Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
17
18
... LastLast
  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlet...se-11627579278

    Wasn't this known for a very long time? Several months in fact?

    I guess the lawsuit came a bit after release to see actual numbers from the initial release?
    Probably couldn't prove damages prior to release, or hoped the film would still do decently at the box office. The Disney+ release apparently resulted in rampant piracy that tanked the box office profits.

  2. #302
    I think Disney will try to settle quick and quiet. They need quality actors. And such talent won't go near the Disney brand if they don't pay.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I think Disney will try to settle quick and quiet. They need quality actors. And such talent won't go near the Disney brand if they don't pay.
    For sure. Every reason to settle, almost no reason not to.

    Honestly, they should've offered a renegotiation ahead of time.

  4. #304
    It was fine. Scarjo is a great actress and there were some good jokes. Definitely not a big and expensive spectacle of a superhero movie, but watchable.

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    For sure. Every reason to settle, almost no reason not to.

    Honestly, they should've offered a renegotiation ahead of time.
    hmm, the plot thickens

    Disney released a statement saying:

    ”There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.”

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    hmm, the plot thickens

    Disney released a statement saying:

    ”There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.”
    So, they don't have an obligation to re-negotiate her salary. At all. She signed it, she's held to it.

    But, if she was promised an "exclusive theatre release" in order to sign that contract which only got royalties off theatre profits, then she should win. It's all in proving that that promise was made, and she relied on it.

    The estimate is that she lost FIFTY MILLION off the split release. $20m may be a lot to all of us, but I'd be sure as fuck suing too if I lost $50m in revenue.

    I also love the new corporate habit of blasting litigants for not being sensitive or "acting correctly." Blizzard did the same thing in suggesting California, in suing Blizzard, is part of the reason why companies leave California. It's fucking comical.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    So, they don't have an obligation to re-negotiate her salary. At all. She signed it, she's held to it.

    But, if she was promised an "exclusive theatre release" in order to sign that contract which only got royalties off theatre profits, then she should win. It's all in proving that that promise was made, and she relied on it.

    The estimate is that she lost FIFTY MILLION off the split release. $20m may be a lot to all of us, but I'd be sure as fuck suing too if I lost $50m in revenue.

    I also love the new corporate habit of blasting litigants for not being sensitive or "acting correctly." Blizzard did the same thing in suggesting California, in suing Blizzard, is part of the reason why companies leave California. It's fucking comical.
    Yeah, seems like its a crappy attempt to alter public opinion?

    Don't even get me started on the ABK response to the recent lawsuit...

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I also love the new corporate habit of blasting litigants for not being sensitive or "acting correctly." Blizzard did the same thing in suggesting California, in suing Blizzard, is part of the reason why companies leave California. It's fucking comical.
    While I am with you in spirit on this generally speaking... in this case I think Disney has a point. They already had to delay the release of Black Widow Twice because of the Pandemic. They could have released it last year and ScarJo would have gotten diddly squat from the theatrical release. If, as Disney says, she's getting appropriate compensation through the Disney+...then she should just take what she gets and write the rest off as another casualty of of Covid. Now, if Disney is not compensating her appropriately through the premiere access rentals of Disney+...then maybe she's got a point.

    In the end it's Millionaires suing Billionaires and I really just don't have a dog in that fight. With all the suffering Covid has caused the world in general...I don't have much sympathy for a millionaire that feels she lost out on a payday or a corporate giant that's clutching at every last penny.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2021-07-29 at 11:16 PM.

  9. #309
    She's arguing that she's not getting anything from the D+ release, afaik.

    Plus she's making an argument that releasing it on streaming services allowed it to have record high levels of piracy, cutting into the movie (and thus her) bottom line. Which we've seen in this very thread, in re: how people were gonna watch this movie. This is a harder argument to resolve because it obviously cuts into Disney's profit as well, so it's hard to argue they did it to their advantage and not hers, which is why you see the arguments about Iger etc getting bonuses from Disney+ subscribers being high. In that case, she's alleging specific individuals at Disney did it to enrich themselves (and in the process breach her contract), even though it may have hurt Disney's overall profits.

    Also, the pandemic delay of the movie is irrelevant. Warner re-negotiated their contracts for putting their movies on HBO Max. It all highly depends on the language of the contract and whether it promised and expected an exclusive theatrical release.

