I don't know about the specific of the deal or what S2 will actually contain, but as I understand S1 set up a new Hawkeye so maybe S2 would've had Renner not as the main character and possibly not doing the same amount of work. If he is going to do less work it would make sense to also pay less. This of course is speculation as we don't know actually know what S2 would've been about or what deal was presented to Renner. All we know is Renners side where he claims it would've been the same amount of work and I don't think I need to explain how that can't be taken as the absolute truth. The rest of what he said really makes me question if he's being completely honest or is he skewing the story to make himself look like the good guy.

But if he is telling the truth it would be pretty fucked up to offer half the salary for the same amount of work.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Many people are ignoring another part of the formula. Actors draw views. Renner is the main interest I have in Hawkeye. Kate Bishop is a fine character, but personally Renner is why I watched season 1. Charlie Cox and Vincent D'nofrio are the reason I watched the new Daredevil series.

Renner might be blowing it out of proportion, but the reality is without his involvement I'm probably going to skip it.

I'll give each character a chance to stand on their own but I'm not personally interested in Kate Bishop as a story driver.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get that his name draws views but I don't think that's a factor going from S1 to S2. It's not like he went from nobody to somebody. He was already popular prior to S1, he didn't get more popular between seasons. His S1 salary probably already accounted for his popularity so it was most likely also accounted in the S2 salary. But, if he thinks he should've been paid more because of his name recognition then that's him pretty much trying to do the same thing he's blaming the accountants for, he would be trying to squeeze out every penny from his popularity.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So in your estimation, you don't think he should be upset that Disney, one of the biggest organizations in the world, is refusing to pay him what he believes is value to be?

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Kinda? He's free to ask whatever price the believes he is worth, I don't have an issue with that. But just like he's free to ask whatever price he thinks is fair it's also fair for the other side to just say "No, thanks". No reason to be upset about it. Or do you think I should side with someone in the top 1% simply because one of the biggest corporations in the world told them no? It's someone with "set for life" money complaining that the corporation with essentially infinite funds didn't want to give him as much money as he demanded. I think siding with either side (based on the information we know so far) is stupid.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 17 hours ago

I mean. I'm not siding with Renner, here. I initially pointed out an observation I didn't see anybody making.

I replied to you specifically because it seemed to me you were discounting Renners contribution to the success of the first season. I do think it's fine for him to be publicly pissed about this, if what he's saying is true. I don't know either way but if he left those meetings feeling that way, there may be a reason and there's no reason to assume he's just a rich guy being a rich asshole.