File: IMG_2662.jpg (137 KB, 1445x1160)

137 KB JPG

>>215546909
> However, Corcoran alleges that, in the years following the original film’s release and its subsequent rise in popularity, her royalty payments “became more and more sporadic and dwindled to amounts nowhere near commensurate.” The actress claims she has not received back pay since July 2024, and had only received $1816.35 up to that point, “with no explanation as to why the royalty payments ceased or where the remainder of the payments are.” Merchandise royalties are said to only total “approximately $6,408.26.”

> Corcoran claims to have confronted both Falcone and Leone about her royalty payments and that she was “brushed off, with Leone stating that Falcone handles all of the accounting matters and then with an aggressive and defensive response from Falcone saying he purportedly ‘doesn’t keep records.'”

>Additionally, while Corcoran’s death scene required her to be nude, the suit claims that the producers “never obtained Corcoran’s informed written consent” to film unclothed, as was required by the Screen Actors Guild. The suit alleges that Corcoran insisted she be allowed to wear underwear on the day of shooting, but that she still ended up performing the scene topless without written consent. It also claims that Corcoran was only provided a horizontal platform to break on between takes upon her request and that she “was wrapped in a blanket in between takes, but overtime the blanket became so saturated with fake blood that it ceased providing any warmth.”

>After filming overnight, Corcoran alleges she felt ill in the following days and that a doctor diagnosed her with cranial swelling and eardrum damage. In an allegation that ties together the suit’s claims of unpaid royalties and unregulated shooting conditions, the suit claims that the defendants have profited from merchandise depicting Corcoran’s nude body.

She was nude in Nuke Em High, was pretty hot for a lesbo scene

>>215546909
>with the agreement that she would receive 1% of the profits from the film
how common is this for actresses?
If they have a nude role, do they often get a percentage?

>>215547029
post the webm

>>215546961
>she still ended up performing the scene topless without written consent.
how does that happen? Did they rip the clothes off her before running the cameras?

>>215546961
Dumb bimbo thinks the first film is going to bring her steady money through many years, like as if its still playing in theaters.

File: vibrating.webm (4 MB, 840x708)

4 MB WEBM

>>215547057
Why would I have a webm when I have the movie?
but feel free to look up Janelle Brady + Nuke em High in the archives and you'll get rewarded

>>215546961
>approximately $6,408.26
That sounds about right for 1% of the merch profits for this shit, more than I would have expected it to be actually.

anyone that watches these films should be killed

the producers sounds like some scummy people, then again they must be really shitty if they produced junk like Terrifier

>>215547047
I don't think anyone expected Terrifier to be as big as it got. This was Art's second appearance and he didn't blow up after the first movie he was in. If it was going to be just one or two low budget films they could save money by giving actors a percentage instead of full payment.

>>215547138
Didnt the second movie make millions? It said 1% of this film and future sequels

>>215546909
>she would receive 1% of the profits from the film
>agreed in writing to provide Corcoran with a share in 1% of all net sales
They can just claim they just didn't make much of a profit with those movies.
This isn't even Hollywood accounting, it's just normal accounting stuff

>>215547217
For merchandise though, I don't think anybody is going out wearing Art t shirts, it would be chaos in capital cities

Did she ask for a different blanket

>>215547101

Bro…
https://www.fandango.com/terrifier-203558/movie-overview?date=2025-10-29

>>215546909
Well it certainly sounds like she's completely justified. Not the click bait nude title, being promised 1% of profit and not being given it.

>>215546909
What a dumb greedy bitch

>An attorney for Leone, Larry Zerner, stated: “Damien and Phil deny the claims in the complaint and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.”

>>215547283
They are trying though. He just released a low budget video game and had an installment at a Halloween live event.

>>215546961
>as was required by the Screen Actors Guild
This is why you don't run a union shop. I'd never allow a union member on set
>Corcoran insisted she be allowed to wear underwear on the day of shooting
That fucking bitch. She ruined the scene

>>215547376
She made a deal and showed faith in the product when they didn't really have reason to. There are plenty of stories of actors making these lucky deals. If she proves the deal, pay the lady.

>Thus far, she’s been paid roughly $8,300 under her 2015 deal, which notes it “shall remain in effect for a period of two years,” the lawsuit claims.
Her 2015 deal was for two years and it already expired according to the article. No one heard about this shitty franchise in 2017 so she probably got everything she earned. Clickbait thread.

File: Redditor.png (105 KB, 600x562)

105 KB PNG

>>215547445

File: 1761668294570312m (1).jpg (34 KB, 346x385)

34 KB JPG

>>215546961
Look! Her face is a scared clown

>>215546909
It's why the sequels don't have nudity
Female nudity is banned in modern cinema

Give the whore her money, her death was good. If you made a deal, stick to it, no take backs

>>215548140
You have access, on your phine, for free, anytime, to 18yo perfect girls getting gangbanged by dozen of guys and drinking piss while their rekt asshole spill cum of multiple guys in the mouth of another perfect 18yo girls. Why the fuck do you need nudity in your regular movie ?

>>215548318
Maybe that anon would prefer a milder form of titilation you porn-brained faggot?

