BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[media_junkie]

On 7/31/2021 at 2:22 PM, Mephisto said:

I’m more or less indifferent to her and it’s always been that way. It wouldn’t surprise me if the opposite occurs and she has cut off her nose to spite her face. Movie offers dwindle for her and other actors are only offered straight up lump sum payments with no performance bonuses from box office theater or streaming sales.

Depending on how the contract is written she very well could have every reason to sue.  I don't blame her.  However if I was a studio head I'd be leery of working with her from here on out and if I did work with here there would absolutely be no back end built in.  I'll pay you $X dollars to star in this movie.  Take it or leave it.

[Bosco685]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:59 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Says the man who continues to mis-report the production cost of Guardians of the Galaxy 2, not just because you based it on one questionable article, but *also* because you intentionally mis-read the tax credits granted according to that very article. 

TL:DR - production costs are net of tax credits and incentives.

 

Then again, maybe I misread those theater contracts - including the actual one I signed with Disney.

After all, I only got a B+ in Contracts in law school. How'd you do?

You purposely ignore any facts concerning Disney. You know you do.

On 7/24/2021 at 9:29 AM, Bosco685 said:

Unfortunately you're ignoring actual real news that went worldwide.

The Star Wars: The Last Jedi clause (2017 reality check)  was one of the biggest reveals how much studios attempt to strong-arm theaters at times. It was just so harsh in that case the event became very public because theaters reacted so negatively toward Disney's methods. So you dismissing it as a one-time event like only The Last Jedi had something special associated ignore facts.

Just like when I noted Disney forced critics to be more sensitive to speaking of their properties to the point it once again went too far in blocking The Los Angeles Times (2017 additional reality check) and that blew up on the studio, and you dismissed this as a one-time thing. Seeing a pattern? Anyone not wearing blinders would.

Meanwhile, you ask for facts - are presented facts - and then note how you reviewed some theater contracts years ago. Go figure why you don't acknowledge reality with these details.

And you definitely know what took place with GotG. Disney's CEO had to admit to it on the quarterly investor call because the numbers are public.

You do try hard though. I'll give you that. But part of my background was working in both government and civilian procurement negotiating not only technology contracts, but also data center facilities. And far as having to fall back on school history for credibility - are you wearing a big red nose too? As the kids are waiting at the local party for your performance.

[Bosco685]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:07 PM, media_junkie said:

Depending on how the contract is written she very well could have every reason to sue.  I don't blame her.  However if I was a studio head I'd be leery of working with her from here on out and if I did work with here there would absolutely be no back end built in.  I'll pay you $X dollars to star in this movie.  Take it or leave it.

She was already being setup for her next Disney with Tower of Terror as the producer and possibly starring in the film(s).

Scarlett Johansson to Produce New Film Based on Disney's Tower of Terror Ride (June 2021)

Quote

Johansson's project joins a long list of films based on Disney Parks attractions, including the blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean franchise and a soon-to-be-released Jungle Cruise movie starring starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Emily Blunt.

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

My life is remarkably unaffected by this lawsuit, or it's outcome. 

[Bosco685]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:59 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Says the man who continues to mis-report the production cost of Guardians of the Galaxy 2, not just because you based it on one questionable article, but *also* because you intentionally mis-read the tax credits granted according to that very article. 

By they way, you were so in the moment of proving you know things you didn't even get the movie right. Even with Forbes it looked into the first GotG production budget and found out it was far above the initial $170M first assumed.

Disney Reveals Guardians Of The Galaxy Was Over Budget At $232 Million

Quote

The Disney company behind the movie is named Infinity Works Productions after the object at the heart of the film. Last week it released financial statements for the 10 months to 31 August 2014 which show that costs came to $87.4 million bringing the total to $232.3 million. The budget is higher than estimated with Box Office Mojo claiming that it was due to come in at $170 million. It is also higher than Marvel expected as the financial statements say that “the estimated final cost of the motion picture was slightly over the agreed budget.”

How was your high school and college grades on reading comprehension?

