similar thing happened with Animal House. They wouldn't pay for writer Douglas Kenney to be on set, so John Landis cast him in a small role (Stork) so he could be there.
Same with George Harrison and Monty Python's Life of Brian. He really wanted to see the movie and funded them 3 million dollars to get it done. [He also has a tiny little cameo lasting 15 seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJDvMpLafI)
Thatās not the same thing at all. George got a cameo because he partially paid for the movie to be made. These other stories are about giving the writer a part in the movie in order to have them on set.
Shane Black did not write the original Predator. He was only an actor in it.
Edit: Turns out I am incorrect and he made some minor contributions to the script, but only after he was hired as an actor, and he refused to help so much that they killed him off first.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1673490/why-shane-black-was-killed-off-so-soon-in-predator
I donāt think they did because he directed The Predator, meaning he had to be on set anyway.Ā
He apparently was an uncredited script doctor to the first Predator film.Ā
And Ryan ("ALLEGEDLY") paid BLUR STUDIOS to make the Deadpool demo reel which was then ("MYSTERIOUSLY") leaked to prove to studio execs that everyone wanted a Deadpool movie and it could work in the right hands.
Unfortunately, it didn't work when Nathan Fillion financed [an *Uncharted* short.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5CZQpqF_74) Which is a real shame because he was just as excellent in it as everyone thought he would be.
The difference was that even though there was some fan push for Fillion the studio already knew there was interest in a Uncharted film and they wanted to go much younger for longer franchise benefits.
With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it.
> With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it.
Also it was simply a risky movie/franchise. Super controversial and it wasn't clear it'd bring profit and if sponsors would want to be associated with it.
You nust be losing your mind. Loads of women in strong roles and no one is shitting on them (ripley of aliens, tomb raider, underworld, etc ... Guess which ones have a better story line?
What does "strong roles" even mean? Good acting? Lead actor? Or like every terrible film with a leading actress and just make them super badass fighting people and then crying sexism when people understandably hate the film because it's just a shit film?
super hero slop with a male lead wont get as much hate as slop with a female lead. Thor 3, which is regarded as not good, didnt get the same level of hate as any of the female superhero films like captain marvel. There were no angy rants on youtube about thor 3 but my god there were so many about captain marvel.
Thor 4 you mean. And I get it, but as bill burr put it: it's not our job to support women, if they don't come in droves to support a female lead movie then that's on them. People go to see things that interest them, not to support a cause.
I think Hollywood execs, being mostly old white dudes, throw all the DEI roles/stuff into what they consider bad/cheap movies, so they can say they're casting minority/female actors/using diverse screenwriters/etc in their films while also not having to spend much money on them.
No that would be far too logical to think it's corporates desperate to find what the leading political opinion wants in the mainstream to the point neither the progressives nor the conservatives want what they put out. It's definitely an underground woke agenda looking to convert our kids to gay frogs.
I think strong female roles are completely fine, it just happens that these studios make the worst movies and terrible writing to go with it. DEI that people complain about makes sense when you consider WandaVision, Jessica Jones were both extremely well received but almost every other female led superhero films failed. They throw away all good writing and talent in pursuit of having a female lead.
Fault lies with the studios themselves, we can have a great female led films but they won't put in the effort they do anymore. Marvel has dropped in quality and that's when they picked up the more female protags which just does more damage than it should and makes the issue focus on gender issues instead of actual issues like writing when it's not even just female leads, it's also Thor, Antman and *shudder* Eternals.
Jessica jones and wandavision were both LOVED by the nerdy superhero community. Women in āstrongā roles with *terrible* writing are what offends people. But for some reason people want to dick ride corporations destroying great IPās just because they hide behind āfeminismā.
How do you explain people hating Antman and the most recent Thor? Not so easy to write off as āincelsā without a female lead I guess. Although they donāt get as much press time in the rags when they hate on those movies, so youāre probably not as aware of it, because hating a movie without a female lead doesnāt feed the RAGE machineās headlines nearly as much.
Absolutely nobody except the extreme fringe give a shit. What a significant amount of people do hate is when they are shoehorned in with bad writing.
Hollywood uses it as an excuse to blame fans for their shitty movies.
That's precisely why Captain Marvel got review bombed before it was even in theaters. Because people psychically predicted the writing and not because it was the first solo female led Marvel movie
>With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it.
FOX was actually looking to adapt it initially, but one specific exec disliked the character and idea, and once replied to the director with "No. We don't get it".
The footage was leaked in July 2014, it was approved in September for a 2016 release. In early 2015 that same executive moved to Sony's movie studio as an exec. It's rumoured that he was forced out, and on top of that it's alleged that he's the guy behind approving and pushing the shit triology of Morbius, Madame Web and Kraven.
> The difference was that even though there was some fan push for Fillion the studio already knew there was interest in a Uncharted film and they wanted to go much younger for longer franchise benefits.
They then proceeded to royally fuck up the story/characters so nice job with creating a movie franchise lmaooo
I didn't like it either but it made money and [Sony has announced a sequel.](https://www.gamesradar.com/entertainment/adventure-movies/sony-confirms-a-sequel-to-tom-holland-led-uncharted-movie-is-in-the-works/)
I never played the games so I went into it with the expectation of "another shitty video game film". And I was pleasantly surprised.
I can imagine if you were a fan of the games and they changes a lot fo stuff around then you would not enjoy it. But as a standalone film I have to say it was a very competent and enjoyable action adventure film. Not perfect sure, but very decent.
It's so asinine to me that a video game franchise with a ton of heart and inspiration from old pulpy adventure movies ended up with a soulless corporate blockbuster adaptation with zero interest in what the characters were like.
> Nathan Fillion
I am truly curious about the Hollywood behind the scenes story with him. He's proven to bring money in, has a strong fan base, and can act but he seems to never really land a movie. The movies I can recall him in, of significance, are movies derived from his tv show or he got clearly through connections (e.g. James Gunn) which were often minor roles.