>>215548318

Sex/nudity can benefit the story. This particular scene was shocking, directed well - by not making it torture porn: showing every step of the abduction, instead cutting to a different character, letting you forget it, before the horrifying reveal - and about the only good thing in this amateur first film. Had it been cut, no one would know who Art the Clown is today.

>>215547217
1% of PROFITS, buddy.

You go for the GROSS, not profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHL91HQzhuc

>>215548318
Go to any art museum and you will see female nudes everywhere. Humanity has always been captivated by the nude form. Deal with it.

>Filming nude scene without consent
So she went naked in front of the whole film crew
Did the scene
Probably more then 1 take
Then years later realized she didnt agreed to it?

>>215547148
>kill people cause they watch a movie
I think youre the psycho in this, buddy

>>215546909
get jewed goy. shit like star wars isnt profitable 50 years later despite billions in profits. oops, no residuals for you.

>>215548533
Isn’t she suspended naked while upside down in the film? How does that happen without her consent?

>>215548455
Aren't these made on shoestring budgets? They've made their budgets back multiple times over already

>>215546909
So she filmed a nude scene and just thought it was for his personal collection or what? Sounds like she's just mad that the movie did better than expected and thinks she deserves more money.

>>215547083
>>215548533
This isn't like claiming rape after having drunk sex. If you're going to do a nude scene, the people making the film need to obtain written consent. If they didn't do that, they're dumb, and she's got a case. Doesn't matter that she did it anyway.

>>215546909
is this the girl from the old cringe dance video?

>>215546909
>2016 movie
>suddenly decides in 2025 after Terrifier 3 made a big bundle of cash in 2024 she was mistreated
Uh huh.

>>215548689
>>215548569
You could make a film with an actor, shoot the whole thing and release it. But if you didn't obtain a release form, signed by the actor, then you're going to run into major legal trouble. Doesn't matter if they willingly acted in the film. You can't just display video of a person without them agreeing to in via contract. The same goes for doing nude scenes.

>>215548693
but she took her clothes off, did the scene and then afterwards said they didn't have her consent?

>>215548693
Kill yourself faggot.

>>215548693
>Doesn't matter that she did it anyway.
Legally it doesnt matter but in the court of public opinion she's obviously a dipshit that's regretting what she did retroactively because the juice turned out to not be worth the squeeze. If the royalty checks kept flowing would we be hearing about this? Somehow I doubt it.

>>215548645
Oh man, you're dumb as hell.

>>215548693
>>215548768

I mean it sound exactly like claiming rape after having drunk sex. I would assume if someone is doing it of their own free will, they're consenting to it.

>>215548798
Yeah, this just sounds like gold digging. what has she done lately? Anything? Maybe why she suddenly bitching for attention.

>>215548768
Yeah, again, legal consent. Filming someone involves paperwork. How is this so hard for you guys to understand? As I posted upthread, an actor could star in your movie, do every scene, but if you didn't sign a release form, they can fuck you in court.
>>215548789
Cry, chud.
>>215548798
Does not matter. If they didn't not get written consent, she has a case. And if they didn't get written consent, they are the dipshits, not her. Even low to no budget film students know to have paperwork.
>>215548806
But you're working. Think of it like working off the clock at a business. Obviously that can lead to legal trouble if that's caught. The business can't just dismiss that by saying, "well, they willingly worked without getting paid!"

>>215547376
Youre a faggot and i hope you get taken advantage of every day of your miserable life

>>215548862
Not sure what part of nobody caring about the legal proceedings you aren't understanding. No one here is on the opposing counsel or standing to get paid for this. We're all just calling her a dumb and dishonest and noting that she's clearly grubbing for an undeserved payout after becoming disillusioned with the conseqnuences of her poor decisions, as women are notorious for doing in a great plurality of social and legal spheres.

>>215548862
we get the who legal thing.
we just aren't impressed because in reality she did something of her own will, was fine with everything, then ten years or so later is claiming she was victimized because someone didn't fill out a form.

I mean if you chose to work off the clock and then afterwards, complained that you worked off the clock, everyone is going to ask if you're retarded or goldigging because you're the one the victimized yourself and is now jumping on a technicality

>>215547101
>sign contract promising some of backend
>fail to follow through
makes me want to look up some early life

>>215548318
a nipple here, an ass cheek there is far more titillating than vulgar nonsense

>>215548976
Id call you a dumb slut too if you made a deal for 1% of a million dollars and all you got was $3.50

>>215547047
Well according to Hollywood accounting the lotr movies didn't make a profit. Tolkiens kid was supposed to receive a percentage of the profits but the studio told him the movies didn't make any money

>>215547101
Syndication and royalties are big part of the payment in the long run.
People who wrote King of the Hill still make thousands a month just from re-runs and syndication.
>>215548743
This, and addition to that - sometimes there might be pressure from the film crew, the director or so to do the nude scene or whatever without signing it - even if you dont want it, since you might be the person who gonna cost hours and thousands of dollars to the production.

>>215546961
>only received $1816.35 up to that point
>Merchandise royalties are said to only total “approximately $6,408.26.
This should be the takeaway for anons itt. This is scarily accurate and hyper common in the industry. People earn chicken feed for a lot of the movies posted about here. It remains one of the greatest illusions of modern culture. I know several actors who've never made > $20k for sizable roles. And if you luck into a hit, "Hollywood math" prevails, powerful lawyers will bleed you out before any trials and ruin your reputation. It's a nightmare world

>>215549185
The take away should be not to get naked in front of a camera for 4 or very low 5 figure payouts. Or just not to get naked infront of a camera in general.

>>215547283
Are you fucking retarded? Art the Clown merch makes millions at horror cons across the world. It's literally a near phenomenon. Watch videos from any horror con in the last 6 years and see all the Art merch. That and Scream are the leaders.

>>215547101
>Oy vey this goy thinks she can get the few thousands of dollars that she was promised in this contract that we both signed. THIS IS ANUDA SHOA. I'M BEING HOLOCAUSTED.

>>215546961
>a doctor diagnosed her with cranial swelling and eardrum damage
This happened because she was naked for a few hours? Do nudists know about this?

>>215549232

I think anon was just making a dumb post to reuse the “capital city” meme from when Terrifier first went viral here.

>>215549563

Upside down, dipshit

>>215548689
>Sounds like she's just mad that the movie did better than expected and thinks she deserves more money.
She's mad that this trash franchise blew up and made $100 million after her contract for 1% of profit expired in 2017.

>why am I not being paid for this direct-to-streaming horror schlock
Hmm

>>215547246
Maybe if they hadn’t gloated about how profitable it’s been as part of the marketing

>why am I being sued for ripping off my actors and now following the law

Hmm

>>215547101
How does that boot leather taste?

>>215546909

> :O wow

>>215548318
Nudity and horror go hand in hand. Exploitation is the entire point of the genre.

>>215546961
Without looking into this any further, sounds like she's going to profit handsomely.

>>215549794

Most people only know the movie because of that scene. She kinda deserves a nice slice of the pie.

>>215550115
Absolutely. Hope she's got the paperwork, but if she didn't, I doubt she would file suit. The jewish producers trying to scam her deserve to get fucked over.

>>215548318
>you can go online and watch real beheadings for free, why do you need violence in your movie?

File: 1759538820935056.jpg (1 KB, 60x60)

1 KB JPG

>>215546909
Uh? You cant see her pussy at all, case dismised! Next!

>>215547057
this

>>215546909
This whore needs to be disciplined

>>215546909

>>215548318
why does every thread have a numbnut asking this.
>why do you like to see things in a movie that you like to see?

>>215546909
Take those fucking yids to the cleaners

>>215546909
>hung upside down by her ankles for “over 10 hours in below freezing temperatures.”
She would have died from blood rushing to the head, this is an objective lie

Kek, imagine how retarded a person must be to sign a deal for profits instead of gross, which has been a well known scam for over a century. This dumb bitch is about to get pwned by an army of jewish accountants

>>215546909
>1% of all net sales
She literally fell for the Gross vs Net swindle. What an idiot.

>>215550828
>To mitigate the pooling of blood in her head while suspended by her ankles, Corcoran shot the scene in 40-second increments across ten hours, with a platform placed underneath her at some points so she laid horizontally.
> It also claims that Corcoran was only provided a horizontal platform to break on between takes upon her request and that she “was wrapped in a blanket in between takes, but overtime the blanket became so saturated with fake blood that it ceased providing any warmth.”

Anyone else remember that when Terrifier 2 was being made, there were rumors on here and le reddit about an upcoming indie release where the director was jerking it behind the camera?

yep, it was this director

>>215547101
It doesn't sound like she's the stupid one in the story.

I enjoyed part 2 but my god the acting is so bad and the length was too long. The movie also has a gross cartoon feel, which I don't like. Martyrs is gross for the torture aspect, this feels gross cos the director is a perv like Victor Salva.

File: IMG_2611.jpg (48 KB, 730x730)

48 KB JPG

>>215551054

Wait what?

Why does every post itt taking the foid's side sound a little ESL? Really makes you think

>>215546961
I hate how american litigiousness means people routinely have to make shit up like they got a brain bleed from being upside down for a bit, or they have "trauma and nightmares" after slipping on a stoop or some dumb shit like that.
The money thing is fair, you get shafted by the most jewy business in the world and you want your cut, ok. But you gotta bolster those tort claims, so now you're "forced" to appear in the nude and you got a brain bleed and eardrum damage. What a gay country.

>>215546909
>who farted?!

>>215551193
>what a gay country where they actually have laws
go back to south africa faggot lmao

File: soyjak-spinning-spinning-(...).gif (13 KB, 220x133)

13 KB GIF

>>215551110
>Actress reaches a deal for one percent of all profits across the franchise
>Hollywood accounting
>It doesn't sound like she's the stupid one in the story.

>>215548318
>you can watch standup any time you want, why do you need comedy in your regular movie?

