[Movie] Black Widow

[Endus]

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Svifnymr]

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.

[Endus]

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.

[PACOX]

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.

[eschatological]

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

[Egomaniac]

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 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.

[Witchblade77]

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[PACOX]

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.

[Endus]

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.

[MrLachyG]

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

[Witchblade77]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.

[Trifle]

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?).

[Witchblade77]

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.

[Devilyaki]

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

[Egomaniac]

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

[Witchblade77]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.