Gal Gadot's Husband...

[BTR1701]

His t-shirt game is strong.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>His t-shirt game is strong.

>https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[RichA]

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 20:23:04 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> His t-shirt game is strong.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0

He looks more like he could be her father.

[BTR1701]

In article <cf7efef9-b214-4c54...@googlegroups.com>,

All the more reason he gets props for landing her.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-370EE3...@news.giganews.com>,

She's 32, he's 38. He used to be the breadwinner. :)

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Obveeus]

On 6/17/2017 10:06 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <atropos-370EE3...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <cf7efef9-b214-4c54...@googlegroups.com>,
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 17 June 2017 20:23:04 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> His t-shirt game is strong.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> He looks more like he could be her father.
>>
>> All the more reason he gets props for landing her.
>
> She's 32, he's 38. He used to be the breadwinner. :)

Her wiki page says that her husband is a real estate developer who sold
their hotel in 2015...for $28million. Unless that was his only real
estate project, he's probably still the breadwinner in the family, even
with her film career.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi4nd3$453$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

As of this weekend WW has grossed more than half a billion dollars. And
she's still kicking Tom Cruise around like he was a silly little
scientologist. And her net worth was already $16m. I think she's gonna
beat her husband soundly. :)

[Obveeus]

Unless she has some percent of the gross deal or merchandise deal on the
WW products, I'm guessing that her pay for the DC films was already set.
That $16Million in net worth probably includes $14 Million from her
half of the hotel real estate deal.

[BTR1701]

The feminists are already screeching over that photo:

"I don't understand why he has to celebrate his wife by putting down all
other women!"

[anim8rfsk]

In article <btydnenrOJw7c9jE...@giganews.com>,

It's called, to quote Charlie Sheen, "Winning!"

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi4pg9$9ed$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

You don't think furious sequel negotiations are going on?

google gadot ...

yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.

Yeah, that's gonna change.

[A Friend]

In article <oi4pg9$9ed$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

The success of this film will un-set her deal really, really quickly.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-CDD9B...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <btydnenrOJw7c9jE...@giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> His t-shirt game is strong.
> > >
> > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0
> > >
> > > Hahahahahahahahahaha
> >
> > The feminists are already screeching over that photo:
> >
> > "I don't understand why he has to celebrate his wife by putting down all
> > other women!"
>
> It's called, to quote Charlie Sheen, "Winning!"

hee hee

[Dimensional Traveler]

This is why they don't have husbands. :P

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[trotsky]

And, what, they're not entitled to their opinions because they're woman?
Or our country is secretly run by Putin? Come on, you must have a
reason other than the usual, your stupidity.

[Obveeus]

Why would she be paid big bucks for that role? The whole series is
chock full of 'stars' already. They don't *need* to pay any of them big
bucks.

>
> google gadot ...
>
> yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
>
> Yeah, that's gonna change.

Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would have
huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I really
hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already signed.

[RichA]

38?! Looks 50.

[Obveeus]

On 6/18/2017 1:43 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/17/2017 8:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> His t-shirt game is strong.
>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> Hahahahahahahahahaha
>>
>> The feminists are already screeching over that photo:
>>
>> "I don't understand why he has to celebrate his wife by putting down all
>> other women!"
>>
> This is why they don't have husbands. :P

hee hee.

[BTR1701]

In article <oi5vsb$ced$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain the
notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to it.
The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them extra
leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without bankrupting
themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more money
to do what they're already obligated to do?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Linda Hamilton had become a bigger star after The Terminator but made
Terminator II for the money she'd originally committed to when she signed
on for the first film. She complained about it but showed up for work.

I suspect Ah'nold was allowed to re-negotiate.

[shawn]

I suppose it's allowed because the future movies aren't guarranteed.
If the first Wonder Woman movie failed to generate much money there
would be no future WW movies and no income for Gal Godot. So it's not
the same sort of contract that you are thinking of. Now if an actor
tried to change the rules in the middle of filming a movie then I'm
sure the studio would fight them and the courts would back them up.
Trying to do so for future movies when the studios aren't going to be
willing to pay the actors if the first movie flops leaves them on very
shakey ground.

As for athletes if an athlete feels they are being very underpaid
there's the possiblity that they won't go all out and put their body
on the line to help the team succeed. Less of an issue in a sport like
baseball, but certainly a big issue in a very physical sport like
football. Every player knows there is a ticking clock on just how long
their body will be able to take the abuse so there's an incentive to
go all out when they are being paid the most they can get and less so
if they feel they are being taken advantage of.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi6eug$qnr$3...@dont-email.me>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

And then got a zillion dollars in the divorce.

> I suspect Ah'nold was allowed to re-negotiate.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I don't recall who her husband had been.

[A Friend]

In article <btydnenrOJw7c9jE...@giganews.com>, BTR1701
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Obvious rejoinder:

https://asunow.asu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/asu_news_article_image
/public/iwnad-empowered-by-sticker-v4.png?itok=uTtbw_Yv

https://goo.gl/JbfHMU

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi6itm$bol$1...@dont-email.me>,

James Cameron. :)

Hamilton got $50m for 18 months of marriage; during that 18 months he
was working on TITANIC.

Of course Amy Irving got almost twice that when she divorced Spielberg -
all we got out of it was the worst Indiana Jones movie, up until Shia
LaBoof got involved and lowered the bar.

> >> I suspect Ah'nold was allowed to re-negotiate.

Ahnold got $15m for T2 ($21k a word) which is 2.5 times the entire
budget of T1 (his salary doubled again for the dreadful T3).

[anim8rfsk]

In article <180620171517594820%no...@noway.com>,

And now it's one of the worst shows on television!

