Based ScarJo part III: She is sueing Disney! - Scarlett Johansson Discussion

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheArgentinian (7254) 4 years ago

report this antisemitic troll!

reply

[–] Jinx (3884) 4 years ago

You should see what he says about African Americans.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18440) 4 years ago

I've seen what he says about African Americans. The anti-semitism is new though. What'd they say?

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Jinx ! I thought you were gone ! Holy Smokies, things are looking better around here !

reply

[–] Jinx (3884) 4 years ago

Hey bud! I just take a break every now and then, this place is kind of bad for my soul, so much negativity and anger you know?

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Right Arm ! I used to say that in Junior High, without Irony.

I met a gal who took on Jinx as her Real Life persona, and I wanted to crash her inner circle, but in a nice way.
Never happened, but she was a Thrill to meet and maybe bump eblows (sic) with. Pushing the boundaries in a very pleasant way.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Even if she's totally in the right... it's still not a good career move. You don't mess with the mouse!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Sometimes you have to take a stand. It sounds like she potentially lost out on millions of dollars because of Disney's bullshit.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

a stand against what? not being richer to force people into a room with COVID? Courageous.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Do you not understand the lawsuit? She signed a contract with a Disney to receive a portion of earnings against the box office. There was no provision in the deal that allowed Disney to also release the movie in tandem on streaming and thereby cut into the theatrical profits, but that's exactly what they did. She's right to be pissed.

If people don't want to go to the theater then they can wait until it's released later on, like normal.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

Its irresponsible of Disney to release a popular movie in theaters when it can be a superspreader. Her wallet be damned! I bet the contract was signed well before there was an pandemic outbreak

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Who gives a shit about the pandemic anymore? We have to live our lives.

You stay home if you want to. The rest of us won't do it.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

Apparently Disney does and Scarlett doesnt because one is liable and the other is not.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

If Disney was concerned, they wouldn't have released the film the theaters at all. Yet they did, and a wide enough release to make $300 million from it. Don't be deceived, they are all about making money, and they've found a way to screw ScarJo out of hers to their own enrichment.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The question isn't whether the there was provision to allow Disney to release it and stream it at the same time, the question is whether there was a clause that forbid them from doing so. Most likely the contract had no clause forbidding it because it had never been done before which means that her agent/lawyer simply assumed Disney wouldn't release it and stream it at the same time as it was not something that would have been expected given the contract was signed before Covid came out and Covid is the reason distributor start doing the streaming and theater releases at the same time.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Seems like a technicality, and if Disney is trying to use it to wiggle their way out of this situation then fuck 'em. The fact of the matter is that they operated in bad faith. If they wanted to do a concurrent streaming release, then fine, but they should've come to some kind of financial agreement with ScarJo first.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Bad faith would exist if they had negotiated the contract with the idea of streaming the same day as the theatrical release and hid that fact from her when negotiating the contract. The reality is when the contract was negotiated the world had not heard of covid-19. So there is no evidence of Disney negotiating in bad faith You can't use 20/20 hindsight and apply it to what happened when they negotiated the agreement. Remember this movie was originally going to release in May of 2020, so that would mean that she had probably signed her contract with Disney sometime in 2019 or even earlier.

Things change, and Disney will simply say that they were forced to change how they operated due to the pandemic, something for which they could not foresee and which was an act of god. She won't win unless they had specific language in the contract stating a timeline for theatrical release and streaming. From what I have heard they are trying to claim that they had some phone call with someone at Disney after the movie was made and Disney's rep said they would change the contract... Which is a very shaky leg to try and prop up a lawsuit on.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

I don't know much at all about the law or what ScarJo's chances are legally. Whatever the legal reality is, I'm still going to think that they're acting like assholes.

Before, they had a way for both parties to become enriched. Now they've done everything they can to enrich themselves while cutting her out. That's the point I'm making here.

They really should cut her a check of some kind to make up for their underhandedness. It's not like they don't have the money and it would also buy them some goodwill with the talent-side of the industry.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone that went over lots of contracts for writers/directors/musicians in law school. And while it may seem underhanded the reality is the pandemic lowered the earning potential across the board for any film. So where a movie might have made 700 million at the box office if the virus didn't exist and things were normal, the reality is the movie wouldn't have made that in the current climate where lots of people are still afraid to go to a movie. I am not saying that they movie couldn't have made more if it was given an exclusive run in the theaters for a few weeks... I'm quite sure the analysts at Disney knew that was a possibility, but what they did was model scenarios for how much it would earn with an exclusive versus how much it could earn with a premium stream at the same time as the theater release. You can be sure the analysts behind the decision were focused on how to maximize the amount of value they could get from the movie not how they could fuck Scarlet.

The reality of the movie is it really wasn't even that good. I suspect Disney also realized that and the fact that they didn't project the movie had legs to last at the box office weighed in on the decision of when to stream and when not to. Remember the streaming was an add on which cost viewer additional money and if the money was released in the theaters alone the word would have gotten out that it wasn't that good in which case it would have gotten even less streaming business.

At the end of the day actors need to be aware that when they negotiate for something other than a flat fee that they are accepting risk that things could change and a movie they were in might not even see the light of day which would completely eliminate their chance of any bonus. If actor wanted more than the flat fee they would be better served to seek stocks or stock option in the company behind the movie so they would be seeing upside from a film doing well.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Sorry for the late response.

That's some interesting info. Thanks for sharing.

I still feel like, if nothing else, they should cut her in on the streaming profits. It just seems like, out of a desire to treat their talent well and keep everyone happy even if not out of any sense of integrity, they would at least work something out where she got some piece of those earnings.

As for the movie not being that good, I heard that and actually did not go see it precisely because of the word of mouth. That's a shame because the trailers looked awesome. But then again, Disney is a shitty company and Marvel is going in a weird direction, so I'm happy for any failures they may have.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 4 years ago

I agree insofar as large companies constantly screw over creative talent despite the creatives being the reason there is any movie at all. They nickle and dime everybody. Plus, the contract was negotiated when the understanding would be that the movie would play in theatres without competing against streaming services. That's the spirit of the contract, so Disney should honour that.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You'll find companies don't look at the spirit and only look at the specifics of the contract. I spent years working for a large holding company where it was common for the officers to tell the people to find a way to screw their partners after they had agreed to a contract. I even remember one instance where we spent almost a month negotiating a near 100 page contract between my company and a partner, and the same day the contract was finalized and signed by everyone my boss said now go figure out how we can fuck them out of the the rest of the deal. The smart talent will not get suckered in with any bonuses or payouts based on performance or anything like that. The best deals are flat fee deals because in those you know what you are getting and don't have to worry about being fucked over by the otherside finding a loophole or creative accounting method to magically make a blockbuster look like a box office bomb.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

That sounds like a shitty industry full of shitty people.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I suspect that give Scarlet had signed on for this as her last run as Black Widow that Disney sees no point in keeping good will going with someone that is walking away from the franchise. As soon as she let them know this was her last film she lost any leverage she had.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Well they could always have come together for new non-Marvel films in the future.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Don't think they would want her for anything, she's already gotten too old and starting to look more like a mom which isn't what sells tickets.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Well it IS Disney we're talking about here! They're undoubtedly going to be making plenty of movies with mom characters!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 4 years ago

The negotiation of that contract was done based on the knowledge that the movie company wouldn't release the film simultaneously on streaming, thus cannibalizing the box office and wiping out Johansson's revenue. It's scummy to change that.

The risk Johansson took was that the box office would suck. COVID did that, so yeah, she wouldn't be getting as much, but Disney shifting it to streaming made their profits buoy up at Johansson's expense. They might not have been thinking about how to screw her over, but they certainly didn't think twice about it.

As far as I'm concerned, they earned this lawsuit with shady tactics and their callous behaviour.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Doesn't matter what she expected or thought would happen. The deal they negotiated is dictated by the words in the contract. It is the reason contracts contain long sections that define what one would consider very basic words but which are clarified with precise definitions that eliminate any ambiguity. Now going forward you can bet that every agent and lawyer working for any actors or directors that have part of their payout based on performance will be revising what they want in contracts and what they are willing to agree to.

