BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[Bosco685]

Just took a look at the Disney governance committee site.

GOVERNANCE AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE CHARTER

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS FOR DIRECTORS

Every publicly traded company is required by the SEC to publish these details so investors can understand how a corporation is run to protect their investments. Including how corporate goals set by the CEO are measured and achieved.

It is very structured to ensure the contract with the CEO and board directors clearly outlines what expectations have been set to grow the corporation's revenue and investor value. A chairman can't just walk in one day and start disrupting the gameplan unless they are also designated "& CEO" as otherwise by law the CEO can claim their goals and compensation were directly tampered with.

[media_junkie]

Granted Iger may have let Chapek "Shoot himself in the foot", however even if he Iger does have the ability to "sway" the board to remove Chapek it would not happen as long as Disney Stock is going in an upward trend.  Disney Shareholders would go ballistic on the Disney board if they fired the CEO while he was seen as raising their stock price.

[Bosco685]

And this is when fanatical fans take it too far.

Now this 'reporting site' is publishing the reason why Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney is because she didn't know if there was a future Black Widow role. You know - ignoring the fact Disney already lined her up with the next key role as a franchise movie producer. Because you know - all that exists in the MCU for actors.

Quote

In an op-ed by Vulture, the website stated that the reason Scarlett Johansson went forward with pursuing legal action against Disney was "precisely because there are no more planned cameos for Natasha Romanoff or MCU sequels."

 

This makes sense, as it puts Johansson in the safest spot with little to lose. It also seemingly confirms that Marvel Studios is not currently planning any more Natasha Romanoff appearances after her prequel swan song. 

[drotto]

On 8/4/2021 at 11:05 AM, HighVoltage said:

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?

It is also going to be very difficult.  You listen to people in the music industry, and the royalties they get from services like Pandora and Spotify are miniscule.  It was an old YouTube video from Rick Beato where he talked about a royalty check he had received on a song he was listed as a producer on.  He said the song had been played 1000's of times and he got like a $300 check.  Music people are getting fractions of a penny for each play on a streaming service. The only possible way of doing it is going to be a creator, producer, or actor will get some set amount per play. But then you are going to get a big argument over what counts as a play.

[Bosco685]

Day 26 (August 3rd): 12 straight days where F9 brought more domestic market per-theater value compared to Black Widow

I'm getting the feeling Black Widow was not the theater savior it was built up to be by some. But maybe I am wrong.

[drotto]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:45 AM, Bosco685 said:

Day 26 (August 3rd): 12 straight days where F9 brought more domestic market per-theater value compared to Black Widow

I'm getting the feeling Black Widow was not the theater savior it was built up to be by some. But maybe I am wrong.

Now who is poking the bear? Granted said bear has been very quiet.

[D84]

On 8/5/2021 at 9:45 AM, Bosco685 said:

Day 26 (August 3rd): 12 straight days where F9 brought more domestic market per-theater value compared to Black Widow

I'm getting the feeling Black Widow was not the theater savior it was built up to be by some. But maybe I am wrong.

[Bosco685]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:48 AM, drotto said:

Now who is poking the bear? Granted said bear has been very quiet.

[Bosco685]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:54 AM, D84 said:

[Bosco685]

Quote

Since filing the lawsuit, many in Hollywood have backed Johansson, with Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige apparently furious over Disney's handling of the situation and Emma Stone reportedly considering a similar lawsuit in regards to the hybrid release of Cruella back in May.

 

Now Blum, producer behind horror films like Get Out, The Forever Purge, and the Halloween reboots, has voiced his support of Johansson. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter as part of their write up of reactions to the lawsuit, Blum said that “it’s a much bigger existential fight that she’s really leading. It’s a very difficult thing to do, it’s really brave to do and she’s fighting for all of talent.”

 

The producer further stated he believes that Johansson's lawsuit is just the beginning of a pushback against what he deems an unsustainable system being undertaken by studios, believing that streaming platforms should share revenue with talent rather than offering up-front fees. While he acknowledges his own hypocrisy, having signed a deal with Universal to produce three Exorcist films for a flat fee, Blum stated:

 

“What the streamers are betting on is that in the next three to five years, there will only be three or four [of them] left pumping content into homes, and they’ll be so powerful that they will be able to push the price down of producing, of paying talent, of paying producers, of paying writers, directors. I personally don’t think they’ll be able to do it, but that’s what they’re betting on.”

 

[Bosco685]

Quote

Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney for releasing “Black Widow” on Disney Plus at the same time it opened in cinemas. She claims that the hybrid release model hurt the box office and cost her $50 million in bonuses tied to box office performance. What do you make of that situation?

We believe that simultaneous release of movies is a bad business model for the industry as a whole. Availability in the home cannibalizes ticket sales and making a digital copy available on the very same day that a movie enters cinemas exacerbates and accelerates piracy. It’s one thing to record a movie with a camcorder in a cinema and try to get a decent copy that synchs with a soundtrack. Those exist and they often aren’t very good. It’s another thing to be able to rip a pristine copy off of a home release. Theatrical exclusivity and windows have always delayed substantial piracy. We’re losing a lot of business. Scarlett Johansson is making many of the same arguments that we’ve been making in her suit. Her compensation as a very, very, very successful actress and businesswoman is based on theatrical ticket sales. By going simultaneous, Disney reduced those ticket sales and therefore reduced the compensation Scarlett received. Lots and lots of talent are focused on this issue now. Scarlett happens to be a very well known, twice Oscar-nominated actress with a huge career, so she went out first with a lawsuit, but lots of people are worried. Directors, actors, we’re talking to them all because we share the same concerns. We don’t think the creative community is doing this simply because they love the big screen experience. It’s about what’s best for everyone’s bottom line.