[BTR1701]

In article <d3gdkc9u6hs5800fl...@4ax.com>,

shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:38:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <oi5vsb$ced$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/17/2017 11:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >
> >> > yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that's gonna change.
> >>
> >> Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
> >> three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would have
> >> huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I really
> >> hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already signed.
> >
> >I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain the
> >notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to it.
> >The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them extra
> >leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without bankrupting
> >themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more money
> >to do what they're already obligated to do?
>
> I suppose it's allowed because the future movies aren't guarranteed.
> If the first Wonder Woman movie failed to generate much money there
> would be no future WW movies and no income for Gal Godot.

Mu understanding is that Godot signed on for future sequels from the
get-go. If so, future sequels are already covered under her original
contract. If not, then yes, she now has leverage if they want her to
come back.

[A Friend]

In article <anim8rfsk-17F8E...@news.easynews.com>,

But you'll admit it *does* belong in a bathroom!

[anim8rfsk]

In article <180620171539446922%no...@noway.com>,

A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-17F8E...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <180620171517594820%no...@noway.com>,
> > A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <btydnenrOJw7c9jE...@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> > > <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> His t-shirt game is strong.
> > > > >
> > > > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4h3es4medyajhk/Gadot.jpg?dl=0
> > > > >
> > > > > Hahahahahahahahahaha
> > > >
> > > > The feminists are already screeching over that photo:
> > > >
> > > > "I don't understand why he has to celebrate his wife by putting down all
> > > > other women!"
> > >
> > >
> > > Obvious rejoinder:
> > >
> > > https://asunow.asu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/asu_news_article_image
> > > /public/iwnad-empowered-by-sticker-v4.png?itok=uTtbw_Yv
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/JbfHMU
> >
> > And now it's one of the worst shows on television!
>
>
> But you'll admit it *does* belong in a bathroom!

hee hee

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-02C2FA...@news.giganews.com>,

What generally happens is she negotiates other stuff than base salary,
which is how actors get producer positions. Then they'll toss a million
at her to do the Today Show, and two million if she has to do Kelly.

Robert Downey Jr. had all kinds of weird stuff in his Iron Man contract
that they never expected to pay off on, clauses like "bonus if movie
makes 3 times more than any other film has on Shrove Tuesday" and then
they all came true. He's done interviews about how Marvel was pissed at
him because of it.

[moviePig]

Not knowing the full facts, I'll remain surprised and doubtful that any
big franchise could wrap up its star for $300k per. For one thing, it'd
make her a joke on the set when the 3rd movie's guest villain is getting
10x that.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-99503...@news.easynews.com>,

Then Marvel shouldn't have put that crap in his contract. Don't get
upset with him, get upset with your own idiot lawyers who agreed to it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Oh, right. Thanks.

>Of course Amy Irving got almost twice that when she divorced Spielberg -
>all we got out of it was the worst Indiana Jones movie, up until Shia
>LaBoof got involved and lowered the bar.

>> >> I suspect Ah'nold was allowed to re-negotiate.

>Ahnold got $15m for T2 ($21k a word) which is 2.5 times the entire
>budget of T1 (his salary doubled again for the dreadful T3).

Right. I remember thinking T2 was about the most expensive movie that had
ever been made and couldn't earn it back at box office. Oh well.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's hysterical.

[A Friend]

In article <5946dc93$0$60328$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,

This thread demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of understanding about
how Hollywood works. Everything is subject to renegotiation in the
wake of success, especially an enormous success like WONDER WOMAN.
"She should stick to her contract" is nonsense. Further, I don't know
(and neither do you guys) whether her contract has a renegotiation
clause and, if it does, what it says.

In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
can. I don't go to the movies to see the producers, just like I don't
go to ball games to see the owners.

[Dimensional Traveler]

But it does sound like Downey was already in character as Tony Stark
during negotiations. :)

[BTR1701]

In article <180620171717341438%no...@noway.com>,

I understand that's how 'Hollywood works' perfectly fine. I just don't
understand the motivation for allowing it from the studio's perspective.

> "She should stick to her contract" is nonsense.

I didn't say she should do that, so you putting it in quotes is
disingenuous.

Of course Gadot should do whatever is in her best interest. All I said
was that I didn't get why the studio would allow actors to do it when
they have them legally locked in at a lower rate.

If I had a contract with a guy to paint my house for $2000, but before
he starts, the newspaper does a profile on him and he becomes the most
popular house painter in town, then he comes to me and says "Now that
I'm a painting superstar, I want to renegotiate my fee for painting your
house to $10,000", I'd say sorry, dude, you signed the contract for two
grand and that's what I'm paying for the work. And if he refuses to do
the work at that price, we'll be in court, where there will either be
damages for breach or an order of specific performance.

> In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
> can.

Of course she should. I never said otherwise.

[trotsky]

On 6/17/17 10:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oi4pg9$9ed$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:

>> Unless she has some percent of the gross deal or merchandise deal on the
>> WW products, I'm guessing that her pay for the DC films was already set.
>> That $16Million in net worth probably includes $14 Million from her
>> half of the hotel real estate deal.
>
> You don't think furious sequel negotiations are going on?
>

> google gadot ...

>
> yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/wonder_woman/is-gal-gadot-under-contract-for-wonder-woman-2-if-so-hopefully-wb-gave-her-a-raise-a151700

> Back in 2014, the former Miss Israel conducted an interview with a media outlet based in her home country where it was revealed that she had signed on to play Wonder Woman in a 3-picture deal and that each appearance would earn her a relatively paltry, $300,000 USD (or $300,000 for her first role depending upon the Hebrew translation). Batman-News.com's initial report would later be confirmed by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Three years later, we now know Gadot's three appearances are Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the solo Wonder Woman movie and Justice League. So does that mean that in addition to Jenkins, Gadot is also currently without a contract?

