Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    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.
    The problem is she was promised an exclusive theatre release, and then didn't get it. I don't think she's arguing for an extra $50m based on a billion dollar box office based on the before-times, but for what a reasonable box office would be in this current situation. IE, she made $20m off the $216m box office returns, she seems to be basing the $70m on a $700m return, which is what F9 will get on a traditional theatrical release.

    IE, there's figures out there to show she would have made much more money on a traditional "exclusive" theatre release, and if she was promised that, she's owed that.

  2. #322
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    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.
    Eh not really. A ticket is $15 per person. That's $45 if you take a family of 4 (or go with 3 other friends). $15 every time someone wants to see a movie. $30 let's an x amount of people watch it as many as they want
    Disney only gets that $30 one time. They are lowering potential earnings by a lot for a much lower guaranteed number. Actors not stuck in the 2000s negotiate streaming deals up front.

    An aside. I've seen the argument (not here) that streaming leads to piracy so Disney screwed her over. The streaming drives piracy theory had been debunked years ago. People who are going to pirate will either do so or skip the money. They are not part of the equation when it comes to potential numbers.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  3. #323
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    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.
    The pandemic is not going to be particularly relevant. If she were promised an exclusive box office release and a percentage of the gross of said release (to justify her expected $50 million estimate, I assume that's what it was), then Disney fucked up; they're in breach. That doesn't mean they need to pay her $50 million, but it likely means they'll have to offer her something from the streaming proceeds as a settlement offer.

    Contracts don't care about pandemics. They care about their terms. If they wanted to adjust the release schedule, they should've worked this out with Johannsen (and anyone similarly affected contractually) before they made the unilateral decision.

    It isn't that some agreement shouldn't be come to. It's that Disney used it as an excuse to cut off what looks like a good ~70% of her compensation unilaterally, as if they had the clear right to do so.

    Think of it in another contractual situation; say you agree to split a lottery ticket's winnings with a waitress as a tip. And then you win the jackpot. And then you spend all the money on booze, gambling, and hookers, because how would she ever find out? And then she does, because of course she does. She wants her half.

    I guarantee you lose that case and have to pay her. There's at least one case I can think of where such a thing was laid out. That you don't have the money to pay her isn't her problem to figure out; it's yours. You'll lose your house over this, and you'll deserve it. The terms of the contract are the terms of the contract, and it doesn't matter if it's inconvenient to you after the fact because circumstances changed.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-07-30 at 02:38 AM.


  4. #324
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    The problem is she was promised an exclusive theatre release, and then didn't get it. I don't think she's arguing for an extra $50m based on a billion dollar box office based on the before-times, but for what a reasonable box office would be in this current situation. IE, she made $20m off the $216m box office returns, she seems to be basing the $70m on a $700m return, which is what F9 will get on a traditional theatrical release.

    IE, there's figures out there to show she would have made much more money on a traditional "exclusive" theatre release, and if she was promised that, she's owed that.
    currently it's sitting on just over $300m which is low for a Marvel movie... but that's box office only

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Eh not really. A ticket is $15 per person. That's $45 if you take a family of 4 (or go with 3 other friends). $15 every time someone wants to see a movie. $30 let's an x amount of people watch it as many as they want
    Disney only gets that $30 one time. They are lowering potential earnings by a lot for a much lower guaranteed number. Actors not stuck in the 2000s negotiate streaming deals up front.

    An aside. I've seen the argument (not here) that streaming leads to piracy so Disney screwed her over. The streaming drives piracy theory had been debunked years ago. People who are going to pirate will either do so or skip the money. They are not part of the equation when it comes to potential numbers.
    1. I specifically said that piracy is a non argument and as far as i know, that is not what is being discussed. as for taking the whole family for $45? that's HALF that in Disney's pocket so STILL less then streaming. moreover, how many people go to a movie theater more then once anyways? I'd say not that many. so like piracy, its a non argument. streaming is better for Disney. they are NOT losing money.

    and moreover, think about it this way... that $29.99? that is a cost of a ticket. and her contract is to get part of the profit from the cost of the ticket. Disney is weaseling out of paying her properly, because they are trying to claim that its not the same thing. but in the end? yeah, it kinda is. and even if Disney is making less money from streaming purchases vs physical tickets? she is STILL entitled to the profit from digital ticket purchases. not just physical one. it would be less of a profit (according to you) than if people went to a movie theater, but percentage of ticket sales is percentage of ticket sales.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The pandemic is not going to be particularly relevant. If she were promised an exclusive box office release and a percentage of the gross of said release (to justify her expected $50 million estimate, I assume that's what it was), then Disney fucked up; they're in breach. That doesn't mean they need to pay her $50 million, but it likely means they'll have to offer her something from the streaming proceeds as a settlement offer.

    Contracts don't care about pandemics. They care about their terms. If they wanted to adjust the release schedule, they should've worked this out with Johannsen (and anyone similarly affected contractually) before they made the unilateral decision.

    It isn't that some agreement shouldn't be come to. It's that Disney used it as an excuse to cut off what looks like a good ~70% of her compensation unilaterally, as if they had the clear right to do so.

    Think of it in another contractual situation; say you agree to split a lottery ticket's winnings with a waitress as a tip. And then you win the jackpot. And then you spend all the money on booze, gambling, and hookers, because how would she ever find out? And then she does, because of course she does. She wants her half.

    I guarantee you lose that case and have to pay her. There's at least one case I can think of where such a thing was laid out. That you don't have the money to pay her isn't her problem to figure out; it's yours. You'll lose your house over this, and you'll deserve it. The terms of the contract are the terms of the contract, and it doesn't matter if it's inconvenient to you after the fact because circumstances changed.
    As I said, the settlement will likely include revenue from the D+ rentals. I do agree, if she was promised an exclusive thatrical window, she is owed compensation.

    I was speaking of the rhetoric being spouted about Disney fucking her out of her Pay Day. Were it not for Covid, Black Widow would have been released in theaters a year ago. They never planned on putting theatrical releases on D+ on day one. If it had been released last year as intended... ScarJo would have collected 100% of the nothing that would have been owed to her.

    But i will repeat what i said earlier. This is a case of Millionaires vs Billionaires. Win or Lose, ScarJo is a multimillionaire and will continue to be. If She doesn't get her extra $50 million on top of the $20 she's already received...I won't be losing any sleep. Nor will i lose any if Disney has to pay it all out to her. None of them are going to be going hungry at the end of the day. Wish I could say the same thing for everyone who had their careers affected by Covid.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Unless she was grossly unpaid, she is going to mess things up for lesser known actors.
    How so ?

    Take cues from the music industry on how to promote and make money in the digital era.
    Yes the music industry, famous for streaming revenues being fairly distributed to the artists (do I even need to tag this as sarcasm?).

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    As I said, the settlement will likely include revenue from the D+ rentals. I do agree, if she was promised an exclusive thatrical window, she is owed compensation.

    I was speaking of the rhetoric being spouted about Disney fucking her out of her Pay Day. Were it not for Covid, Black Widow would have been released in theaters a year ago. They never planned on putting theatrical releases on D+ on day one. If it had been released last year as intended... ScarJo would have collected 100% of the nothing that would have been owed to her.

    But i will repeat what i said earlier. This is a case of Millionaires vs Billionaires. Win or Lose, ScarJo is a multimillionaire and will continue to be. If She doesn't get her extra $50 million on top of the $20 she's already received...I won't be losing any sleep. Nor will i lose any if Disney has to pay it all out to her. None of them are going to be going hungry at the end of the day. Wish I could say the same thing for everyone who had their careers affected by Covid.
    the thing is, if they could get away with doing this to her, they would definitely pull that crap on people who do not have her resources to fight them. smaller actors, younger actors, various members of the crew, etc. because it only takes one case to set a precedent. so while she is not exactly going to be poor one way or another, the very people you are talking about who had their careers also affected by Covid, but are not famous actors. you know all the behind the scenes crew people? if their contracts in any way involve percentages of theatrical profit (which they often do?) they are going to feel that loss a lot more painfully. so it is important NOT to set this precedent.

  9. #329
    It wasn’t that good of a movie. Flying spy Harvey Weinstein was a boring villain. Only the Russian Captain America was any good.

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    the thing is, if they could get away with doing this to her, they would definitely pull that crap on people who do not have her resources to fight them. smaller actors, younger actors, various members of the crew, etc. because it only takes one case to set a precedent. so while she is not exactly going to be poor one way or another, the very people you are talking about who had their careers also affected by Covid, but are not famous actors. you know all the behind the scenes crew people? if their contracts in any way involve percentages of theatrical profit (which they often do?) they are going to feel that loss a lot more painfully. so it is important NOT to set this precedent.
    I feel like you people keep on missing that I have said she deserves compensation if such a deal was made.

