BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[▫️]

I don’t care what Scarlett or Disney are worth. If a contract was not honored action should be taken. Whether you’re working in Hollywood or working in fast food. She shouldn’t let it go if they breached her contract. (I don’t know that they did, I’m sure Disney invented fine print). But the moment you let someone roll over on you, that sets a bad precedent.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Scam Likely

[media_junkie]

On 8/7/2021 at 9:10 AM, Scam Likely said:

I don’t care what Scarlett or Disney are worth. If a contract was not honored action should be taken. Whether you’re working in Hollywood or working in fast food. She shouldn’t let it go if they breached her contract. (I don’t know that they did, I’m sure Disney invented fine print). But the moment you let someone roll over on you, that sets a bad precedence. 

Absolutely agree.  If her contract was violated she has every right to go after the studio.  I'm not debating that.  I am just surprised that this was not handled in-house because again, it makes both parties look bad.  

[Bosco685]

On 8/7/2021 at 9:12 AM, Scam Likely said:

I don’t care what Scarlett or Disney are worth. If a contract was not honored action should be taken. Whether you’re working in Hollywood or working in fast food. She shouldn’t let it go if they breached her contract. (I don’t know that they did, I’m sure Disney invented fine print). But the moment you let someone roll over on you, that sets a bad precedent.

No debate with that logic

On 8/7/2021 at 9:12 AM, media_junkie said:

Absolutely agree.  If her contract was violated she has every right to go after the studio.  I'm not debating that.  I am just surprised that this was not handled in-house because again, it makes both parties look bad.  

You have to assume it was attempted, as recognizing Scarlett Johansson has more Disney productions to work on outside of the MCU she wouldn't have jeopardized those future jobs.

Which leads me to believe her and her agency were most probably told to pound sand or else they would be cut off. So they took it to the public. One had to have happened before the other.

[Bosco685]

What Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow lawsuit means for the future of the movie business

Quote

And yet the lawsuit itself, which insiders agree will almost certainly settle out of court, is almost beside the point. Wrapped up in it are many of the major concerns currently facing the film industry, including the pandemic, studios' shift toward streaming, and the future of the theatrical experience. As the tides of the movie business continue to move with great turbulence and rapidity, this dispute marks the beginning of open (or at least public) conflict between talent and studios over what the industry will look like when those tides finally settle.

 

"Johansson's lawsuit represents everything that's going on in the business right now as it shifts to streaming," says Matt Belloni, a founding partner of the new outlet Puck News, author of a widely read newsletter on the entertainment industry, and former editorial director of The Hollywood Reporter. "The battle lines are being drawn over how stars are going to be paid in that new economy, and this is the biggest flashpoint for that."

 

"All [the lawsuit] is going to do is slam the door in terms of box office points," adds Jeff Bock, a senior box office analyst at Exhibitor Relations. "It's going to be one final payout for Disney, and they're going to say, 'Never again.' I don't think there's much conversation beyond that, honestly."

 

Stars' compensation for movies has been tied to box office revenue for decades, with A-list actors typically guaranteed a share of the film's profits. The increased prominence of streaming has so far done little to change that; while Netflix is known for making massive deals with talent up front in exchange for forgoing theatrical releases, traditional studios have, until recently, continued to do business the old-fashioned way. Indeed, Johansson's lawsuit evokes the turmoil at Warner Bros. when the studio announced that its 2021 films would be released in theaters and on HBO Max simultaneously last year. With key talent poised to revolt over a strategy that would potentially siphon away their movies' box office dollars, Warner Bros. moved quickly to smooth things over, reportedly paying millions to the likes of Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins to quash any public dispute.

 

That's part of why insiders are so baffled that Disney didn't reach a new deal with Johansson on Black Widow — and, if the actress' complaint is to be believed, didn't even pursue one.

 

[drotto]

On 8/7/2021 at 11:07 AM, Bosco685 said:

What Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow lawsuit means for the future of the movie business

 

It really seems that the money is drying up (in a relative sense). Theaters were the cash cows, and TV used to have massive ad revenue generated, which justified paying actors in hit shows large contracts.   With streaming the link between product performance and the star has been fundamentally altered, and the industry is struggling to find a way to measure success. 

 

Before, a popular movie made big box office.  Stars in money making movies got paid more.  TV stars had Nielson ratings, high ratings ment networks could charge more for ad time.  Higher ad rates ment more money for stars. Both are straight forward.

 

How do we determine streaming show success? In theory the shows with high views should be driving new subscribers.  But streaming companies has been very reluctant to release those numbers, and slow to say what new sub rate is.  What if sub rates platue similar to new cell phone customers?  How do we judge success then?  Really, all we have is views, but then how much is a view worth, when you have 1000's of offerings on your service? That is a large pie, but how many pieces can you really get out of it? Furthermore, the paywall means the general public no longer has equal access. 

 

As for ScrJo, she has every right to sue if her contract was violated.   The question here is did Covid activate the "Act of God" clause in that contract, which may give Disney some leeway in altering the contract.

Edited August 8, 2021 by drotto

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:06 AM, drotto said:

As for ScrJo, she has every right to sue if her contract was violated.   The question here is did Covid activate the "Act of God" clause in that contract, which may give Disney some leeway in altering the contract.

If this conversation can be proven to have taken place...

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over Streaming Release of ‘Black Widow’

Quote

The story also reports that Johansson reached out to Marvel well ahead of the pandemic in 2019 for reassurance that “Black Widow” would go directly to theaters only.

