Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    Rumors abound that Emma Stone and Emily Blunt may be following suit with their own, er, suits.
    They have time to see how this plays out, but depending on the wording of their contracts I fully support them seeking damages.

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    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.
    Why do you think their origins matter at all? I certainly don't care if they were born rich or not...they are rich now.

    She's a "millionaire Crybaby" right now.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2021-07-30 at 11:39 PM.

  3. #343
    Disney owns so much shit I'd be worried about losing my career if I were her. Hopefully there are enough directors that don't bend the knee that she can still keep working. Probably won't be getting 20+ million dollar deals anymore though. Good that she's calling out Disney's bullshit though.

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Why do you think their origins matter at all? I certainly don't care if they were born rich or not...they are rich now.

    She's a "millionaire Crybaby" right now.
    Again, I don't think asking for fair market value (based on prior performance and what the market pays) is being a crybaby.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Again, I don't think asking for fair market value (based on prior performance and what the market pays) is being a crybaby.
    Crybaby was your term, not mine.

    And once again I will repeat, if exclusive theatrical opening was in her contract...she should be compensated.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Crybaby was your term, not mine.

    And once again I will repeat, if exclusive theatrical opening was in her contract...she should be compensated.
    Then why do you keep saying she’s a crybaby? Right now the allegation is that Disney violated a contract. Their response was, “But Covid!!!” Not really a valid response in this case.

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Then why do you keep saying she’s a crybaby? Right now the allegation is that Disney violated a contract. Their response was, “But Covid!!!” Not really a valid response in this case.
    I just used the term he used. Right here:

    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
    I seem to have to keep repeating this...but I just don't feel a great amount of sympathy because ScarJo might only make $20 million dollars during a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes and their lives because of Covid.

    I've also said I don't really feel bad for Disney if they lose here. If they violated her contract, they should be held accountable. But, in fairness, they did not just say "But Covid" (though yes, that was part of it). They also said this:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/...t-box-n1275420
    "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,” the spokesperson said.
    So, according to that, they may already be giving her a chunk of the Premier Access money.

  8. #348
    This is Disney, even if they lose they will still come out ahead cause of monopoly and incumbency.

    Also gonna say that Black widow was thor 1 and 2 levels of quality. Only the meta jokes were good. Everyone did what they needed to do but suffered from character bloat (mom and dad, and taskmaster was KEKW) and lack of continuity impact (much like how people decry about wow retcons).

    Wish it came sooner so it wouldn’t feel like some daydream scott lang had while locked up after civil war.

  9. #349
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,450
    Imagine getting killed off in Marvel, got her own film (despite her acting skills..) and then crying you didn't get more money. Obnoxious.
    Hi

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I just used the term he used. Right here:



    I seem to have to keep repeating this...but I just don't feel a great amount of sympathy because ScarJo might only make $20 million dollars during a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes and their lives because of Covid.

    I've also said I don't really feel bad for Disney if they lose here. If they violated her contract, they should be held accountable. But, in fairness, they did not just say "But Covid" (though yes, that was part of it). They also said this:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/...t-box-n1275420


    So, according to that, they may already be giving her a chunk of the Premier Access money.
    You keep repeating that she in some way doesn’t have a valid complaint. Not sure why feel the need to both sides this one. Let’s just see what the courts decide. On, as to your bolded section…What you bolded says she’ll get paid more in the future. It in no way implies they cut her off a piece of the digital release.

  11. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You keep repeating that she in some way doesn’t have a valid complaint. Not sure why feel the need to both sides this one. Let’s just see what the courts decide. On, as to your bolded section…What you bolded says she’ll get paid more in the future. It in no way implies they cut her off a piece of the digital release.
    I've never said that her complaint, if true, is not valid. If Disney did indeed break the terms of her contract...she should be compensated. Disney is saying that they did not break the terms of her contract and she is being compensated. Maybe they are lying. Maybe she is.