    I'm just also saying that I don't feel a lot of sympathy when one millionaire doesn't get to buy herself a new yacht because a global pandemic threw the entire world into chaos. Like, if the worst thing that happened to you in this period is that you only made 20 million dollars instead of $70...your life could be worse

  11. #331
    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.
    I doubt actors will distance themselves from Disney cause of this. The company is steadily buying everything now, lol.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I feel like you people keep on missing that I have said she deserves compensation if such a deal was made.

    I'm just also saying that I don't feel a lot of sympathy when one millionaire doesn't get to buy herself a new yacht because a global pandemic threw the entire world into chaos. Like, if the worst thing that happened to you in this period is that you only made 20 million dollars instead of $70...your life could be worse
    ah, but I think you might also be assuming that a lot of us are coming from a place of sympathy for Scarlet, rather then from a place of disgust with Disney. at least for me its the second. Scarlet doesn't need my or any random stranger on the internet sympathy. and even if/when I felt sympathy, it wouldn't be over money, it would be over something like personal loss, or the way reporters treated her through the marvel run vs her male costars, etc.

    this right here? is about Disney being extra dickish and trying to get away with it. at least for me.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    ah, but I think you might also be assuming that a lot of us are coming from a place of sympathy for Scarlet, rather then from a place of disgust with Disney. at least for me its the second. Scarlet doesn't need my or any random stranger on the internet sympathy. and even if/when I felt sympathy, it wouldn't be over money, it would be over something like personal loss, or the way reporters treated her through the marvel run vs her male costars, etc.

    this right here? is about Disney being extra dickish and trying to get away with it. at least for me.
    Once Again...Millionaires vs Billionaires. No dog in that fight. As far as "victims" of the Pandemic go...Neither ScarJo nor Disney are having the worst time. Disney lost money having to hold back the release of plenty of movies last year, not just Black Widow....so their revenue is down a bit. ScarJo is only making an extra $20 Million on top of what she was already paid for Black Widow rather than $70 million. I don't expect to see any of them standing in food lines though.

    And once again, It's the pandemic that caused Disney to put Black Widow on Disney+. Without the Pandemic...this wouldn't even be an issue. The movie would have been released last summer. Should they compensate her? Sure, and I'm sure that they will in the settlement. But they aren't being "extra dickish" . They are adapting to the current situation. They should re-negotiate all the contracts with people that receive part of their compensation through Box Office earnings...but they didn't cause the pandemic that is forcing all these studios to re-evaluate their releases.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Once Again...Millionaires vs Billionaires. No dog in that fight. As far as "victims" of the Pandemic go...Neither ScarJo nor Disney are having the worst time. Disney lost money having to hold back the release of plenty of movies last year, not just Black Widow....so their revenue is down a bit. ScarJo is only making an extra $20 Million on top of what she was already paid for Black Widow rather than $70 million. I don't expect to see any of them standing in food lines though.

    And once again, It's the pandemic that caused Disney to put Black Widow on Disney+. Without the Pandemic...this wouldn't even be an issue. The movie would have been released last summer. Should they compensate her? Sure, and I'm sure that they will in the settlement. But they aren't being "extra dickish" . They are adapting to the current situation. They should re-negotiate all the contracts with people that receive part of their compensation through Box Office earnings...but they didn't cause the pandemic that is forcing all these studios to re-evaluate their releases.
    The main contention is that she was guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release. Outside factors may have forced Disney to violate that clause, but if it’s in her contract then they’re liable. If they wanted to release it on digital to keep the MCU rolling then they needed to renegotiate.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The main contention is that she was guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release. Outside factors may have forced Disney to violate that clause, but if it’s in her contract then they’re liable. If they wanted to release it on digital to keep the MCU rolling then they needed to renegotiate.
    And I have repeated, time and time again, that she should be compensated for that.

    It's right there in what you quoted me saying.

    Should they compensate her? Sure, and I'm sure that they will in the settlement.

  16. #336
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,452
    Alright if they first said there would be an exclusive theater release and didn't negotiate with her, yeah she has a fight. I believe Disney will knew it was coming, did the math, and will come up top regardless. Argue that the pandemic was uncontrollable outside influence that changed the terms of the contract - doesn't absolve them of guilt but gives them leverage when it comes to a settlement.

    If I was Scarlet, I would go after the money. As a consumer, movie goer, someone who had to make huge adjustments and sacrifice due to the pandemic which I won't be compensated for, I could not care less. It appears whiny when so many people have had to make sacrifices but Disney definitely took advantage of the the situation. I know a lot of people, rich and poor, had to take advantage of situations during all of this. Again, Disney is wrong, but I get it. I can't shake a rich person complaining about not being richer but I get Scarlet's challenge. Disney can be allowed to just do what it/they did, mostly in normal circumstances which be relevant in the future.