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    While I am with you in spirit on this generally speaking... in this case I think Disney has a point. They already had to delay the release of Black Widow Twice because of the Pandemic. They could have released it last year and ScarJo would have gotten diddly squat from the theatrical release. If, as Disney says, she's getting appropriate compensation through the Disney+...then she should just take what she gets and write the rest off as another casualty of of Covid. Now, if Disney is not compensating her appropriately through the premiere access rentals of Disney+...then maybe she's got a point.

    In the end it's Millionaires suing Billionaires and I really just don't have a dog in that fight. With all the suffering Covid has caused the world in general...I don't have much sympathy for a millionaire that feels she lost out on a payday or a corporate giant that's clutching at every last penny.
    Yeah, that's what initially came to mind for me. Disney could have released it to theaters when it would have died, then done the streaming and gotten their money from that if they were worried about the exclusive theater clause.

    I'm also not sure how much more Disney "needs" ScarJo, though of course they are more than just MCU. Likewise, I'm sure there's plenty of actors willing to sell their soul to the mouse for whatever they'll get. I guess it really comes down to what the actual contract says.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  11. #311
    Sure it might seem petty for people(as in me and most) who don't earn this kind of money, but if she had that deal, then that's it.

    The real injury as people points out, is the ease of making a solid quality version of it for everyone to download online for free, which of course hurts both. But that doesn't take away that she lost her piece(a bigger piece) of the cake anyway.
    - Everything that lives is designed to end. We are perpetually trapped in a never ending spiral of life and death. Is this a curse? Or some kind of punishment? I often think about the god who blessed us with this cryptic puzzle… and wonder if we’ll ever get the chance to kill him.

  12. #312
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,872
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    She's arguing that she's not getting anything from the D+ release, afaik.

    Plus she's making an argument that releasing it on streaming services allowed it to have record high levels of piracy, cutting into the movie (and thus her) bottom line. Which we've seen in this very thread, in re: how people were gonna watch this movie. This is a harder argument to resolve because it obviously cuts into Disney's profit as well, so it's hard to argue they did it to their advantage and not hers, which is why you see the arguments about Iger etc getting bonuses from Disney+ subscribers being high. In that case, she's alleging specific individuals at Disney did it to enrich themselves (and in the process breach her contract), even though it may have hurt Disney's overall profits.

    Also, the pandemic delay of the movie is irrelevant. Warner re-negotiated their contracts for putting their movies on HBO Max. It all highly depends on the language of the contract and whether it promised and expected an exclusive theatrical release.
    It's going to boil down to some pretty simple questions;

    1> Does her contract stipulate that the film would be given an exclusive run in theaters? (this is what I don't think we know, FWIW, and "there was an understanding" generally doesn't translate to a win unless you've got strong evidence to back that up)

    2> Did her contract stipulate a big part of her total compensation be a portion of the gross from box office? If "yes", then any decision to alter release to cut out/cut down box office revenue can easily be argued as an attempt to limit her compensation against the terms that were understood at signing. I think we already know this to be true, which means I think she's got a solid argument, but the case can be argued either way, if this is all there is.

    I don't think ease of piracy is going to factor in at all, since Disney's hurt as much (or more) as Johannsen is in those cases; you'd need to prove some pretty direct animus against Johannsen to make this case; that Disney was willing to hurt themselves to spite her.

    If anything comes out to support the first, Disney would lose the case. In the end, it's probably likely they'll work out a settlement; this is just pretty typical legal posturing before the realities come home to roost, at this point.


  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlet...se-11627579278

    Wasn't this known for a very long time? Several months in fact?

    I guess the lawsuit came a bit after release to see actual numbers from the initial release?
    One of the things that triggered it was Disney revealing streaming numbers for it. That provided clear evidence of lost compensation.

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's going to boil down to some pretty simple questions;

    1> Does her contract stipulate that the film would be given an exclusive run in theaters? (this is what I don't think we know, FWIW, and "there was an understanding" generally doesn't translate to a win unless you've got strong evidence to back that up)
    From what I understand, before they made the decision to split release, they EMailed Disney's Counsel about the potential of the split release, and he sent them an EMail (included in the lawsuit) that if such a decision was made, "obviously" they'd have to re-visit [my note: IE, re-negotiate] compensation because "so much of it [the compensation] is based on box office returns." This is what they've said the EMail says, and they've included the EMail in the lawsuit, though the EMail obviously isn't public yet. I imagine the EMail is couched in more legalese to give it wiggle room, and that'll be where Disney drives a wedge in and claim this wasn't a promise, but a potential outcome of what might happen.

