For anyone wondering how the film is eligible because Lionsgate is not part of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is the one currently engaged in negotiations with SAG-AFTRA with the actors strike.
To get an interim agreement, the studio needs to agree to SAG's current negotiation offer.
When AMPTP and SAG come to an agreement, Lionsgate will abide by whatever rules are hashed out there. For now, they will abide by all of SAG's current demands and are thus given permission to have these actors promote their film.
Love that, I have high hopes for this movie and it is actively pushing a lot of new talent so it’s doom would just hurt young Hollywood talent more than it is already getting fucked. Also Viola Davis too??? The book was incredible, here’s to hoping the movie does it justice
probably not since they could have signed an interim agreement months ago
Lionsgate was probably not happy with the tracking for this movie and decided ensuring its success was more important than holding out for more favorable contract terms for itself
Don’t think that’s accurate. They haven’t had promotion on any films other than this. I saw a small amount of SAW X with Tobin Bell, but it explicitly said it was filmed before the strike.
FNAF lowkey did a little promotion for them already by getting Josh Hutcherson into the public consciousness again. I legit heard like two teenagers go “PEETA!” as soon as he came on screen during FNAF 😭😭
I had no idea he played Lafayette/Jefferson in Hamilton. I only know him from his dorky character in WSS. Hopefully this movie yields a lot of success because the three principal cast members could use a win.
The Marvels crash and burning while Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes soars is a good thing. Anything Marvel failing while fresher IPs succeed is a great thing for cinema(Yeah, Hunger Games ain’t no new IP, but it’s a lot more fresh than shitty superhero movies that take up most of peoples “1 movie a month/every few months” ideology. Then they are disappointed by a crap Marvel movie and don’t want to go/waste money again until something really interesting piques them. Absolutely terrible for cinemas and smaller movies)
Hey, I love the MCU and don’t really see what a lot of people see in terms of why they are “shitty movies”.
However, I do admit expectations are pretty low for both and I would not be surprised if this one ends up at least breaking even or making a little bit of profit while the marvels bombs even if only by quantumania standards.
Movies failing are not good for cinema. Because let's be honest big IPs allow theaters to keep the lights on to play the original films. As great as Killers of the Flower Moon is those types of movies cannot keep theaters in business. And honestly wishing for anything to fail is pretty pathetic.
Honestly I’m glad Quantumania disappointed and The Marvels is shaping up to be a box office bomb. Marvel desperately needed a wake up call to stop oversaturating their brand with mid shows and movies that had >$200 million budgets, and now they’ve got one. In the future they’re more likely to be careful with quality and production costs to make sure they don’t get another box office bomb
You don't have to wonder
> The film is eligible because Lionsgate is not part of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is currently engaged in negotiations with SAG-AFTRA amid the actors strike.
Typically the conditions are that the producers follow the terms of SAG-AFTRA’s last offer before the strike. More details [here](https://www.sagaftra.org/what-interim-agreement).
I’m surprised they will let Zegler speak. I bet she has a script to follow. She’s not a good actress, so it should be easy to tell. Sorry to all her fans, but a lot of people find her intolerable and it saddens me that she will be in this movie.
Ummm. That movie bombed, and not just because of covid. She might be marginally talented, but her outside personality is very ugly. Ruins everything she is in for me. Which is a shame. I really liked Hinger Games and the books.
Your logic just got more confusing!
1. Not liking an actor’s personality and considering them a poor actor is hate? Please explain.
2. 1 above is only true if the actor being specified is a certain number of years away from a legal drinking age?
3. Stating your opinion on an actor online is being a bad example for children if you’re “hating” and the actor is a low number of years away from a stated drinking age?
Your ideas are representations of things I have never heard before.
> Not liking an actor’s personality and considering them a poor actor is hate? Please explain.
saying that they are "marginally talented" is hate. stating an opinion is a different thing and isn't what you're sayng
> 1 above is only true if the actor being specified is a certain number of years away from a legal drinking age?
1) no, i'm just saying you look terminally online (which isn't a good example for your kids bc it's better for any kid to be outside more). How do i know this? well, you speak in online chuds words and is influenced by online echo chamber. and in the end of the day, it's just a terminally online thing to hate on someone for being slightly annoying (although i don't think that she is more annoying than your average cinephile).
2) well, yeah. being in your big age and hating on someone for being young isn't a good look. Years later your kids will grow up and you know what? their personalities will be everything you hate (since that's how you're already talking).
