BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:25 PM, chezmtghut said:

Her lawsuit could have simply claimed that Disney broke their contract by distributing the film via streaming simultaneously without adding that they brought in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. She made them sound greedy, hiding gross revenue to prevent her from getting her bonus, which I don't agree with. We haven't seen her contract, so I can't say if her lawsuit is completely baseless, but I simply don't agree that they're trying to hide revenue to avoid paying her bonus. I agree that there would have been a higher gross without streaming simultaneously, but I don't agree that it was done to increase Disney+ subscriptions & avoid paying her more money, which seems to be part of the claim. How would you have responded to that claim in Disney's position? I see you have no trouble mounting a harsh defense in these forums. Disney could have simply said that they complied with the contract that she signed, but felt like hitting back in response to her allegations. Should they not have brought up the pandemic when it's the very reason this is even an issue? Otherwise the film would have been out last year & streamed after several months in theaters.

What is the purpose of the hybrid release, though? You guessed it; Bring in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. Which, if you're under contract to receive a payout based on theatrical performance, seems like circumventing the contract to reap rewards with limited financial distributions.

[D84]

Anyone else notice the legal battle is more interesting than the movie?

[chezmtghut]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:45 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

What is the purpose of the hybrid release, though? You guessed it; Bring in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. Which, if you're under contract to receive a payout based on theatrical performance, seems like circumventing the contract to reap rewards with limited financial distributions.

There's actually no point in my opinion because the subscriptions & streaming fees don't bring more funds than theaters would have. They didn't want to stream simultaneously but felt there was little choice due to the pandemic & regular lock downs. They were against this idea until very recently, as it would have likely meant adjusting the release schedule again.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:31 PM, chezmtghut said:

There's actually no point in my opinion because the subscriptions & streaming fees don't bring more funds than theaters would have...

But they do reduce the theatrical earnings that would impact the deal between Disney and ScarJo.

[Bosco685]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:25 PM, chezmtghut said:

Her lawsuit could have simply claimed that Disney broke their contract by distributing the film via streaming simultaneously without adding that they brought in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. She made them sound greedy, hiding gross revenue to prevent her from getting her bonus, which I don't agree with. We haven't seen her contract, so I can't say if her lawsuit is completely baseless, but I simply don't agree that they're trying to hide revenue to avoid paying her bonus. I agree that there would have been a higher gross without streaming simultaneously, but I don't agree that it was done to increase Disney+ subscriptions & avoid paying her more money, which seems to be part of the claim. How would you have responded to that claim in Disney's position? I see you have no trouble mounting a harsh defense in these forums. Disney could have simply said that they complied with the contract that she signed, but felt like hitting back in response to her allegations. Should they not have brought up the pandemic when it's the very reason this is even an issue? Otherwise the film would have been out last year & streamed after several months in theaters.

Just stepping back like a logical grownup in this situation, I would assume before this even went to press (including a lawsuit) there were behind-the-scenes discussions.

I can't see anyone with a pending Disney's Tower of Terror franchise as the producer thinking, "Oh screw it - I'll just lob a grenade into that arrangement and destroy my relationship with the studio!"

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

Did you assume out of the blue Scarlett Johansson did this with no initial Disney discussions?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Bosco685
included Tower of Terror details

[Bosco685]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:02 PM, D84 said:

Anyone else notice the legal battle is more interesting than the movie?

[csaag]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:45 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

What is the purpose of the hybrid release, though? You guessed it; Bring in funds via Disney+ subscriptions & streaming fees. Which, if you're under contract to receive a payout based on theatrical performance, seems like circumventing the contract to reap rewards with limited financial distributions.

bringing in funds & subscriptions to Disney+ also helps the stock price which curr reacts strongly to Disney+ subscriber info. Dot he executives who make decisions about how to release movies have some type of bonus tied to the stock price?

[Bosco685]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:33 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

But they do reduce the theatrical earnings that would impact the deal between Disney and ScarJo.

They do. Which is why the industry is watching this situation to see if it will change the future of Hollywood due to the massive growth of streaming platforms.

Along with the pandemic getting more and more people used to being entertained at home without a threat of outside disease or even fatal infection.

[chezmtghut]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:33 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

But they do reduce the theatrical earnings that would impact the deal between Disney and ScarJo.

Definitely & I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying it doesn't benefit Disney more than what a theatrical release alone would bring them. My position is that funds contributing towards a film during it's theatrical release, should count towards the total theatrical gross.

 

On 8/3/2021 at 2:49 PM, Bosco685 said:

Just stepping back like a logical grownup in this situation, I would assume before this even went to press (including a lawsuit) there were behind-the-scenes discussions.

I can't see anyone with a pending Disney's Tower of Terror franchise as the producer thinking, "Oh screw it - I'll just lob a grenade into that arrangement and destroy my relationship with the studio!"

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

Did you assume out of the blue Scarlett Johansson did this with no initial Disney discussions?

So from Disney's perspective you would step back & make no comment? Alright & maybe that would have been best. Just let the lawyers handle it in court. Whatever discussion there was, I still think insulting Disney publicly rather than keeping things quite through court proceeding resulted in this response.

