[Movie] Black Widow

[Egomaniac]

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.

[PACOX]

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.

[tyrlaan]

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

[Deadite]

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?

[Egomaniac]

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.

[qwerty123456]

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.

[Couchpotato2013]

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.

[Asrialol]

Imagine getting killed off in Marvel, got her own film (despite her acting skills..) and then crying you didn't get more money. Obnoxious.

[Egomaniac]

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"

[Egomaniac]

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.

[Biomega]

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.

[JDL49]

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.

[eschatological]

::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.

[tyrlaan]

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

[Egomaniac]

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