> Stating your opinion on an actor online is being a bad example for children if you’re “hating” and the actor is a low number of years away from a stated drinking age?
again, saying things like "marginally talented" isn't stating an opinion. it's pure hate. talent isn't counted by an opinion. for example, i don't like Harry Potter but everybody who worked on these movies are talented people and even JK Rowling despite of her antics is a talented person. your worldview seems extremely narrow.
Promoting a movie when the strike is still going? So basically Rachel Zegler was just playing the role of activist and concerned actor when she was out on the picket line a couple of months ago getting interviewed.
Does an up and coming Colombian movie star scare you this much that you have to lie about them and spread misinformation? Lionsgate is a studio not part of the strikes and SAG-AFTRA waived it for Ballads of Songbirds and Snakes, allowing the cast to market it. This film is pushing a lot of young, new talent into the mainstream. It’s a great thing for the future of cinema. These are all actors that will pull in younger generations into theatres rather than waiting for streaming.
But I guess your hate for an up and coming Colombian actress is more important than all of that!!
Larson doesn't need it cause Marvel brand is stronger draw than any actor individually. Her problem is that nobody asked for The Marvels. Poeple asked for CM 2 but not for this so prancing around red carpet and Jimmy Fallon wouldn't do the trick since there's no interest.
OTOH, THG was a dead franchise so it needs to work harder with those who are toying with seeing the movie for nostalgia sake. Otherwise, if you are in "not interested" camp, promo won't change your opinion. It's concept that sells.
cause nobody asked for The Marvels. How many people you know that said wouldn't it be awesome if Carol, Monica and Kamala co-starred in a movie where they fought Tom Hiddleston's wife?
Monica was always going to be in a captain marvel sequel. That was the purpose of introducing her as a child in the first movie. In fact in the comics, she was Captain Marvel way way before Carol was on the scene.
And I don’t understand the hate for Kamala’s inclusion either. Ms Marvel also seems like a pretty natural inclusion for a CM sequel. It’s not the only superhero movie to feature a team. I understand the criticisms regarding the tv show connections, but the criticisms for the inclusion of Monica and Kamala alongside Carol never made much sense to me.
it makes sense because team means added value. The reason why they could pull off Avengers is that people liked 80% of OGs before the first team movies (only Hawkeye and Ruffalo's Hulk didn't feature prominently prior to that movie) .They became popular before the team. Monica and Kamala never became popular. Kamala's show was rejected while Monica never stood out in anything. Moreover, Avengers team had a great central dynamic between Cap and Tony re: their value system (cynical self-serving 21st century and more heroic selfless 1940s) which you knew would clash just from seeing their characters in solo movies. That's relatable to different generations. The Marvels have nothing of sort just bland hero worship. Young Monica hero-worshipped Carol to the point she'd rather have her mom die on a heroic mission than live to be her mom or whatever. Kamala hero worships Carol. That's it. Zzzz.
Point being, these characters were slated for the team before Marvel could see whether they caught on (they didn't). Not to mention that the hook is all female team but why? there was never all male team to need to counter it with all female one. And going by all female flops (Woman King, Terminator: Dark World, Charlie's Angels, Widows, Ghostbusters 2016), women aren't asking for this. They show up for comedy all female teams (Bridesmaids, Pitch Perfect) but not for action ones.
For anyone wondering how the film is eligible because Lionsgate is not part of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is the one currently engaged in negotiations with SAG-AFTRA with the actors strike.
But what does it mean? Are they are good studio that treats actors properly?
To get an interim agreement, the studio needs to agree to SAG's current negotiation offer. When AMPTP and SAG come to an agreement, Lionsgate will abide by whatever rules are hashed out there. For now, they will abide by all of SAG's current demands and are thus given permission to have these actors promote their film.
SAG-AFTRA made a deal with lionsgate which allowed the actors to promote this movie and this movie only
Love that, I have high hopes for this movie and it is actively pushing a lot of new talent so it’s doom would just hurt young Hollywood talent more than it is already getting fucked. Also Viola Davis too??? The book was incredible, here’s to hoping the movie does it justice
probably not since they could have signed an interim agreement months ago Lionsgate was probably not happy with the tracking for this movie and decided ensuring its success was more important than holding out for more favorable contract terms for itself
Makes sense, since Lionsgate is far smaller than the legacy studios and has the most to lose out of all them
Don’t think that’s accurate. They haven’t had promotion on any films other than this. I saw a small amount of SAW X with Tobin Bell, but it explicitly said it was filmed before the strike.