Edited August 3, 2021 by chezmtghut

[Bosco685]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:54 PM, chezmtghut said:

So from Disney's perspective you would step back & make no comment? Alright & maybe that would have been best. Just let the lawyers handle it in court. Whatever discussion there was, I still think insulting Disney publicly rather than keeping things quite through court proceeding resulted in this response.

Being the more cool and responsible party in this situation only benefits Disney. The way it came out of the gate, it is clear behind the scenes they had discussions that did not go well. Disney was far from surprised at this situation. Especially with that salary and streaming backend comment included in the statement. That was thought out in advance.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:54 PM, chezmtghut said:

Definitely & I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying it doesn't benefit Disney more than what a theatrical release alone would bring them. My position is that funds contributing towards a film during it's theatrical release, should count towards the total theatrical gross.

That's speculation and immaterial. The lawsuit is about how the hybrid release affects Disney's fiscal obligations to Scarlet Johansson based on their contract for Black Widow.

[Bosco685]

Quote

Let’s set aside for a moment the question of whether Scarlett Johansson has a legal leg to stand on in her fight with Disney over her compensation for Black Widow. Let’s even say she doesn’t, and that she is — as Disney has publicly contended — greedy and indifferent to the horrors of the pandemic.

 

It doesn’t matter.

 

Because even if all that were true, industry insiders agree, attacking Johansson so personally was a pretty spectacular unforced error. And many observers are laying that at the feet of CEO Bob Chapek (with an assist from reflexively vindictive top communications officer Zenia Mucha and with approval from the lawyers).

 

The person who isn’t getting the blame? Outgoing chairman Bob Iger. “Somebody’s playing it like an amateur,” says one former Disney executive. “Iger’s no amateur.” A top executive at a rival studio agrees, adding that the whole confrontation seems ill-advised and avoidable. “It’s insane to me — insane,” he says. “Do you think on Bob Iger’s watch he would ever have allowed a piece of talent to sue them?” (This executive notes that it’s possible to settle such disputes by finding creative ways to pay stars without setting undesirable compensation precedents).

 

A Disney insider says that blame for the statement is being placed unfairly at Chapek’s feet and “this was not a unilateral decision nor an edict” from him. (It is difficult, however, to discern who, if anyone, on the studio side was informed in advance).

 

Disney’s posture is being read in Hollywood as Chapek signaling his indifference to star talent. But however indifferent he may be, there is the one star Chapek and Disney absolutely, unequivocally need: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, who is known to be very unhappy with the studio’s attack on one of his superheroes.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Bosco685

[HighVoltage]

"But however indifferent he may be, there is the one star Chapek and Disney absolutely, unequivocally need: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, who is known to be very unhappy with the studio’s attack on one of his superheroes."

There it is.
We've seen how DC has sailed around rather aimlessly with their films.
I don't think Disney/Marvel want to lose their captain over something like this.

[Bosco685]

On 8/4/2021 at 10:40 AM, HighVoltage said:

"But however indifferent he may be, there is the one star Chapek and Disney absolutely, unequivocally need: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, who is known to be very unhappy with the studio’s attack on one of his superheroes."

There it is.
We've seen how DC has sailed around rather aimlessly with their films.
I don't think Disney/Marvel want to lose their captain over something like this.

And where Feige developed a very strong positive relationship with Iger, this is starting to show a big division with the new CEO's approach to talent management.

So no matter how much some want to blame Scarlett Johansson for this situation, this is becoming more impactful to the Disney brand and leadership structure.

[HighVoltage]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:44 AM, Bosco685 said:

And where Feige developed a very strong positive relationship with Iger, this is starting to show a big division with the new CEO's approach to talent management.

So no matter how much some want to blame Scarlett Johansson for this situation, this is becoming more impactful to the Disney brand and leadership structure.

I have some friends in the tv industry, and they are not 'talent.'
They know they are not 'talent,' but they also know they are needed to make the show(s) happen.
But... if you ain't got that talent on your show, it's a lot harder to get eyes/viewers looking at your show. We viewers do like the 'shiny'.
You definitely don't want to alienate stars.

I don't know - maybe the newer Disney hierarchy believes they will be just fine & can crank out talent like in the old way-back days?

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully it gets resolved with an amicable agreement where both sides decline to talk about it & they move forward in a positive way.

[Bosco685]

Insiders Weigh In On Scarlett Johansson’s Lawsuit And Why Disney Allegedly Made The Black Widow Streaming Decision It Did

Quote

It’s a sticky situation for almost everyone involved, even audience members. And experts speaking to The Wrap on the condition of anonymity admitted that they were shocked to see the details of this case go public. But one agent who assessed the ramifications of the lawsuit suggested that Disney chose to put Black Widow on Disney+ because the streaming service is more important to the Disney stock price than recent Marvel Studios movies have been. Yep, it all comes down to money (in some shape or form). The agent explained:

 

"(Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob) Chapek did what was the right move for his shareholders, which is to drive people to Disney+, which he has successfully done while also increasing the stock price. Notably, the numerous successes of the various Marvel (theatrical) films have done nothing to increase the Disney stock price. But increased subscriptions to Disney+ has. So what’s $50 million or so to Chapek?"