But in this instance she is likely SOL, and simply learned a hard lesson not to assume anything.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 4 years ago

The spirit of contracts is often considered in such cases. This might be a "reasonable expectation" type of thing, so the jury (or judge) is out.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Reasonable expectation comes into play when you don't have a contract that has everything laid out. When you have a contract that defined things then you live and die by what you agreed to in the contract.

reply

[–] huwdj (4571) 4 years ago

Probably true. But I'm guessing her contract gave her a slice of the box office but much less from streaming and it was agreed on the basis of an initially exclusive cinema release. If so then this might be the first of many actions.

reply

[–] Crocodile (3185) 4 years ago

I think she is one of the few celebs that can afford a fight with the mouse

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I don't know that that's true. It's been a while since she had a non-franchise hit, or a non-franchise hit where she was the main star. I really think Disney and Marvel have been keeping her career going as she's starting to age out of "hot girlfriend" roles, and she's hardly a great talent as an actor.

So while she may be able to afford the kind of lawyers who could sue Disney, it's still a bad career move.

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6545) 4 years ago

Reporting is that $50 million in bonuses was not paid as a result. If true it's significant money.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

That's "Chuck Hollywood and retire rich" money, if that's what she wants!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8864) 4 years ago

Good for her.

To sign the deal and then later change the terms of the release sounds like some seriously under-handed shit. Disney really does need to pay her something.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13402) 4 years ago

Disney will tell everyone how much she wants and everyone on twitter be like WHHAATTT!? she wants 100m?! and everyone be like 'cmon shes not worth that for that film' and others be like 'well RDJnr got that for Endgame why shouldnt she' and everyone be like 'yeh but that film wuz awesome he deserved that money!'

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13402) 4 years ago

as expected Disney are fighting back https://twitter.com/Collider/status/1420856556745285635

reply

[–] Evoken (1423) 4 years ago

Scarlett set the mousetrap already, the mouse has no chance

reply

[–] msegmx (446) 4 years ago

BW's dead and she probably doesn't care about future cameos. Smart move.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13402) 4 years ago

just as well as D wont be liking this move

reply

[–] Capnbucky (2218) 4 years ago

She told them to get right out of town

reply

[–] TandyMan (11358) 4 years ago

This is exactly what they said was gonna happen when all this streaming release talk started. Gonna be a ton of lawsuits in the next few years. Just like the messy transition in music royalties that never really got properly sorted. I hope it stops this same day release in streaming nonsense in its tracks. It's always been a terrible idea.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9661) 4 years ago

Agreed. It's slimy of these multi-billion dollar empires to try and slice off artists' salaries with this BS.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4576) 4 years ago

I remember Christoper Nolan, Denis Villeneuve & a bunch of other filmmakers being angry at WB for releasing films same day at theaters & HBO Max

And the worst part, everyone was in the dark. No one was told or consulted. They just did it to boost the numbers for their streaming service

I feel like these studios are gonna lose a bunch of big name talents with these kinds of stunts.

reply

[–] darkpast (9033) 4 years ago

It flopped, they should get a refund

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18440) 4 years ago

Lots of luck with that.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4576) 4 years ago

Are you team Disney or team ScarJo?

I usually don't care for these kinda stuff but I do love anyone getting one over on the mouse. So I'm rooting for ScarJo on this

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18440) 4 years ago

I don't care. I'm more amused by it all.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4576) 4 years ago

This whole fiasco is definitely gonna be entertaining as hell. The more it unfolds, the more entertaining it's gonna get

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18440) 4 years ago

True, true.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

I hate Disney. I used to think it was about wholesome family entertainment aimed at kids.
Now it's about cornering markets and overpowering the competition.
Gee, if you don't take your kidz to Disney-something, you're a bad Parent !
You have to watch us ! We're DISNEY !

reply

[–] phokkineejit (37) 4 years ago

just a greedy fat-arsed cow.
Hollywood, listen, less Scarlett, more Thora Birch please.

reply