Sequels The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - Part 2

[Iceman]

The issue is that some people think that the actors are doing something wrong when they use their contractually stipulated negotiations.


I mean what I write. I answered a statement that said that Hemsworth is just forced to train to stay fit and that the poster that said it claimed to do that every day. My point remains that if you've ever done an elite level training regime you won't dismiss it as easily.

My following paragraph in that post clearly said that it wasn't the particular reason why he wants to be paid more. But of course he feels even more strongly against being underpaid if he needs to do something really hard in addition to acting.


Again, the entire issue you've jumped into is about whether or not the actors are doing something wrong. The statement that they do equals that the employee in the example would do something wrong to ask his employer if he can match the other company's offer. Do you think that's wrong?

That's a good clarification for me on all issues. Agreed in that case.

 

[OB12]

That article is pointless.

It leaves out a key ingredient ..... they have "options" in their contract to renegotiate. It's called "fairness." Oh by the way RDJ renegotiated his deals for each movie he's done, so why can't they?

The writer is a hypocrite.

Is this really true? Are entertainment contracts different from sports contracts? In the sports world it is not an option to renegotiate, the team has an option on the player and they can decide to pick it up or not, but the option is usually at a pre-negotiated rate.

 

[Zarex]

They'll have to recast eventually. Get used to the idea. It already happened with Ed Norton.

Recasting, however, is much more difficult in a connected universe. It's one thing to let Norton go - he had no interactions with any of the other Avengers characters. That was a much easier move than, for example, recasting Rhodey in Iron Man II. In that case, the long term loving friendship established in the first film was replaced by a rather cold business relationship.

Now imagine the disconnect in Avengers 2 (or 3) in which someone other than Chris Evans Cap is having an emotional scene with not-RDJ Iron Man. All of the interesting relationships created by Whedon in the first film will have to be build up from scratch.

I'm of the mindset that in a connected universe you should replace (in most cases) rather than recast. If you need Iron Man and RDJ just won't do it, put Rhodey in the costume or have another character take up the mantle. Given his pre-cave lifestyle, Tony Stark must have a long lost adult son (or daughter) out there who would want to take over for the old man. Or bring in the Vision to replace his power level.

You can also have another character take over the Captain America title from Steve Rogers, though the better move would probably be to introduce the Black Panther or Daredevil to replicate his street fighting abilities. Though comic book fans may blanch, I think the general public would be more accepting of a non Tony Stark Iron Man than have someone attempting to fill RDJ's shoes - at least for another decade or so.

 

[Iceman]

Replacing is fine where that option exists but recasts will be inevitable sooner or later if this universe is here for the long term. Replacing Norton kind of took away much of that film's contribution to Phase 1 but it shows Marvel are quite willing to recast big actors in important roles.

 

[RockSP]

Recasting, however, is much more difficult in a connected universe. It's one thing to let Norton go - he had no interactions with any of the other Avengers characters. That was a much easier move than, for example, recasting Rhodey in Iron Man II. In that case, the long term loving friendship established in the first film was replaced by a rather cold business relationship.

Had nothing to do with the recast. Cheadle didn't write the script.

 

[KangConquers]

What source has stated a $300 million production budget plus $175 million more in advertising?

The sources that I've seen have stated $220 million for production and $100 million for advertising.

CBS Minnetsota Movie Blog

Box Office Mojo

LA Times

The sources above and more are pretty consistent on $220 million.

$1.5 billion x 0.5 = $750 million, assuming theaters take half (I've actually read that the studio usually retains about 55%, in which case this jumps up to $825 million)
$750 million - $50 million = $700 million, after Downey's reported cut of the box office
$700 million - $320 million = $380 million minus the budget and advertising
$380 million - $1 million = $379 million after paying Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Ruffalo, and Renner (should I even count this separately from the budget?)

Marvel made out pretty damn good.



I agree that signed contracts should be binding, but that doesn't mean that Marvel's not being cheap with the actors.