Quit masturbating, Anim8r, and learn how to google.

[trotsky]

On 6/18/17 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <180620171717341438%no...@noway.com>,
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>> This thread demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of understanding about
>> how Hollywood works. Everything is subject to renegotiation in the
>> wake of success, especially an enormous success like WONDER WOMAN.
>
> I understand that's how 'Hollywood works' perfectly fine.

You do? Hollywood has always been about getting good deals by keeping
actors under contract. In the old days they could be under contract for
life and never make any real money. That's why Mary Pickford, Charlie
Chaplin, and Douglas Fairbanks formed United Artists. Details are
sketchy on whether Gadot is under contract for the second WW or not.
Patty Jenkins isn't, so she's in the cat bird seat. Regardless, if
Gadot only makes 300k for WW and it makes 800 million or whatever she's
still getting royally screwed.

[Obveeus]

Superhero movies regularly have a villain that gets paid more than the
spandex star. The 'super hero' characters tend to be very one
dimensional while the villains tend to be very charismatic (over the
top) and so require more from the actor.

> This thread demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of understanding about
> how Hollywood works. Everything is subject to renegotiation in the
> wake of success, especially an enormous success like WONDER WOMAN.
> "She should stick to her contract" is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, nor is it a lack of ability to understand that many
people do not honor the contracts that they sign. It is a statement
about the fact that people *should* honor the contracts that they sign.

> In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
> can. I don't go to the movies to see the producers, just like I don't
> go to ball games to see the owners.

I don't go to the movies to see the actor's paycheck. Neither does
anyone else. If she renegotiates to get paid $10 Million in the next
film, it won't make the next film 30 times better.

[A Friend]

In article <atropos-92A3D3...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701

Nobody's quoting you.

>
> Of course Gadot should do whatever is in her best interest. All I said
> was that I didn't get why the studio would allow actors to do it when
> they have them legally locked in at a lower rate.

Because acting isn't anything like painting houses.

> If I had a contract with a guy to paint my house for $2000, but before
> he starts, the newspaper does a profile on him and he becomes the most
> popular house painter in town, then he comes to me and says "Now that
> I'm a painting superstar, I want to renegotiate my fee for painting your
> house to $10,000", I'd say sorry, dude, you signed the contract for two
> grand and that's what I'm paying for the work. And if he refuses to do
> the work at that price, we'll be in court, where there will either be
> damages for breach or an order of specific performance.

That's a hell of a stretch. Did you hurt yourself?

Gal Gadot painted her first house for the money she signed for. Now
they want a second house painted, but she's become a famous painter
whose effort is worth more money. If they don't want to pay her,
she'll find another house to paint. In real-world court, you'll get
your $2000 back, and that's it.

> > In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
> > can.
>
> Of course she should. I never said otherwise.

You snipped the bit where I pointed out that no one here knows how
Gadot's contract reads, or if there's a renegotiation clause, and what
it might say. Paying her multiples of her first fee might be entirely
within the present contract. And. again, no one goes to a film to see
the producers, who will make enormously more money than Gadot, no
matter how much they pay her.

[A Friend]

In article <oi6v46$orl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

And, again, the bit where I pointed out that no one here knows what's
in her contract regarding renegotiation, if anything, has been snipped.
She may be within her contract in demanding more money.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi6q1j$4m8$2...@dont-email.me>,

Terminator 2 cost $102m and did $520m worldwide ...

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi6sfr$bo9$1...@dont-email.me>,

In my experience weird bonus clauses are put in by the studio hoping to
get you feeling greedy, and, yes, they get furious when they have to pay
off, and blame you for signing their contract in the first place.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I know. It was depressing that year that I first noticed Hollywood
unlimited budget movies first crossed the $100 million barrier, and still
weren't any better written nor directed.

Has any movie cost more than $150 million yet?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi735r$366$2...@dont-email.me>,

Oh, God, tons of them. Of course the Hollywood budgets are flexible, so
you get stuff like TITANIC costing $200m because they included the
building of Fox Baja in the budget (probably a way to reduce Linda
Hamilton's divorce settlement), but they claim ANASTASIA wasn't that
expensive because they didn't include building Fox Phoenix in it's
budget, but I was in the office the day we got the call that it was over
$100m without a frame to show for it.

Here's a list of about 50 movies that cost more than $200m, unadjusted
for inflation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Films

[Dimensional Traveler]

So by Hollywood accounting it only lost a few hundred million.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Avatar 2 has got to have topped at least $200M already and I don't think
they even have a script yet. :)

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi76hv$b6k$3...@dont-email.me>,

Did the first one?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi76bl$b6k$2...@dont-email.me>,

At the time the rule of thumb was 5X negative cost was break even.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I know, and the cost of the television network Paramount was trying to
start up that never got off the ground got charged to Star Trek the
Motion Picture.

And I'm sure countless movie budgets over the years were used to hide the
cost of keeping up the mistress of the studio head.

>Here's a list of about 50 movies that cost more than $200m, unadjusted
>for inflation:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Films

Ok, ok. I guess I meant real costs, not that that has a meaning
in Hollywood bookkeeping fiction.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Why, yes: It was a remake of Pochahantas.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi7b4i$lpi$2...@dont-email.me>,

Did they have a talking vagina tree?

https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/04f7e31f0aa2472700876aca2c9fbcc12f8bba.
jpg?v=3

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi7b2e$lpi$1...@dont-email.me>,

Good example. I'm sure similar shenanigans are going on with STD and
CBASSACCESS.

> And I'm sure countless movie budgets over the years were used to hide the
> cost of keeping up the mistress of the studio head.

