|
Did they not have the votes?
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
parallelodad posted:Did they not have the votes? They already had their strike authorization so they must have worked out a deal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
NPR this morning on the drive in to work said they came to an agreement about revised contracts and payment for shorter shows. Part of the dispute was over shorter series (8 episode or 13 episode netflix series and other things like that) because their compensation is on a per-episode basis and the payments are made on the assumption that most TV shows will have a typical syndication schedule of 21-28 episodes per season. So, if you work on Daredevil or 13 Reasons Why for 6 months, you get paid less than half of what someone who spent 6 months writing for network sitcom.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:So, if you work on Daredevil or 13 Reasons Why for 6 months, you get paid less than half of what someone who spent 6 months writing for network sitcom. Also, after you spend those six months writing for Daredevil you can't find another job until after Daredevil finishes filming because the show has an exclusive hold on you, and since they tend to write all the episodes before filming starts, that's a lot of time to spend sitting around not making money.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Why don't the studios just hire writers as staff and salary them?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:Why don't the studios just hire writers as staff and salary them? Total Wild rear end guess, but probably because they'd have to give them health benefits and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Total Wild rear end guess, but probably because they'd have to give them health benefits and poo poo. I feel like this could still ultimately be cheaper because you'd be hitting less writers in general and they ones you did got would work on multiple things.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:Why don't the studios just hire writers as staff and salary them? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
So if the MCU resets after Avengers 4, do you think they'll assume these character are well known enough that they can just recast and tell new stories in a slightly different world? Though I highly doubt that they're do a hard reset. At most they'd shift the focus to other characters, or maybe recast Iron Man, Cap and Thor if their respective actors don't want to keep going. Honestly I'd feel really upset if we got one Black Panther and one Captain Marvel movie before just chucking out the whole thing. achillesforever6 posted:Because Yea, pretty much if you ever wonder why they don't just pay their workers better remember "More money for us, gently caress you"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
I feel like there is pretty much a zero percent chance of them wholesale restarting the universe after avengers 4. Why fix what isn't broken? There are tons of legacy characters and other stories they could explore.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Rubiks Pubes posted:I feel like there is pretty much a zero percent chance of them wholesale restarting the universe after avengers 4. Why fix what isn't broken? There are tons of legacy characters and other stories they could explore. Feige has already ruled out ever rebooting the MCU. They said they would just recast and move on.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Feige has already ruled out ever rebooting the MCU. They said they would just recast and move on. God I hope they don't gently caress this up. Recast Iron Man -- fine, whatever. Recast Tony Stark and my interest in this franchise is over.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I mean, RDJ isn't an ageless immortal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Just back from Guardians. Probably agree with a lot of what's been said, it is quite funny but sometimes that gets a bit much when it's trying to lighten the mood during a serious moment. The part with Rocket explaining to Groot how to use the detonator kind of kills the pacing during the climax. Also I'm not sure Yondu's death was really earned. If was foreshadowed but it felt a bit cheap to be honest. Still, Rooker was one of my favourite things about the two films. I'm glad we got much more of him in 2, but I'll miss him. Last thought: I liked the subplot with Gamora and Nebula. I thought it worked well in the overarching theme.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
zoux posted:I mean, RDJ isn't an ageless immortal. You're sure of this? You have a source? Seriously though, when RDJ is done with playing superhero have Stark pass on the mantel in universe to someone else. That's all I ask for. I don't care if it's Riri Williams or Pepper (which would be awesome imo), or some white dude named Chris -- just don't ask me to pretend that Tony Stark is an 'ageless immortal' who's suddenly a 25-year old in 2025.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Gwyneth Paltrow is hated by everyone so it probably won't be Pepper.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Hold your tongue or Teen Tony will be a thingAphrodite posted:Gwyneth Paltrow is hated by everyone so it probably won't be Pepper. Everyone involved in the MCU or everyone everyone?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
There's like a dozen viable ways in the Marvel universe for a character to deage or swap bodies.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Seriously though, when RDJ is done with playing superhero have Stark pass on the mantel in universe to someone else. That's all I ask for. I don't care if it's Riri Williams or Pepper (which would be awesome imo), or some white dude named Chris -- just don't ask me to pretend that Tony Stark is an 'ageless immortal' who's suddenly a 25-year old in 2025. I have an idea: 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
So you are saying avengers 4 will be the crossing?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Hold your tongue or Teen Tony will be a thing Should be everyone everyone. She regularly recommends stuff that can kill you on her dumb lifestyle site. But her Hollywood reputation is that she's very difficult to work with.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ answered before I asked Aphrodite posted:Gwyneth Paltrow is hated by everyone so it probably won't be Pepper. I don't hate Gwyneth Paltrow... Do you mean in the sense that she's hard to work with?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Have RDJ sell his likeness to Marvel. Next actor will use mocap and they'll use Avatar tech to keep Tony Stark looking like RDJ forever. Edit: Basically make The Congress a reality.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Edit: ^^^ answered before I asked Paltrow as Pepper Potts is one of the better romantic interests in any of the Marvel films - or superhero films in general for that matter. I think she's great in the Iron Man movies.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