 

The suit includes an email from Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi from March 2019, who promised a traditional theatrical release model. “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 email states.

Then this 'Acts of God' clause goes out the window as the studio set expectations in advance how a contract modification may occur based on changing its release schedule plans.

Hardcore Disney fanatics are missing that point. And especially since it is in an email sent by the Marvel Chief Counsel. Back in 2019, before the pandemic became a public reality on March 11, 2020.

[drotto]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

If this conversation can be proven to have taken place...

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over Streaming Release of ‘Black Widow’

Then this 'Acts of God' clause goes out the window as the studio set expectations in advance how a contract modification may occur based on changing its release schedule plans.

Hardcore Disney fanatics are missing that point. And especially since it is in an email sent by the Marvel Chief Counsel. Back in 2019, before the pandemic became a public reality on March 11, 2020.

The key part is it happened ahead of the Pandemic.  Disney will have many very expensive lawers arguing the changing nature, scope, and reality of Covid gave them renewed leeway to make more changes. Communications made before the full reality became apparent (in their viewpoint) would no longer be valid since circumstances changed again, in a way that could not have been predicted in the 2019 email. Not taking sides, but that is what will be litigated. 

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:29 AM, drotto said:

The key part is it happened ahead of the Pandemic.  Disney will have many very expensive lawers arguing the changing nature, scope, and reality of Covid gave them renewed leeway to make more changes. Communications made before the full reality became apparent (in their viewpoint) would no longer be valid since circumstances changed again, in a way that could not have been predicted in the 2019 email. Not taking sides, but that is what will be litigated. 

You say - and Disney lawyers will attempt.

But if it was committed to without disclaimers included (e.g. I make this commitment to you recognizing Acts of God can change what I am stating to you now) the case is not so straightforward. If the Marvel Counsel made it clear in the event of a schedule shift it would come back to the table to work out updated terms, then this is where the friction is between Disney and Scarlett Johansson's talent support staff.

[drotto]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:32 AM, Bosco685 said:

You say - and Disney lawyers will attempt.

But if it was committed to without disclaimers included (e.g. I make this commitment to you recognizing Acts of God can change what I am stating to you now) the case is not so straightforward. If the Marvel Counsel made it clear in the event of a schedule shift it would come back to the table to work out updated terms, then this is where the friction is between Disney and Scarlett Johansson's talent support staff.

I have no idea where this will eventually fall.  I think ScarJo has a stronger case, but you never know.  Regardless, contracts will be permanently changed after this, and in all likelyhood it will benefit the Studios.  Actors only get big if they keep getting hired.  Any talent not on board with the new contracts will be shown the door.  There is always somebody new that's wants to be famous. 

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:37 AM, drotto said:

I have no idea where this will eventually fall.  I think ScarJo has a stronger case, but you never know.  Regardless, contracts will be permanently changed after this, and in all likelyhood it will benefit the Studios.  Actors only get big if they keep getting hired.  Any talent not on board with the new contracts will be shown the door.  There is always somebody new that's wants to be famous. 

Agreed time will tell where this goes. But most probably the studios will win in the end as the key power in that industry.

Meanwhile, let's all better enjoy the Olympics via Leslie Jones' social media account. Much lighter entertainment. 

 

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

Day 31: It is now 17 straight days where F9 brought more domestic theater value than Black Widow, yet the latter made more money for Disney.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Bosco685

[D84]

Of course Black Widow made more money for Disney than Universal's Fast 9.

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 12:04 PM, D84 said:

Of course Black Widow made more money for Disney than Universal's Fast 9.

Goof

[D84]

On 8/8/2021 at 11:10 AM, Bosco685 said:

Goof

It happens to us all.

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 1:10 PM, D84 said:

It happens to us all.

'the latter' = Black Widow

'made more money for Disney' = Disney owns Marvel Studios

Yes. It happens to us all.

[D84]

On 8/8/2021 at 1:36 PM, Bosco685 said:

'the latter' = Black Widow

'made more money for Disney' = Disney owns Marvel Studios

Yes. It happens to us all.

I'm getting old. 🤦‍♂️

[Larryw7]

I got this from the memes thread in CG.

[Bosco685]

On 8/8/2021 at 5:11 PM, D84 said:

I'm getting old. 🤦‍♂️

We all are!

[Bosco685]

Terminator And TWD Producer Gale Anne Hurd Shares Thoughts on Scarlett Johansson lawsuit

Quote

Scarlett Johansson has spent a decade in the MCU, and the release of Black Widow was expected to be her biggest payout yet. Unfortunately, pirating and the movie’s release on Disney+ seemingly resulted in a steep box office drop after the first weekend in theaters. Now Johansson is suing for the money lost as a result of this decision, and she’s breaking the internet in the process. Accomplished producer Gale Anne Hurd was recently asked her opinion on the subject, responding with:

 

"Why should anyone be surprised? I heard Disney leaked her salary is $20 million, but why is that so surprising? She opens movies around the world, she is clearly someone who can do so with consistency, and no one questions male actors’ salaries. I do think that women are judged differently to men in the entertainment industry. Progress is going to take time, you don’t change people’s attitudes and their perceptions and the biases they already have overnight. However, we’re making a great deal of progress towards that. So many more films, whether they be Nomadland or Wonder Woman, are led by women and are proving successful. You have the DC universe starring women, the Marvel universe starring women, and then you have Oscar winners starring women."

That petty part of the Disney response rubbed industry leaders the wrong way as it purposely attempted to convey Johansson is being greedy.