Oh, not just at the studio head level. I'd guess as many as a third of
the people at Fox Animation were simply there because they were putting
out for somebody else that was there.

> >Here's a list of about 50 movies that cost more than $200m, unadjusted
> >for inflation:
>
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Films
>
> Ok, ok. I guess I meant real costs, not that that has a meaning
> in Hollywood bookkeeping fiction.

[Obveeus]

On 6/18/2017 8:44 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> Avatar 2 has got to have topped at least $200M already and I don't think
> they even have a script yet. :)

All costs incurred on the sequel at this point are probably incurred for
all 4 of the sequels (this is going to be one of those franchises where
they film multiple sequels concurrently so that they can get most of the
filming done up front).

[Obveeus]

Which is why he keeps coming back.

[shawn]

It's a two way street. Studios sign people to shows for multiple years
and then cancel the shows when the ratings aren't good enough leaving
the actors to go find new work. So long as the studios are going to do
that I see no reason why the actors shouldn't do the same thing. When
studios sign guarranteed contracts with actors for multiple years that
force the studios to pay them even if they cancel the show/movie then
they can ask the same 'loyalty' of the actors.

>> In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
>> can. I don't go to the movies to see the producers, just like I don't
>> go to ball games to see the owners.
>
>I don't go to the movies to see the actor's paycheck. Neither does
>anyone else. If she renegotiates to get paid $10 Million in the next
>film, it won't make the next film 30 times better.

Of course not. From our standpoint it matters not if the studio makes
a 100% of the income of the movies or the actors. That said I don't
blame the actors for pushing for more money, nor do I blame the
studios for pushing back. Clearly the contracts are written in such a
way that it isn't an issue or you would hear of more studios forcing
actors to show up.

[guilty...@gmail.com]

I'm really surprised they aren't calling him, "her wife"!

[RichA]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:25:32 PM UTC-4, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oi6itm$bol$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >In article <oi6eug$qnr$3...@dont-email.me>,
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> > >> >Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >>On 6/17/2017 11:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>>yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
> > >>
> > >> >>> Yeah, that's gonna change.
> > >>
> > >> >>Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
> > >> >>three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would have
> > >> >>huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I really
> > >> >>hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already signed.
> > >>
> > >> >I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain the
> > >> >notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to it.
> > >> >The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them extra
> > >> >leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without bankrupting
> > >> >themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more money
> > >> >to do what they're already obligated to do?
> > >>

> > >> Linda Hamilton had become a bigger star after The Terminator but made
> > >> Terminator II for the money she'd originally committed to when she signed
> > >> on for the first film. She complained about it but showed up for work.
> > >
> > >And then got a zillion dollars in the divorce.
> >
> > I don't recall who her husband had been.
>
> James Cameron. :)
>
> Hamilton got $50m for 18 months of marriage; during that 18 months he
> was working on TITANIC.
>

> Of course Amy Irving got almost twice that when she divorced Spielberg -
> all we got out of it was the worst Indiana Jones movie, up until Shia
> LaBoof got involved and lowered the bar.
>
> > >> I suspect Ah'nold was allowed to re-negotiate.
>
> Ahnold got $15m for T2 ($21k a word) which is 2.5 times the entire
> budget of T1 (his salary doubled again for the dreadful T3).
>

> --
> Join your old RAT friends at
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

She's rich and free of a enviro-leftist. Nothing could be better.

[BTR1701]

In article <180620171916230480%no...@noway.com>,

A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <oi6v46$orl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:

> > It isn't nonsense, nor is it a lack of ability to understand that many
> > people do not honor the contracts that they sign. It is a statement
> > about the fact that people *should* honor the contracts that they sign.

> And, again, the bit where I pointed out that no one here knows what's
> in her contract regarding renegotiation, if anything, has been snipped.
> She may be within her contract in demanding more money.

If so, then that only bumps up my original question one level. Why do
studios allow such clauses in contracts with no-name actors? If they
want some big-name actor, like Robert Downey for IRON MAN, I can see how
there might be some leverage there on the part of the actor, but someone
like Gal Gadot? If you polled 100 random people before WW came out and
asked "Who is Gal Gadot?" you'd be lucky if 5 them had any idea. So why
would a major studio put some sweetheart clause in the contract of a
D-list actress which gives them zero reciprocal benefit? If Gadot passed
on the role of a lifetime because they wouldn't let her have a
renegotiation clause, well, Hollywood is lousy with beautiful, athletic
brunettes to choose from, all of whom would be more than willing to sign
on without that clause.

[BTR1701]

In article <180620171910229434%no...@noway.com>,

A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <atropos-92A3D3...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <180620171717341438%no...@noway.com>,
> > A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <5946dc93$0$60328$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 6/18/2017 3:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > > > > My understanding is that Gadot signed on for future sequels from the

> > > > > get-go. If so, future sequels are already covered under her original
> > > > > contract. If not, then yes, she now has leverage if they want her to
> > > > > come back.
> > > >
> > > > Not knowing the full facts, I'll remain surprised and doubtful that any
> > > > big franchise could wrap up its star for $300k per. For one thing, it'd
> > > > make her a joke on the set when the 3rd movie's guest villain is

> > > > getting10x that.

> > > This thread demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of understanding about
> > > how Hollywood works. Everything is subject to renegotiation in the
> > > wake of success, especially an enormous success like WONDER WOMAN.
> >
> > I understand that's how 'Hollywood works' perfectly fine. I just don't
> > understand the motivation for allowing it from the studio's perspective.
> >
> > > "She should stick to her contract" is nonsense.
> >
> > I didn't say she should do that, so you putting it in quotes is
> > disingenuous.
>
> Nobody's quoting you.