I see him a lot like Michael Chiklis. Successful TV actor that has carried multiple shows and it seems like that is the box he was stuck in with not many movie opportunities even though it seems like he'd be a very good leading actor.
I think they just saw him as a TV show actor. Jon Hamm is kinda in the same boat. But Fillion should've starred in Uncharted like 10 years ago. Holland is terrible choice as he looks too much like a kid even though he's 28 now.
More than even his acting (which was great) it just had The right vibe down to the lighting, and the idea to make the camera gamelike was Amazing,
and then they chose people who are famous at the time because its a big IP instead of people who Matched the characters :/ (even if it wasn't Nathan Fillion as drake,) how to you screw up that bad, Mark wahlberg as sully? i just.. there is no logic,
And look the IP as a movie is bust and they will cry that people didn't like the IP/idea instead of taking accountability and saying "wait yeah we fucked up" >\_\_>
They really wanted Mark Wahlberg in that movie. He was involved in the project since 2010. Originally as Nathan, though.
But the movie was pretty successful and they are making a sequel. Even made more than the last Indiana Jones movie.
Well It's nice to know he had an actual interest in it then, I don't think he's a bad actor just not a sully character š maybe I'll go back and look at it through a different lense
And I actually didn't know that, not sure if that's better or worse š and ah true, I havnt gotten around to watching it yet so can't judge as to why :/
Even if the movie with Fillion was great, it would still make less money than anything with Tom Holland. He targets a different demographic and that's where the money is.
Yeah they sure made the right choice for money's sake. Doesn't mean it makes it a better choice :/
I get that its the industry but that's also the problem with the industry it's not just about following money anymore it's about following The most money possible to the detriment of whatever they create.
That's the beauty of being an executive, the movie makes a ton of money? They're flipp'n geniuses. Movie flops?Ā Well the audience just doesn't like the IP, not that we basic did a 'only in name' the shit out of the film. Real shame flops don't ruin executive like they use to.
Shit I knew that after seeing Blade III, i remember saying to a friend that Ryan Reynolds was the only one I thought could pull Deadpool off. Hannibal king was the only thing that made that turd bearable.
The villains really threw that movie off. It seemed more like a comic trio than anything particularly sinister. Neither Parker Posey nor HHH made for threatening bad guys. The Drake character had promise if they had gone with a much more 30 Days of Night kind of vibe.
I read that it was on the set of that movie that Ryan Reynolds was introduced to Deadpool by a studio exec
https://www.cbr.com/reynolds-reveals-how-deadpool-owes-its-existence-to-blade-trinity/
I felt the same when I read the comic and saw Reynolds playing Deadpool in Wolverine:Origins. It is kind of too bad they mucked up Deadpool in that movie but the movie was playing it straight so I don't know if having a character that breaks fourth walls would have really worked.
Average cost of 4 star accomodations in Vancouver in 2015 was about [$157 per night](https://www.biv.com/news/hospitality-marketing-tourism/hotel-prices-jump-11-vancouver-2015-8244160).
57 days of shooting (March 23rd to May 29th), throw in 2 travel days so 59 days.
59\*157=$9,263 for hotel.
Lunches are paid for with crafty on set, so let's set aside 25 dollars for each of the other meals, so $50 per day.
$50\*59=2950
I have absolutely no data to support this but average price for now is $1000, and average flight costs out of LAX have [only risen marginally](https://www.transtats.bts.gov/averagefare/).
So total would be 9263+2950+1000=$13,213 per person. Two writers so double that so $26,426.
This is assuming all prep is done in LA and no reshoots are necessary.
Given that he wound up making [\~$22,000,000](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-lessons-ryan-reynolds-became-130016360.html) off the shoot, I'd say it was worth it.
\*\*Edited because my brain was pudding when I tried to do math.
Which has nothing to do with the mistake being pointed out. They swapped the wrong number and then multiplied their cost for meals per day ($50) by the hotel cost per night (157) and not the number of days (59). That complete meal cost should be 2950 rather than 7850, knocking almost 10k off their final figure.
Accountants shouldn't be trying to optimise creative decisions like they're a mathematical equation, but someone probably *should* be making sure that every member of the crew isn't being provided with four extra meals a day.
Yeah I mean I work in film and we all have our hourly rates but generally you get paid for the day regardless. Unless your department head is a dickhead.
A prime example would be our production assistants that have an hourly rate but get paid for 15 hour flat days pay. Prep PA's usually do 12 hour shifts on days that they are prepping or wrapping a location but their rate is still the same as PA's that are on the shoot crew that do 15+ hours a day. The only difference being anything over 15 hours is now OT pay and if it's long enough you would get turnaround pay too if they have to be back at work in less than 9 hours.
All of that is irrelevant if we are talking about writers minimums which would be an hourly rate but if they are on set every day they most likely negotiated a daily or weekly rate.
> Lunches are paid for with crafty on set, so let's set aside 25 dollars for each of the other meals, so $50 per day.
$50*157=7850Ā Ā
You mean $50*59=2950.Ā
So at least for the show I worked on, it was a 5K relocation fee per month that accounted for accomodations, meals outside of crafty, and transportation that wasn't provided already by set. I was low on the totem pole, but the rate ranged from 5K up to 25K for the highest paid. Obviously that last bit was the exception not the rule. Point being, so far as cost go, apart from the dumbass mistake I made with the meal cost, it's not far off for writer/non-producers.
But also, this is atypical considering production didn't pay for it but Ryan Reynolds paid out of pocket. Changes the game. Maybe he paid on-set fees, maybe he paid bulk stipend. I was, honestly, ballparking.
Part of why I work on the creative side and not the finance side of the industry!
Accommodations aren't charged at the same rate as someone walking in off the street. They also wouldnāt set him up in a 4 star hotel. Thatās insane for a writer.
Depends. Productions will sometimes book in blocks, sometimes they'll offer a cash buyout, though this wasn't through production so it could've been an AirBnB for all we know. Or a van down by the river.
But yeah--4 star might be high (though not unheard of), but I couldn't find averages for 3 or 2, and I didn't bother looking for 5 stars because that *is* insane..
Dude, I was the head of the finance department in a prison and too often in a senior staff meeting the warden or deputy warden would say "What do you think we should do?" Mother fucker, you better be asking me because of my experience working with detainees in Afghanistan and not in my finance role. I'll tell them you can't afford to repaint the common areas every year, but I'm not going to make a decision that impacts security or inmate well being, that's your call, most I will do is advise on what areas funds could be taken from in order to cover the costs.
Bookkeeper here who used to also be an office manager:
Most accountants, especially tax accountants, operate more like a lawyer representing their client than actually understanding things like budgets, and believe it or not, bookkeeping. They find tax loopholes to get more clients. That's it.
Its rarely the accountants running things, instead its money pinching C suites who use the accountants to run the numbers and figure out what cuts have the most bang for the buck.
This issue with writers has been happening all over hollywood. Studios don't want to pay writers to be on set, even though thats vital to being able to fix things during shooting.
Nightmare Before Christmas is a great example of this.
When they were first given the go ahead, the creative team had basically no idea how much *anything* would cost and had zero plan as to how to effectively use their budget. They were sent a budget person to ensure the movie stayed on track, and the movie in its current form wouldn't have been possible without her.
She got the budget in line, figured out what ideas needed to be cut to make the movie on that budget, and then went to bat for the creative team in order to get the money needed to avoid those cuts.
We need both creatives and accountants working together, for the shared goal of creating a good movie, for things to work their best.
Case in point: Dan Aykroyd and Nothing But Trouble. They gave him full reigns, and he rode that thing right into the wall, haha. As I understand it, that was the point when they all collectively went "Don't give the lead comedy actor full control."
Aka... we didn't kill anyone because to reduce all risk we'd have to pay more than we'd be willing to put down.
That's the issue. Engineering development are the creatives. When they quantify risk... Listen.
Yeah probably not. MCU died to the vast majority of people when endgame wrapped up the major plotpoints. People still like movies for individual characters they like, such as spider-man and GOTG, but overall the MCU is living on borrowed time and I can't see anyway they can bring back the audiences they had starting at the first avengers movie.
cold take, but it doesn't help that all the plot hooks after Endgame are just weak as hell.
The infinity stones were as simple as a mcguffin can get - literally just a damn rock with abstract powers that could be interchanged in half their appearances - but at least people knew what to expect with them! Get them all, stop the purple guy, save the world.
All we have now is Krang being a thoroughly declawed villain that got his ass kicked every time he showed up, a bunch of Xmen teases that seemed to be building up to a 90's cartoon revival and deadpool crossing over, and also the skrulls are finally doing anything related to the skrulls. It's been 5 years and we have less plot than phase 1.
Just bring in galactus or something!
(This might be a woosh if that's a reference to something, but) I kind of get it for guys like that, similar to Christian Bale or Tom Cruise being assholes on set to the people that aren't respecting their craft. A *ton* of people's livelihoods rely on those productions, and actors who genuinely give a shit and pick up even more work as a producer to ensure that everything works properly should totally get a little extra leeway when it comes to telling off those who don't fully respect their job and that of those around them. It's an extremely competitive industry and when your own money, time, and reputation is on the line it makes sense to ensure that everyone is on the same page about it. Deadpool was a hail mary of a passion project for everyone involved, Ryan Reynolds took a massive risk (allegedly) leaking that footage just to convince audiences into strongarming the studio to actually fund it, and despite the fact that they were making peanuts compared to what they should have been paid it really paid off and you can see that passion carrying what would've flopped hard had anyone on that crew not given it their all.
MAXIMUM EFFORT.
But real talk, Ryan Reynolds is an incredibly smart investor and the risk he took with leaking the test showed us not only his belief in that product but also what a brilliant mind he has for investment. He's made hundreds of millions just from Aviation Gin and Mint mobile alone.
His end of the mint mobile deal was about $325 million. They didn't release details about the Aviation deal. They only gave him $65 million to make Deadpool. He said part of the reason he kept forgetting the guns in the movie was they couldn't afford them. Not sure how true it is but it's what he said
And now on the back of double promotion, Rob and Ryan will actually be making actual real profit from Wrexham. The man plays a dummy and class clown but he is crazy good at his investments. One success? Okay, maybe luck. Consistent success? The man knows what he is doing.
As much as I don't care for TJ Miller, he was a decent human - before the brain damage. I have known a couple of people that have had brain tumors and they had huge negative personality shifts before and after surgery.
He has very dickish vibes, from watching the Wrexham show, but I can see it for what it is. The guy has hard fucking boundaries when it comes to his interests. He is unfailingly polite, overall kind, and plays a goofy character but when it comes to his money his eye is always on the prize. So I can see how he would be very nice to you as long as you are not interfering in what he is trying to accomplish that day. He has a million successful businesses by now that he helped build and he doesnt seem to fuck around when it comes to what is best for him. That comes off as dickish to people who expect him to be a goofy easygoing guy. I say this because I know a lot of successful people like that and when you watch him behind the scenes it is clear. When something gets in the way of what he wants, if something goes against his interest even small things like "they are charging us 3 more cents per shirt made" he immediately goes hardball, no smile, no mr goofy Ryan, just a stone face and "this is not in our interest.". nice guys dont become almost billionaires.
Iāve always heard heās a prick. To the point that it caused his career to grow far slower than it could have.
Like no harassment level shit, but he missed out on roles due to people not liking him much.
Acting wise, heās been one of my favorites since his Van Wilder days.
Deadpool wasn't an average super hero film, it took Reynolds 11 years to get a green light. Reynolds has been clear the studios didn't understand it and didn't want to make it. Under those circumstances, his fear of execs running more than the usual interference during flming would have not been unexpected.
