Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
LastLast
  1. #361
    It looks bad for Disney specifically cause there a billionaire monolith screwing over a beloved actress. Its especially bad for Disney when there golden goose Kevin Fiege is in the news as being 'angry and embarrased' by her treatment by Disney.

    Rather then getting bad PR it would of been worth it to just cut her a cheque for 20 million.

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The Disney+ option is only more expensive if you’re talking single viewer. For a family of 4 it’s significantly cheaper.
    Since no there is no data on how many viewers there were, one is all they can assume, because one is all they can prove.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by JDL49 View Post
    Since no there is no data on how many viewers there were, one is all they can assume, because one is all they can prove.
    I guess? However it’s not unreasonable to extrapolate more than 1 for accounts with multiple users. Especially if multiple users, you know, watch the movie.
    Last edited by Vegas82; 2021-08-01 at 02:28 PM.

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I guess? However it’s not unreasonable to extrapolate more than 1 for accounts with multiple users. Especially if multiple users, you know, watch the movie.
    You have to prove it to a standard that's almost but not quite, what we use in criminal cases. And since it's the judge who decides that I don't think there is any way that that has a snowballs chance in hell.

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by JDL49 View Post
    You have to prove it to a standard that's almost but not quite, what we use in criminal cases. And since it's the judge who decides that I don't think there is any way that that has a snowballs chance in hell.
    It’s not even remotely close to the same when it comes to civil cases. You just have to prove it’s more likely than not(51% likely). In criminal cases it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    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.
    On (A) Are you arguing that a $30 ticket that requires an accompanying $8 or $9 (I forget what it is these days) sub fee can undercut an $8-$15 ticket cause that dog ain't gonna hunt. And quite frankly in the next few months IMO were are going to find out that too much of the normal audience will not show up. It will be another year, maybe two before whatever the new normal is going to be, sets in. So We'll just disagree on that one for now.

    On (B) part of the F9 comparison is specious since several places have shut down in the interval. Once they compare like to like they are going to look rather similar. The D+ bonus stuff is not an argument that ever sees a courtroom. As I said above proving you are being undercut by something more expensive is not a successful strategy. And if I'm proven right on the almost everybody's B.O. opens decent and then tanks, for the next 2-3 months she's doa on that argument.

    But on the last thing, about Disney's Counsel I agree 100%.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    It’s not even remotely close to the same when it comes to civil cases. You just have to prove it’s more likely than not(51% likely). In criminal cases it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.
    That's the preponderance of the evidence standard and that just doesn't apply. Juries don't interpret the law.

    When you are talking legal contracts the clear and convincing standard would be the one I think would apply. It requires an expert to make the call so barring the use of a magistrate the judge decides if the argument has legal merit. If the court says no then the jury never hears it and must not take it into their decision assuming the case gets that far.


    One argument that could have been made and which I don't remember being discussed is "they shouldn't have opened at all. we would have made more money if they had waited" That one would be interesting.
    Last edited by JDL49; 2021-08-01 at 03:32 PM.

  7. #367
    @JDL49 it’s almost always impossible to prove to a certainty how much money was lost due to actions like Disney’s. So they have experts estimate how much it likely would have been. We haven’t seen a case like this really, but if they go with 1 ticket per digital purchase I’d be shocked.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by Asrialol View Post
    Imagine getting killed off in Marvel, got her own film (despite her acting skills..) and then crying you didn't get more money. Obnoxious.
    I mean, I don't entirely disagree (her acting is shit most of the time and so was the character) but if she had this in her contract she's owed the money, no matter how ridiculous we find it because we think $22 mill should be more than enough - that's not for us to decide.
    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

  9. #369
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    I mean, I don't entirely disagree (her acting is shit most of the time and so was the character) but if she had this in her contract she's owed the money, no matter how ridiculous we find it because we think $22 mill should be more than enough - that's not for us to decide.
    That's pretty much where I'm at.

    If her contract stipulated an exclusive box office release and a chunk of box office revenues, then they owe her something, since the decision to simultaneously release on Disney+ was entirely Disney's choice. They should've worked out an arrangement before releasing.

