Patton Oswalt talks about working on Blade: Trinity

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Examples?

George Clooney signed for 2-3 Batman movies and basically said he wouldn't come back after the reaction to Batman & Robin . It likely was one factor as well why they decided to spend years waiting to reboot it. Because even though Clooney was a good actor for it , I can sense when your main star slams the movie , the odds your gonna force him to make more shit sequels isn't worth it.

It's also possible that they could take him to court. Is it likely? Who knows? But the notion that people can just walk away from legally binding contracts without any expectation of consequences is just wishful thinking. The country ain't that free.

Its more like this... do you piss off a star like Hugo Weaving as a studio , and force him to do a sequel he doesn't want no part of ? Because the fact is there could be another property down the line you need him to be in and your studio will have. By pissing the guy off and saying YOU MUST DO THIS....you won't get the guy later on. Its a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours business.

Plus what studio is gonna spend and waste money to get someone to do a film ? It sends bad PR for one thing . That they had to force a guy back to star in a film. To me it reminds me of why New Line settled with Snipes in his lawsuit. It was $5 million dollars...they could fart that much out in a day and write it off. So why waste $$$ fighting it.

[kalorama]

George Clooney signed for 2-3 Batman movies and basically said he wouldn't come back after the reaction to Batman & Robin . It likely was one factor as well why they decided to spend years waiting to reboot it. Because even though Clooney was a good actor for it , I can sense when your main star slams the movie , the odds your gonna force him to make more shit sequels isn't worth it.

The decision not to follow up on B&R had nothing to do with Clooney not coming back and everything to do with the sweepingly negative critical and fan reaction to it. By the time Clooney made that statement the writing was clearly on the wall and it was obvious that they weren't going to do another sequel in that series, so he had nothing to lose by shooting his mouth off. Plus, a major part of the negative reaction to the film was directed at Clooney, so even if they had done another one, the odds were high they wouldn't have wanted him back anyhow.

But even if your version is true (it's not) it still doesn't actually support your supposition, because they never actually made a sequel. Now, it they had done a followup to B&R and Clooney refused to report and WB let him get away with it, then you'd have something. But that isn't what happened.

Its more like this... do you piss off a star like Hugo Weaving as a studio , and force him to do a sequel he doesn't want no part of ? Because the fact is there could be another property down the line you need him to be in and your studio will have. By pissing the guy off and saying YOU MUST DO THIS....you won't get the guy later on. Its a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours business.

Plus what studio is gonna spend and waste money to get someone to do a film ? It sends bad PR for one thing . That they had to force a guy back to star in a film. To me it reminds me of why New Line settled with Snipes in his lawsuit. It was $5 million dollars...they could fart that much out in a day and write it off. So why waste $$$ fighting it.

None of that is really true.

(A) Hugo Weaving is not a "star" at least not in any way that would make any studio exec scared of pissing him off. (B) Studios can and do enforce contracts with actors all the time. Emily Blunt was forced to drop out of IM2 (as Black Widow) because she was contractually obligated to do another film. Dougray Scott was forced to drop of of X-Men (as Wolverine) because he was contractually obligated to do Mission Impossible II. Zachary Levi was forced to drop out of Thor (as Fandral) because he was contractually obligated to Chuck. And there are plenty of other examples. Studios will not hesitate to enforce contracts if they think it's in their financial interest to do so; there's decades worth of evidence to prove it. That's the whole point of having people sign contracts in the first place. It usually doesn't require actually taking the actors to court because the actors generally fold as soon as the studios flexes, because they know if it did end up in court they'd lose. (C) The people who buy tickets to a movie couldn't give less of a rat's ass how or why the actor in the role ended up there. All they care about is whether the movie is any good. The vast majority of them will never even know about any behind-the-scene legal issues because most people don't follow that junk.

[Kieran_Frost]

(A) Hugo Weaving is not a "star" at least not in any way that would make any studio exec scared of pissing him off. (B) Studios can and do enforce contracts with actors all the time. Emily Blunt was forced to drop out of IM2 (as Black Widow) because she was contractually obligated to do another film. Dougray Scott was forced to drop of of X-Men (as Wolverine) because he was contractually obligated to do Mission Impossible II. Zachary Levi was forced to drop out of Thor (as Fandral) because he was contractually obligated to Chuck. And there are plenty of other examples. Studios will not hesitate to enforce contracts if they think it's in their financial interest to do so; there's decades worth of evidence to prove it. That's the whole point of having people sign contracts in the first place. It usually doesn't require actually taking the actors to court because the actors generally fold as soon as the studios flexes, because they know if it did end up in court they'd lose. (C) The people who buy tickets to a movie couldn't give less of a rat's ass how or why the actor in the role ended up there. All they care about is whether the movie is any good. The vast majority of them will never even know about any behind-the-scene legal issues because most people don't follow that junk.