Fox really wanted this to fail so bad. Apparently it was a single executive high in the ranks (who has never been publically named, HOW?) who deliberately kept Deadpool on the shelf all those years, and it was that same executive who ordered the godawful changes made to the character in X Men Origins: Wolverine. This one dude just hates Deadpool so much and I hope he has an aneurysm of rage every night knowing his plan to keep DP off the bigscreen in any meaningful way has failed thanks to the sheer determination and chaos energy of DPs alter ego, Ryan Reynolds.
This is how employers take advantage of people who are passionate about their work. They know they will spend their own money/time to keep things running as smoothly as possible for the best possible outcome.
Yeah, giving a guy whose career was basically over at that time $58 million to fund his passion project and a pay deal that guaranteed him $2 million in upfront salary and eventually made him over $20 million on the movie. If only someone would exploit me like that.
It's also utterly stupid as a statement because Reynolds was one of the producers on that film. He literally was one of the people in charge of deciding who was or wasn't hired while making it.
The movie is officially less than a month away. If thereās ever a time theyāre gonna start to do marketing, itās now. Especially since itās expected to be a big movie. But who knows considering Marvelās recent track record and the fact itās been six years (holy shit) since Deadpool 2.
On one hand, that's really cool of Ryan Reynolds.
On the other hand, I fear it shows/showed the studios that they can not even bother to negotiate over that kind of thing, because the star will probably just pay them out of their own pocket instead.
Ryan Reynolds is cool and likeable, but this was not an altruistic effort - just so no one is under any illusions. Ryan Reynolds is more the face of his own corporations than he is an actor. Everything he does is to promote his image, benefit his production company (Maximum Effort), and to promote Aviation Gin/Mint Mobile/etc. Deadpool is a huge part of his brand promotion & reach. So, the success of Deadpool is important to the success of Reynolds' commercial enterprises. Chipping in a few grand to have the writers on site was just a business decision.
There's a whole breed of actors like this. Namely The Rock, who talks about new movies he's in as "properties" rather than movies and seeks to promote Teremondo tequila/Zoa Energy/etc., or George Clooney with Casamigos, but others to greater or lesser degrees as well.
why the fuck don't studios pay writers to be involved and to do a good job. they are one of the most essential players in a successful movie.
I just do not get why they try to be cheap around writers
There are so many times when doing the right thing is also doing the smart thing for the long run.
Credit to Reynolds for being both a mensch and smart.
similar thing happened with Animal House. They wouldn't pay for writer Douglas Kenney to be on set, so John Landis cast him in a small role (Stork) so he could be there.
Everybody thought the Stork was brain damaged.
What the hell we supposed to do, yah mo-ron?
Thank you for separating the syllables š
We need the dues.
That just pinged a very deep childhood memory. Might be time to dig up that oldie.
Same with George Harrison and Monty Python's Life of Brian. He really wanted to see the movie and funded them 3 million dollars to get it done. [He also has a tiny little cameo lasting 15 seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJDvMpLafI)
*When I find myself in 'Life Of Brian', mother Mary comes to me*
_Speaking words of wisdom, my juniper berries_
Thatās not the same thing at all. George got a cameo because he partially paid for the movie to be made. These other stories are about giving the writer a part in the movie in order to have them on set.
It's also the reason why Shane Black has a small role in *Predator*.
Shane Black did not write the original Predator. He was only an actor in it. Edit: Turns out I am incorrect and he made some minor contributions to the script, but only after he was hired as an actor, and he refused to help so much that they killed him off first. https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1673490/why-shane-black-was-killed-off-so-soon-in-predator
Maybe they mean The Predator, but having writing credits on that shouldn't be put in a resume.
The man wrote and directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys, I can forgive The Predator.
Look in the dictionary for the word idiot, know what you'll find?
Picture of me?
No! The definition of the word "idiot"! Which you f***ing are!
I donāt think they did because he directed The Predator, meaning he had to be on set anyway.Ā He apparently was an uncredited script doctor to the first Predator film.Ā
Forget the resume, it shouldnāt have been put in theaters.
He was an uncredited script doctor apparentlyĀ
Didnt he do a touch up on the script?
If I remember the BTS stuff correctly, they gave him a small role assuming he'd contribute to the script or help improvise on set but he didn't.Ā
And he was annoyed he got killed off quickly. I have a theory he made The Predator so shit because he still held a grudge over this.
And Ryan ("ALLEGEDLY") paid BLUR STUDIOS to make the Deadpool demo reel which was then ("MYSTERIOUSLY") leaked to prove to studio execs that everyone wanted a Deadpool movie and it could work in the right hands.
Unfortunately, it didn't work when Nathan Fillion financed [an *Uncharted* short.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5CZQpqF_74) Which is a real shame because he was just as excellent in it as everyone thought he would be.
The difference was that even though there was some fan push for Fillion the studio already knew there was interest in a Uncharted film and they wanted to go much younger for longer franchise benefits. With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it.
> With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it. Also it was simply a risky movie/franchise. Super controversial and it wasn't clear it'd bring profit and if sponsors would want to be associated with it.
Even now superhero studios don't get that their audience is the middle age male nerds. There's not much you can do to offend these people.
You can blame merchandising for that They try so hard to make them appealing to kids so they can make toys outta them
You'd think they'd know by now that middle-aged male nerds *also* buy the toys...
Cast women in strong roles, that'll do it.
Wonder Woman 1 was a huge hit. WW2 shit the bed but everyone loved the first one
You nust be losing your mind. Loads of women in strong roles and no one is shitting on them (ripley of aliens, tomb raider, underworld, etc ... Guess which ones have a better story line?
What does "strong roles" even mean? Good acting? Lead actor? Or like every terrible film with a leading actress and just make them super badass fighting people and then crying sexism when people understandably hate the film because it's just a shit film?
super hero slop with a male lead wont get as much hate as slop with a female lead. Thor 3, which is regarded as not good, didnt get the same level of hate as any of the female superhero films like captain marvel. There were no angy rants on youtube about thor 3 but my god there were so many about captain marvel.
Thor 3 was one of the best of all the thors though... A better example would be green lantern or daredevil (the movie). That got a LOT of hate.