    Even if it doesn't, it's worth having the lawsuit to set some precedents, honestly.

    It doesn't matter how much money she's already made off it, what matters is the enforcement of contracts. And if you make me get classist, I'm gonna point out that Scarjo's an employee, and the Mouse is a much bigger corporation, so yeah, my leanings are towards employees, even the rich ones.


  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    There's no diversity mantra. I figured out that TM was Antonia well before the reveal. To me she's another Widow, just substantially more dangerous. It works within in the context of the movie. Its not well executed but at least the character has some potential.

    People really need to get over their persona hang ups. The way I see it the personality known as Tony Masters is still unutilized. He's a completely different person than Antonia. This isn't like Deadpool in Wolverine Origins. They took Wade, made us think we were getting the smart ass we like and then just did something stupid with him.
    I honestly has zero investment in Taskmaster as a character (whether the movie or comics), my main issue with the character is that it's almost no different than every other Widow beyond how they look.

    When I referenced the diversity mantra, I mean the 'themes' behind the villain monologue and the messaging at the end. I labeled what I said as a conspiracy theory, because there is no proven facts behind it, but I could see it being done in today's Hollywood. The main issue is that the messaging at the end is a horrid mess and forced, falling apart even more if certain things changed in the story given how things were presented. As an example, if TM was a man, it undercuts their message and scenes at the end, because all the victims have to be girls for their narrative to work. I also figured out immediately that TM was the daughter, but it's because of the one scene that felt completely forced in about the bombing. However, if you take out all the 'forced' scenes and moments, you'll notice that the movies themes and flow are very different from what was presented to us at the end of the film. We know there was at least some extra editing done in the movie's downtime after the movie's potential release, and I think these 'forced' changes were probably it.

    So why do I call it a mantra? Despite being overused to the point of being trite, it's dumb in the context of the film and universe. Logic has to be bent in order to fit the narrative, and that's the problem. Could you craft the story around such themes that works well and doesn't involve convoluted insanity? Absolutely! Does this film do it? Absolutely not. The film's last third reeks of 'message first, entertainment/logic a distant third' when it comes to how it was constructed. I would probably have much less of an issue with the messaging if the story made sense and wasn't as convoluted as it was, but that just exhibits where the focus truly was.

    Personally, I think the entire movie should've had the same feel of the first part of the movie as a grounded spy thriller. You could still have Taskmaster/Alexei and keep some of the themes in such a grounded movie, but it could do without the magical red serum/mind control mechanic, the whole pheromone thing, the villain being over-the-top "women are just commodities" evil white man trope, and the infamous Marvel sludge when it comes to action/CGI (especially since it was very bad compared to what Marvel can put out). While I don't particularly like the Jason Bourne movies (I love the books, I just don't think the movies do them justice), Black Widow could've emulated such a film model with some fantastical elements that would exist in a Marvel universe.

    I suppose another option would have been to just go full camp with the movie and just ditch trying to make the movie a messaging platform. Make it closer to Thor Ragnarok in terms of tone and execution. As a send-off movie, that style isn't bad either, as it lets the characters just have a fun last hurrah.

    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?
    My view on the matter is that this lawsuit would not even have happened if the movie was making money. Even based upon what is known about the Disney+ numbers as inferred by Disney themselves, the movie isn't doing well (especially when you factor in the cuts from theaters and what governments like China tend to take from the sales). It's not like I'm rooting for the movie to do badly, I'm just not surprised considering the product they released and how late it was released.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2021-08-02 at 08:13 PM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  11. #371
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's pretty much where I'm at.

    If her contract stipulated an exclusive box office release and a chunk of box office revenues, then they owe her something, since the decision to simultaneously release on Disney+ was entirely Disney's choice. They should've worked out an arrangement before releasing.

    Even if it doesn't, it's worth having the lawsuit to set some precedents, honestly.

