayed significantly. The more a film is delayed the less you stand to make.
In saying that, I think the thing that will come from this is clauses in actors contracts moving forward that covers streaming. I think WB is the only studio (to my knowledge) who actually made a effort to look after actors if their film ended up on streaming. When WW1984 got released via streaming, they went back and paid Gal Gadot a extra $13-14m on top of her salary and back end as a result.
To be fair, whatever people think of how Marvel chooses their directors - at least they don’t promise director’s unlimited control and then tamper with the edits to make it an actual breach of creative freedom. Wright, Jenkins and others who moved off their films prior to production knew the deal and at least weren’t lied to by the studio regarding the fate of the final film. I think as long as creators go in knowing it’s somewhat collaborative then it’s not a problem. And of course as long as a studio is clear and honest with the talent.
I think it should also be noted that some directors clearly get more freedom than others - I think Coogler, Waititi, Gunn, the Russos, and (from what they’ve said) Nia DiCosta and Chloe Zhao. But, man, such a pity Edgar Wright didn’t get to make Ant Man
The freedom would not have been by much because all their movies are still very obvious in similarity with little distinction. there is no major difference in the VFX, Cinematography, story style. I think Gunn is the biggest chain link here because his movies really gas fuelled the humor of MCU that is now so ever present in all their films. the Russos had no choice but to adapt to that, reason the Obese Thor who was seen more as a joke was part of endgame, that all started with Waititi's Ragnarok, a movie that was influenced by Gunn's GOTG.
As for Coogler, many have rightly called all the very overdone animated CGI style of Black Panther but that did not really start Black Panther. It started with some of their phase 2 movies- Age of Ultron and Antman, so Coogler just had to adapt to that style as well. a CGI style that is even very present in Black Widow.
When you look at things this way, this does feel like an issue now. I think some directors should start looking for some legal clause to avoid some of all of this scenarios.
Yes about the Edgar situation.
I think it also goes beyond Edger and Ant Man. Alan Taylor's Thor's 2 director had issues as well but this was after the film released, so I dont know if he could have had a legal case. since the difference is that Edgar, Patty and Martel never even got to make the film. they left before they sat on the directing chair, aftermath cases like Rourke and Alan Taylor would make for more interesting scenarios of how Disney shares creative power between themselves and their directors and if some of their directors can start using legal clauses to get a free card on how to make their movies under Disney.
A Pandora box seems to be opening. It is 70% well deserved for some of these actors.
Last edited by Castle; 08-01-2021 at 04:51 AM.
Contracts again. Also yeah he waited along time didn't he?Gerard Butler sues over 2013 Olympus Has Fallen
This case is more straightforward than ScarJo. It not involving streaming or any kind of variation of release.
https://deadline.com/2021/07/gerard-...ts-1234806894/The complaint cites fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations and accounting, and seeks a jury trial.
Floodgates are open. WB better watch out! Alot of angry people over hbo max and will smith has the same "in theatre only" contract wb is breaking!
Someone had to break the silence or burst the bubble. Regardless of if Scar Jo wins the case or not. what she has done is huge. a female actress sueing the most powerful company in the entertainment industry. you bet the floodgates are now going to start opening for other actors to start sueing studios that are less powerful.
Also it will make some of this studios to be more careful. I have always said, some and if not the main issue with this streaming movies and giving it limited releases in cinemas was studios wanting to have their cake and eat it to. Nolan knew this in 2020 and this was part of his main beef with WB.
Last edited by Castle; 08-01-2021 at 05:26 AM.
Yes, but the directors know what they are going in for, that’s why they leave before production commenced.
None of them have gone in, made a movie and then turned round and said Marvel took away their freedom. There hasn’t been a single case of any them screaming that the movie they made wasn’t their movie (like David Ayers is doing right now).
That’s where it gets quite serious and could lead to serious friction. Even Zack Snyder that was eventually allowed to finish JL isn’t working with WB anymore.
Exactly this.
Its not that Marvel doesn’t have certain defined parameters but the directors they have worked with have largely made the movies they want within said parameters. Yes, some film makers have fallen out and left but that was after they read the job description and they decided they couldn’t do it.
Marvel is making movies within a shared universe so that’s expected.
But in general, if anyone thinks that a studio will hand you hundreds of millions of dollars and not lay down certain guidelines then they are fooling themselves. Except you’re at the very top of the industry, no studio will simply hand you millions of dollar to utilize without a level of control. Film making is a business, it’s not a charity. That’s why guys like Zack Snyder (and now David Ayers) basically fell out with WB and it’s part of the reason the new Star Wars movies haven’t worked very well.