    ScarJo will obviously argue it was a promise and should be upheld.

    Also "there was an understanding" can be held up as a valid contract. Verbal understandings have been held up as contracts, let alone one actually written in an EMail. It all depends on whether the plaintiff relied on it, and if there was any consideration involved (which I think would be the $20m she's been paid based on box office returns). Those aspects seem to be clear enough, the question will be whether the EMail constitutes a valid "promise." In this case, a lawyer from Disney's Counsel office seems like a valid agent to make such promises, on its face, but we'll see.

    Of course, grain of salt, I last did anything contract related on the bar exam a dozen years ago.

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    2> Did her contract stipulate a big part of her total compensation be a portion of the gross from box office? If "yes", then any decision to alter release to cut out/cut down box office revenue can easily be argued as an attempt to limit her compensation against the terms that were understood at signing. I think we already know this to be true, which means I think she's got a solid argument, but the case can be argued either way, if this is all there is.
    The main issue there is that it'd be easy for Disney to show that by delaying the movie twice, they moved to secure a bigger release than they'd have gotten releasing it earlier in the pandemic. So it also comes down to how long should/could they delay it to increase her share.

    If anything comes out to support the first, Disney would lose the case. In the end, it's probably likely they'll work out a settlement; this is just pretty typical legal posturing before the realities come home to roost, at this point.
    Yeah, I'm assuming a settlement, but who knows what the actual contracts might say. It's lawyer work now.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  16. #316
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,872
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Also "there was an understanding" can be held up as a valid contract. Verbal understandings have been held up as contracts, let alone one actually written in an EMail. It all depends on whether the plaintiff relied on it, and if there was any consideration involved (which I think would be the $20m she's been paid based on box office returns). Those aspects seem to be clear enough, the question will be whether the EMail constitutes a valid "promise." In this case, a lawyer from Disney's Counsel office seems like a valid agent to make such promises, on its face, but we'll see.

    Of course, grain of salt, I last did anything contract related on the bar exam a dozen years ago.
    I should clarify; claims that there was an understanding are often not worth a damn. If you can demonstrate such an understanding, that's different. One party to a contract believing one thing when the contract says another is just that party's fault.


  17. #317
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,461
    Unless she was grossly unpaid, she is going to mess things up for lesser known actors. I know Disney is not innocent but they also did what they could considering the circumstances. Johansson isn't the only one who had their movie stunted by the pandemic and yet Disney worked hard to make sure it got the best chance it could get, maintaining a level of hype while fans were writing it off. And let's be honest, it's Solo of Marvel movies. It's okay but was never going to perform that great, just above average.

    Theaters were struggling before the pandemic

    Streaming movies upon release is here to stay. People know they can now weight to see a movie at home and other platforms are fully embracing it. Traditional directors and actors are going to have to swallow that pride and adapt. Take cues from the music industry on how to promote and make money in the digital era.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  18. #318
    I'd say losing $50m out of a potential $70m is "grossly unpaid."

  19. #319
    Settlement will likely end up being that whatever percentage she was promised of Box Office revenue will apply to D+ revenue as well or something comparable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I'd say losing $50m out of a potential $70m is "grossly unpaid."
    I'd agree if we were in the before times. As it stands, Covid fucked up theatrical releases big time and everyone's had to adapt. Disney isn't making as much money off of Black Widow as either. Disney didn't release BW on D+ to fuck her out of her paycheck. They would much rather have released it exclusively in theaters last year but Covid made that impossible.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Settlement will likely end up being that whatever percentage she was promised of Box Office revenue will apply to D+ revenue as well or something comparable.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I'd agree if we were in the before times. As it stands, Covid fucked up theatrical releases big time and everyone's had to adapt. Disney isn't making as much money off of Black Widow as either. Disney didn't release BW on D+ to fuck her out of her paycheck. They would much rather have released it exclusively in theaters last year but Covid made that impossible.
    average theater ticket is about $15 (I'm going with a higher end price here and ignoring matinee) and disney only gets a 55% of it for themselves (from US release, I believe its less from overseas, but don't quote me on it). piracy happens with or without streaming copy available to spread around. meanwhile - renting a movie via disney plus not only requires subscription (but lets assume, no one subscribed for black widow alone and not count it in profits) but a fee of $29.99 and ALL of it goes to Disney since its their own streaming service. so they are actualy making MORE money not less from people streaming through their service vs going into movie theater.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •