Black Widow

[Blue]

To be fair, we did get a very good mirror fight, it just didn't feature Taskmaster. The fight between Natasha and Yelena in Budapest was very well done.

I would have loved if the Nat/Yelena fight had Yelena pull off something really good against Nat. And in a later Taskmaster fight Taskmaster is going Nat vs. Nat and countering everything, and Nat then pulls off the Yelena move.

 

[Imaculata]

I would have loved if the Nat/Yelena fight had Yelena pull off something really good against Nat. And in a later Taskmaster fight Taskmaster is going Nat vs. Nat and countering everything, and Nat then pulls off the Yelena move.

(Meanwhile at Disney)

Wait a minute, that sounds like good plot writing to me! We don't care for that here! Jimmy, show this man the exit!

-Sure, mister Mouse sir!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

(emphasis mine.)

These are two amusing paragraphs next to each other, one as you say you couldn't even tell us the names of the Avengers villains, two as you not only name them but call out two of the three Avengers bad guys as "good villains".

Not really disagreeing, I was just tickled by the juxtaposition. Marvel does need better villains. And it can be done in a Marvel movie - in addition to the ones you mention (esp. Killmonger!), the Sony Spider-Man films in the MCU had well fleshed out villains with complex motivations. Vulture letting Peter go because he saved his daughter's life is a great example.

So I looked up the wiki entry for The Avengers. Apparently the bad guy was named "The Other" and the generic alien bad guys were the Chitauri. If either of these names is said in the film I do not recall when.

 

[Blue]

So I looked up the wiki entry for The Avengers. Apparently the bad guy was named "The Other" and the generic alien bad guys were the Chitauri. If either of these names is said in the film I do not recall when.

The Chitauri weren't the villain, Loki was. He was the focus the entire time, from mind controlling Barton onward. The Chitauri were just muscle that showed up at the end. The other was one giving Loki orders, but also not the main villain - he's barely in it, never interacted with the heroes, and didn't need to be defeated to win.

Loki, Ultron, and Thanos were the villains of the four Avengers movies.

 

[Ryujin]

So I looked up the wiki entry for The Avengers. Apparently the bad guy was named "The Other" and the generic alien bad guys were the Chitauri. If either of these names is said in the film I do not recall when.

The Chitauri were mentioned. The Other wasn't.

 

[Deset Gled]

So just pay up what she is owed.

It seems like Disney sometimes just decides not to pay people, and by and large gets away with it. It's just like the Alan Dean Foster issue.

Many legal issues are murky. There's a lot of gray areas, and small details that can make a lot of difference. And I will admit that I haven't read that actual contract involved. But I find it really, really hard to believe that this exact situation (theatrical vs. non-theatrical release) isn't spelled out pretty clearly in the contract. Hollywood contracts are notoriously long and arduous exactly because they spell out all this stuff down to a very, very fine point.

I'm disappointed in both the legal system and the various Guilds for not going after Disney harder on these things.

 

[Ryujin]

It seems like Disney sometimes just decides not to pay people, and by and large gets away with it. It's just like the Alan Dean Foster issue.

Many legal issues are murky. There's a lot of gray areas, and small details that can make a lot of difference. And I will admit that I haven't read that actual contract involved. But I find it really, really hard to believe that this exact situation (theatrical vs. non-theatrical release) isn't spelled out pretty clearly in the contract. Hollywood contracts are notoriously long and arduous exactly because they spell out all this stuff down to a very, very fine point.

I'm disappointed in both the legal system and the various Guilds for not going after Disney harder on these things.

In any industry your largest, highest paying employer tends to get to skate on a lot of things. Even with the unions.

 

[Tonguez]

And I will admit that I haven't read that actual contract involved. But I find it really, really hard to believe that this exact situation (theatrical vs. non-theatrical release) isn't spelled out pretty clearly in the contract. Hollywood contracts are notoriously long and arduous exactly because they spell out all this stuff down to a very, very fine point.
.

From what I understand it is spelled out in the contract and essentuially says that she will gain additional bonuses based on Box office takings. Her argument is that because of the simultaneous streaming release the box office takings will be significantly smaller than they should of been and thus she loses $50 mil.
The court needs to determine if Streaming release has reduced Box office numbers, and if Johanssen has suffered damages as a result

 

[CapnZapp]

The legality and morality doesn't interest me. What intrigues me is what made it come to this very public clash, and Scarlett's true motivation.

For example, it would be awesome if she used the lawsuit just to force Disney to the negotiation table, and once there, they'd agree that Ms Johansson will donate an unspecified sum* to a fund for struggling actors (say) and Disney will then contribute twice that sum to the same foundation.

*) A sum insiders will guess to be in the region of maybe $10 to $20 million

And then Scarlett, with Disney CEO Bob Chapel by her side at a press conference, surprisingly says she's decided to start a fund for struggling actresses, and call it The Red Room, a term so generic Disney can try and fail to copyright, and that she's donating $150 million (most of her wealth) and then smiles at Bob. All the cameras turns to look at him compelling him to grin and fork over $300 mill then and there.

As many articles have stated Scarlett is one of the few actresses that don't need Disney. And as I am stating now, Scarlett is very suited to providing a very sweet "frak you" smile

 

[CapnZapp]

I would have loved if the Nat/Yelena fight had Yelena pull off something really good against Nat. And in a later Taskmaster fight Taskmaster is going Nat vs. Nat and countering everything, and Nat then pulls off the Yelena move.

I would have loved if the Taskmaster's signature ability was made a big deal at all.

Just randomly posing as Captain America or Hawkeye? (And coming off more a Terminator than a superhero) That was soo weak.

The idea to shoot arrows like Hawkeye, for example, was just stupid. The arrows missed! What's the point of mimicking random superheroes when you still can't break the law that says the good ones always get away during act I?? If you pull off an Avengers move it needs to be successful!

Starting each fight by losing but then catching up scarily fast? Super cool.

So yes, I like your idea. The whole point was supposed to be you can't beat the Taskmaster without catching it off guard by a spark of true genius, inspiration or heroics only an Avenger like Natasha - or her successor - could come up with!