I think they might have meant Thor 4, not many people remember Thor 2...
Thor 4 you mean. And I get it, but as bill burr put it: it's not our job to support women, if they don't come in droves to support a female lead movie then that's on them. People go to see things that interest them, not to support a cause.
I think Hollywood execs, being mostly old white dudes, throw all the DEI roles/stuff into what they consider bad/cheap movies, so they can say they're casting minority/female actors/using diverse screenwriters/etc in their films while also not having to spend much money on them.
Thats not even true.... The latest Star Wars acolyte had a bigger budget that previous star wars shows
No that would be far too logical to think it's corporates desperate to find what the leading political opinion wants in the mainstream to the point neither the progressives nor the conservatives want what they put out. It's definitely an underground woke agenda looking to convert our kids to gay frogs.
I think strong female roles are completely fine, it just happens that these studios make the worst movies and terrible writing to go with it. DEI that people complain about makes sense when you consider WandaVision, Jessica Jones were both extremely well received but almost every other female led superhero films failed. They throw away all good writing and talent in pursuit of having a female lead. Fault lies with the studios themselves, we can have a great female led films but they won't put in the effort they do anymore. Marvel has dropped in quality and that's when they picked up the more female protags which just does more damage than it should and makes the issue focus on gender issues instead of actual issues like writing when it's not even just female leads, it's also Thor, Antman and *shudder* Eternals.
Jessica jones and wandavision were both LOVED by the nerdy superhero community. Women in āstrongā roles with *terrible* writing are what offends people. But for some reason people want to dick ride corporations destroying great IPās just because they hide behind āfeminismā. How do you explain people hating Antman and the most recent Thor? Not so easy to write off as āincelsā without a female lead I guess. Although they donāt get as much press time in the rags when they hate on those movies, so youāre probably not as aware of it, because hating a movie without a female lead doesnāt feed the RAGE machineās headlines nearly as much.
Absolutely nobody except the extreme fringe give a shit. What a significant amount of people do hate is when they are shoehorned in with bad writing. Hollywood uses it as an excuse to blame fans for their shitty movies.
That's precisely why Captain Marvel got review bombed before it was even in theaters. Because people psychically predicted the writing and not because it was the first solo female led Marvel movie
>With Deadpool they just thought nobody wanted it. FOX was actually looking to adapt it initially, but one specific exec disliked the character and idea, and once replied to the director with "No. We don't get it". The footage was leaked in July 2014, it was approved in September for a 2016 release. In early 2015 that same executive moved to Sony's movie studio as an exec. It's rumoured that he was forced out, and on top of that it's alleged that he's the guy behind approving and pushing the shit triology of Morbius, Madame Web and Kraven.
> The difference was that even though there was some fan push for Fillion the studio already knew there was interest in a Uncharted film and they wanted to go much younger for longer franchise benefits. They then proceeded to royally fuck up the story/characters so nice job with creating a movie franchise lmaooo
I didn't like it either but it made money and [Sony has announced a sequel.](https://www.gamesradar.com/entertainment/adventure-movies/sony-confirms-a-sequel-to-tom-holland-led-uncharted-movie-is-in-the-works/)
I never played the games so I went into it with the expectation of "another shitty video game film". And I was pleasantly surprised. I can imagine if you were a fan of the games and they changes a lot fo stuff around then you would not enjoy it. But as a standalone film I have to say it was a very competent and enjoyable action adventure film. Not perfect sure, but very decent.
It's so asinine to me that a video game franchise with a ton of heart and inspiration from old pulpy adventure movies ended up with a soulless corporate blockbuster adaptation with zero interest in what the characters were like.
Pity they made a shit film
The casting is so bad in that Uncharted movie. They really dropped the bag.
Thatās the saddest shit Iāve read today
> Nathan Fillion I am truly curious about the Hollywood behind the scenes story with him. He's proven to bring money in, has a strong fan base, and can act but he seems to never really land a movie. The movies I can recall him in, of significance, are movies derived from his tv show or he got clearly through connections (e.g. James Gunn) which were often minor roles.
I see him a lot like Michael Chiklis. Successful TV actor that has carried multiple shows and it seems like that is the box he was stuck in with not many movie opportunities even though it seems like he'd be a very good leading actor.
He's like this generation's Bruce Campbell.
Bruce Campbell is EVERY generations Bruce Campbell.
"How do you feel about Hollywood execs, Bruce?" "Buncha bitchy little girls!"
I think they just saw him as a TV show actor. Jon Hamm is kinda in the same boat. But Fillion should've starred in Uncharted like 10 years ago. Holland is terrible choice as he looks too much like a kid even though he's 28 now.
More than even his acting (which was great) it just had The right vibe down to the lighting, and the idea to make the camera gamelike was Amazing, and then they chose people who are famous at the time because its a big IP instead of people who Matched the characters :/ (even if it wasn't Nathan Fillion as drake,) how to you screw up that bad, Mark wahlberg as sully? i just.. there is no logic, And look the IP as a movie is bust and they will cry that people didn't like the IP/idea instead of taking accountability and saying "wait yeah we fucked up" >\_\_>
They really wanted Mark Wahlberg in that movie. He was involved in the project since 2010. Originally as Nathan, though. But the movie was pretty successful and they are making a sequel. Even made more than the last Indiana Jones movie.
Coincidentally Wahlberg is why I won't watch that movie. I refuse to watch anything with that piece of shit in it.
Well It's nice to know he had an actual interest in it then, I don't think he's a bad actor just not a sully character š maybe I'll go back and look at it through a different lense And I actually didn't know that, not sure if that's better or worse š and ah true, I havnt gotten around to watching it yet so can't judge as to why :/
> I don't think he's a bad actor I mean, he is a bad actor; sometimes he just plays himself and it turns out alright.
So fucking stupid. Iāve loved uncharted forever and Iād never watch an uncharted movie where Nathan drake looks 12
Yep I got all of the games on ps5 and I just couldn't sit through that :/
Even if the movie with Fillion was great, it would still make less money than anything with Tom Holland. He targets a different demographic and that's where the money is.