Who are you quoting then?

> > Of course Gadot should do whatever is in her best interest. All I said
> > was that I didn't get why the studio would allow actors to do it when
> > they have them legally locked in at a lower rate.

> > If I had a contract with a guy to paint my house for $2000, but before
> > he starts, the newspaper does a profile on him and he becomes the most
> > popular house painter in town, then he comes to me and says "Now that
> > I'm a painting superstar, I want to renegotiate my fee for painting your
> > house to $10,000", I'd say sorry, dude, you signed the contract for two
> > grand and that's what I'm paying for the work. And if he refuses to do
> > the work at that price, we'll be in court, where there will either be
> > damages for breach or an order of specific performance.
>
> > Because acting isn't anything like painting houses.

The legal principles are exactly the same. There isn't an 'acting is
special' exception to basic contract law in the Uniform Commercial Code.

> Gal Gadot painted her first house for the money she signed for.

From all the media reports, it sounds like she agreed to paint three
houses for the original lower rate.

> Now they want a second house painted, but she's become a famous painter
> whose effort is worth more money.

No, now they want her to paint the second and third houses that she
agreed to paint under her original contract.

> In real-world court, you'll get your $2000 back, and that's it.

No, there's plenty of real-world courts that order specific performance.

> > > In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
> > > can.
> >
> > Of course she should. I never said otherwise.
>
> You snipped the bit where I pointed out that no one here knows how
> Gadot's contract reads, or if there's a renegotiation clause, and what
> it might say.

Why studios agree to allow relatively unknown actors to have
'renegotiation clauses' in their contracts is just another example of my
original question. Why do they allow it? What's in it for them, other
than the potential to have to pay 10 times in the future for what they
can currently get on the cheap?

[shawn]

Because what you are describing is a one sided contract which I doubt
any entertainment lawyer would let their client sign. If the 2 extra
movies don't get made you can bet Gal Gadot wasn't going to get paid a
cent. The studio would want to know that she will be available if the
movies do go forward (since recasting in the middle of a trio of
movies is a horrible idea for the lead actor.) So any actress cast for
this role has a certain amount of power. That doesn't mean she can ask
for Robert Downey Jr type money and expect to get it but more than the
$300k she got for the first movie? Of course. Though we don't know if
she had any additional agreements in her contract that might have
given more than the reported $300k.

Also you are talking as though they can just pull in any actress off
the street to play the part. If that were true the casting for this
role (and any other role) shouldn't take more than a few hours but we
know that isn't the case. They not only need someone that fits
whatever look they are going for, but someone who can act and has the
charisma or X-factor that will help sell the character and hence the
movie. That last bit may be the hardest part. I have no idea how good
Gadot is at that part but given that people have been giving favorable
comments on the movie she be doing okay in all of those categories.

[BTR1701]

In article <umuekch4jdgjd2t70...@4ax.com>,

Nonsense. They're giving a relative nobody the chance of a lifetime to
star in a blockbuster studio tentpole picture with franchise
possibilities. That's hardly one-sided.

As for what an entertainment lawyer will let the client sign, that
conversation goes something like this:

ASPIRING ACTRESS: My lawyer says I can't sign this unless you add this
sweetheart clause that only benefits me and gives you nothing.

STUDIO LAWYER: Fine. Then we're not hiring you. (buzzes intercom) Tell
casting to send in the next hot athletic brunette. We'll keep going
through them until we find someone who won't be so demanding.

> If the 2 extra movies don't get made you can bet Gal Gadot wasn't
> going to get paid a cent. The studio would want to know that she
> will be available if the movies do go forward (since recasting in
> the middle of a trio of movies is a horrible idea for the lead
> actor.)

Right. That's why they include the sequel requirement in the first
contract.

> So any actress cast for this role has a certain amount of power.

Not if she wants the role. Hollywood is a buyer's market for no-name
pretty girls.

> That doesn't mean she can ask for Robert Downey Jr type money and
> expect to get it but more than the $300k she got for the first movie?
> Of course.

She can ask but they don't have to give it to her. Classic "this is the
deal, take it or leave it" scenario. She wants the role, she signs for
$300K per film for three films. If she passes, there are about a
thousand other girls who will claw each others' eyes out for the
opportunity.

> Also you are talking as though they can just pull in any actress off
> the street to play the part.

There's a wealth of options to choose from. Gadot is not the only person
in town who could have pulled off what is mostly an action role. Most of
it was looking hot in the outfit and being able to meet the
physical/stunt requirements. The acting part of it was hardly
Shakespeare.

[bobn...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:09:42 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <180620171717341438%no...@noway.com>,

> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <5946dc93$0$60328$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/18/2017 3:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > > > In article <d3gdkc9u6hs5800fl...@4ax.com>,
> > > > shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:38:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In article <oi5vsb$ced$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 6/17/2017 11:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Yeah, that's gonna change.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
> > > >>>> three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would have
> > > >>>> huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I really
> > > >>>> hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already signed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain the
> > > >>> notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to it.
> > > >>> The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them extra
> > > >>> leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without bankrupting
> > > >>> themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more money
> > > >>> to do what they're already obligated to do?
> > > >>

> > > >> I suppose it's allowed because the future movies aren't guarranteed.
> > > >> If the first Wonder Woman movie failed to generate much money there
> > > >> would be no future WW movies and no income for Gal Godot.
> > > >