This is a little one sided, because studios WILL also try and re-arrange things IF they really want the stars. Ian McKellan was NOT able to do both the X-men movies AND the Lord of the Rings; but they (the studios) rearranged his shooting schedule so he could. This can happen a lot in various situations; it depends on each scenario. But rearranging schedules and letting an actor out of a contract is not the same thing. The studios aren't always evil men in suits cackling over dead babies.

Huge Weaving signed to do numerous movies, if he doesn't like the deal, he shouldn't have signed on. And if he's any kind of professional (which I have no reason to doubt) even IF he doesn't want to do the film, he'll still do a decent job, because it's his job to do so.

[kalorama]

This is a little one sided, because studios WILL also try and re-arrange things IF they really want the stars. Ian McKellan was NOT able to do both the X-men movies AND the Lord of the Rings; but they (the studios) rearranged his shooting schedule so he could. This can happen a lot in various situations; it depends on each scenario. But rearranging schedules and letting an actor out of a contract is not the same thing. The studios aren't always evil men in suits cackling over dead babies.

No one said they were.

And there's nothing "one-sided" about it. The issue under discussion has two very clear sides: can actors just walk away from a contract they're no longer interested in honoring (when the studio wants them to honor it) without any consequence or ramification or will the studio do something to make them honor the contract? The scenario you injected doesn't really speak to either of the two sides. As you note, re-arranging a schedule and letting an actor out of a contract are two different things. And the former doesn't really apply to the situation we've been discussing vis-a-vis Blade.

[Kieran_Frost]

No one said they were.

I think a few posts were going a little far in how thoughtless/uncaring studios can be if the actor is unhappy; I was simply pointing to an example that shows it's not all doom and gloom.

And there's nothing "one-sided" about it. The issue under discussion has two very clear sides: can actors just walk away from a contract they're no longer interested in honoring (when the studio wants them to honor it) without any consequence or ramification or will the studio do something to make them honor the contract? The scenario you injected doesn't really speak to either of the two sides. As you note, re-arranging a schedule and letting an actor out of a contract are two different things. And the former doesn't really apply to the situation we've been discussing vis-a-vis Blade.

Truthfully I don't know many jobs IN GENERAL, where you can break a contract and just walk away without ramifications. Any business, where they have money to enforce these things, DO enforce them (and pursue damages). You're not so liable (in most jobs) as you are in films for walking away; mainly because the money it costs to reshedule.

[kalorama]

I think a few posts were going a little far in how thoughtless/uncaring studios can be if the actor is unhappy; I was simply pointing to an example that shows it's not all doom and gloom.

It has nothing to do with "doom and gloom." It's just life in the real world of work. Most employers care about the happiness of their employees to the extent it serves their bottom line to do so. Happy employees are (generally) more productive. But if productivity declines, then the bottom line becomes top priority. The studio didn't work to juggle the shooting schedules on LOTR and X-Men to make Ian McKellan happy. They did it because it served their best interests to have him in their movies.

Truthfully I don't know many jobs IN GENERAL, where you can break a contract and just walk away without ramifications. Any business, where they have money to enforce these things, DO enforce them (and pursue damages).

Which is exactly the point I've been making.

[DeadXMan]

If I were an actor, and got an offer to do a film and it was a Steven Spielberg film... I would say yes automatically and just show up and say "What do I do Mr. Spielberg?"

That is usally the case with many actors. Will Smith was going to turn down MIB until meet Steven.

[7thangel]

well, one way to possibly find yourself blacklisted and on the 'difficult' list, is to walk away from a binding contract.

[Alex]

well, one way to possibly find yourself blacklisted and on the 'difficult' list, is to walk away from a binding contract.

Wesley would be offended if he read that.

[Kieran_Frost]

It has nothing to do with "doom and gloom." It's just life in the real world of work. Most employers care about the happiness of their employees to the extent it serves their bottom line to do so. Happy employees are (generally) more productive. But if productivity declines, then the bottom line becomes top priority. The studio didn't work to juggle the shooting schedules on LOTR and X-Men to make Ian McKellan happy. They did it because it served their best interests to have him in their movies.

