Yes. And no. Definitely no to hating on people, but when an actor signs on to a franchise, they are willingly giving up part of their likeness, or sharing their likeness, with something bigger than them. If they are unwilling, they should not be hired. I think actors are fascinating and what they bring is intangible, but the same can be true for the next actor in line - most actors rise to the opportunity, especially at this level. Imagine the next Doctor Who saying "I don't want my face on anything" - that actor will get their wish, but they also won't get the role.
There are exceptions - Tom Cruise is bigger than Mission Impossible and Top Gun so he does get that say. But that might be the exception.
Subsequent appearances under new contracts - different story, and the one we're living. But I am super curious now if actors are compensated in any way for Marvel Legends and Hot Toys, in particular.
Read on X that the purple shaw on GG isn't removable and there's a probably he will have flesh tone neck when having his helmet on (swappable head).
@e-rock They are actors, if they don't want their likeness being used then they shouldn't be doing these big budget movies.
Let's not pretend like they aren't being compensated some ridiculous amount.
I don't know if it's such a given for them to be compensated at all, let alone a ridiculous amount. Sometimes these people get screwed out of things like that. Isn't part of SAGs issue with the studios right now tied to likeness rights? Not merchandising exactly, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Garfield had signed contracts when he first came on for ASM that he regretted later and is more shrewd about it now.
I don't automatically feel I'm entitled to own the likeness of everyone who appears on screen though. If the deal they were offered that would result in their figure ending up on my shelf doesn't seem fair to them, so be it. But it may not be as simple as "I don't want my likeness out there/little bitch".
@schizm Not true at all. Film is a business. It's about what you negotiate. Same applies to toys and such. Some actors might be willing to give up their likeness more easily than others, but being more protective or being a harder negotiator isn't wrong at all. That's just called doing business
@e-rock They are actors, if they don't want their likeness being used then they shouldn't be doing these big budget movies.
Let's not pretend like they aren't being compensated some ridiculous amount.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Look at the current strike situation and the BS the studios were trying to pull on actors, like owning their likeness rights so they can just digitally insert them in the background. Corporations like Hasbro try to give you the bare amount to keep their bottom line high. Which is fine, they're a business. But an actor wanting to do business of their own by the same token isn't wrong. That door swings both ways
Likeness for merchandising and being replaced by AI is not even remotely close to being the same thing.
Most of these actors are getting paid more for one movie than what most people will see in ten years. So yes they're getting paid a ridiculous amount, just like athletes.
I didn't want to go into this debate....because it's dampening my mood over the fact that I will finally have a new Maguire Spidey figure after nearly 20 years. That finally we are getting a Holland Peter with good enough articulations. That I will have and updated TASM2 Spidey and that I will be able to directly compare it with the original....
So I'll go in for just a second :
Concerning Andrew Garfield being a "little bitch" about his likeness used. First, I don't like this expression, it's inappropriate and Second, I understand why he wouldn't want to have his face plastered everywhere.
Just give the guy a break after what he went through with the TASM non-trilogy. These movies weren't great and it went in a completely different direction than the one he thought it would go.
Anyway, as for the general debate concerning actors and their likeness. From what I understood, they are not paid the way they should. The use of deep fakes or AI to replace the actor but still use his face/likeness, is problematic if they didn't agree to that.
It would be the same for Action Figure, unfortunately...
I really thought they were getting royalties over the use of their likeness, or was I just tripping all these years?
As for Gobby and Doc Ock, It's about the same as for Tobey Spidey, I got the original Gobby, but someone gave it to me...in a broken state. I know I can find it again for cheap, but it would go well with new Marvel Legends so I passed on it.
I never got the original Doc Ock and this actor, for whatever reason, perfectly embodies what I would want Octopus to be IRL. I can't help but think that we are living in an incredible eras for Action Figure collectors.
All this likeness rights talk prompted me to do my annual search for a Jack Nicholson Hot Toys Joker. The only option currently is a bare bones offering from Thailand that's already got a $200 bid. Seller apparently isn't even using his own picture, so no risk there at all.
Both Green Goblin and Doc Ock will be going up for preorder on Thursday...
I am extremely scared i will miss out on these figures (Aussie here) unless I preorder them the minute they appear, but AUD is going to make them 77 dollars each... god help me.
Wait, what reason are you scared on missing out on these in Australia? Deluxes are pretty simple to get and given they are their own case pack, it's not like missing out on a figure from a wave. Is there something I'm missing here?
Both Green Goblin and Doc Ock will be going up for preorder on Thursday...
I am extremely scared i will miss out on these figures (Aussie here) unless I preorder them the minute they appear, but AUD is going to make them 77 dollars each... god help me.
Wait, what reason are you scared on missing out on these in Australia? Deluxes are pretty simple to get and given they are their own case pack, it's not like missing out on a figure from a wave. Is there something I'm missing here?
Yes, you're missing the fact that these are Spider-Man villains.
@slixta Again, you and I don't know how much they make off the stuff. So all I am seeing here is personal bias unless you can prove this to me otherwise with some actual data. Also, regardless if they are "overpaid" on this stuff or not, calling someone a little bitch cause you can't get a plastic head is ridiculous. Regardless of what kind of check they get.
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's a Sony issue.
I'm pretty sure Disney has the Marvel distribution rights for comic stuff and things like that. So Sony is probably charging out the ass for movie merch.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. When Marvel sold Spider-Man to Sony they very specifically retained the toy rights to any Sony produced product - and this was in-part because Marvel owned Toy Biz at that time. That's why the Garfield movie Electro appeared in a wave of Marvel Legends. So, I don't believe Hasbro has to pay Sony separately for the rights to Spider-Man movie characters, those are included with the overall Marvel license (I think).
But that Electro didn't have a movie likeness either. Nor did the ASM2 Spider-man, even in a masked way.
Latest Post: Spin Master DC action figure lines Our newest member: Jimmyduh Recent Posts Unread Posts