>>215548976
Yeah, but I think what she's doing is not only logical, it's something any actor, male or female would do, in her case. Obviously she didn't star in the movie thinking that it would a breakout hit. But that's what happened. It makes sense that she wants to be paid, and if this rinky dink production didn't have the right paperwork, when they have actors getting nude onscreen, it's on them. You really need to know what you're doing in this case.
>>215548977
>she did something of her own will, was fine with everything, then ten years or so later is claiming she was victimized because someone didn't fill out a form.
You see that as hair splitting over a technicality, I see it as a pretty big oversight on the filmmaker's part. Again, this is all assuming her claim is true. Of course, had Terrifier not become a smash hit, she wouldn't have phoned. But since it did, they really should have looked into that. My guess is that the crew behind Terrifier are bunch of dumb goofs who thought they could throw money at a legal team to keep it all at bay. But who knows.
>I mean if you chose to work off the clock and then afterwards, complained that you worked off the clock, everyone is going to ask if you're retarded or goldigging because you're the one the victimized yourself and is now jumping on a technicality
Yes, but in part it's also on the business to make sure that's not happening. Matter of degree. When you have an actress showing her goods in your movie, you want to make sure you have all your ducks in a row. Hard to not see this all as a blunder on the filmmaker's part.

>The lawsuit names production banners Dark Age Cinema and Fuzz on the Lens Productions as defendants, in addition to producer Phil Falcone and Leone and the filmmaker’s banner Art the Clown.
The author should be fired for poor writing. This made me think the actor playing Art got sued too, and I read the whole story to see what he did but nothing came up. Turns out she’s suing the trademark. They could’ve explained that a lot better.

>>215548318
Where did this type of argument form? I see it thrown around at video games a lot, and now some faggot is using it to talk about movies?

>>215550332
I can watch a boxing or MMA match with my dad. What about you anon, can you watch porn with your dad ? I don t need nudity in my movie, it s cringe.

File: 1757275552053958.jpg (201 KB, 1000x668)

201 KB JPG

>>215551354
>I can watch a boxing or MMA match with my dad. What about you anon, can you watch porn with your dad ? I don t need nudity in my movie, it s cringe.
So obvious, every time

>>215551251
if you actually had law there would be laws to curtail this kind of behavior, but that would lower the income of jewish lawyers so it will never happen since your fake country is a scam designed to maximize jewish profit. continue bleeding, piggy

>>215547377
>Larry Zerner
This is Shelly from F13 Part III, BTW.

>>215551430
>how dare they just let people go around rightly suing people who break the law don't they see all they're doing is HELPING DA JOOS

these zogbots are really weak lmao

>>215551502
What's funny is that they're laughing at the actress for falling for Jewish accounting tricks - gross vs net. Their bias couldn't be more apparent.

>>215546909
>distribution of sexually explicit materials without consent
wtf

>>215547246
>They can just claim they just didn't make much of a profit with those movies.
>This isn't even Hollywood accounting, it's just normal accounting stuff


They could but it would be bad publicity. They did a whole marketing campaign about how successful the movie was. So to claim it didn't make money would just be a bad move.

Whats most likely going to happen is the producers are going to offer her a settlement to make get go away. Cut her a check for $10 million or something.

That way she doesn't take it to court and the Hollywood accounting nonsense they used won't be exposed.

>>215551776
Just further proof to me that Leone is semitic trash

>>215548318
You're a zoomer and your brain is fried from watching so much fuckin porn on your phone. I didn't grow up that way so seeing a bit of nudity does not offfend me the way it offends you.

>>215551957
So this dumb bimbo actress is... doing what makes total sense? Stupid bitch.

>>215551346
Probably people who have no kinks or preferences. Also could just be one of those generic responses that women love to use.

>>215551187
>capitalizing esl
GOOD MORNING SAAR

>>215552587
Yes, we capitalize acronyms. Don't accuse someone of else of being an Indian when you don't know writing rules

>>215546909
>Corcoran is best known to “Terrifier” viewers as the centerpiece of one of the original 2016 slasher’s most memorably demented sequences, in which the actress’ character is hung upside down, topless, and slaughtered by the villain Art the Clown.
Wow I didn't realise there was a film about the Angolan War of Independence.

Tl;dr? How do you film a nude scene without consent

She showed her goods. Pay her up, chuds!

>>215546909
How long before all women roles are played by men again?

>>215553197
Don’t need to, just use Ai

>>215553239
Two more weeks right faggot lmao

>>215548318
You wouldn't get it.

>>215551187
Because it's the same faggot simp shitting up the entire thread

>>215549704
>I'll use the law to get what I want.
>fuck you bootlicker!

>>215549185
No fucking way the terrifier creator is making little money from the merch and other shit to justify paying her so tiny. He's a Jew too funnily enough. Shame for the art actor. He does a good job acting even if I don't like the movies.

>>215548798
You might think it's bullshit because it is, but that's the bullshit you have to deal with making a film. The paperwork is more to protect the production from shit like this.

They fucked up and will end up paying for it.

>After the sequel premiered in 2022, Corcoran says she began receiving intermittent royalty payments. Thus far, she’s been paid roughly $8,300 under her 2015 deal, which notes it “shall remain in effect for a period of two years,” the lawsuit claims. When she confronted director Damien Leone and producer Phil Falcone, Corcoran was allegedly “brushed off” and was told that the production “doesn’t keep records.”

Hmm for a period of 2 years. The Jew director probably did Jew her out of some money but it wasn't anything massive like what terrifier would later come to gain.

