Lol. Acting? Acting is a comfortable living for most?
No, it’s really not. The vast vast majority of actors are people with multiple jobs maybe booking a commercial or small TV spot every now and again for a couple grand. Those people are under the same union as any other performer and if people at the top didn’t put their foot down when they were getting boned, it means that they all get boned. That it becomes the norm for them to not make money on these new release platforms.
Entertainment performers (Actors, Musicians, Athletes) have been exploited from day one. It’s really only the past few decades that the top performers in these professions started earning anything more than one could as a lawyer or doctor or any other decently high paid job, with a very uncertain career path. And the reason their very strong unions exist is because the studios/owners/record labels/ scammed them at every turn possible as these markets became lucrative. And are still trying.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
This guy's life is more typical of what it's like for a working actor. He's been at it for 20 years and still needs a side job. He used to post on the Jim Rome boards years ago and every time I see him in something I yell, "Jesse!"
It’s actually not even about who’s right or wrong for me. When you become a corporation the size, scope and scale of Disney and buy up huge portions of competition you should then in turn not be the evil greedy business people all your movies portray.
I guess one can argue the language in the contract and that the lawyers should have had more coverage for this type of scenario - But when the entire way a business distributes it's product and revenue strategy changes it is almost impossible to have written into the contract.
Actors taking a cut of revenue for lower salaries, etc has been very common for years. I believe Forest Gump was the trend setter where both Hanks and the director gave up significant portions of their salary to help keep movie costs down in exchange for % of revenue.
This is a profit share agreement - That one side is trying to get out of using a technicality when they still made the profit.
Imagine if there was no pandemic and theaters just realized they could make more $$ streaming then in theaters and put everything straight to theaters. Non of the actors should get their share of the profit?
The reason the contracts historically stated "Theatrical Release" is so the actors don't earn $$ for perpetuity and/or to effect the ability to sell/license movies to streaming services (Disney owns their own so not an issue there)
I guarantee you if there was another Avengers in the pipeline with her they wouldn't be doing this.
Legally they may have a foot to stand on, but ethically and the spirit of the contract they are clearly in the wrong
I would love nothing better then every other actor to boycott Disney. But we all know $$ talks and the prospect of being in a big Disney film will always win out
I have to admit, that was a pretty solid grift by Saban there. Basically exploitation of child labour and inexperienced (and probably desperate) actors.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
I guess one can argue the language in the contract and that the lawyers should have had more coverage for this type of scenario - But when the entire way a business distributes it's product and revenue strategy changes it is almost impossible to have written into the contract.
This is a profit share agreement - That one side is trying to get out of using a technicality when they still made the profit.
Imagine if there was no pandemic and theaters just realized they could make more $$ streaming then in theaters and put everything straight to theaters. Non of the actors should get their share of the profit?
Legally they may have a foot to stand on, but ethically and the spirit of the contract they are clearly in the wrong
I would love nothing better then every other actor to boycott Disney. But we all know $$ talks and the prospect of being in a big Disney film will always win out
I'm not on anybody's side.
The fact of the matter is, both parties got screwed by a matter of Global Circumstance that fundamentally shifted the operation of their industry.
It is a 'Profit Share Agreement.' I'd bet Disney had been banking on more profits, but then massive delays happened because people started getting sick.
You want to share in the Profits? You have to share in the losses too. If there is a loss of Profit, then you get less. Thats how 'Profit Share Agreements' work. Sure, Disney changed the distribution method. Because they were essentially forced to beyond their control. It was this or nothing.
I'm sure Disney expected that film to earn more money, it didnt. They get less money, ScarJo gets less money.
I'd love to imagine that there was no Pandemic. But there was. And it changed the entire film distribution industry. Unless Disney or ScarJo invented COVID its neither of their faults, its just an unfortunate circumstance.
Legally right but ethically wrong? I'd love if we could believe that Disney would care. And I'm sure they'd claim that if they started caring now they'd set a bad precedent, but really, they probably just dont care.