Marvel Studios hasn't been cheap overall, with the $150-200 million budgets each movie has received.

However, they seem set on squeezing out the actors and minimizing their pay relative to what they could get anywhere else, working on smaller films. $200,000 is what you'd expect for a disposable D-List nobody in a supporting role, not what a lead actor in a blockbuster film would get paid.

Basically, the clear message is that Marvel doesn't value the actors as much as other major studios, and considers them all expendable.

Again, contracts should be binding. If someone signs on for a low amount, then I agree that if it comes down to it they should work for that amount.

However, I don't think any of us here are legal experts, or privy to all of the stipulations.

According to one site, Evans and Hemsworth both signed a six-picture deal. According to the recent article, Evans only recently signed on for Winter Soldier and Avengers 2, while Hemsworth is currently unsigned.

Who's right here, and who's BSing? Both cite unnamed sources, though the recent article attributes many of the quotes to the actors' agents.

Somebody a couple pages back in this thread stated that Hemsworth's contract had a "baseline" for Thor and Avengers, with options for further movies that were set to be renegotiated when the time came.

That to me is a very interesting point which I would like to see confirmed with a source.

It makes sense, doesn't it? Why would someone like Evans or Johansson, who had been working in major Hollywood films for years, sign on for a mere $200,000 with no expectations of renegotiating in the future? I would think that they, or at the very least their agents, would be far smarter and more assertive than that.

If it's true that the contracts (which again, none of us have seen) did leave the door open for renegotiations, then there is nothing wrong with these actors wanting more money.

Again, that's something I'm curious to see confirmed or disproven, if possible.

Marvel accidentally opened the lid on the fact that Avengers had a $300 M production budget in some of their literature for the Avengers trading card series a year ago.

Studios often give an official number that's lower to placate stock holders. This is nothing new, and you can find tons of articles about these business practices.

Just to put the official numbers in perspective, $220 M Avengers production budget would mean it only cost $20 M more to make than Iron Man 2, and cost less to make than The Dark Knight and Amazing Spider-Man. If you believe that, with the sheer amount of CGI in Avengers, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you for a dollar.

 

[Tony Stark]

They don't want $50 million though. Downey got $50 million, a deal that everyone including himself knows to be too much.

The rest of the main players like Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, etc. wanted $5 million up front with better box office bonuses. According to the article, they got $200,000 each for their previous solo movies as well as The Avengers. Marvel's offer for future movies was a whopping $500,000 to $1 million more.

Each of them is famous and established enough to make way more than that on any drama or romantic comedy. Roles which aren't so demanding and don't require them to train like elite athletes for a half year in advance.

The Avengers made $1.5 billion at the box office. If we assume that a little more than half of that made it back to the studio, then Marvel received around $800 million for it. The budget for the movie was reported to be $220 million, plus $100 million more in advertising.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars in profit which will not go into making a better movie, but into the pockets of others in the company.

Either way, some rich people will get way richer from the sequels. The stars want a little more of that pie.

You don't know what you're talking about. Downey did not get a 50M dollar deal. His base salary was far less than that, he made 50M because he received a percentage of the receipts in his contract. The reason it turned out to be so much is because no one had any idea the film would make 1.5 billion.

Unless your name is Tom Cruise, (who was the highest paid actor in 2012), you don't get a 50M base salary.

Because of Downey's past problems with substance abuse, he has to get other actors to cover his insurance waiver on the film.

 

[Tony Stark]

Is this really true? Are entertainment contracts different from sports contracts? In the sports world it is not an option to renegotiate, the team has an option on the player and they can decide to pick it up or not, but the option is usually at a pre-negotiated rate.

In the NFL contracts are renegotiated all the time, either by the franchise or by the player. A player can "hold out" if they want a new deal, or feel they aren't being paid fairly.

The teams often have to renegotiate, because they may be in jeopardy of violating the salary cap and have to restructure a contract.