File: 1759773867606845.png (273 KB, 533x358)

273 KB PNG

Whore smells money
More news at 11

i have less respect for fags who watch this tripe called "horror"
gore fags utterly disgust me

>>215551187
It's not that she's really wrong here, legally speaking. She has every right to sue them for that. But her behavior is just a regular woman thing. Decides to get naked, then finds out years later that she can cash in on that by claiming she never wanted to. I seriously doubt she had the mental capacity to get naked so that she can sue them later. At the very least I could respect that somewhat.

>>215555090
>I seriously doubt that she had the mental capacity to get naked so that she can sue them later

I have legitimately heard of women actresses and other types of occupations doing things like that so they can get a big payday later. Suffer a bit now to win big later. Even a few men are capable of doing this too. That's why some production companies are so cagey about their practices so they don't have to go through this ever.

>>215546909
FUCK THOSE KIKES. TAKE ALL THEIR MONEY

>>215555090
She's clearly using a legal loophole to get paid, but end of the day he is ripping her off. If he honored the agreed up on deal, this probably wouldn't happen.

Some guys just can't help but try to screw people over. Look at McMahon, If he just paid the girl the agreed up on sum, it never would have happened. Men out there losing dollars by trying to steal pennies.

>>215547047
>If they have a nude role, do they often get a percentage?
Nobody would have expected Terrifier to ever go anywhere. It was made for peanuts, basically a glorified student film. The director even had to launch an Indiegogo to fund the sequel years later. T2 and T3 then made over $100 million combined at the box-office.

>>215547148
The director is Italian, they are sick people. Just look at Salo by Pasolini.

>>215551122
If you think that acting was bad, watch all hallows eve. As far as terrifier 2, the young boy easily had some of the worst acting I've ever seen in a theater

>>215547246
>They can just claim they just didn't make much of a profit with those movies.
T3 made over $90 million at the box-office on a production budget of $2 million. How are you going to pretend you didn't make money? They spent $100 million on marketing? The movie has probably made double that by now from streaming, VOD, Blu-Ray sales, etc.

>>215550379
What is this, a Captain for ants?

>>215548455
>You go for the GROSS, not profit.
These movies have been undeniably profitable. It's like pretending Demon Slayer Infinity Castle didn't make profit somehow.

More blue tape, no wonder nobody wants to film in America. Donald!

>>215555433
Where the fuck they find that kid. kek

>>215547138
Nah, they're selling tshirts in the mall now. They've got licensed Halloween costumes, tsotchky trash of all kinds too. They're definitely making money hand over fist off merch. If (IF!) this woman is actually entitled to one percent of all that dosh, she'll get a fucking ton and the filmmakers signed a shitty deal. It's happened before, like how Kenner had exclusive toy rights to Star Wars which pretty much fucked George Lucas for years. Filmmakers sign shitty deals all the time when they don't realize that they've got a hit on their hands. Or maybe she's going home with squat, again I don't know if her case has legs.

>>215556343
I assume it's filed in California and she'll have SAG on her side. It has legs.

Most likely they'll do a settlement. These hollywood moneymen have been screwing people for years, I'm not going to cry over someone screwing them back once in awhile.

>>215546909
>>215546961
>1% of the profits from the film, as well as potential future franchise entries and related merchandise, including other licenses of the intellectual property.

That's why you sign up for 1% of the earnings, not profits, otherwise Jew accounting will turn every single one of those items "unprofitable".

>>215548862
>legal consent
This isn't the issue. She is saying they didn't have written consent for nudity as required by her union.

>>215549059
The author of Forest Gump also agreed to getting paid in profits. The movie apparently never was profitable until his death.

sounds like studio accounting. it happens a lot. they will claim the movie never makes a profit to avoid paying people when they can get away with it. same shit happened with mean girls.

>>215556638
So she's a scab then?
Fuckin' bitch.

>>215548318
>why do you want onions sauce on your fried rice? Just drink a bottle of it.
It's amazing these people can even operate a phone.

>>215546909
you see that dirty slut in return to nukem high 2 goddamn she'll do anything for relevancy and a chance to get paid doing horror conventions

might as well have kept the bra on, those arent even handfuls of titmeat

>>215547029
that movie is like from 85 the fuck you talking

>>215548318
It's not your fault you're like this. The infinite internet and porn access did this to you. You've separated your sex drive into a separate entity meant to be routinely handled as if it's nothing but a hassle that gets in the way of your life. You never learned to live with it and enjoy it. You guys never stood a chance though. They removed all the healthier erotic sexuality from tv and movies and left you with nothing but hardcore porn. Of course it fucked you up.

>>215546909
SUE THEM

>>215556638
What you described is legal consent.

>>215547376
Pay up, Rabbi

>>215546909
This is being spun as some metoo shit but it's actually just a lawsuit on some bullshit union technicality. will probably settle out of court for some meagre sum.

File: talmud.png (703 KB, 503x515)

703 KB PNG

My early life senses are tingling

File: segundo-sol-novela.gif (2.05 MB, 498x280)

2.05 MB GIF

>>215546961
>>215546909
>degenerate leftoid faggot who makes goreslop movies is...a piece of shit in real life?!

I'm shocked. Shocked!

>>215551278
>sues and gets a payout
Yea retard, it doesn't sound like she is the stupid one

>>215548768
Yep. If they don't have a contract with her agreeing to it she's in the right and they're wrong. I know it's baby's first day in the legal system but some of you retards really do lack even basic common sense.