    It doesn't matter how much money she's already made off it, what matters is the enforcement of contracts. And if you make me get classist, I'm gonna point out that Scarjo's an employee, and the Mouse is a much bigger corporation, so yeah, my leanings are towards employees, even the rich ones.
    Well, that's the thing of it though

    She says they violated her contract
    They say they honoured her contract and she's already getting compensation in some form through Disney+ rentals.

    The thing that hangs it up appears to be in the exact terminology. It seems that the contract promised a "wide theatrical release" that ScarJo's people say that both sides understood to mean exclusive theatrical release... but, if a settlement is not reached, it's going to come down to which side can make the more persuasive argument.

    The whole "Disney is richer therefore I'm siding with ScarJo" argument really doesn't sway me at all. It's still a multi-millionaire vs a corporate billionaire. Ain't nobody going hungry on either side. It just comes down to whether or not Disney is honouring the contract.

    One thing that is certain though, no matter which ways it goes, is that actors are going to be a lot more careful regarding the terms of their contracts from here on out. Pay-Per-View Clauses are going to become a standard for big name talent. Also, I imagine any in-demand actor currently in a long term contract with a major studio is already working on re-negotiating the terms of their contracts...if they haven't already done so. Day one home viewing wasn't really a thing until the 'Rona hit...so I don't blame them for not having such clauses in their contracts already... but going forth I do believe that's going to be a standard clause when it comes to backend compensation.

  12. #372
    From my understanding she is getting a cut of box office and premiere access revenue but she wants a cut of the sub fees as well. I echo the sentiment that this is going to come down to whether an exclusive theatrical release is in the contract.

    Feige is reportedly not happy with how Disney has handled this.

    https://www.avclub.com/kevin-feige-r...-di-1847397547

  13. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    When I referenced the diversity mantra, I mean the 'themes' behind the villain monologue and the messaging at the end.
    Except that it’s exactly what the Red Room is. Men who use women to further their own ends. Previously it furthered the ends of the Soviet Union, latter it was just a tool for Dreykov’s megalomania. Everything is just a tool to further that end.

  14. #374
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jotaux View Post
    From my understanding she is getting a cut of box office and premiere access revenue but she wants a cut of the sub fees as well. I echo the sentiment that this is going to come down to whether an exclusive theatrical release is in the contract.

    Feige is reportedly not happy with how Disney has handled this.

    https://www.avclub.com/kevin-feige-r...-di-1847397547
    That article smells funny. He is feigning to much ignorance as a high profile producer.
    I think I'm at wait and see until actual court documents come out because we have a proper conflict between parties are throwing out.

    Scarlet says Disney promised exclusive theatrical release. This checks out ASSUMING the pandemic didn't exist. Disney worked hard to keep interest for the movie high and bounced around release to try to give her the best release considering the times. But If Disney never renegotiated or said anything then they need to pay out - doesnt matter how much goodwill they think they did in her (but realistically their own) favor.

    Disney hasn't show the papers but are alleging they made a deal with Scarlet and have been giving her D+ money. That's a bold lie to make. It would be easier to just give a bigger box office cut and move on.

    I think the truth is in the middle. They made a deal with her that may or may not have been official. They either low balled her then she found out or she now wants more of it/some numbers mad her want to renege on the deal.

    Another thing that is inconsistent/odd that Black Widow isn't the only movie release they've had to alter some with names just as big as Scarlet. Hell the Pixar movies didn't even bring on the premium access or whatever it's called money, they just lumped into the regular service. People involved with the movies seemed content but Disney would suddenly screw over their biggest movie so far during this time period? It's weird.

    That's why I believe Disney know they screwed her over in some way but had a gameplay ready to push for a settlement - something they feel like they can afford while still coming out on top. They are also willing (could be another calculated move) to completely burn a bridge with Scarlet. It's like want to.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    That article smells funny. He is feigning to much ignorance as a high profile producer.
    I think I'm at wait and see until actual court documents come out because we have a proper conflict between parties are throwing out.

