I just think it was a little unprofessional regardless of the context.

Because the studios aren’t making it known to the press. That’s between them and him.

So public outing is the only factor between professionalism and unprofessionalism? Oh dear… All this time I’ve had all the wrong ideas.

Awwww somebody got mad and had a temper tantrum. Speaking of reading and grammar, you forgot a comma in your rant. I’ll let you try to figure out where it belongs. Peace.

You took it as an ass comment, which means you’re defensive minded, perhaps a little too much. I decide my intentions sweetheart, not you.

Yeah, it seems your anger level can only move upwards.

Simmer down; you may know your true intentions but the person you replied to also has their valid opinion of your intentions; if they’re wrong, then you could politely tell them that they are…

Yes, how unprofessional of them to pay the actors millions of dollars and ask for little more than respect to the studio and gratitude for being involved in one of the biggest movies ever.

How is that easy to be construed as criticism? He literally wasn’t the character he signed on to play. Not in a, “Whedon didn’t know how to write properly.” or “Whedon made a mistake in writing Hawkeye.”-type way. In a, “This character was not the character I signed on to play.”-type way (surprise, surprise, that’s what he actually said).

There’s a vast difference between debating context and completely ripping something out of context in order to make it sound negative when it clearly wasn’t. Hawkeye is brainwashed in the film and does not have his own agency and – therefore – does not have his own motivations as a character. That is a fact of the script. Pointing it out isn’t saying anything critical even remotely resembling this nonsense. Or even “comments he should have kept to himself or only stated in private.”

Reading comprehension is really going down the drain…

He signed a multi-film contract so, when referring to who he signed on to play, he is referring to what he signed on to overall – and pointing out that it is not the singular individual he appeared as, in characterization, for most of The Avengers. Therefore, it is not a negative comment about how he was utilized in The Avengers – it is an observation of a change of the circumstances for the portrayal within an individual work in relation to his overall deal. You are negating that context. You are also negating the context of the question being responded to and Renner’s phrasing – which was pointing toward the notion that he’s hoping to play the full characterization of Hawkeye moving forward (which doesn’t in itself imply that he greatly disliked Hawkeye’s use in The Avengers – although it’s clear that he wants and perhaps wanted to do more with the actual character).

If a regular on a sci fi/supernatural show commented that they weren’t playing the character they signed on for in one episode where their character was brainwashed, would you go, “Ooooh, they’re being negative and calling out the makers!”? Would such a person be calling out the writer/director? Or would they simply be stating the circumstances for that individual entry within an overall series? The latter, quite obviously. Even if they “really wanted to play the character they signed on as” – they know they can do that going forward and they understand the dramatic needs of the given entry. Once again, no negativity in there.

None of this implies that Whedon mishandled the content. In fact, both have talked about how they realized that Hawkeye’s “villain” placement worked best due to reintroducing all of these other larger-than-life characters. Both have also expressed disappointment with that – but are aware that it doesn’t change the dramatic needs of the given work.

So if they’re on the exact same page, where is the “negative criticism”? Where is the “controversy” or the reasoning, outside of financial concerns, that Renner would be removed from the MCU? There isn’t any. It’s just people making things up (perhaps without realizing it) or running with notions others have made up.

Just because numerous people are stripping his comments of their context (searching for drama or reading subtext into innocuous comments that don’t have a great deal of it) doesn’t change what the context evidently is.

But you’re still negating the same context. He signed on for a series. There is no invention of context in any form on my part. This is a franchise, a series, etc. and he was questioned about an individual work. He framed it within the context of the deal he signed (which was for the series).

As for it easily being construed incorrectly, yes – but only if you’re looking for drama or not paying attention to the actual context (which it’s clear is the case for many).

However, to clarify, for those behaving rationally (and, as a result, not reading into things, not misinterpreting the context due to various unrelated or self-imposed factors, etc.), it can not be construed as a negative criticism.

I am absolutely not assuming he was referring to his multi-picture deal. He said it’s not what he “signed on” for. He “signed on” for a series of films. Not a lone, individual film. Or do you not know about the subject you’re commenting on?

You surely understand that, when referring to what he “signed on” for, he’s referring to his multi-picture deal. There is no invention of context, no “special insight.” It is what is stated (“signed on”) and what is well-known (multi-picture deal). He is asked about the given film and refers to it within the context of the muiti-picture deal he signed. When aware that he signed a multi-picture deal to begin with, this is obvious, stated, and clear. This context is that which anyone could expect someone remotely interested in or aware of the behind-the-scenes workings of the MCU to have.

Everything regarding any negativity within these comments is, at its absolute best, conjecture. But, far more likely, assumption, misreading, misconstruing or other things of that sort. Inferring negativity from such factual comments is irrational.

I’m not interested in the last word. I’m interested in either having the validity of what I’m saying accepted or having someone establishing for me why it is incorrect.

All of his comments add up factually. At what point do facts become something worthy of being read into negatively? For instance, you construed factual statements as something that Renner “complained.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. So I’m attempting to either clarify to you how it doesn’t make sense or looking for you to tell me what it is that I’m not understanding.

Once again, while it “could” be read as Renner expressing disappointment in a manner critical of Whedon, it can’t be read as that rationally. What he states clearly isn’t actual criticism (at least not in any negative way) as it’s factual and exactly what Whedon said (without irony/self-deprecation). So how is this news? How does it make any sense to report as something someone “complained” when it’s objective fact?

Additionally, it wouldn’t necessarily matter if Renner wasn’t announced for Avengers 2 – regarding giving any validity to the absurd premise of this article – as there could be many unrelated reasons for that. So this story is essentially yet another non-story where people suggest controversy or conflict where there’s absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

Are you suggesting that the other main “decision-maker” for Marvel, Kevin Feige, was so upset that Renner said something Whedon had already said…that he’s forcing Whedon to omit Renner (but isn’t doing anything to Whedon)? I know these things can be complicated but how does that make sense?

I read and understood. But why was it reported or embraced as carrying even a remote amount of truth rather than dismissed like every other piece of ridiculous supposed “news” that has absolutely no foundation? Do you just report anything and even make things up if you don’t have enough news that day (as this article still provides no rational basis for the perspective presented)?

If someone says Hugh Jackman’s cheating on his wife and the imminent divorce and caring for children will cause problems for a certain film, do you just report it or do you look for some sort of confirmation? If their “evidence” is that Jackman was spotted having dinner with another woman, do you run with that (of course, citing the other website as reporting it so you can claim to have no responsibility for fanning the flames of needless controversy) when that’s actually no indication of infidelity? Or do you look at the situation and go, “There’s nowhere near enough information and it would be irresponsible journalism, at best, to report this as though it’s somehow news. Even reporting that someone else reported it would be construing the situation as though it might have validity when there’s nothing here to go on.”?

At what point do you (and others) stop passing the buck for your misinterpretation (or running with someone else’s as though it has enough validity to even be repeated) and, instead, take responsibility for expressing or repeating inaccurate/misleading views? Look at the comments – “He should have kept these things to himself.” – as though they feel he has “complained” and caused problems with the studio. It’s borderline libelous (to suggest that an actor does not take the clauses in his contract – those stating that he can’t make negative claims against a work during its promotion and for a time following – seriously). And all because someone else reported something without any actual evidence. You’re misleading people just as you’ve apparently been misled – enough to think this has any basis or qualifies as news or that repeating it was remotely responsible journalism/reporting/etc.

And now everyone who takes this article at face value is left with a negative impression of Renner due to how his comments have been misconstrued by the source, by you via association (even if you yourself “don’t know” about any accuracy to the rumor – you still reported his “issue-causing” comments as something he “complained”), etc.

(((REPLY TO THE BELOW COMMENT – since I’m not allowed to post any more replies due to voicing an opinion which differs from that of the editor of this website while also refusing to accept shoddy journalism going unaddressed: You ask if I can not see that you have embraced nothing as truth in the original post yet you said Renner “complained.” So you embraced the notion that Renner spoke out against or criticized (negatively) The Avengers and/or Whedon.

You say I’ve accused you of making up news stories on a daily basis (Did I say anything about a daily basis or did I, in fact, with a question rather than an accusation, suggest the possibility of you making something up if there’s not enough news that day? As in, in the instance of one day – rather than as a consistent practice at all times.)…when that’s not the case. You’ve said I suggested that you post gossip stories (you did above) about celebrities potentially cheating on their partners…but, once again, you ignore the context in which it’s presented (as influencing the production of a film.)

The hypothetical example was related to what might delay a film – in the case of Jackman, likely an X-Men film. Is that not the type of thing you report – those things influencing superhero, genre, blockbuster, etc. movies? Apparently I’ve been visiting the wrong website and your username and article are ironic as you apparently lack interest in such things (such as how an actor’s behavior would impact a major superhero franchise)?

Did you actually read what I wrote – that this hypothetical rumored circumstance would cause problems for a film – or did you just decide to ignore the evident context in order to produce some sort of response just as you seemingly did with the original article?)))

((UPDATE: 11/19/2013 – Following a reply from four months later inquiring about if I can find any made up stories from the website —

To think that what you’ve just said (seemingly meaning making up an entire story) has any relevance (to the notion that you would purposefully misconstrue things, even if knowing someone else did so first, if it seems you can in order to run a story that has no defined evidence as though it did – which some would argue is basically the same as making things up yourself since you’re repeating unfounded information as though it might have any veracity even as “grounded” speculation) means you’ve completely missed the point of everything I said – that’s all. And petty responses such as the above don’t help your credibility.

Deliberately misconstruing or repeating things which you (or at least anyone who gives it due consideration would) know have been misconstrued as a form of “reporting” is shoddy journalism, at absolute best. And it can easily contribute to all sorts of misunderstandings, causing negative perceptions of various involved parties, etc.

But who cares? Somebody said that somebody said something about this one person who said this one thing and, even though I know exactly what they said and that it factually doesn’t mean what it could have been misconstrued as meaning, I’m going to report what it could be misconstrued as being if one ignores the clear context and how that contributes to this random rumor which has no known validity otherwise. And, in doing so, I will willingly lead others to believe negative things about the parties in question, further contributing to needless confusion, negativity and guessing games.

Does that sound anything like responsible journalism to you?

–))

But your allegation of Jeremy’s words being a complaint is Not factual

I disagree. It’s clearly stated in the title that this is a rumour. The article title is entirely fact – it was rumoured. And the post clearly states “it’s entirely possible that this report is pure speculation.”

And yes, we could easily make stories up and call them exclusives, but there are enough sites that do that already. We’re not conning our readers in any way like those sites are – if we think a report is anything but factual, we’ll state that it could be rubbish and that the source is unreliable. We’ve taken flak from said sites for doing so.

And how do you know there isn’t truth to this? No one has confirmed Renner for Avengers 2 yet, only Hawkeye, and where is he in Phase Two? For the record though, I do believe he will be back and that this story was likely speculation passed off as fact. But not by us.

Find me one story we’ve made up. Ever. Oh that’s right, you can’t. Because we never once have.

I don’t think he is being critical of Joss. He could be being critical of his signing agent for all we know. Actors hardly ever know what they’re getting into when they sign on to a movie. Which is why we see a bunch of good actors making shoddy movies. I think he is just expressing his opinion and it wasn’t unprofessional or uncalled for. You’re just taking it the way you want to.

Something tells me that Joss is a big enough boy that he doesn’t need everyone that works with him to kiss his butt and sing his praises 24/7. That he can take some criticism. Even from actors that didn’t like the final copy but in keeping with contracts etc did it anyway rather than go full diva and yell and throw fits etc

However, I do feel he did a great job as Hawkeye nor do i feel he did anything so unforgivable he should be dropped from the roster. If anything he should be rein-visioned or suited with gear that brings his resemblance close to his roots. Being that he appeared in Thor and now Avengers, they have time invested in this guy, and as I said, he sold the character, give him a break.

Yes but in that type of biz its not always professional or the lines are blurred. Its not like regular work. Who wants to work with people who are ass holes? If you understand how the world works then why are you saying Renner is wrong? If you were him you would be happy? He got screwed

Its not just getting paid. Its treating your workers fairly. Sometimes the higher ups dont want to talk. Marvel wants one thing money. Think about how many times they sold Marvel and DC?

Yeah and thats why tons of actors leave and never work with those ever again.

I dont know and you do have a point but if your not on top tyen its human fodder why would they give tons of money to character actors and actors that are never seen again