>>215548976
>Dumb
The production was dumb, you retard. This hoe was smart enough to guarantee a payout

>>215559169
It sounds exactly as it is. The filmmakers didn't do their due diligence. Not surprising since this was such a small production.
>bullshit union technicality
You think paperwork to sign off on distribution of nude images, and creating merchandise based on that likeness, is just some nerdy technicality? It's not. These dudes are majorly retarded if they didn't have her sign off on all this stuff. Is this board just filled with NEETs who have never worked a job?

>>215548318
Good morning saar how is the shit slide in Bangladeshi today

>>215549222
No dumbass, the take away is do exactly that, if the morons behind the film are so incompetent they don't get your written consent. Then sue the shit out of them

>>215546909
Greedy whore

>>215560639
>Deal isn't honored
>Greedy
Kek. Early life?

>>215548318
Wow you really stirred up the cope and seething from the coomers.

>>215555404
Salo exposed what christkike capitalists really do behind closed doors.

>>215546961
>/tv/ siding with some lying whore who got naked for money and now regrets it

>>215548318
>the replies
lol

>>215558438
No it isnt. The actress and filmmaker dont have to abide by union rules if they dont want.

>>215560801
If she's lying it can be easily proven if the production company has the proper paperwork. She regrets it? Doubtful. She's about to make a small killing off it for an undisclosed amount out of court.

>>215560845
If she has a written contract for royalties then sure. But it sounds like she doesn't. Not going to get much for being cold and voluntarily getting your tits out 10 years ago.

>contract for two years of royalties
>expects to be paid royalties after nine years
Woman math.

When did this place become a haven for illiterate niggers? Half the posters didn't read the OP

>>215560839
Contractual consent on nude scenes goes beyond union rules. The union is just working for her to protect her rights, which is what unions do.
>>215560958
She says they didn't acquire written consent for her nude scenes or for creating merchandise based on her likeness. If that's true, which it probably is, then no, it has nothing to do with an agreement on royalties. She's going to fuck them up the ass and get paid bigly.

>>215560717
how do you know the deal wasn't honored?

>>215560608
I'd screencap your faggy post for when she gets awarded a janny's salary in compensation but I can't be bothered because you're a gay fag that's also probably homosexual.

>>215561029
Is there merch based on her likeness? She's just some chick that dies brutally. If they had no written agreement for the nude scene she might have something, but everything else in the case doesn't seem to hold weight.

Lmao why the fuck do Americans attach so much special important to actors (or, let’s be real here, actresses) who do nude scenes? It’s like the easiest fucking thing to do. Just take your clothes off. You shouldn’t have to sign 10 waivers to perform something that everyone does when they take a fucking bath.

>>215561046
You'll never have that satisfaction because it'll be an undisclosed amount settled out of court.
>>215561051
>didn't even read the article
>????
>profit!

>>215561082
Amerikeks are pussy whipped faggots

>>215555492
>there are anons in current year who don't know about hollywood accounting

>>215547101
>>215547376
>>215551187
>>215560639
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Nncxg2XPA

File: 1749359008546454.jpg (161 KB, 1092x1125)

161 KB JPG

>>215561082
>no one asked
>but here's my unsolicited opinion on americans

File: 1485439125.jpg (89 KB, 805x467)

89 KB JPG

>>215561098
>an undisclosed amount

>>215561029
Post the law. Where does it actually say you need written consent specifically for nudity beyond what is ordinarily contained in an actor contract.

>>215561172
There is no such law. It’s an internal thing Hollywood did after metoo. In other words it is highly unlikely she will get anything.

>>215561148
Major cope.
>>215561172
Lol. You should make a porno with this mindset.

>>215561204
Is there one, or is she getting nothing? She is asserting that there was not a contract as required by her union. She doesn't mention law.

>>215555586
Return of the Jedi, Harry Potter, Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, and the LOTR trilogy all technically failed to turn a profit despite billions in revenue. If you think some hollywood jew accountant can't figure out how to hide profits on something as relatively tiny as Terrifier, you're delusional. This actress isn't seeing a penny of merch sales or profits.
As for whether she gets paid for the nudity thing, idk, union rules are retarded and it's plausible a low budget film would forget/ignore stuff like that. But to try and frame it as "sexual coercion" or whatever is just blatantly dishonest and opportunistic, and I don't think the payout she gets is going to be worth destroying her acting career.

>>215561098
Hope she sees this anon I'm sure she'll let you split her in half too

>>215561258
You're asking me to post the law, as if there's a specific law stating that you must have a nudity clause in a contract for a movie. No, that law doesn't exist. But you can't distribute nude pictures of someone without their consent. If you don't have paperwork to prove that all the conditions were agreed upon regarding shooting nude scenes, that opens the filmmakers to certain liabilities where an actor can make a case that they didn't consent.
>>215561267
People have been brainrotted by culture wars. This is clear case of the filmmakers being amateur goofs.

>>215561363
They have consent to distribute in the contract. She is not saying any law was broken, she is not even saying she didn't consent, she is saying they both broke her union rule. That's it. So unless you have some additional information this is pointless.

>>215561363
Culture wars how? Terrifier is very popular in left wing circles, and Art the Clown's actor is enormously outspoken against Trump. This actress has spoken positively of her experience in the past, shown up in a music video based off the movie, and goes to cons to make money off of the role. Seems like a clear case of contract regret and trying to get a piece of the pie.

>>215561551
Terrified 1 is hated by leftists for the nudity

>>215546909
>>215546961
All I know is she'll never work in this town again.

>>215561570
Nah, they weren't programmed to be upset about nudity in horror films yet. That was a purity spiral for the genre that started after the film.

>>215561589
Shit you’re right. Even that Dead Meat prude faggot liked it and he hates female nudity with a passion. What happened? Most actresses don’t mind getting naked for the camera.

>>215561635
You can follow the releases of V/H/S to see how the prevailing horror culture winds are blowing in recent times.

>>215561551
Your post implied that I was simping for this whore. You're so braindamaged from the culture wars that you can't see how someone could look at this article and come away thinking she has a case. Don't give a fuck about the political leanings of Terrifier fans. Has zip to do with my point.
>Seems like a clear case of contract regret and trying to get a piece of the pie.
Doubtful. It's the lack of a proper contract that will ensure her big payout. Of course she wants a piece of the pie. You think she did the movie because she believed in it as a piece of art? It's fucking garbage. Why wouldn't she go for a payout? That doesn't mean however that what she's saying is completely baseless.
>>215561472
If it doesn't specify in the contract beyond general consent to distribute, they are open to liability. It's insane to me that this is so hard for you people to realize. There's a reason that when you're hired for a job, you sign a mountain's worth of paperwork. With some small fry production like the first Terrifier, it's not at all surprising that they probably had no clue what they were doing and didn't put enough work in writing up the proper contracts. I mean, I doubt they would have expected this piece of garbage to become popular so it makes sense.

>>215550332
That IS why i don't care for gorey movies

>>215546909
>>215546961
Good. I hate these movies.

Also, that's what you get for working in California. Imagine if you used non-union actors in literally any other state. None of this would even be an option.

File: IMG_2996.jpg (500 KB, 2048x1993)

500 KB JPG

>>215546909
See I know Catherine has been talking about this for years so I genuinely believe it happened. Especially on such an amateur production by an SFX guy turned director. I’ve been in the audience hearing this story myself a couple years ago.

Trouble is she relies on Terrifier to get by. She does the full convention circuit, she does photo ops in Dawn’s Terrifier 1 outfit. She has already received a further bag from the franchise when she got to star in Ice Nine Kills “A Work of Art” music video alongside Art, Damien and a bunch of the Terrifier cast. So I’m real shocked she’s rocking the boat and going legal with a complaint.

Damien seems like the kind of guy who would have happily had her cameo in T4 seeing as a bunch of it will be set in Hell just to give her a “thank you” payday and she’s fucked it up by getting lawyers involved. Now he can get pissy about it and stop her doing costume ops and using the Terrifier name/logo in convention branding. It seems like a dumb fucking idea, especially since Damien has Larry Zerner on his legal team. I guess she’s expecting a settlement because the first movie had fuck all safety standards and Larry would tell Damien to settle to avoid exposing how bad conditions got (you can watch the making of T1 on YouTube.) After this she’s likely blacklisted from working in anything major because she’ll be seen as the nail that sticks out.

File: laughing puppets.gif (3.52 MB, 320x180)

3.52 MB GIF

>>215546909
>The suit claims that director and producer Leone, “agreed in writing to provide Corcoran with a share in 1% of all net sales generated from ‘Terrifier’ related merchandise.”
>net sales
lol
rofl even
no movie ever makes a net profit
you take gross profits

>calling the director a jew when he's italian
>taking the roasties side when her deal was for 2 years not eternity
>pearl clutching over muh violence

modern /tv/ blows ass

>>215547155
Not sure about Falcone but Damien Leone is a legit flaming radical leftist.

>>215555229
It’s not a loop hole if they didn’t do the basic paperwork

>>215563343
>calling the director a jew when he's italian
Using Jewish tactics.
>taking the roasties side when her deal was for 2 years not eternity
I don't see that as the real issue here.
>pearl clutching over muh violence
What violence?
>modern /tv/ blows ass
Agreed. Since 2016, every board became /pol/.

>15 U.S. Code § 6851 - Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images
>The term “consent” means an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by the individual free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.
she would somehow have to prove she was coerced into getting her tit out in an 18+ horror movie. don't think she is winning that

>>215563279
>So I’m real shocked she’s rocking the boat and going legal with a complaint

If she wasn’t getting paid like she was supposed to and even when she tried to talk to people to get it sorted they just brushed her off and tried to lawyer up then she isn’t rocking the boat, she’s simply doing the basic thing to get what she’s rightfully owed. This type of shit happens all the time where someone is screwed and the people with the money always expect you to never sue them because of the time, money and effort it takes. Any future settlement they might have to pay later is just part of the business.

Terrifier is degenerate garbage.

>>215563452
You'd be wrong. You treat coercion here as if it means consensual sex between two adults. This is a work contract. If the terms are not laid out in the contract, if all that's there is a general consent to distribute, then she has a case. It doesn't have to be airtight because it won't go to trial - this will all be settled out of court and she'll get her payday.

>>215546909
Man women are fast tracking their own a.i replacements crazy fast

>>215563552
>You treat coercion here as if it means consensual sex between two adults
What? Kek
Courts will be less likely in this case as they are making a film over months. It is a commercial product that is only made to be distributed. Its not some sex tape filmed without knowledge. It is unreasonable to think it will not be distributed. The only issue is if she was coerced into tit out, and the burden of proof is on her. Even if she does the payout will be like $150,000

just wants to cash in on the bag she knows they have now

I find Damien Leone to be a legitimate inspiring figure. Being complete self taught at everything. Having zero connections in the industry. Still being independent and now raking in cash like crazy. It's an artists dream come true.

>>215563660
>It is unreasonable to think it will not be distributed.
It doesn't matter if it seems unreasonable. There are many laws in place to protect workers that, on an individual level, might not seem reasonable. But if she never signed paperwork that consented to distribution of materials where she appears nude, that can be easily exploited, to the point where she could potentially stop distribution of the film. In a similar manner, let's say an actress stars in your movie, does the entire film shoot, and attends the premiere of your big movie. If you didn't get a signed release from that actress, your film could be pulled from public viewing and you could face legal ramifications. Sounds unreasonable? Them's the breaks.
>The only issue is if she was coerced into tit out, and the burden of proof is on her.
You're looking at this all wrong. The issue is the proper contract wasn't drawn up for this actress to appear nude and have that footage distributed. That opens up a window in which she can claim force, fraud, misrepresentation or coercion in some form or another.

>>215563857
There are many laws but you can't seem to give any. She is alleging lack of consent. I gave the legal definition. She has to prove it.
>That opens up a window in which she can claim force, fraud, misrepresentation or coercion
Which she is doing. She still has to prove it.
None of this probably matters anyway. This "has to be written consent" is her union obligation. It sounds like a union issue, not a legal issue.

>>215549723
horror is about morality, not about exploitation
>jonathan harker goes to romania and sleeps with gypsy vampires, gets an STD, then passes it on to his wife
>the alien face hugger is a blatant allusion to oral sex, and if you do it, you will die
>the original slasher films had a murderer show up whenever someone removed an article of clothing
>frankenstein tries to play god, instead creates an abomination, and then dies
>faust signs a deal with the devil, everyone he cares about dies

>>215564109
>She is alleging lack of consent. I gave the legal definition. She has to prove it.
No, if the filmmakers didn't get her consent in writing, that's on them.
>Which she is doing. She still has to prove it.
Not really. This will be settled out of court, and she has leverage if her claim is true. If they didn't obtain a written contract specifying onscreen nudity, then she has a lot of leverage here. As I said, the film could pulled entirely.
>None of this probably matters anyway. This "has to be written consent" is her union obligation. It sounds like a union issue, not a legal issue.
It's both, retard. You honestly don't think something like that has to be made clear in a contract? Fucking naive.

>>215564395
not having a contract isn't a crime or wrongdoing. not having consent is. she has to prove it

I believe her. The industry fucks over people for their royalties all the time. Hope her contract holds up in court.

>>215564567
I didn't say it was a crime. But if you shot a film with an actress and she never signed a release? Your film could be pulled from public. That she shot a nude scene and it was never consented to on paper, leaves a window open for her to claim she was taken advantage of. Again, not a crime exactly, but could threaten the distribution of the film. Of course, it's never going to come to that, which is why they'll settle outside of court.

>>215564706
i know, anon. this is what could happen if she wins. it is an equitable relief, and could be granted as well as damages. she still needs to prove lack of consent. that has to happen

>>215548318
Youre literally a fag if you watch that

>>215561264
Thats because they buy things at huge mark up from shell companies keeping the money in house ultimately. For an indie fiom no one is presumably bankrolling the directors income so his profit has to equate hers

>>215564785
*hits head*
No, it's the filmmakers who have to prove they had her consent to disseminate nude images of her. Fucking tard. If her claim is correct, and they don't have it, then their film can be yanked from circulation, and she can charge for damages. This is not just a union technicality. The law will side with her.

>>215563660
Literal retard

>>215564567
I feel like im getting dumber from reading your posts, how do you prove a negative, jeetoid?

>>215551346
From redditors.

>>215564885
This is some believe all victims retardation. No, anon, you do indeed have to provide evidence for your lawsuits. Meanings she has to provide proof she was coerced or misrepresented.

>>215565087
Your asking how you prove you were forced to get nude? Maybe with one of the dozen eyes witnesses? How is that a negative?

>>215565595
You cant really be this stupid

>>215563619
They're already devising ways to claim fictional women can be "taken advantage of"

>>215555404
salo was made by a gay communist jew

>>215546961
>I starred in a sleazy horror movie and I'm not Scarlet Johansen status WTF!?
Wow if only there was like 50 years of precident to draw on maybe she could have seen this coming. Oh dear.

>>215565577
That shit doesn't matter. If the filmmakers don't have a signed contract for distribution of nude scenes, she wins.

>>215548976
>lmao womyn are so dumb, thats why men are so superior, we want something we can get it lmao, not like women expecting men to take care of em and expecting handouts
<an actress taking action to get what's owed to her
>ZOMG U DUMB GREEDY FUCKIN BITCH!!!!!