[Bosco685]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:23 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

My life is remarkably unaffected by this lawsuit, or it's outcome. 

You may find out otherwise when Disney or other streaming services have to make changes to address what comes out of the lawsuit if it goes to court. Which is why industry analysts are noting this is being closely watched.

Even with the concerns over pay-per-viewing early screenings via streaming leading to piracy, what if (like Grace Randolph noted) they run a water mark on the screen to catch where such recordings are occurring?

[Bosco685]

This was posted earlier. Grace may be batty at times. But with her industry knowledge what drives changes to schedules and distribution, she brings up a really good point.

Critics watching early screenings online have to watch through a watermark so it can be traced back to them if they record it and share the content. This could happen with early pay screenings for consumers due to the impact of piracy on Black Widow. I would not put that past Disney.

[Bosco685]

[Mephisto]

And in related news Gerard Butler has been ordered to pay 200 Million dollars to fans who saw Geostorm in theaters.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Mephisto

[media_junkie]

On 7/31/2021 at 5:57 PM, Mephisto said:

And in related news Gerard Butler has been ordered to pay 200 Million dollars to fans who saw Geostorm in theaters.

At this point I think anyone that goes into a Gerard Butler movie with high hopes only have themselves to blame.

[Bosco685]

Quote

“Something has gone wrong,” said one industry veteran. “I just find it absolutely stunning and amazing that they didn’t resolve this short of her suing. Disney does not want to get in a fight with Scarlett Johansson.”

 

According to the suit, Johansson’s contract guaranteed a “wide theatrical release” for “Black Widow,” meaning the film would be shown on at least 1,500 screens. Johansson’s lawyers argue that everyone understood that to mean an “exclusive” theatrical release, under which “Black Widow” would not be available on other platforms for at least 90 to 120 days.

 

To bolster their argument, the suit includes a 2019 email between the actress’s legal team and Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi, in which the studio attorney promised a traditional theatrical bow “like our other pictures,” while adding “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”

 

[chezmtghut]

On 7/31/2021 at 2:20 PM, drotto said:

Another thought......

 

Does SJ see the writing on the wall?  Is she acknowledging that her chance and possibly any actors chance of making 20 million plus per film may be gone.  She is trying to take one last giant fist full of cash from the pile, before the pile shrinks forever. 

 

Emma Stone and Emily Blunt same thing.  Get that cash now, because nobody, no matter how big will be seeing $20 million anytime soon.  If that time comes again, the prime of their careers will likely have passed.

 

The day of the movie star is passing, and right behind it are the massive paydays for a select few were able to get. New contracts will be for far less money, and structured with the new streaming reality in mind.  For good measure, movie companies will start adding much more restrictive cluases. 

 

 

I'd say she's ensuring that contracts will be structured differently, as no studio wants a lawsuit or bad publicity on their hands. Without streaming revenue, Disney may have held back production on many projects. This will set a precedence that hurts both the studios & actors.

Disney would have preferred a BW theatrical run, as they're the ones that really lost revenue by streaming it. The articles I read make it out like Disney purposely tried to keep the box office low to avoid paying her bonus. I remember everyone complaining about them not wanting to stream it a while back, since WB decided to release everything on HBO Max simultaneously. I'm sure Disney would have made much more in theaters & still got plenty of subscribers/streamers at the 6 week mark. There's still no guarantee it would have made her bonus threshold in this pandemic though, especially without China. The only guarantee is that Disney would have made more, so I don't see the release as something malicious against any actors, but a way to appease the fans.

[chezmtghut]

On 7/31/2021 at 8:09 PM, Bosco685 said:

“Something has gone wrong,” said one industry veteran. “I just find it absolutely stunning and amazing that they didn’t resolve this short of her suing. Disney does not want to get in a fight with Scarlett Johansson.”

 

According to the suit, Johansson’s contract guaranteed a “wide theatrical release” for “Black Widow,” meaning the film would be shown on at least 1,500 screens. Johansson’s lawyers argue that everyone understood that to mean an “exclusive” theatrical release, under which “Black Widow” would not be available on other platforms for at least 90 to 120 days.