The other big difference in some sports like the NFL, contracts are not "guaranteed". If a player is released early from a contract they are only due what remains on the signing bonus, and nothing more.

For example if a player signs a 5 year deal for 1.5M per year with a 2 Million dollar signing bonus, and are released after two years they are only due 5 million, not the 9.5M value of the contract.

Other sports like MLB and the NBA the player is guaranteed the full value of the contract even if released early, unless they violated the terms of agreement.

Actors it's a totally different ball of wax. Back in the day an actor worked for the studio, and if another studio wanted to use them, they had to pay the studio. Some actors still have exclusive contracts with a studio. For example Tom Cruise for a long time had an exclusive deal with Paramount. He was released from that contract after his erratic behavior (his interview with Matt Lauer).

Most actors contract with a studio for a film or a group of films, and there are terms of renegotiation in the contract.

Most actors take a smaller salary in exchange for a percentage of the box office receipts. This is the case with Downey.

I think that 90% of this story is complete BS, just as the Joss Whedon getting $100M for Avengers 2 was complete BS.

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/ne...-avengers-2-usd100-million-salary-claims.html

 

[Tony Stark]

ON a different subject, can we please get an official Avengers 2 forum?

 

[SpideyFan866]

ON a different subject, can we please get an official Avengers 2 forum?

Not until its officially announced and we have a title.

So expect this at SDCC.

 

[SpideyFan866]

As far as these rumored contract disputes go, I believe it but I also don't, and for the same reason. This reason is that starting out in 2006, Marvel Studios was a new company and had a limited budget for its slate of films. Because of this, as well as cost saving for TA, every actor they hired received, by Hollywood standards, a low pay grade. You may remember this being an issue Mickey Rourke had back with IM2.

Flash foward to now. Marvel has had 6 (7 if you IM3) 300 million or more films, with one grossing well over 1 billion and 5 grossing 500 million or more.

With that said, one finds it hard to believe that Marvel would be unwilling to give the actors a considerable pay increase. Now I'm not saying they should all be getting 35- 50 million like RDJ, but that 10 million they are all asking for seems very reasonable. But if there is truth to Marvel not wanting to give them what they want for A2, then its completely and utterly on Marvel for shoddy business practices.

The smart way to operate in this case would be to pay all of the actors a large, leading actor amount for the solo films they do. THEN, once time comes for the crossover where you have 6 or so leads, you can (pun unintended) afford to pay them a considerably smaller amount, whereas doing it the opposite way, or worse with the same pay for both films, will ultimately leave you with some very irate actors who are ready to walk rather than stay because as its seems, that low post-Avengers pay they are getting for the solo films is the catalyst for these disputes.

 

[TheFuture]

The issue is that some people think that the actors are doing something wrong when they use their contractually stipulated negotiations.


I mean what I write. I answered a statement that said that Hemsworth is just forced to train to stay fit and that the poster that said it claimed to do that every day. My point remains that if you've ever done an elite level training regime you won't dismiss it as easily.

My following paragraph in that post clearly said that it wasn't the particular reason why he wants to be paid more. But of course he feels even more strongly against being underpaid if he needs to do something really hard in addition to acting.


Again, the entire issue you've jumped into is about whether or not the actors are doing something wrong. The statement that they do equals that the employee in the example would do something wrong to ask his employer if he can match the other company's offer. Do you think that's wrong?

I'd agree with this. Regardless of whether the story is true or not, Marvel have always irritated me in their negotiating. It seems to me like they feel that the power is absolutely always in their favour. It's sheer arrogance and I'd actually like to see them burnt just once and realise that some things are worth paying premiums for.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not until its officially announced and we have a title.

So expect this at SDCC.

Seriously? Why is there a Justice League thread then? Avengers 2 has a director attached, a rough draft of a script and a date on when to start filming. Justice League has nothing but rumor but gets an official forum?

 

[Tony Stark]

I'd agree with this. Regardless of whether the story is true or not, Marvel have always irritated me in their negotiating. It seems to me like they feel that the power is absolutely always in their favour. It's sheer arrogance and I'd actually like to see them burnt just once and realise that some things are worth paying premiums for.