It sounds like they are going to emphasize the next level of characters more in the next 'phase' or whatever of the MCU (although he is saying that they are not really doing 'phases' after the unnamed sequel to Infinity War). Characters like Captain Marvel, Black Panther, maybe Dr. Strange are going to be more prominent. That and it sounds like we will have a few more Guardians/Marvel Cosmic films. Probably an Adam Warlock movie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
I only brought it up because it seemed in my youtube and fb feed there were a bunch of articles and videos that were about "is marvel going to reboot everything after Avengers 4???" And not all of them were clickbaity as well, but I think its mostly people misunderstanding what Feige said about the direction after 4.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:I mean, RDJ isn't an ageless immortal. So the guy who plays Iron Fist will be around forever then? Bummer.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Edit: ^^^ answered before I asked I think it may be more about her advocacy (and marketing) of dubious health and beauty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
AbsolutelySane posted:I think it may be more about her advocacy (and marketing) of dubious health and beauty poo poo. She also comes off as "comically detached rich person" in interviews
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:just don't ask me to pretend that Tony Stark is an 'ageless immortal' who's suddenly a 25-year old in 2025. So wait, you can handle this in comic books themselves but not in movies? Ok.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:So wait, you can handle this in comic books themselves but not in movies? Ok. Actually, Tony Stark is the spirit of a 1,000-year old woman who just happens to be inhabiting a 13-year old anime girl's body, so it's okay.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Paltrow as Pepper Potts is one of the better romantic interests in any of the Marvel films - or superhero films in general for that matter. I think she's great in the Iron Man movies. Paltrow has said she's out of the MCU until further notice, though, which is why she was written out of Age of Ultron and it was established that Pepper and Tony broke up. Paltrow was tired of playing just Tony Stark's girlfriend and wanted to do more in the plot than be a love interest and damsel in distress.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Paltrow has said she's out of the MCU until further notice, though, which is why she was written out of Age of Ultron and it was established that Pepper and Tony broke up. Paltrow was tired of playing just Tony Stark's girlfriend and wanted to do more in the plot than be a love interest and damsel in distress. She also demanded a full payment for an appearance in Civil War instead of a smaller cameo fee and Marvel said no and took that as an excuse to make her disappearance permanent.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
She has a Katherine Heigl reputation, but with a lot more successful movies so she still gets work.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, and Paltrow are all still bound by contract to do another movie if Marvel REALLY want to invoke it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, and Paltrow are all still bound by contract to do another movie if Marvel REALLY want to invoke it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I wish he would come back as Red Skull, but Weaving hated doing that right? Hugo Weaving, October 2012 posted:I [signed a multi-picture deal] for Captain America. I think the tendency, with those films, would be to probably not bring a villain back. They might for The Avengers, but I didn’t think I’d be in Captain America 2 or 3. I don’t think Red Skull will be there. And it’s not something I would want to do again. I’m glad I did it. I did sign up for a number of pictures and I suppose, contractually, I would be obliged to, if they forced me to, but they wouldn’t want to force someone to do it, if they didn’t want to. I think I’ve done my dash with that sort of film. It was good to do it and try it out, but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by. As an actor, to do all sorts of different films is great. It stretches you in different ways. But, I increasingly like to go back to what I used to always do, which is to get involved with projects that I really have a personal affiliation with. Hugo Weaving, September 2016 posted:I thought it would be a lot of fun to play a classic über-Nazi, someone who thought Hitler was a pussy! [Laughs] It was fun to play; I enjoyed the outrageousness of the German accent that I employed and I enjoyed the extraordinary mask and costume, even though it was unbelievably hot inside it. I enjoy mask work; I enjoy trying to animate masks and reveal certain things that the mask itself might not reveal. V for Vendetta was another example of that, but there was less animation within that mask versus the Red Skull.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, and Paltrow are all still bound by contract to do another movie if Marvel REALLY want to invoke it. Is Paltrow really obligated to do so? I figured she always had a 3 picture deal and did a one-off cameo in Avengers. Or did Marvel really lock everyone down for 6-7 movies when they first started?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Is Paltrow really obligated to do so? I figured she always had a 3 picture deal and did a one-off cameo in Avengers. Or did Marvel really lock everyone down for 6-7 movies when they first started? Yeah, part of the Civil War issue was that Marvel wanted her to do a cameo and pay her an appearance fee, but she wanted a full payment and for it to count as an appearance in her contract so she could renegotiate sooner. Samuel L. Jackson signed a 9 movie deal after Iron Man.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, and Paltrow are all still bound by contract to do another movie if Marvel REALLY want to invoke it. I think I'm okay with none of them coming back. I might've liked another appearance by the Red Skull, but that's ok.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:05
|
|