> > > > Mu understanding is that Godot signed on for future sequels from the

> > > > get-go. If so, future sequels are already covered under her original
> > > > contract. If not, then yes, she now has leverage if they want her to
> > > > come back.
> > >
> > > Not knowing the full facts, I'll remain surprised and doubtful that any
> > > big franchise could wrap up its star for $300k per. For one thing, it'd
> > > make her a joke on the set when the 3rd movie's guest villain is getting
> > > 10x that.
> >
> >
> > This thread demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of understanding about
> > how Hollywood works. Everything is subject to renegotiation in the
> > wake of success, especially an enormous success like WONDER WOMAN.
>
> I understand that's how 'Hollywood works' perfectly fine. I just don't
> understand the motivation for allowing it from the studio's perspective.
>
> > "She should stick to her contract" is nonsense.
>
> I didn't say she should do that, so you putting it in quotes is
> disingenuous.
>

> Of course Gadot should do whatever is in her best interest. All I said
> was that I didn't get why the studio would allow actors to do it when
> they have them legally locked in at a lower rate.
>
> If I had a contract with a guy to paint my house for $2000, but before
> he starts, the newspaper does a profile on him and he becomes the most
> popular house painter in town, then he comes to me and says "Now that
> I'm a painting superstar, I want to renegotiate my fee for painting your
> house to $10,000", I'd say sorry, dude, you signed the contract for two
> grand and that's what I'm paying for the work.

Do you want a disgruntled painter doing a shitty job?

> And if he refuses to do
> the work at that price, we'll be in court, where there will either be
> damages for breach or an order of specific performance.

Then you keep your $2K and Mr. Famous Painter is free to paint someone else's house for $10K. The only redress you have is to keep the agreed upon fee.


Now in Godot's case, given the success of movie #1, there is some cost and risk in trying to reboot with a new Wonder Woman. It can be done but it would likely be in their interest to renegotiate Godot's contract. It's not that they cant hold her to the contract, but that it isn't in their best interests as the only leverage they have is not paying her the agreed upon fee if she does refuse.

[Obveeus]

...but that is always written upfront into the contract. Actors know
that a 5 year sign on for a TV series will only lead to pay for the
episodes/seasons that are produced. Big name actors get penalty clauses
that guarantee pay for the whole current season while lesser named
actors only get paid for episodes that are made. There is nothing shady
about contract language that is clearly spelled out. Ont he other hand,
agreeing to a certain pay (as actors and sports players regularly do),
then refusing to do the job until the contract is renegotiated for more
money *is* shady.

> So long as the studios are going to do
> that I see no reason why the actors shouldn't do the same thing. When
> studios sign guarranteed contracts with actors for multiple years that
> force the studios to pay them even if they cancel the show/movie then
> they can ask the same 'loyalty' of the actors.

I don't think I've heard of contract for multiple seasons being
guaranteed. On the other hand, for a single season (or for a specific
period of a few months set aside for a film) I have heard of guaranteed
pay for the actors even if the project doesn't move forward...and then
you hear about actors whining because even though they are getting paid
they are prevented from seeking other work during that same time period
(which means that a project that doesn't move forward will also result
in them not being in the public eye during that time).

>>> In any case, I think Gadot should go out there and get every dime she
>>> can. I don't go to the movies to see the producers, just like I don't
>>> go to ball games to see the owners.
>>
>> I don't go to the movies to see the actor's paycheck. Neither does
>> anyone else. If she renegotiates to get paid $10 Million in the next
>> film, it won't make the next film 30 times better.
>
> Of course not. From our standpoint it matters not if the studio makes
> a 100% of the income of the movies or the actors. That said I don't
> blame the actors for pushing for more money,

Neither do I. they should push for all the money they want for future
projects for which they haven't already signed a legal contract and
agreed to a set pay scale.

> nor do I blame the
> studios for pushing back. Clearly the contracts are written in such a
> way that it isn't an issue or you would hear of more studios forcing
> actors to show up.

You do hear about that...but then you hear about actors being 'difficult
on set' and such as they try to destroy a production where they are not
happy with their pay/hours/character/etc....

[shawn]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:12:13 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <umuekch4jdgjd2t70...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 23:07:03 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <180620171916230480%no...@noway.com>,
>> > A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <oi6v46$orl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > It isn't nonsense, nor is it a lack of ability to understand that many
>> >> > people do not honor the contracts that they sign. It is a statement
>> >> > about the fact that people *should* honor the contracts that they sign.
>> >
>> >> And, again, the bit where I pointed out that no one here knows what's
>> >> in her contract regarding renegotiation, if anything, has been snipped.
>> >> She may be within her contract in demanding more money.

>

>As for what an entertainment lawyer will let the client sign, that
>conversation goes something like this:
>
>ASPIRING ACTRESS: My lawyer says I can't sign this unless you add this
>sweetheart clause that only benefits me and gives you nothing.
>
>STUDIO LAWYER: Fine. Then we're not hiring you. (buzzes intercom) Tell
>casting to send in the next hot athletic brunette. We'll keep going
>through them until we find someone who won't be so demanding.

You keep saying because it goes along with what you learned in law
school. Yet, the facts of what we see happening over and over again in
Hollywood shows that it isn't the case. Otherwise we would be hearing
actors and their lawyers complaining about clients being forced to
stick to contracts to appear in sequels. Yet I can't ever recall of
such an outcry from any studio. Now maybe it's just because studios
are worried about the negative impact of forcing actors to go along
with any agreements to appear in sequels.

>
>> Also you are talking as though they can just pull in any actress off
>> the street to play the part.
>
>There's a wealth of options to choose from. Gadot is not the only person
>in town who could have pulled off what is mostly an action role. Most of
>it was looking hot in the outfit and being able to meet the
>physical/stunt requirements. The acting part of it was hardly
>Shakespeare.

Oh, I'm sure there are other actresses that can do the role. There's
just an opportunity cost for continuing the casting once they've found
an actress they are happy with but who wants a renegotiation option
for future movies in the contract.