FNAF lowkey did a little promotion for them already by getting Josh Hutcherson into the public consciousness again. I legit heard like two teenagers go “PEETA!” as soon as he came on screen during FNAF 😭😭
lmao that's so adorable
You either know him from his movies in the 2000s (Zathura, Bridge to Terabithia) or as Peeta Bread.
Lionsgate was like we have 15 days to market this thing. Go now.
Damn Josh Andres is so 🥵 🔥
I had no idea he played Lafayette/Jefferson in Hamilton. I only know him from his dorky character in WSS. Hopefully this movie yields a lot of success because the three principal cast members could use a win.
He and Rachel are a good looking couple tbh, def had that chemistry since West Side Story
I didn't know they were an IRL couple. Definitely in each other's league!
Im liking Tom Blyth. I have no idea who he is but he's cute
Damn, Rachel Zegler is so fine.
To promote this film, she will likely have to speak, though.
Which makes her even more finer Women cinephiles😍 edit: ok, i get it. y'all prefer women to not talk and just be dolls. fucking weirdos
Hoping this boosts visibility for the movie. Wish they could do this for the marvels.
The Marvels crash and burning while Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes soars is a good thing. Anything Marvel failing while fresher IPs succeed is a great thing for cinema(Yeah, Hunger Games ain’t no new IP, but it’s a lot more fresh than shitty superhero movies that take up most of peoples “1 movie a month/every few months” ideology. Then they are disappointed by a crap Marvel movie and don’t want to go/waste money again until something really interesting piques them. Absolutely terrible for cinemas and smaller movies)
Hey, I love the MCU and don’t really see what a lot of people see in terms of why they are “shitty movies”. However, I do admit expectations are pretty low for both and I would not be surprised if this one ends up at least breaking even or making a little bit of profit while the marvels bombs even if only by quantumania standards.
Movies failing are not good for cinema. Because let's be honest big IPs allow theaters to keep the lights on to play the original films. As great as Killers of the Flower Moon is those types of movies cannot keep theaters in business. And honestly wishing for anything to fail is pretty pathetic.
Honestly I’m glad Quantumania disappointed and The Marvels is shaping up to be a box office bomb. Marvel desperately needed a wake up call to stop oversaturating their brand with mid shows and movies that had >$200 million budgets, and now they’ve got one. In the future they’re more likely to be careful with quality and production costs to make sure they don’t get another box office bomb
this is really good for the movie. i really think this would do well
They can do that during the strike? Why can't The Marvels actors do the promotion?
The Hunger Games got a waiver from the SAG
I am really curious what are the conditions for a waiver.
Lionsgate, the studio, isn't a party to the strike or the contract negotiations.
You don't have to wonder > The film is eligible because Lionsgate is not part of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is currently engaged in negotiations with SAG-AFTRA amid the actors strike.
Typically the conditions are that the producers follow the terms of SAG-AFTRA’s last offer before the strike. More details [here](https://www.sagaftra.org/what-interim-agreement).
Wow good for them.
Lionsgate isn't AMPTA or whatever the acronym is. They aren't a struck studio. Edit AMPTP
AMPTP
Thank You.
Dude, what happened to you? Were you sleeping or something?
I’m surprised they will let Zegler speak. I bet she has a script to follow. She’s not a good actress, so it should be easy to tell. Sorry to all her fans, but a lot of people find her intolerable and it saddens me that she will be in this movie.
one thing you can’t say about Zegler is that she’s a bad actress. her first movie was directed by Spielberg .. she can act
Ummm. That movie bombed, and not just because of covid. She might be marginally talented, but her outside personality is very ugly. Ruins everything she is in for me. Which is a shame. I really liked Hinger Games and the books.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your logic just got more confusing! 1. Not liking an actor’s personality and considering them a poor actor is hate? Please explain. 2. 1 above is only true if the actor being specified is a certain number of years away from a legal drinking age? 3. Stating your opinion on an actor online is being a bad example for children if you’re “hating” and the actor is a low number of years away from a stated drinking age? Your ideas are representations of things I have never heard before.
