Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 619
  1. #181
    Ultimate Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,938

    Default

    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!

  2. #182
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    The door is open now, we’ll probably see more lawsuits.

  3. #183
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    It makes sense to side with her, if it goes the other way then literally all contracts are open to this kind of change which could have chilling effects for us little guys too.
    Quote Originally Posted by titanfan View Post
    She does, but this is also for her agent/publicist/team who likely also are compensated a % of what she makes.
    Exactly. There are many reasons we should side with her, and zero we should side with Disney IMO.

  4. #184
    The Nature Boy AnakinFlair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Saint Ann, MO
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Username taken View Post
    If a director has their creative freedom taken away and can prove this has happened, then they can take it to the directors guild (if they are members).

    They can have their name taken off of the movie or use a fake name (like Alan Smithee) to replace their real name.

    It's a pretty serious issue for a director to claim not to have full creative control over a movie. And most film makers don't really keep quiet about this sort of thing (David Ayers is now screaming that the first Suicide Squad movie "isn't his movie") but they have to be able to prove it.

    Marvel to my knowledge hasn't had any of their film makers claim this.
    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.

  5. #185
    Astonishing Member Charlie_1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    3,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    The door is open now, we’ll probably see more lawsuits.
    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://****************/emma-stone-e...unt-sue-disney
    Last edited by Charlie_1981; 08-01-2021 at 12:44 AM.

  6. #186
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    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.
    He has waited awhile to pull the trigger on that, hasn't he? Also not wise to file a suit when they have a fourth one in development.

  7. #187
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inisideguy View Post
    Oh I get what you are saying. If the reporting on the deal is correct, Scarjo got screwed out of some money. But I am not so sure the same day streaming wasn't in the best interest of the Disney company and its customers.
    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.

  8. #188
    Incredible Member Jack The Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    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.
    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

  9. #189
    Astonishing Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie_1981 View Post
    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://****************/emma-stone-e...unt-sue-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.

  10. #190
    Astonishing Member Gaastra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    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.
    Contracts again. Also yeah he waited along time didn't he?

    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.
    https://deadline.com/2021/07/gerard-...ts-1234806894/

    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!

  11. #191
    Astonishing Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaastra View Post
    Contracts again. Also yeah he waited along time didn't he?



    https://deadline.com/2021/07/gerard-...ts-1234806894/

    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.

  12. #192
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    8,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. #193
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    8,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    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
    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.

  14. #194
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    7,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    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.
    Jared Leto is probably the poster child of that in regards to Suicide Squad.

  15. #195
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    Her representatives are saying she was estimated to earn $70m from this had it gone to theatres first
    Pre or post covid estimate I wonder?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •