Entertainment news and discussion on TalkFuse.
In 2009, Emily Blunt was forced into a movie against her will. The whole time, “no one knew” she was the studio’s prisoner
In 2009, 20th Century Fox used a multi-picture clause in Emily Blunt’s contract to cast her in *Gulliver’s Travels*, preventing her from taking the role of Natasha Romanoff in *Iron Man 2*. The decision matters because it shaped two high-profile casting paths: Scarlett Johansson went on to play the Marvel character for years, while Blunt lost the opportunity to join the franchise.
Blunt said her co-stars did not know she had been obliged to take the part, though she enjoyed working with them and tried to make the best of the situation. The article says Fox had added the contract clause after her breakout performance in *The Devil Wears Prada*. It presents the episode as a reminder for actors to scrutinise contract terms that may limit future choices.
In short
- Fox’s contract option put Blunt in *Gulliver’s Travels*.
- She lost the chance to play Natasha Romanoff in *Iron Man 2*.
- Blunt said her co-stars did not know she had been obliged to take the role.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Studios can argue that multi-picture clauses are a legitimate part of the bargains used to finance and schedule films: they provide some certainty when a studio invests in an actor’s rising profile, and the actor agrees to those terms as part of a contract. From that perspective, Fox was exercising a negotiated right, even though the clause limited Blunt’s later choices.
The case against
Actors can argue that a clause binding them to a specific project can sharply restrict their artistic and career choices, especially when it blocks a role they would prefer. Blunt’s account suggests that formal consent at signing may not reflect meaningful freedom years later, so studios should use such clauses sparingly and make their scope and consequences clear.