How so? They have a budget they have to work with. if they gave 5M to Hemsworth, Johannsen, and Evans, plus whatever Renner wants as his stock rises, they risk vastly running over budgets.

Don't anyone confuse this with what happened with Ed Norton. Ed Norton signed for one film. That's pretty much a sure sign that he didn't want to do more. I'm sure money came into play, but even Downey (who knew what Ruffalo's deal was) said he got a nice paycheck.

When you spend 200M plus not including advertising, you're not lowballing a project.

Again people keep throwing this Downey $50M number out. People don't know what they're talking about. Downey's base salary was not $50M.

 

[Cagefighterkip]

Seriously? Why is there a Justice League thread then? Avengers 2 has a director attached, a rough draft of a script and a date on when to start filming. Justice League has nothing but rumor but gets an official forum?

I concur.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I've spent my entire life busting my ass, doing hard physical labor for anywhere from minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour, just so I can own some crummy little farm no one in their right mind would want. Frankly the fact that this is even a topic pisses me off.

I wish I had a problem as massive as earning a mere $200,000 for 6 months work. I should be so lucky.

I hear what you're saying, but it's irrelevant to the topic.

Trust me .... for example I used to get pissed at how much benchwarmers make in sports, but there's a pool of money that has to go somewhere. The fans and cable networks are responsible for it. They're simply getting their cut based on the numbers, as absurd as they are.

 

[KangConquers]

I hear what you're saying, but it's irrelevant to the topic.

Trust me .... for example I used to get pissed at how much benchwarmers make in sports, but there's a pool of money that has to go somewhere. The fans and cable networks are responsible for it. They're simply getting their cut based on the numbers, as absurd as they are.

Exactly. From a social standpoint, it's absurd, but from a purely economic standpoint, if you are contributing to something that makes $1.5 Billion, you are entitled to some sort of compensation.

 

[Tony Stark]

Exactly. From a social standpoint, it's absurd, but from a purely economic standpoint, if you are contributing to something that makes $1.5 Billion, you are entitled to some sort of compensation.

True but they can't be mad at what RDJ got. RDJ established himself as a big time actor years ago, and then re-established himself after he got sober in a way no one could ever have imagined.

Hemsworth is an up and coming star, and now working with directors like Ron Howard and establishing himself as an A-lister. When he did Thor his resume was that he had a 5 min role as Captain Kirk's dad, plus some soap opera work in Australia.

Johannsen doesn't have a leg to stand on. She's hot, and she was great as BW, but she's not an A-lister. She has never carried a film with her name at the top of the billing.

 

[TheVileOne]

Right, I think $50 million is what he got paid when all was said and done. The $50 million probably included box office percentages, points, etc.

Hemsworth is getting a lot more prime roles now because of Thor. He can get higher payrates on other movies because of Thor now. But on his own, Hemsworth is not much of a draw. Look at RED DAWN where he was the main action hero. Only made like $40 million.

He was made a big part of the promotional advertising for Snow White and the Huntsman, a movie that costs $170 million or more and only made $155 million domestically.

I enjoy Johansson as Black Widow, but she's not the star of these movies. She's a good character but also expandable. People are not going to avoid these movies if she leaves.

Things have changed a great deal from the Jim Carrey era of $20 million for Cable Guy.

But look at Tom Cruise. Other than Mission Impossible, his films aren't bringing in jacked up box office anymore. Jack Reacher only made like $80 million. Oblivion is falling out at about that much. Rock of Ages bombed.

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

i wouldn't exactly call rock of ages a tom cruise vehicle...

i for one am happy if the rumors are true that RDJ & the rest of the cast are united

marvel being cheap has been a big criticism since iron man 2. if marvel wants to get the talent they have to pay, it's that simple.

i don't think this will jeopardize the cast, there's too much money to be made in avengers 2, it's like the NFL with the lockout, everybody knew they wouldn't lose a single game, everybody had too much $$$ to lose.