[moviePig]

According to this link, afaic, 'renegotiation clause' doesn't come into
it. So, the earth remains aright...


https://www.comicbookmovie.com/wonder_woman/is-gal-gadot-under-contract-for-wonder-woman-2-if-so-hopefully-wb-gave-her-a-raise-a151700

(http://tinyurl.com/yb9jwokc)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[shawn]

The only time I've heard about that is with actors on TV series that
are in negotiation for future seasons. I can't say I've ever heard of
an actor behaving like that on a movie set when filming a sequel
because they are upset about their pay. The negotiations always seem
to happen before the sequels start filming.

[Obveeus]

We've seen it with situations where actors simply want out of their
contracts. Remember REMMINGTON STEELE when Pierce Brosnan was angry
that he was being forced to honor his TV contract when he wanted to go
be JAMES BOND for a fortune instead? Mandy Patinkin has done it several
times when he has grown bored with a part and wanted to leave while
still under contract. Kim Basinger was sued into bankruptcy when she
refused to play the role she signed a contract to play (thought her
gripe was with the way her character was written, not with her paycheck).

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi8o1r$t57$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

She's have probably been okay if she hadn't already bought that town in
Georgia.

Madonna had previously quit the film as well, and supposedly there was
legal wrangling there, but you never hear about that.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-CC90F...@news.easynews.com>,

Didn't they eventually cast Sherilyn Fenn?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-0A72BE...@news.giganews.com>,

Yep

[Obveeus]

I think the difference was that Madonna bandied about in discussions
about taking the role and agreed orally, but never signed on a dotted
line. Beyond that, of course, Madonna bowed out first...so you know the
contract with Basinger was then written in a way to prevent that outcome
from happening again.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-1C3EA7...@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-99503...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-02C2FA...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <d3gdkc9u6hs5800fl...@4ax.com>,
> > > shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:38:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article <oi5vsb$ced$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >

> > > > >> On 6/17/2017 11:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yeah, that's gonna change.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
> > > > >> three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I
> > > > >> really
> > > > >> hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already
> > > > >> signed.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain
> > > > >the
> > > > >notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to
> > > > >it.
> > > > >The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them
> > > > >extra
> > > > >leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without
> > > > >bankrupting
> > > > >themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more
> > > > >money
> > > > >to do what they're already obligated to do?
> > > >
> > > > I suppose it's allowed because the future movies aren't guarranteed.
> > > > If the first Wonder Woman movie failed to generate much money there
> > > > would be no future WW movies and no income for Gal Godot.
> > >

> > > Mu understanding is that Godot signed on for future sequels from the

> > > get-go. If so, future sequels are already covered under her original
> > > contract. If not, then yes, she now has leverage if they want her to
> > > come back.
> >

> > What generally happens is she negotiates other stuff than base salary,
> > which is how actors get producer positions. Then they'll toss a million
> > at her to do the Today Show, and two million if she has to do Kelly.
> >
> > Robert Downey Jr. had all kinds of weird stuff in his Iron Man contract
> > that they never expected to pay off on, clauses like "bonus if movie
> > makes 3 times more than any other film has on Shrove Tuesday" and then
> > they all came true. He's done interviews about how Marvel was pissed at
> > him because of it.
>
> Then Marvel shouldn't have put that crap in his contract. Don't get
> upset with him, get upset with your own idiot lawyers who agreed to it.

This makes sense to you and I, but it's not how it works.

Case in point: The last big job I did for the Discovery Channel
(through an intermediate production company), before they moved
everything to Canadia for the drugs and whores.

Their contract. Had some interesting clauses in it, like it
specifically mentioned the name of the show. so the work couldn't be
used in other shows. Then Discovery changed the name of the show,
meaning in theory they'd have to pay me again. I laughed and waived the
clause. Then there was a related show where they paid me a nominal fee
for reuse, then the scene got cut, and they asked if they could use
other work I'd done instead, and I said sure.

But they were FURIOUS. They were so furious they fired their woman who
wrote the contract! They were so furious they began plotting against
me. The pointed haired boss announced internally that they were going
to flat out steal the work and use it as they pleased. Other people in
the company pointed out that that was a bad idea, and warned me to watch
for it. So they switched to their back up plan, which was to pay
somebody (in Canadia) dozens of thousands of dollars to duplicate my
work, so they could use it without paying me a couple grand here or
there, or offer me a buyout. They were this furious with me for signing
THEIR contract, and being amenable every time a snag came up.
Eventually the furious boss moved to Canadia himself. I knew exactly
what Downey was talking about.

The Greedy Clauses are ... inexplicable. They think you'll smell money
that will never come, and agree to any standard clauses, no matter how
onerous, because of it.

Additional case in point: educational film company I did hundreds of
shows for. Came to me with a new project. Same rate as other films -
but - this one had an enticement. Instead of paying my usual flat rate,
which I think would have been $19k or something - they wanted to pay me
residuals against sales. But - and this wasn't in the print, I had to
ask about it - they fucking capped at $19k! So they were going to pay
me a MAXIMUM of my standard rate, a minimum of nothing, more likely
something inbetween, across an unknown period of time. And they're
acting like they're dangling a juicy steak over my head, and don't
understand why I'm not snapping at it. They thought that the residuals
offer would blind me to the fact that they weren't paying me in the
first place!