    I've said I don't really care if the little rich girl doesn't get to buy another yacht this year. I've said that if making a measly $20 million dollars is the worst thing to happen to her because of Covid...she's not doing too badly. She's not going to lose her house. She's not going to lose her job. Her family isn't going to be standing in food lines.

    And no, the bolded does not specifically state that they are giving her a chunk of Premier access revenue. I said that could be what is happening...not that it's what is happening. It does state that additional compensation in connection with Premier Access is coming her way. And, if that's true, than yeah...she might just be acting like a "millionaire crybaby"

  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I've never said that her complaint, if true, is not valid. If Disney did indeed break the terms of her contract...she should be compensated. Disney is saying that they did not break the terms of her contract and she is being compensated. Maybe they are lying. Maybe she is.

    I've said I don't really care if the little rich girl doesn't get to buy another yacht this year. I've said that if making a measly $20 million dollars is the worst thing to happen to her because of Covid...she's not doing too badly. She's not going to lose her house. She's not going to lose her job. Her family isn't going to be standing in food lines.

    And no, the bolded does not specifically state that they are giving her a chunk of Premier access revenue. I said that could be what is happening...not that it's what is happening. It does state that additional compensation in connection with Premier Access is coming her way. And, if that's true, than yeah...she might just be acting like a "millionaire crybaby"
    You said you don’t believe her complaint as of now and she’s just crying. I get you’re trying to play both sides on this, but c’mon.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You said you don’t believe her complaint as of now and she’s just crying. I get you’re trying to play both sides on this, but c’mon.
    I have never said that "I don't believe her complaint". Don't make shit up. I neither believe nor disbelieve. She says one thing, Disney say another. Who's lying? Them? Her? Both? Who cares? End of the day it's millionaires fighting millionaires over who gets the millions and I really don't care who's "right" and who's "wrong". Just because I'm not on her side doesn't mean I'm on Disney's. They can all get fucked for all I care.

    Any other year, I'd probably side with ScarJo here...but Covid fucked the tradtional system of movie releases and everyone is scrambling to find a way to adjust. Is it possible that Disney is using the situation to purposefully undercut her earnings? Sure, wouldn't surprise me at all. But if it weren't for Covid, Black Widow would have been released in theaters last summer and none of this would be happening. So yeah, that's why I think she also looks kinda shitty in this situation. She's complaining about only getting $20 million dollars when the entire industry she works in is suffering. And that's not just the millionaires. That's also the crew that worked on Black Widow... many of whom probably haven't worked since Covid hit because Production came to a screeching halt.

    I have said that, if her allegations are true, she deserves compensation. I've said it repeatedly. I'll say it again. If Disney violated her contract....they owe her compensation. But if she doesn't get another red fucking cent from the movie...you want see me losing sleep over it. If Disney has to shell out millions of dollars to her...I won't lose any sleep over it. All that money they are fighting over would be better served going towards a charity to help out the workers in that industry that aren't already worth 100+ million dollars.

  14. #354
    It baffles me how many people go "don't be ungrateful, you already got millions!" or something in that vein - as if that's an excuse not to honor a contract. It doesn't matter that she got a lot of money, it doesn't matter that she "got her own film", or whatever; none of that has any bearing on the fact that they entered into a contract together, and now one party is alleged not to be fully honoring what they contractually agreed to. Whether or not that is actually the case will be decided as a matter of law, but her suing Disney over breach of contract is EXACTLY what she SHOULD be doing. Star or not, contracts are at the heart of everything in the industry. If you can't rely on contracts, it all falls apart.

    Now, whether or not there really was a breach of contract is a different matter, and likely not something us forum randos can easily decide on. Contract law is complicated, and a lot depends on the exact contents of the contracts, to which we are not privy. But that's a very different issue from whether or not you should sue if you feel the other party is in breach of contract.