But before those films Ian McKellan WASN'T a major name in film, why would the studios do such a thing for a "lesser known" actor? The only reason is they WANT to keep their employees happy, if at all possible. Why do you think so many actors get away with so much... because the studios WANT their actors to be happy.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The decision not to follow up on B&R had nothing to do with Clooney not coming back and everything to do with the sweepingly negative critical and fan reaction to it. By the time Clooney made that statement the writing was clearly on the wall and it was obvious that they weren't going to do another sequel in that series, so he had nothing to lose by shooting his mouth off. Plus, a major part of the negative reaction to the film was directed at Clooney, so even if they had done another one, the odds were high they wouldn't have wanted him back anyhow.

But even if your version is true (it's not) it still doesn't actually support your supposition, because they never actually made a sequel. Now, it they had done a followup to B&R and Clooney refused to report and WB let him get away with it, then you'd have something. But that isn't what happened.

Remembering Clooney's ripping on it , it happened about close to a year after the movie. In that time frame. Like I posted if the negative critical reaction wasn't enough , Warners has the star of Batman claim he wouldn't come back.

None of that is really true.

(A) Hugo Weaving is not a "star" at least not in any way that would make any studio exec scared of pissing him off. (B) Studios can and do enforce contracts with actors all the time. Emily Blunt was forced to drop out of IM2 (as Black Widow) because she was contractually obligated to do another film. Dougray Scott was forced to drop of of X-Men (as Wolverine) because he was contractually obligated to do Mission Impossible II. Zachary Levi was forced to drop out of Thor (as Fandral) because he was contractually obligated to Chuck. And there are plenty of other examples. Studios will not hesitate to enforce contracts if they think it's in their financial interest to do so; there's decades worth of evidence to prove it. That's the whole point of having people sign contracts in the first place. It usually doesn't require actually taking the actors to court because the actors generally fold as soon as the studios flexes, because they know if it did end up in court they'd lose. (C) The people who buy tickets to a movie couldn't give less of a rat's ass how or why the actor in the role ended up there. All they care about is whether the movie is any good. The vast majority of them will never even know about any behind-the-scene legal issues because most people don't follow that junk.

A.) Hugo Weaving... star of the Matrix films and V for Vendetta....that isn't a star ? Really ?

B.) Your kinda basically skipping a lot of shit there with Dougray Scott and Mission Impossible II. Scott was filming MII when they stopped and he took the Wolverine role. They called him back and said...hey more filming needs to be done ! So yes he had to drop it. Because he needed to finish the movie he was on. Its not like he was forced into doing MII . Because he was doing it and they called him back for more filming.

C) Scheduling conflict which is why Dallas isn't playing Fandral in #2 either. Its like the Dougray Scott situation , these guys are busy working on projects already. The 1st year Levi was filming Chuck. This year Dallas is doing "Once Upon a Time". Its less about being forced and more...its a TV series and its gotten thier time right now.

In any case , yes a contract is a contract. But given that stars are in a business to make $$$ for the studios and they will , its best to stay on the good side . Because bad PR can hurt a film worse than anything. Its why the Edward Norton news may have affected the bottom line of the Hulk revamp. Because not only did it come out he argued with the studio , he refused to promote the film after it.

[DeadXMan]

Your kinda basically skipping a lot of shit there with Dougray Scott and Mission Impossible II. Scott was filming MII when they stopped and he took the Wolverine role. They called him back and said...hey more filming needs to be done ! So yes he had to drop it. Because he needed to finish the movie he was on. Its not like he was forced into doing MII . Because he was doing it and they called him back for more filming.

And I am sure every Christmas he recives Gift baskests from Huge Jackman and Viggo Mortensen becuse of his droping Wolverine and Aragorn.

[smartalek]

did Wesley Snipes at least help Patton Oswalt cheat on his taxes?

Wesley doesn't believe in taxes, so he just didn't pay them.

[T Hedge Coke]

Hugo Weaving... star of the Matrix films and V for Vendetta....that isn't a star ? Really ?

If he'd been the star of those... they'd still be nearly a decade old movies. Also, the Matrix sequels would've been hella different and the machines would've one.

Um.

Okeh, they'd just be different.

[Kieran_Frost]

If he'd been the star of those... they'd still be nearly a decade old movies. Also, the Matrix sequels would've been hella different and the machines would've one.

Plus the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) and now the Hobbit trilogy. Hugo Weaving just needs to join the next Star Wars films and the next Indiana Jones film to grab a near full house (he missed out on Harry Potter, though)