    Going forward, the industry is going have to from putting so much stock into theatrical releases. I've seen a lot of whining from the industry about theaters being closed and having to delay release of settle for alternative releases when the reason why theaters were/are closed outweighs their movie. It's not even that their movie can't be released and that they can't make money, they can't milk it themselves.

    Really hard to car if not for certain key underlying principles.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  17. #337
    Rumors abound that Emma Stone and Emily Blunt may be following suit with their own, er, suits.

  18. #338
    I have heard some awful tales of woe people had to endure with this pandemic but this must be the most tragic. She only made 20 million instead of 50 million? Anyone got a link to her Gofundme?

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Alright if they first said there would be an exclusive theater release and didn't negotiate with her, yeah she has a fight. I believe Disney will knew it was coming, did the math, and will come up top regardless. Argue that the pandemic was uncontrollable outside influence that changed the terms of the contract - doesn't absolve them of guilt but gives them leverage when it comes to a settlement.

    If I was Scarlet, I would go after the money. As a consumer, movie goer, someone who had to make huge adjustments and sacrifice due to the pandemic which I won't be compensated for, I could not care less. It appears whiny when so many people have had to make sacrifices but Disney definitely took advantage of the the situation. I know a lot of people, rich and poor, had to take advantage of situations during all of this. Again, Disney is wrong, but I get it. I can't shake a rich person complaining about not being richer but I get Scarlet's challenge. Disney can be allowed to just do what it/they did, mostly in normal circumstances which be relevant in the future.

    Going forward, the industry is going have to from putting so much stock into theatrical releases. I've seen a lot of whining from the industry about theaters being closed and having to delay release of settle for alternative releases when the reason why theaters were/are closed outweighs their movie. It's not even that their movie can't be released and that they can't make money, they can't milk it themselves.
    The issue of whether or not the word "exclusive" is in the contract regarding the theatrical release is still a thing though. The email that ScarJo's team has been using to bolster their case actually uses the term "Wide Theatrical Release" and not "Exclusive Theatrical Release". If the Contract stipulates the former, Disney owes ScarJo nothing, if it stipulates the latter, ScarJo's case is valid and she deserves appropriate compensation.

    I am in entire agreement about the "Rich person complaining about not being richer" though. And it applies to both sides in this little issue. One side may be "more right" than the other...but this entire thing is about greed on both sides. Whichever side "wins" it isn't going to change anything for the crew that worked on the movie that were probably more impacted by covid than any of the millionaires involved in this legal dispute.

    That's not to say that Disney should be allowed to get away with breaking a contract, if that is indeed what happened here. It's very possible that the outcome of this case could establish a new dynamic regarding "backend" compensation in regards to movies. So it's important it gets handled properly.

    I believe future contracts will be written to include Streaming revenue as well as Box Office.

    Were I ScarJo in this situation, I would probably do the same as her...although I would also pledge to donate the amount she receives to a charity organization of some kind. It would serve her in multiple ways:

    1) Put the issue itself at the forefont, rather than the money.
    2) Give her a moral high-ground. She'd be fighting for a principle and any money awarded would be going to a good cause.
    3) Deny Disney the ability to brand her as a greedy opportunist in the way there are doing now.

  20. #340
    Y'all act like actors are silver spoon rich folks. Most of them come from middle class backgrounds. Meryl Streep is notorioriously well off from birth, but other than that, most of the actors I can think of have been middle class. ScarJo went to public school....in NYC, and the daughter of an architect, so not exactly hoofing it, but she's not been some millionaire crybaby her whole life. It's not her fault we value her to the point she gets paid $70m for a singular movie. That's market capitalism, baby. She's been a titular character in the biggest grossing franchise in movie history.

    RDJ: alright, yeah, he was the son of actors
    Chris Evans: son of a dentist, from Sudbury Mass (which means something if you're from the Boston area).
    Hemsworth: son of an English teacher a social worker
    Mark Ruffalo: son of a hair dresser and a construction worker
    Jeremy Renner: son of a bowling alley manager

    Did I miss any of the important Avengers? Don't think so. It's why movie celebrities seem somewhat relatable at times, because they're new money - whereas cartoonishly evil rich folks (the Trumps, Hiltons, etc) are all generational.

Posting Permissions

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