  15. #355
    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.
    ::Sigh:: To sue on something like this in American Law requires her to A) prove a breach, b) prove that she materially suffered from the breach. So just proving the breach doesn't win the the big bucks all by itself*. Piracy is a non starter argument and the audience for the most part had the choice of going to a theater or seeing it on Disney+ and paying the extra $30. The latter fact may in fact sink her case. The Disney Plus alternative was 1) not open to the general public, only to D+ subbers, and 2) cost more than the theater. It's hard to see how that amounts to the proof she needs. And of course quality of life arguments (home view vs. trip to the theater for example) won't be allowed.

    *For example. You win and get damages of a $1.00 which is not all that uncommon.

  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by JDL49 View Post
    ::Sigh:: To sue on something like this in American Law requires her to A) prove a breach, b) prove that she materially suffered from the breach. So just proving the breach doesn't win the the big bucks all by itself*. Piracy is a non starter argument and the audience for the most part had the choice of going to a theater or seeing it on Disney+ and paying the extra $30. The latter fact may in fact sink her case. The Disney Plus alternative was 1) not open to the general public, only to D+ subbers, and 2) cost more than the theater. It's hard to see how that amounts to the proof she needs. And of course quality of life arguments (home view vs. trip to the theater for example) won't be allowed.

    *For example. You win and get damages of a $1.00 which is not all that uncommon.
    It comes down to whether she's alleging A) she's not getting a cut of the D+ stream revenue, either at all, or in proportion to what she made on the theatrical release, or B) that putting it on D+ substantively hurt the overall box office returns because of piracy, or even legal methods like many people watching based on one purchase, sharing passwords for D+, etc.

    A) would be easy to prove she's materially suffering because they undercut her box office cut to offer it on D+ without her cut, essentially increasing Disney's cut. This isn't the best outcome for her though, because it's still only a $300m total box office.

    B) is harder to prove because it gets into theatre box office predictions, and arguing about why D+ would hurt their own box office return, which is precisely why her lawsuit discusses how F9 (the latest Fast and the Furious installment, and probably the "other" biggest franchise out there) made $700m in a traditional rollout, compared to BW's 300m PVOD+theatre returns, and why she mentioned how Iger et al are getting bonuses based on D+ subscriber count and the overall health of D+ (and thus would care less about hurting the box office returns on the movie overall). The lawsuit also notes how BW had the highest opening weekend during COVID (higher than F9) but fell dramatically after because the latecomers either didn't watch it, watched it on someone's D+ account, or pirated it at high quality, so there's this question of how much theatre exclusivity "forces" consumers to spend when they might otherwise not. But while B) is harder to prove, it's where she would gain the most, because if you can "prove" this theory, she was materially harmed the most under this breach.

    Personally, I think she has good arguments for B), and that the main cause for concern is whether Disney essentially promised her something that they didn't hold up. They don't owe her a re-negotiation of the contract unless the K specifically has outs for re-negotiation, but if Disney's Counsel Office promised her that if there wasn't an exclusive theatrical rollout, that's a different story.

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by JDL49 View Post
    ::Sigh:: To sue on something like this in American Law requires her to A) prove a breach, b) prove that she materially suffered from the breach. So just proving the breach doesn't win the the big bucks all by itself*. Piracy is a non starter argument and the audience for the most part had the choice of going to a theater or seeing it on Disney+ and paying the extra $30. The latter fact may in fact sink her case. The Disney Plus alternative was 1) not open to the general public, only to D+ subbers, and 2) cost more than the theater. It's hard to see how that amounts to the proof she needs. And of course quality of life arguments (home view vs. trip to the theater for example) won't be allowed.

    *For example. You win and get damages of a $1.00 which is not all that uncommon.
    The Disney+ option is only more expensive if you’re talking single viewer. For a family of 4 it’s significantly cheaper.

  18. #358
    I feel like without literally reading ScarJo's contract with Disney, all of this is just wild conjecture.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    I feel like without literally reading ScarJo's contract with Disney, all of this is just wild conjecture.
    When has that ever stopped us? :P

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    When has that ever stopped us? :P
    touche lol

Posting Permissions

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