 

To bolster their argument, the suit includes a 2019 email between the actress’s legal team and Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi, in which the studio attorney promised a traditional theatrical bow “like our other pictures,” while adding “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”

The wording there is vague & can be interpreted in many ways. There should have been a private discussion before it was released though rather than an open discussion after the fact. Maybe this is a publicity move to cap salaries?

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:29 PM, Bosco685 said:

You may find out otherwise when Disney or other streaming services have to make changes to address what comes out of the lawsuit if it goes to court. Which is why industry analysts are noting this is being closely watched.

Even with the concerns over pay-per-viewing early screenings via streaming leading to piracy, what if (like Grace Randolph noted) they run a water mark on the screen to catch where such recordings are occurring?

If there was not another movie or show made, I'm good. I rarely watch anything. Drives my friends nuts.

[Mephisto]

On 7/30/2021 at 5:36 PM, Xenosmilus said:

I'm assume Disney has force majeure in their defense. I'm not a lawyer but it would seem to apply over the past year. Any Lawyers please speak up!

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/commercial-business/boilerplate-contracts/force-majeure-clauses-contracts-covid-19/

I'm reading this currently so I'm not sure it applies LOL

Coincidentally, my wife finally commented on this from a legal standpoint tonight when her friend from college was visiting. Granted she has not read any of the contract and the alcohol was flowing but she specially noted most contracts have force majeure written in them. Since Covid has already been deemed an act of God so many times in the last 12 plus months Scarlet Johansson will likely have to go pound sand on this one. 👋 🍆 💦 

[Bosco685]

It is interesting to read on social media how many are offended Scarlett Johansson even considered receiving her backend bonus money from Disney. As if the corporation gobbling up more for itself while disregarding adjustments to the release agreement is justified.

It is nutty to see people so fanatical over a company brand because they assume it really is Mickey and Donald running the show, they will do or say anything. Or ignore corporate inappropriate behavior where possible.

[media_junkie]

On 8/1/2021 at 6:21 AM, Bosco685 said:

It is interesting to read on social media how many are offended Scarlett Johansson even considered receiving her backend bonus money from Disney. As if the corporation gobbling up more for itself while disregarding adjustments to the release agreement is justified.

Yeah, I don't get that.  If the House of Mouse breached what was written in her contract then they should be taken to task for it.  However this should have all been taken care of before it hits the "court of public opinion".  It makes both parties look bad.

[Cat]

On 8/1/2021 at 9:20 PM, media_junkie said:

Yeah, I don't get that.  If the House of Mouse breached what was written in her contract then they should be taken to task for it.  However this should have all been taken care of before it hits the "court of public opinion".  It makes both parties look bad.

I've seen more than a few people squarely on Disney's side, shockingly. I don't know what they're thinking. 

[Bosco685]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:20 AM, media_junkie said:

Yeah, I don't get that.  If the House of Mouse breached what was written in her contract then they should be taken to task for it.  However this should have all been taken care of before it hits the "court of public opinion".  It makes both parties look bad.

Agreed. Though what was said beforehand may have led to the situation.

Scarlett: I'll get my money you promised, right Mickey?

Mickey: Oh, you'll get what's coming to you. Bwhahhhhhhhhh...

On 8/1/2021 at 7:41 AM, Mecha_Fantastic said:

I've seen more than a few people squarely on Disney's side, shockingly. I don't know what they're thinking. 

To include research legal clauses to defend Disney

[fantastic_four]

On 7/30/2021 at 6:17 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Don't forget Emily Blunt. She's queued up and ready to go, pending the results (or lack thereof) of Jungle Cruise this weekend.

Blunt and her husband Krasinski already went down this road with Paramount when "A Quiet Place II" had its theatrical release window shortened.

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/emily-blunt-john-krasinski-money-paramount-quiet-place-2-1234635899/

Big stars have been regularly sharing box office profits for decades so this is an issue for pretty much any blockbuster released within the last year.  ScarJo is the first one I've heard of taking it to court.

What I don't get is the $50 million she's asking for.  Seems high!