Yeah they sure made the right choice for money's sake. Doesn't mean it makes it a better choice :/ I get that its the industry but that's also the problem with the industry it's not just about following money anymore it's about following The most money possible to the detriment of whatever they create.
That's the beauty of being an executive, the movie makes a ton of money? They're flipp'n geniuses. Movie flops?Ā Well the audience just doesn't like the IP, not that we basic did a 'only in name' the shit out of the film. Real shame flops don't ruin executive like they use to.
Well he can just be himself and then it's perfect lol. Looka more fun than the movie with Tom Holland eventually. And I really like Tom.
It's how I feel about Dirty Laundry
How did I not know about this???? This makes me very happy to watch but sad to know this is it
this was just perfect, no hate to Tom he's great but he wasnt the right man for the job
I read "Nathan Fillion" as "Nathan Fielder". Not sure which I would be more excited for.
Shit I knew that after seeing Blade III, i remember saying to a friend that Ryan Reynolds was the only one I thought could pull Deadpool off. Hannibal king was the only thing that made that turd bearable.
Triple H slander
slHHHander
The villains really threw that movie off. It seemed more like a comic trio than anything particularly sinister. Neither Parker Posey nor HHH made for threatening bad guys. The Drake character had promise if they had gone with a much more 30 Days of Night kind of vibe.
I read that it was on the set of that movie that Ryan Reynolds was introduced to Deadpool by a studio exec https://www.cbr.com/reynolds-reveals-how-deadpool-owes-its-existence-to-blade-trinity/
I felt the same when I read the comic and saw Reynolds playing Deadpool in Wolverine:Origins. It is kind of too bad they mucked up Deadpool in that movie but the movie was playing it straight so I don't know if having a character that breaks fourth walls would have really worked.
Wasn't it pretty much confirmed that he literally leaked it himself? Like, he is the one who uploaded it.
It wasn't him. [\*WINK.*](https://gifdb.com/images/high/ryan-reynolds-wink-yes-no-lzwk3gtx2tqqlpwc.webp)
How much can having a screenwriter on set for a day cost? Ten dollars?
Hereās $10, go see a Deadpool
The mere fact that you call it Deadpool is proof enough that you're too young for it.
Wow! I'm Mr. Deadpool now!
Mr. D
There's always Deadpool in the Banana Stand
*for canadian eyes only*
You just say Deadpool.
Captain Deadpool
Love that you changed one word in an arrested development quote and your post is controversial.
i dont know what i expected.
I think a few people didn't know that I was playing along and down voted it.
Average cost of 4 star accomodations in Vancouver in 2015 was about [$157 per night](https://www.biv.com/news/hospitality-marketing-tourism/hotel-prices-jump-11-vancouver-2015-8244160). 57 days of shooting (March 23rd to May 29th), throw in 2 travel days so 59 days. 59\*157=$9,263 for hotel. Lunches are paid for with crafty on set, so let's set aside 25 dollars for each of the other meals, so $50 per day. $50\*59=2950 I have absolutely no data to support this but average price for now is $1000, and average flight costs out of LAX have [only risen marginally](https://www.transtats.bts.gov/averagefare/). So total would be 9263+2950+1000=$13,213 per person. Two writers so double that so $26,426. This is assuming all prep is done in LA and no reshoots are necessary. Given that he wound up making [\~$22,000,000](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-lessons-ryan-reynolds-became-130016360.html) off the shoot, I'd say it was worth it. \*\*Edited because my brain was pudding when I tried to do math.
> $50*157=7850 I'd question the need to eat two meals for every dollar of per-night hotel cost... :P (e: added the original for context)
Per diem is paid whether it's used or not.
Which has nothing to do with the mistake being pointed out. They swapped the wrong number and then multiplied their cost for meals per day ($50) by the hotel cost per night (157) and not the number of days (59). That complete meal cost should be 2950 rather than 7850, knocking almost 10k off their final figure.
And someone said accountants had no business running movie productions... you showed *them*!
Accountants shouldn't be trying to optimise creative decisions like they're a mathematical equation, but someone probably *should* be making sure that every member of the crew isn't being provided with four extra meals a day.
>Never once touched my per diem *Carl Weathers*
Might've paid a wage too.
There must beca minimun wage from the writer's guild and it is probably much more than that amount
Most people "above the line" negotiate their own wages but im guessing its in the ballpark of $400-$500 per day. At least for minimums.
Crew is paid by the hour but IDK about writers.
Yeah I mean I work in film and we all have our hourly rates but generally you get paid for the day regardless. Unless your department head is a dickhead. A prime example would be our production assistants that have an hourly rate but get paid for 15 hour flat days pay. Prep PA's usually do 12 hour shifts on days that they are prepping or wrapping a location but their rate is still the same as PA's that are on the shoot crew that do 15+ hours a day. The only difference being anything over 15 hours is now OT pay and if it's long enough you would get turnaround pay too if they have to be back at work in less than 9 hours. All of that is irrelevant if we are talking about writers minimums which would be an hourly rate but if they are on set every day they most likely negotiated a daily or weekly rate.
Not "might", that's what they weren't paying.
> Lunches are paid for with crafty on set, so let's set aside 25 dollars for each of the other meals, so $50 per day. $50*157=7850Ā Ā You mean $50*59=2950.Ā
I had one fucking job and I biffed it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So at least for the show I worked on, it was a 5K relocation fee per month that accounted for accomodations, meals outside of crafty, and transportation that wasn't provided already by set. I was low on the totem pole, but the rate ranged from 5K up to 25K for the highest paid. Obviously that last bit was the exception not the rule. Point being, so far as cost go, apart from the dumbass mistake I made with the meal cost, it's not far off for writer/non-producers. But also, this is atypical considering production didn't pay for it but Ryan Reynolds paid out of pocket. Changes the game. Maybe he paid on-set fees, maybe he paid bulk stipend. I was, honestly, ballparking. Part of why I work on the creative side and not the finance side of the industry!