The Film Industry is a very 'Monkey and Organ Grinder' relationship. If the Organ Grinder doesnt get paid, guess what happens to the Monkey?
Overall, I can see it both ways. I'd tend to lean to ScarJo's side (sorry I hate calling her that but her name is so long to spell) because I figure Disney can afford it, but Disney didnt really 'screw' her. They both got screwed.
NSFW!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The fact of the matter is, both parties got screwed by a matter of Global Circumstance that fundamentally shifted the operation of their industry.
It is a 'Profit Share Agreement.' I'd bet Disney had been banking on more profits, but then massive delays happened because people started getting sick.
You want to share in the Profits? You have to share in the losses too. If there is a loss of Profit, then you get less. Thats how 'Profit Share Agreements' work. Sure, Disney changed the distribution method. Because they were essentially forced to beyond their control. It was this or nothing.
I'm sure Disney expected that film to earn more money, it didnt. They get less money, ScarJo gets less money.
I'd love to imagine that there was no Pandemic. But there was. And it changed the entire film distribution industry. Unless Disney or ScarJo invented COVID its neither of their faults, its just an unfortunate circumstance.
Legally right but ethically wrong? I'd love if we could believe that Disney would care. And I'm sure they'd claim that if they started caring now they'd set a bad precedent, but really, they probably just dont care.
The Film Industry is a very 'Monkey and Organ Grinder' relationship. If the Organ Grinder doesnt get paid, guess what happens to the Monkey?
Overall, I can see it both ways. I'd tend to lean to ScarJo's side (sorry I hate calling her that but her name is so long to spell) because I figure Disney can afford it, but Disney didnt really 'screw' her. They both got screwed.
NSFW!
They didnt need to release it last month though, that's her argument
They realized they could do it and push disney+
I dont think their intention was to screw her out of her box office bonus, but they saw a situation where they could push their streaming service, I'm sure they had some forecast that releasing it when they did, even with the hit to theater box office, would still be profitable to them in the long run with the streaming service. Her losing out on box office was likely just a happy accident for their accounting.
If it turns out they can do this to someone as famous as her, they will definitely do it more to the people that the general public doesnt know/care about
That's why she has so much support from the industry on this
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
I do think the Disney+ doom and gloom is a bit overboard.
Sure they aren't growing as fast as analysts predicted, but they are at 104M in their first 16 months, which is ridiculous growth.
And yeah it seems like there is a pretty simple solution to the Scar Jo / Disney lawsuit, the contract should be amended so she gets a % of the theatrical and disney+ premiere money. Under the circumstances that would be the fair outcome here.
Agree with your solution. The fact that Disney wouldn't have offered that rather quickly is what is disappointing. Unless they did.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Anyone else watching Only Murders in the Building? The story itself is ok but Steve Martin and Martin Short are so great together. Selena Gomez is also pretty good in it as well.
Lol. Acting? Acting is a comfortable living for most?
No, it’s really not. The vast vast majority of actors are people with multiple jobs maybe booking a commercial or small TV spot every now and again for a couple grand. Those people are under the same union as any other performer and if people at the top didn’t put their foot down when they were getting boned, it means that they all get boned. That it becomes the norm for them to not make money on these new release platforms.
Entertainment performers (Actors, Musicians, Athletes) have been exploited from day one. It’s really only the past few decades that the top performers in these professions started earning anything more than one could as a lawyer or doctor or any other decently high paid job, with a very uncertain career path. And the reason their very strong unions exist is because the studios/owners/record labels/ scammed them at every turn possible as these markets became lucrative. And are still trying.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Agree with your solution. The fact that Disney wouldn't have offered that rather quickly is what is disappointing. Unless they did.
All the posts here suggest that she didn't get a share of the premier plus streaming money. But I read elsewhere she did get that money, but is suing because she though the film could make more in a BO alone release or by pushing it back.
early on in the MCU he was Hawkeye: The Boringest Avenger, but he's morphed into one one the deeper marvel characters. This looks great and I'm looking forward to it.