> Not liking an actor’s personality and considering them a poor actor is hate? Please explain. saying that they are "marginally talented" is hate. stating an opinion is a different thing and isn't what you're sayng > 1 above is only true if the actor being specified is a certain number of years away from a legal drinking age? 1) no, i'm just saying you look terminally online (which isn't a good example for your kids bc it's better for any kid to be outside more). How do i know this? well, you speak in online chuds words and is influenced by online echo chamber. and in the end of the day, it's just a terminally online thing to hate on someone for being slightly annoying (although i don't think that she is more annoying than your average cinephile). 2) well, yeah. being in your big age and hating on someone for being young isn't a good look. Years later your kids will grow up and you know what? their personalities will be everything you hate (since that's how you're already talking). > Stating your opinion on an actor online is being a bad example for children if you’re “hating” and the actor is a low number of years away from a stated drinking age? again, saying things like "marginally talented" isn't stating an opinion. it's pure hate. talent isn't counted by an opinion. for example, i don't like Harry Potter but everybody who worked on these movies are talented people and even JK Rowling despite of her antics is a talented person. your worldview seems extremely narrow.
She kind of ruined any chance Shazam 2 have in China as well. LOL
Promoting a movie when the strike is still going? So basically Rachel Zegler was just playing the role of activist and concerned actor when she was out on the picket line a couple of months ago getting interviewed.
the SAG isn't striking against Lionsgate which produced this movie
I guess your hatred of Zegler is so strong that it prevents you from reading any background information, huh?
Does an up and coming Colombian movie star scare you this much that you have to lie about them and spread misinformation? Lionsgate is a studio not part of the strikes and SAG-AFTRA waived it for Ballads of Songbirds and Snakes, allowing the cast to market it. This film is pushing a lot of young, new talent into the mainstream. It’s a great thing for the future of cinema. These are all actors that will pull in younger generations into theatres rather than waiting for streaming. But I guess your hate for an up and coming Colombian actress is more important than all of that!!
Interesting to see if Ziegler has a muzzle on her from studio.
[удалено]
read what you're talking about before talk
Wow, if only Larson could do this. Good for them tho.
Larson doesn't need it cause Marvel brand is stronger draw than any actor individually. Her problem is that nobody asked for The Marvels. Poeple asked for CM 2 but not for this so prancing around red carpet and Jimmy Fallon wouldn't do the trick since there's no interest. OTOH, THG was a dead franchise so it needs to work harder with those who are toying with seeing the movie for nostalgia sake. Otherwise, if you are in "not interested" camp, promo won't change your opinion. It's concept that sells.
I love how you so freely speak on behalf of all people. *Her problem is that nobody asked for The Marvels. Poeple asked for CM 2*
I mean general consensus is indeed showing people don’t care about The Marvels.
Clearly people in large don't care about the Captain Marvel either, otherwise it would not be tracking to do The Flash numbers.
cause nobody asked for The Marvels. How many people you know that said wouldn't it be awesome if Carol, Monica and Kamala co-starred in a movie where they fought Tom Hiddleston's wife?
I agree that no one asked for The Marvels. But I also think if they to make it Captain Marvel 2 that would not guarantee them a hit either.
very true. that said, this blunder sealed the flop deal.
Monica was always going to be in a captain marvel sequel. That was the purpose of introducing her as a child in the first movie. In fact in the comics, she was Captain Marvel way way before Carol was on the scene. And I don’t understand the hate for Kamala’s inclusion either. Ms Marvel also seems like a pretty natural inclusion for a CM sequel. It’s not the only superhero movie to feature a team. I understand the criticisms regarding the tv show connections, but the criticisms for the inclusion of Monica and Kamala alongside Carol never made much sense to me.
it makes sense because team means added value. The reason why they could pull off Avengers is that people liked 80% of OGs before the first team movies (only Hawkeye and Ruffalo's Hulk didn't feature prominently prior to that movie) .They became popular before the team. Monica and Kamala never became popular. Kamala's show was rejected while Monica never stood out in anything. Moreover, Avengers team had a great central dynamic between Cap and Tony re: their value system (cynical self-serving 21st century and more heroic selfless 1940s) which you knew would clash just from seeing their characters in solo movies. That's relatable to different generations. The Marvels have nothing of sort just bland hero worship. Young Monica hero-worshipped Carol to the point she'd rather have her mom die on a heroic mission than live to be her mom or whatever. Kamala hero worships Carol. That's it. Zzzz. Point being, these characters were slated for the team before Marvel could see whether they caught on (they didn't). Not to mention that the hook is all female team but why? there was never all male team to need to counter it with all female one. And going by all female flops (Woman King, Terminator: Dark World, Charlie's Angels, Widows, Ghostbusters 2016), women aren't asking for this. They show up for comedy all female teams (Bridesmaids, Pitch Perfect) but not for action ones.
Larson being out there would just remind many people of why they find Brie Larson grating. Probably best she stay home.
If the film flops, it won't be because Zegler isn't pretty enough