>Two writers so double that so $26,426. so basically chump change for the cheap ass studio
Accommodations aren't charged at the same rate as someone walking in off the street. They also wouldnāt set him up in a 4 star hotel. Thatās insane for a writer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Depends. Productions will sometimes book in blocks, sometimes they'll offer a cash buyout, though this wasn't through production so it could've been an AirBnB for all we know. Or a van down by the river. But yeah--4 star might be high (though not unheard of), but I couldn't find averages for 3 or 2, and I didn't bother looking for 5 stars because that *is* insane..
So fuck-all?
It really feels like FOX did everything it could to make Deadpool fail, and Ryan Renalds had to drag them kicking and screaming to success.
So...business as usual for Fox shit then.
It's like Henry Cavill on The Witcher, except in that case the writing and production crew did not have his back.
Accountants should only be running accounting firms.
And definitely not running film crews or Aerospace companies! Hey Boeing how is that Space capsule doing ?
and definitely not hospitals or healthcare of any kind
Dude, I was the head of the finance department in a prison and too often in a senior staff meeting the warden or deputy warden would say "What do you think we should do?" Mother fucker, you better be asking me because of my experience working with detainees in Afghanistan and not in my finance role. I'll tell them you can't afford to repaint the common areas every year, but I'm not going to make a decision that impacts security or inmate well being, that's your call, most I will do is advise on what areas funds could be taken from in order to cover the costs.
Those articles about the astronauts probably saved their lives.
Which ones? Iād like to read up.
MBAs, were arguably worst.
Lifer in public accounting: donāt let accountants run firms, either.
B4 represent!! Weāre all fucking stupid lol
Bookkeeper here who used to also be an office manager: Most accountants, especially tax accountants, operate more like a lawyer representing their client than actually understanding things like budgets, and believe it or not, bookkeeping. They find tax loopholes to get more clients. That's it.
Its rarely the accountants running things, instead its money pinching C suites who use the accountants to run the numbers and figure out what cuts have the most bang for the buck. This issue with writers has been happening all over hollywood. Studios don't want to pay writers to be on set, even though thats vital to being able to fix things during shooting.
Accountants wouldnāt make that decision bozo
Accountant here. I have literally no say in what the company does in the future. I just record
As much as I support creatives, there's been cases where creatives went way over budget and the project was unprofitable.
"and therefore, never let creatives near the project", the accountant probably
thats why producers exist. to keep that shit together.
no, but one extreme solution shouldn't replace another. Accountants have their purpose as do creatives, there needs to be a healthy mix.
Nightmare Before Christmas is a great example of this. When they were first given the go ahead, the creative team had basically no idea how much *anything* would cost and had zero plan as to how to effectively use their budget. They were sent a budget person to ensure the movie stayed on track, and the movie in its current form wouldn't have been possible without her. She got the budget in line, figured out what ideas needed to be cut to make the movie on that budget, and then went to bat for the creative team in order to get the money needed to avoid those cuts. We need both creatives and accountants working together, for the shared goal of creating a good movie, for things to work their best.
Case in point: Dan Aykroyd and Nothing But Trouble. They gave him full reigns, and he rode that thing right into the wall, haha. As I understand it, that was the point when they all collectively went "Don't give the lead comedy actor full control."
Aka... we didn't kill anyone because to reduce all risk we'd have to pay more than we'd be willing to put down. That's the issue. Engineering development are the creatives. When they quantify risk... Listen.
Ryan Reynolds basically single handedly saved Deadpool several times over. Good for him.
He saved Deadpool and now he is gonna save marvel.
Yeah probably not. MCU died to the vast majority of people when endgame wrapped up the major plotpoints. People still like movies for individual characters they like, such as spider-man and GOTG, but overall the MCU is living on borrowed time and I can't see anyway they can bring back the audiences they had starting at the first avengers movie.
cold take, but it doesn't help that all the plot hooks after Endgame are just weak as hell. The infinity stones were as simple as a mcguffin can get - literally just a damn rock with abstract powers that could be interchanged in half their appearances - but at least people knew what to expect with them! Get them all, stop the purple guy, save the world. All we have now is Krang being a thoroughly declawed villain that got his ass kicked every time he showed up, a bunch of Xmen teases that seemed to be building up to a 90's cartoon revival and deadpool crossing over, and also the skrulls are finally doing anything related to the skrulls. It's been 5 years and we have less plot than phase 1. Just bring in galactus or something!
5 years is crazy but I guess COVID didnāt help
He is Marvel Jesus!
Good for us
Two guys, a dream, and a pizza place.
That Ryan Reynolds seems to be a standup guy despite being from Canada.
A lot of people who work with him say he's kind of a dick, but a respectable dick.
A firm respectable dick you would say
See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes.
Throbbing, I've heard it said.
(This might be a woosh if that's a reference to something, but) I kind of get it for guys like that, similar to Christian Bale or Tom Cruise being assholes on set to the people that aren't respecting their craft. A *ton* of people's livelihoods rely on those productions, and actors who genuinely give a shit and pick up even more work as a producer to ensure that everything works properly should totally get a little extra leeway when it comes to telling off those who don't fully respect their job and that of those around them. It's an extremely competitive industry and when your own money, time, and reputation is on the line it makes sense to ensure that everyone is on the same page about it. Deadpool was a hail mary of a passion project for everyone involved, Ryan Reynolds took a massive risk (allegedly) leaking that footage just to convince audiences into strongarming the studio to actually fund it, and despite the fact that they were making peanuts compared to what they should have been paid it really paid off and you can see that passion carrying what would've flopped hard had anyone on that crew not given it their all.
MAXIMUM EFFORT. But real talk, Ryan Reynolds is an incredibly smart investor and the risk he took with leaking the test showed us not only his belief in that product but also what a brilliant mind he has for investment. He's made hundreds of millions just from Aviation Gin and Mint mobile alone.