 

If releasing films concurrently on streaming is costing studios ticket sales at the box office, what’s their incentive to keep losing money?

The problem with the streaming wars is that it’s not rooted in profitability. For a significant movie, the best way to make the most money is to release the movie first theatrically with a window, establish the brand, and make a fair amount of money in movie theaters. That brand then carries forward into the later markets, where you can sell the movie on video-on-demand, as well as profit from rentals and television licensing. You make money at every step. But the streaming wars are being led by people who are not focused on profitability. They’re focused on attracting subscribers because Wall Street has said to them we’re going to jack your stock price if you get a lot of subscribers. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but where does value and profitability come into play? If you’re losing lots of money by taking movies straight to streaming services, how long does that last as a smart business model? How long are you comfortable losing money while gaining subscribers? We know theatrical windows are good for business. Actors know that, filmmakers know that, talent agents know that, and any studio executive who has been in the business for a long time knows that too. But if the holy grail is streaming subscriptions, the whole idea of trying to make money on a product gets tossed out the window.

 

What do you do to change Hollywood’s mindset if investors are primarily interested in streaming subscription growth? It seems like a hard argument to make.

You make your case in private discussions with the studios and when you have to you make the case publicly, as we did with “Black Widow.” You make your case with your allies in the industry that share your views. The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit is an indication that a lot of people share our concerns. At some point we need to return to an idea that Hollywood should be focused on profitability. The streaming wars will not last forever. You have too many streaming services now competing for survival. Consumers will not subscribe to eight or ten different services for long. Some will succeed and some will fail. That’s why some companies are using loss-leading strategies to be the survivors in the streaming wars. We just hope that sound business models don’t have to wait until the streaming wars are done.

 

What was Disney’s reaction to NATO’s public statement slamming the “Black Widow” release strategy?

I think it’s best to leave private conversations private. I’ll pass on what the reaction was.

 

While then why did you decide to have part of that conversation publicly by releasing a statement instead of just conveying your concerns to Disney behind closed doors?

We did convey our concerns privately, at first. I’m going to leave it there.

 

[D84]

If Hollywood were focused on profitability, they'd spend more time on the scripts. That's the blueprint for the movie. Most of these scripts are like a house without a supporting wall. Ask an architect how well that works out.

[paperheart]

BW overtakes F9 in US; WW- no contest

[Bosco685]

Day 27: Logging 13 straight days (August 4th) where F9 brought more value to domestic theaters than Black Widow. But at least Disney had a higher box office take worldwide.

[D84]

[HighVoltage]

On 8/5/2021 at 3:50 PM, D84 said:

If Hollywood were focused on profitability, they'd spend more time on the scripts. That's the blueprint for the movie. Most of these scripts are like a house without a supporting wall. Ask an architect how well that works out.

Omg - have you met Hollywood?
Scripts!?
It has always been about churning out as many things as possible for as cheap as possible (for the most part).
That's how they've maximized profitability.
And like (some) builders, they move on to the next thing - who cares if the walls fell down 3 years later on the house...

[Bosco685]

Shocking. The Disney lawyer disagrees with the lawsuit. 

Quote

Longtime Disney attorney Daniel Petrocelli told Variety that the demands in Johansson’s litigation are far out of the bounds of the actor’s contract with the studio. He characterized it as an attempt to force Disney to write a check that backfired.

 

“It is obvious that this is a highly orchestrated PR campaign to achieve an outcome that is not obtainable in the lawsuit,” Petrocelli said. “No amount of public pressure can change or obscure the explicit contractual commitments. The written contract is clear as a bell.”

 

Petrocelli noted that for starters, the contract calls for the sides to go to arbitration for disputes rather than open court. Johansson’s pact calls for “Black Widow” to be released on a minimum of 1,500 screens in the U.S., which Disney more than met on 9,000 U.S. screens and 30,000 worldwide. Petrocelli more than once stressed that the distribution decisions entirely rest with the studio and that a day-and-date strategy was necessary because of the global pandemic’s devastating impact on traditional moviegoing.

 

The crux of the Disney-Johansson dispute is the latter’s assertion that the decision to make “Black Widow” a day-and-date release in theaters and online via the Disney Premier Access platform had the effect of short-changing Johansson on the bonuses she was to receive if the film hit certain box-office thresholds. The simultaneous release strategy limited the movie’s prospects at the box office, and thus denied Johansson the chance to achieve those pre-determined bonuses, in Johansson’s view.

 

[drotto]

On 8/6/2021 at 6:33 PM, Bosco685 said:

Shocking. The Disney lawyer disagrees with the lawsuit. 

 

This is going to go bad for Hollywood all around.

[media_junkie]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:45 PM, drotto said:

This is going to go bad for Hollywood all around.

It just is not a good look at all.  I get why she is doing it, however the optics are just so bad.  As for me what I see is an entitled actress worth $165 million suing an entitled company worth multiple billions while at the same time anytime I turn on the news all I hear about is how millions of people are facing potential evictions.

At some point you have to ask, ok how much is enough?  Both for the actors/actresses and also for these multibillion dollar companies.  

[Bosco685]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:27 AM, media_junkie said:

It just is not a good look at all.  I get why she is doing it, however the optics are just so bad.  As for me what I see is an entitled actress worth $165 million suing an entitled company worth multiple billions while at the same time anytime I turn on the news all I hear about is how millions of people are facing potential evictions.

At some point you have to ask, ok how much is enough?  Both for the actors/actresses and also for these multibillion dollar companies.  

Hear, hear!

The studio system has created an environment where so much money is in float, there will come a point where pressure will force an out-of-court agreement.