they tried something similar(not so similar) with scarlett johansan, where they tried to sneakingly use the streaming income to avoid paying her what she was owed on her contract.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
357 points (97.3% liked)
Television
928 readers
150 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
Other Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
-
Be respectful and courteous to all members.
-
Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
-
Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
-
Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
-
Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
-
Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags. ****
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
We are all half a Jeremy on this blessed day.
Speak for yourself.
I am all half a Jeremy on this blessed day
God bless you, KenM
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I sort of find it funny and sad that some people expect another person to do the same work (or similar) for half the salary. While most of us would not do that if it wasn’t needed. Sure, he’s rich but money is money.
Would you do the same work you’re currently doing for half the salary when you know, you can get the same or better salary elsewhere? I don’t think so.
Renner went on to suggest that the proposed lower salary was a result of his near-fatal 2023
Though his take on this is.. well, odd.
“This is not Marvel, mind you. This is like, just Disney, not even really Disney. It’s just the penny pinchers, the accountants. I told them to go fly a kite. I mean, just at the at the insult offer. So we didn’t see eye to eye on it,”
It’s sad that he became arrogant. He could’ve just let it at “no, I will not do it”.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If i made millions doing very little work in a job that simmers down slowly, because all i peoduce is slob that no one cares for. Yes, i might take a paycut.
it wont stop there, now they know your "easy to bait and switch" so they will offer even less next time.
That’s what you say now because you are not in that situation. But I’m quite certain you would not. Because if you know, you used to have for example 500k salary and suddenly it would be 250k, you would refuse and want the full 500k. No matter whether you produce “slob”.
I certainly would not be okay with getting my salary suddenly halved. No matter what kind of work or salary it first was.
Trust Disney to kick him while he's down
They can get a masked CGI to do it for less. CGI A.I. body doubles is gonna make them rich.
I never knew about this. What a weird, fucked up thing to do.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Season 1 is all about the character being completely worn out so now he fits the role even more
Depends on how much his character was supposed appear.
If it was just cameos, with Kate Bishop/Hailee Steinfeld getting most of the screentime, then of course.
How can it be Hawkeye without … you know … Hawkeye?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe they're speculating only half the people will watch it, based on previous trends. I sure didn't watch the first one.
I liked it a lot. It was very reminiscent of the Matt Fraction run on Hawkeye in the mid 2010s, which was incredible.
But yeah, nobody watches most Marvel shows.
Good for him, and he’s just asking for his original salary. Pay this man!👏👏👏 Isn’t Hawkeye supposed to be one of the better Marvel Disney+ shows anyway? Watch them come crawling back
I didn't watch it but my understanding is that Hawkeye passed on the torch and he probably was going to be more in the background instead of the star. I don't know the exact parameters but I imagine it would not be as much screen time or physically demanding scenes. Fuck Disney for being a shitty company but I'm not sure if this is 100% attributable to that.
they got in trouble for trying to use AI to replace the actors, they are probably trying constructive dismissal type of thing to get them to leave the industry, and disney can say, we cant find any actors, so we are forced to use AI
How/when did they get in trouble? I didn't hear anything about it and nothing came up immediately after a search. It seems like a huge jump to say that they are going to be forced out of the industry. Additionally, he was still offered millions of dollars. Plenty of people would have jumped at the opportunity.
AI is definitely going to be a problem for the industry but your comment seems like a stretch.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I saw season one as kind of passing the torch anyway. If he didn’t appear in season two, the show would be just fine without him.
I’m a Hawkeye fan, not a Renner fan.
view more: next ›