"It's a madhouse! A madhouse!!" - George Taylor

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oi8uu4$9vt$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

good point

[Dimensional Traveler]

Then there was the famous rock band (who's name I can't remember at the
moment) who had as a clause in their contracts with stadiums and arenas
that M&Ms had to be provided for the band with all the ones of a certain
color removed. Eventually they explained the reason for that. It was a
kind of canary in the coal mine clause. If they showed up and the M&Ms
weren't right, then they knew the venue hadn't read the contract in
detail and had probably bleeped up things like the electrical power
setup to the equipment and the weight carrying capacity of the stage.
Important stuff that could get people killed.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[A Friend]

In article <oi9bhq$n4c$1...@dont-email.me>, Dimensional Traveler

<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> Then there was the famous rock band (who's name I can't remember at the
> moment) who had as a clause in their contracts with stadiums and arenas
> that M&Ms had to be provided for the band with all the ones of a certain
> color removed. Eventually they explained the reason for that. It was a
> kind of canary in the coal mine clause. If they showed up and the M&Ms
> weren't right, then they knew the venue hadn't read the contract in
> detail and had probably bleeped up things like the electrical power
> setup to the equipment and the weight carrying capacity of the stage.
> Important stuff that could get people killed.

The band was Van Halen. The clause was known at the time, but was
reported as a stupid, self-indulgent eccentricity. The real reason for
the clause wasn't revealed until David Lee Roth talked about it in his
1998 autobiography, Crazy from the Heat. Snopes has excerpts:

"Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary,
third-level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks,
full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were
many, many technical errors ‹ whether it was the girders couldn't
support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't
big enough to move the gear through.

"The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages
because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make
it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the
rider, it would say 'Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage
voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen
amperes Š' This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of
nowhere, was: 'There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon
pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.'

"So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl Š
well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to
arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed
you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy
the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening."

and

"The folks in Pueblo, Colorado, at the university, took the contract
rather kinda casual. They had one of these new rubberized bouncy
basketball floorings in their arena. They hadn't read the contract, and
weren't sure, really, about the weight of this production; this thing
weighed like the business end of a 747.

"I came backstage. I found some brown M&M's, I went into full
Shakespearean 'What is this before me?' Š you know, with the skull in
one hand Š and promptly trashed the dressing room. Dumped the buffet,
kicked a hole in the door, twelve thousand dollars' worth of fun.

"The staging sank through their floor. They didn't bother to look at
the weight requirements or anything, and this sank through their new
flooring and did eighty thousand dollars' worth of damage to the arena
floor. The whole thing had to be replaced. It came out in the press
that I discovered brown M&M's and did eighty-five thousand dollars'
worth of damage to the backstage area.

"Well, who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?"

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 06/18/2017 at 12:38 PM:

> In article <oi5vsb$ced$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2017 11:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>> yikes, she's signed for 3 WW films at $300k each.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's gonna change.
>>
>> Maybe they will give her a big payoff for the 4th film. As for these
>> three (which I assume includes a JUSTICE LEAGUE)...the films would have
>> huge budgets and make money no matter who played the role and I really
>> hate when actors try to renegotiate contracts they have already signed.
>
> I don't understand why the studios (and sports teams) even entertain the
> notion. They have a contract. The actor/athlete is legally bound to it.
> The surprise success of a movie or a sports team doesn't give them extra
> leverage. They can't walk away or refuse to perform without bankrupting
> themselves. So why allow them to 'renegotiate' for a shit-ton more money
> to do what they're already obligated to do?

Fear, for one thing. Fear of the public perceiving them as being greedy
asshats. Or fear of getting a rep as a studio that you don't want to
work for. Or both. Whatever the real reason, I doubt that the studios do
it out of the kind generosity of their hearts.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“This is where you end up when your parents don't tell you they love
you.” – Clive Babineaux, iZOMBIE

[Dimensional Traveler]

Thank you.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <190620171733012663%no...@noway.com>,

hee hee

[Ed Stasiak]

> BTR1701
>
> His t-shirt game is strong.

Recently updated pic;

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/oko5j8.jpg[/IMG]

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-DFDF4...@news.easynews.com>,

If that's the normal work environment, I'm surprised your industry
hasn't had someone snap and go on a shooting spree or something.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-A23418...@news.giganews.com>,

Oh, they have.

At FOX, a guy tried to strangle my boss in the parking lot one night.

He was in charge of procuring warm bodies. He'd go to places without
infrastructure, where artists literally lived without electricity or
shoes, like the Philippines or Canadia, and promise these guys $30 or
$40k to come to America, which was like 10x as much where they were. Of
course they didn't know about the cost of living, but they'd come, and
buy houses and ... only then when they got their first check would they
find out about withholding, and that their check was barely half what
they were expecting. They'd try to get work elsewhere, but - I swear -
Fox TOOK AND KEPT THEIR GREEN CARDS AND WOULDN'T RETURN THEM. So they
could try to live under the radar, or go back to the wilderness, and
sometimes they tried to kill their oppressors on the way out.

There are still some of them here, working in the shadows. I heard from
one within the last month.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Why do you think there are so many shootouts in the movies. :D

[trotsky]

On 6/19/17 7:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> hee hee


Gay!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>We've seen it with situations where actors simply want out of their
>contracts. Remember REMMINGTON STEELE when Pierce Brosnan was angry
>that he was being forced to honor his TV contract when he wanted to go
>be JAMES BOND for a fortune instead?

obveeus is entirely wrong and being his usual obnoxious self. Production
on Remington Steele had ended after season 4 and NBC HAD CANCELLED THE
SHOW. Brosnan was offered James Bond, but producers kept him tied to the
production, so lesser known Timothy Dalton was cast instead.

Then, NBC ordered season 5 but production was ended after 6 episodes
were produced.

Brosnan honored his contract but got totally fucked. In any event,
given that the Bond series wasn't being rebooted in The Living Daylights,
and Brosnan would have been merely 33, he was too young to play Bond and
it was better that he'd gotten the role 8 years later.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Boxing Helena?