    Scarlet says Disney promised exclusive theatrical release. This checks out ASSUMING the pandemic didn't exist. Disney worked hard to keep interest for the movie high and bounced around release to try to give her the best release considering the times. But If Disney never renegotiated or said anything then they need to pay out - doesnt matter how much goodwill they think they did in her (but realistically their own) favor.

    Disney hasn't show the papers but are alleging they made a deal with Scarlet and have been giving her D+ money. That's a bold lie to make. It would be easier to just give a bigger box office cut and move on.

    I think the truth is in the middle. They made a deal with her that may or may not have been official. They either low balled her then she found out or she now wants more of it/some numbers mad her want to renege on the deal.

    Another thing that is inconsistent/odd that Black Widow isn't the only movie release they've had to alter some with names just as big as Scarlet. Hell the Pixar movies didn't even bring on the premium access or whatever it's called money, they just lumped into the regular service. People involved with the movies seemed content but Disney would suddenly screw over their biggest movie so far during this time period? It's weird.

    That's why I believe Disney know they screwed her over in some way but had a gameplay ready to push for a settlement - something they feel like they can afford while still coming out on top. They are also willing (could be another calculated move) to completely burn a bridge with Scarlet. It's like want to.
    If I was a suspicious bastard I'd look into how much Perlmutter had to do with the decision,he's been looking to fuck over Feige since the movies were stripped from his control.

  16. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's pretty much where I'm at.

    If her contract stipulated an exclusive box office release and a chunk of box office revenues, then they owe her something, since the decision to simultaneously release on Disney+ was entirely Disney's choice. They should've worked out an arrangement before releasing.

    Even if it doesn't, it's worth having the lawsuit to set some precedents, honestly.

    It doesn't matter how much money she's already made off it, what matters is the enforcement of contracts. And if you make me get classist, I'm gonna point out that Scarjo's an employee, and the Mouse is a much bigger corporation, so yeah, my leanings are towards employees, even the rich ones.
    Force Majeure will be invoked without a doubt and if successful* the contract language will become moot.

    * I think that, assuming it is established that Disney breached, that the burden of proof to establish that an exclusive theatrical window was not possible without harm to Disney, is on Disney. In other words Force Majeure (covid) can be invoked successfully in general (it already has in other suits) and yet fail when it gets to specifics.
    Last edited by JDL49; 2021-08-04 at 05:09 PM.

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I guess? However it’s not unreasonable to extrapolate more than 1 for accounts with multiple users. Especially if multiple users, you know, watch the movie.
    cheaper for consumer, yes. but for Disney. its at the very least the same amount of profit as a movie theater (or STILL more depending on which tickets are we talking about), because.... its their own network, they do not have to give movie theaters half of their profit.

  18. #378
    Admittedly, Disney probably can't say much if there's an ongoing lawsuit, but this seems to resemble fallout; Disney releasing remainder of 2021 films in theaters only

    The news follows reports that the latest Marvel film, "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings," brought in an estimated $94.7 million in ticket sales at U.S. and Canadian theaters over Labor Day weekend, setting a new record for a September holiday opening weekend, according to Reuters.

    The film was released exclusively in theaters for a 45-day run before it will be added to Disney+, a shift from the simultaneous release of "Black Widow" in theaters and through the streaming platform's Premier Access.

    The dual release prompted a lawsuit from the film's star, Scarlett Johansson, who argued that the move was in violation of her contract, which set her salary based exclusively on the movie's box-office performance.

    Kareem Daniel, chairman of Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution, said in a statement Friday, "Following the tremendous box office success of our summer films which included five of the top eight domestic releases of the year, we are excited to update our theatrical plans for the remainder of 2021."

  19. #379
    Bleh, it was nice having the option to watch at home. No worries.
    Need Roll - 1 for [Bright Pink Imbued Mageweave Banana-Hammock] by Ayirasi

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayirasi View Post
    Bleh, it was nice having the option to watch at home. No worries.
    At least the wait is down to 45 days,used to take several months for movies to reach video when I was a kid in the 80's/90's.

Posting Permissions

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