This is almost like the Marvel/DC stuff vs the creators. not quite, but even the "little guy" in this case are the actors vs the studio, i'll take the little guy every time

 

[TheVileOne]

Bah. I'd hardly call these actors little guys.

They are all 1%'ers . I enjoy their work, but I will never cry over them not getting paid enough.

 

[Tony Stark]

i wouldn't exactly call rock of ages a tom cruise vehicle...

i for one am happy if the rumors are true that RDJ & the rest of the cast are united

marvel being cheap has been a big criticism since iron man 2. if marvel wants to get the talent they have to pay, it's that simple.

i don't think this will jeopardize the cast, there's too much money to be made in avengers 2, it's like the NFL with the lockout, everybody knew they wouldn't lose a single game, everybody had too much $$$ to lose.

This is almost like the Marvel/DC stuff vs the creators. not quite, but even the "little guy" in this case are the actors vs the studio, i'll take the little guy every time

I just don't understand the argument of Marvel being cheap. I think they're being responsible.

WB spent 200M on Green Lantern and I have no idea where the money went, because that movie looked like ****. The special effects sucked, the 3D sucked, and we won't even get into the horrible script or lousy acting.

Spending money doesn't make a movie good. The films have to be profitable, or they won't be able to make more.

I don't blame Chris or Scarlett for asking for more money. If I were in their shoes I'd probably do the same. They're capitalists, and if they think they're worth more. We'll see what happens.

 

[Iceman]

I just don't understand the argument of Marvel being cheap. I think they're being responsible.

WB spent 200M on Green Lantern and I have no idea where the money went, because that movie looked like ****. The special effects sucked, the 3D sucked, and we won't even get into the horrible script or lousy acting.

Spending money doesn't make a movie good. The films have to be profitable, or they won't be able to make more.

I don't blame Chris or Scarlett for asking for more money. If I were in their shoes I'd probably do the same. They're capitalists, and if they think they're worth more. We'll see what happens.

Yeah, films have to be profitable and also made without taking too much risk. These are long term projects. Disney could invest their hundreds of millions in other projects that have a much safer but still sizeable return over a number of years and little to no risk to their initial capital unlike a film where you risk the whole lot every time. So these film need to be far outperforming that kind of relative safety to compensate for that much greater risk and to justify their existence.

And there is no guarantee that Avengers films after the 2nd will do that. So if the risks mount and Avengers 2 is a 6.5/10 film rather than a 9 then the odds of this Marvel Universe continuing indefinitely lengthen. Keeping costs under control is equally important to smashing up the box office for the future of the MCU as the one thing that can be guaranteed to be there long term are the costs you set in place now, not the crazy box office returns.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Bah. I'd hardly call these actors little guys.

They are all 1%'ers . I enjoy their work, but I will never cry over them not getting paid enough.

Man you are jealous. It's practically seeping through my laptop screen.

Hemsworth's name continues to grow, which for whatever reason you continue to try to mitigate. The market determines his value and right now he's getting paid more for other films. It's inevitable he will want some kind of raise and it's not like he's probably asking for some derivative which nets him $50 million after The Avengers 2 gets done in cinemas.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I just don't understand the argument of Marvel being cheap. I think they're being responsible.

It's not about being responsible anymore. It's about being reasonable. The cat is out of the bag with the draw The Avengers took in theaters. These actors are not going to want to continue to take these parts on sort of a "good faith" attitude in regards to their salary, especially if Marvel wants them to continue in on the MCU as much as possible.

The thing is, I think somewhere in the back of Marvel's collective minds, they know the re-casts are inevitable at some point so they are willing to roll the dice the day it does. That's a big gamble.

Honestly, the reported $50 to $80 million RDJ took from the Avengers, that should be the "total" among the entire group. RDJ gambled on the back end and came out smelling like a rose, but it's not realistically sustainable heading forward.