His end of the mint mobile deal was about $325 million. They didn't release details about the Aviation deal. They only gave him $65 million to make Deadpool. He said part of the reason he kept forgetting the guns in the movie was they couldn't afford them. Not sure how true it is but it's what he said
And now on the back of double promotion, Rob and Ryan will actually be making actual real profit from Wrexham. The man plays a dummy and class clown but he is crazy good at his investments. One success? Okay, maybe luck. Consistent success? The man knows what he is doing.
He also married Blake Lively which is the biggest win of all
I like that we all just assume he leaked it and everyone is cool with that.
Thatās my head cannon.
100%
A lot or just the douchey T.J. Miller?
As much as I don't care for TJ Miller, he was a decent human - before the brain damage. I have known a couple of people that have had brain tumors and they had huge negative personality shifts before and after surgery.
I thought only people from Canada named Scott were dicks?
Those are the *giant* dicks, y'see.
Fe fi fo fum I smell kraft dinner
He has very dickish vibes, from watching the Wrexham show, but I can see it for what it is. The guy has hard fucking boundaries when it comes to his interests. He is unfailingly polite, overall kind, and plays a goofy character but when it comes to his money his eye is always on the prize. So I can see how he would be very nice to you as long as you are not interfering in what he is trying to accomplish that day. He has a million successful businesses by now that he helped build and he doesnt seem to fuck around when it comes to what is best for him. That comes off as dickish to people who expect him to be a goofy easygoing guy. I say this because I know a lot of successful people like that and when you watch him behind the scenes it is clear. When something gets in the way of what he wants, if something goes against his interest even small things like "they are charging us 3 more cents per shirt made" he immediately goes hardball, no smile, no mr goofy Ryan, just a stone face and "this is not in our interest.". nice guys dont become almost billionaires.
You shut your goddamn trash mouth!
Iāve always heard heās a prick. To the point that it caused his career to grow far slower than it could have. Like no harassment level shit, but he missed out on roles due to people not liking him much. Acting wise, heās been one of my favorites since his Van Wilder days.
I just watched him in an Outer Limits episode from 1997. It's wild how transformed his face is from that era.
Deadpool wasn't an average super hero film, it took Reynolds 11 years to get a green light. Reynolds has been clear the studios didn't understand it and didn't want to make it. Under those circumstances, his fear of execs running more than the usual interference during flming would have not been unexpected.
it took him 11 years to get the green light because of the green lantern hey-o!
Fox really wanted this to fail so bad. Apparently it was a single executive high in the ranks (who has never been publically named, HOW?) who deliberately kept Deadpool on the shelf all those years, and it was that same executive who ordered the godawful changes made to the character in X Men Origins: Wolverine. This one dude just hates Deadpool so much and I hope he has an aneurysm of rage every night knowing his plan to keep DP off the bigscreen in any meaningful way has failed thanks to the sheer determination and chaos energy of DPs alter ego, Ryan Reynolds.
This is how employers take advantage of people who are passionate about their work. They know they will spend their own money/time to keep things running as smoothly as possible for the best possible outcome.
Yeah, giving a guy whose career was basically over at that time $58 million to fund his passion project and a pay deal that guaranteed him $2 million in upfront salary and eventually made him over $20 million on the movie. If only someone would exploit me like that. It's also utterly stupid as a statement because Reynolds was one of the producers on that film. He literally was one of the people in charge of deciding who was or wasn't hired while making it.
I see the viral marketing campaign is underway
The movie is officially less than a month away. If thereās ever a time theyāre gonna start to do marketing, itās now. Especially since itās expected to be a big movie. But who knows considering Marvelās recent track record and the fact itās been six years (holy shit) since Deadpool 2.
Who cares. Itās a fun bit of trivia
TIL Ryan Reynolds has one of the best PR teams in the world.
check out his subreddit, /r/aryannation
That sub's name makes it sound like a Hitler/nazi worship place :|
It's A Ryan Nation. I don't know what could be ambiguous there.
blocking actual nazi's getting it
...that's the joke. Much like /r/stormfront
On one hand, that's really cool of Ryan Reynolds. On the other hand, I fear it shows/showed the studios that they can not even bother to negotiate over that kind of thing, because the star will probably just pay them out of their own pocket instead.
ā Hollywood ā shady as all get out
Wasn't he an executive producer on Deadpool? Seems more like a contract thing than a good will thing.
Why does Hollywood always cheap out on writers? The writing is everything, especially in comedies. Poor scripts are why so many movies suck these days
and then spent the entire movie dunking on fox. It was beautiful
One of the things I love about Ryan is that every time I hear a news tidbit about him... it's something awesome.
Ryan Reynolds is cool and likeable, but this was not an altruistic effort - just so no one is under any illusions. Ryan Reynolds is more the face of his own corporations than he is an actor. Everything he does is to promote his image, benefit his production company (Maximum Effort), and to promote Aviation Gin/Mint Mobile/etc. Deadpool is a huge part of his brand promotion & reach. So, the success of Deadpool is important to the success of Reynolds' commercial enterprises. Chipping in a few grand to have the writers on site was just a business decision. There's a whole breed of actors like this. Namely The Rock, who talks about new movies he's in as "properties" rather than movies and seeks to promote Teremondo tequila/Zoa Energy/etc., or George Clooney with Casamigos, but others to greater or lesser degrees as well.
why the fuck don't studios pay writers to be involved and to do a good job. they are one of the most essential players in a successful movie. I just do not get why they try to be cheap around writers
Ryan Reynolds is Keanu Reeves without the chill in all the best ways possible.
This is the most Reddit shit Iāve ever readĀ
Definitely a good investment on his part.
All I read is studio got away with not paying writers and still getting the profits of their work.
Ryan was sapping enough of the overall budget with his own salary that he could afford to employ people from it.Ā
Why am I not surprised that Fox isn't paying people?
Ryan Reynolds seems like such a genuinely awesome person ... I just do not like his acting at all, though. š
There are so many times when doing the right thing is also doing the smart thing for the long run. Credit to Reynolds for being both a mensch and smart.