 

More importantly, though, this lawsuit is about optics, on so many levels. Talent is eyeballing the lawsuit and its results to see how much power they wield in the current entertainment environment -- and also to see if Disney is the friendly studio with which to collaborate that they appeared to be under Bob Iger. Audiences, meanwhile, are waiting to see what is going to come of the day-and-date model that’s being used by both Disney and Warner Bros. for their tent pole blockbusters. Jungle Cruise recently “opened” on Disney+ for that $30 Premier Access fee. And James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad will be available for HBO Max subscribers on Friday, August 6, the same day it opens in theaters.

 

To avoid similar lawsuits to the one filed by Scarlett Johansson, the major studios will have to renegotiate with top talent to figure out their financial compensations should big movies keep going to streaming.

 

[HighVoltage]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:57 AM, Bosco685 said:

Insiders Weigh In On Scarlett Johansson’s Lawsuit And Why Disney Allegedly Made The Black Widow Streaming Decision It Did

 

They might as well try their best to figure out streaming (compensation) now, because it's the future moving forward.
I look at the music industry - Aren't streaming/subscriptions the dominant thing vs straight up purchases?

[fantastic_four]

On 8/4/2021 at 10:57 AM, Bosco685 said:

Insiders Weigh In On Scarlett Johansson’s Lawsuit And Why Disney Allegedly Made The Black Widow Streaming Decision It Did

 

We didn't need an inside perspective to see why Chapek would want to put Black Widow onto Disney Plus, but we definitely need one to know why he would refuse to compensate Scarlett for the income she would lose from that move.  It just looks dumb from every perspective I can come at that decision.  

One thing I'm unsure of is Iger's power as Chairman of the Board.  Most giant companies have both the CEO and Chairman of the Board positions, and I've always been unclear about what the Chairman typically does.  I know CEOs run the day-to-day operations and the Chairman has more of a 10,000 foot big picture focus, but can Iger still get rid of Chapek if he really wanted to?  One of the articles you linked a few days ago suggested Iger may have let Chapek do this specifically so he'd learn from the mistake by "shooting himself in the foot," and that certainly does make sense.  But if Iger dislikes him and Chapek keeps making dumb moves can Iger get the Board to replace him, or can Iger just act on his own and do it himself?  I'm guessing yes, but I've never been sure that a Chairman's power is, exactly.

Edited August 4, 2021 by fantastic_four

[D84]

On 8/4/2021 at 9:44 AM, Bosco685 said:

And where Feige developed a very strong positive relationship with Iger, this is starting to show a big division with the new CEO's approach to talent management.

So no matter how much some want to blame Scarlett Johansson for this situation, this is becoming more impactful to the Disney brand and leadership structure.

I think blaming Scarlett Johansson is not entirely accurate. That's what Disney wants.

Am I sick of rich people complaining that the pandemic has hurt them financially? Yes.

How many of them are going to lose their homes, compared to the average person? Probably none.

My issue has been no one was crying foul when it happened to guys throughout the years for suing studios over money and getting trashed by them in public, but now that it's happened to a woman, it's a gender oriented attack.

Diversity and equality are important.

Disney’s statements were incredibly stupid, but honestly in line with the way Hollywood has done things for a very long time with any talent who sues them over money.

Should it happen? No.

Was it gender based? Probably not.

Will the media try to make it about gender? Yes

Why? Divide and conquer. As long as we are bickering over this, we won't be paying attention to how we are being bent over.

End of rant

[Bosco685]

On 8/4/2021 at 11:08 AM, fantastic_four said:

We didn't need an inside perspective to see why Chapek would want to put Black Widow onto Disney Plus, but we definitely need one to know why he would refuse to compensate Scarlett for the income she would lose from that move.  It just looks dumb from every perspective I can come at that decision.  

One thing I'm unsure of is Iger's power as Chairman of the Board.  Most giant companies have both the CEO and Chairman of the Board positions, and I've always been unclear about what the Chairman typically does.  I know CEOs run the day-to-day operations and the Chairman has more of a 10,000 foot big picture focus, but can Iger still get rid of Chapek if he really wanted to?  One of the articles you linked a few days ago suggested Iger may have let Chapek do this specifically so he'd learn from the mistake by "shooting himself in the foot," and that certainly does make sense.  But if Iger dislikes him and Chapek keeps making dumb moves can Iger get the Board to replace him, or can Iger just act on his own and do it himself?  I'm guessing yes, but I've never been sure that a Chairman's power is, exactly.

It's a great question. As many just assume if a person is the Chairman of the Board they just tell the CEO what to do.

But having worked at the enterprise-level, everyone at the senior level has a committee charter they have to honor with roles and responsibilities. To include the Corporate Compensation Committee that sets the ground rules how the CEO will be empowered to drive their strategic plans leading to later goals measurement and payouts. There are contracts with these roles that have very clear enforcement expectations. Otherwise, CEO's are at the mercy of a board popularity contest, which they are anyway in staying empowered. But not with day-to-day operational BAU performance.