before Covid? This movie was filmed before Covid, after-all, so I can see why a stipulation was not written in about streaming services. Or did the contract actually say theatrical release only - and someone can confirm that - and Disney went against that?
shareOnly the lawyers can confirm that but I don't think they are going to do it, not before the case is concluded.
I think what the lawyers are arguing now is what constitutes the "box office" result. If it includes pay per view streaming then Scarlett Johansson's bonus will kick in according to the contract and get a bigger share of the profit.
So, it HASN'T been confirmed? I didn't think so, but saw the typical "PaY hEr DiSnEy derp derp" crap. The only thing that matters to me is the truth. If Disney breached the contract, I side with her. If they did not, I side with them.
shareLike I said, it depends on how you interpret the words like "Box office". Law is all about wording.
So what do you think? Should "Pay per view" streaming be included in the box office result?
From what I understand, the contract said the movie would be released exclusively to theaters first, as per usual. Disney later wanted it to premiere on both Disney+ and theaters. Scarjo contacted Disney to renegotiate the contract or at least ask them not to have the movie premiere online but they ignored her.
It is interesting to note Emma Stone has a similar lawsuit against Disney now. Also, Marvel is not releasing Shang-Chi on Disney+ at the same time as theaters, which could be because of the current issues.
"From what I understand, the contract said the movie would be released exclusively to theaters first, as per usual."
I know Johansson is saying that, but has there been anything backing up her claims? I don't believe her just because she says it.
I saw the Emma Stone thing. Gerard Butler is claiming he is owed money too. Not because of streaming, but that a studio jipped him. Hollywood's new #MeToo.
Whatever way you look at it, it is Disney screwed Scarjo, there is no doubt about that.
shareWhy do you expect ScarJo to be lying but not Disney? Isn’t there an equal chance for either one of them to be lying?
Anyway, we can’t know unless we either see the contract or we wait until the lawsuit is over.
Breach. ScarJo will win this case, especially because she probably has NBC's best lawyers at hand through her husband. These are not new and emerging technologies, streaming and rights involved have been around for years. Covid has F all to do with anything unless there's something written in government bail out plans I don't know about.
End of the day there is no rule or law. It gets re-invented every new case that crops up and how much money most successfully gets lobbied in the right corners. All of society is total BS.
I can't help but believe Disneys legal team writes air tight contracts and offers top tier advice when advising on such decisions.
shareI think that's totally possible, but it's also reasonable to think a big company just does whatever it wants and screwed her over. It's also possible she is totally lying. I just want proof.
shareThe way I understand it. Her contract states that she is entitle to a percentage of the theatrical gross. By releasing it on streaming and not including that in her percentage (Is that correct?), Disney in effect cut her out of the earnings.
One thing I bet this guarantees is that all actors in the future will be including streaming in their contracts.
I think what matters most is if she was told it would be theatrical release only. If she was specifically told that, she has a case. If not, I think her lawsuit is dead in the water.
Has a percentage of box office earnings always been a thing? Or for a while now? because she got paid $20 million for fuck's sake. Does she need box office totals too?
That is a thing, called 20 20, for top tier actors. $20 million salary plus 20% of box office.
shareBeing offered Percentages have been a thing for quite a while. Oldest example I can think of was Animal House in 1978. Donald Sutherland was offered a flat fee or a percentage. After reading the script, he decided to play it safe and accept the flat fee. If he had gone with the percentage he would have made something like fifty times what he was actually paid.
shareJohansson's suit against Disney claims that the multi-million dollar contract she signed with Disney Marvel Entertainment specified that Black Widow would have an exclusive theater release before later being released on Disney+. She also alleges in the suit that a significant amount of her salary would be dependent on the box office numbers for the project. As such, Disney's decision to release the film in theaters and on the streaming platform potentially impacted the potential in-person viewership numbers and, subsequently, her paycheck. (A person on her team claims that the dual release cost Johansson a whopping $50 million.)
The suit is an escalation for Johansson and her legal counsel, who reportedly attempted to revisit the concept of a dual release for Black Widow in the past. When Disney failed to respond to the renegotiation attempts, the actress moved forward with legal action.
Disney responded to the lawsuit later that day in a statement saying the actress has received $20 million from the project so far. A Disney spokesperson also called Johansson's suit "especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard" for the pandemic. Johansson has not yet responded to the statement.
This lawsuit puts into question the future of media conglomerates issuing both streaming and theatre releases. Black Widow isn't the first Disney film to have a dual release; earlier this year, Emma Stone's Cruella was also released on Disney+ and in theatres on the same day.
Ho ho ho, our wallets have power now. I can screw ScarJo at the same time. Actually, I want to screw Disney more so I hope she wins. Less money to Disney the better.
From what I understand Emma Stone is suing Disney too.
shareScarjos lawyers are saying that before even anything was happening with covid she got told it would only release in cinemas, but if it did realise on D+ they would renegotiate her contract. Scarjo was worried about that so made sure to bring it up in negeotion talks. This is stated to have been confirmed in written format that they would renegotiate the contract if it went out on D+
When it was released on there at the same time as in theatres the lawyers reached out and were ignored. So now we have the lawsuit.
There is no way Scarjo is suing if the case isn’t ironclad. Her lawyers and Hollywood in general are smart enough to know you don’t go after the mouse unless your case is really strong and even then you need the money to back it as well.
The fact a lot of people are on Scarjos side including Feige is highly telling that yes current higher ups in Disney did screw this and go back on deals.
Hasn't every single one of their new releases been both theaters and D+? Raya, Cruella, Mulan? Why wouldn't this one be too? That being said, if they promised her that, I would hope she wins.
100% irrelevant what "a lot of people think" about this situation. Feige is close to this situation. He might know the truth, but the public is a mob who will always side against the bigger entity/person; and not because they are wrong, but simply more powerful.
The contract was made ages ago and ScarJo got written confirmation that if it was released on D+ they would renegotiate the contract. There was nothing stopping it being released on there but they had put an agreement in place if it was they would have to renegotiate her contract. Which they didn’t and chose to ignore when contacted about it.
Seems the same thing has happened with cruella since Emma stone is now Apprently looking into it and Emily blunt might be as well. Seems they have not updated contracts and been upfront with what’s looking more and more like female stars.
It’s really not though, when you have high up marvel people and high up people within the industry calling Disney out on this it’s very telling that Disney cut a lot of people out of these conversations and are trying to push their luck because they are use to winning or dragging out their legal battles.
People are going against Disney because they have a very long history of being slimy when comes to legal stuff and they had been abusing copyright laws for years and screwed many people over. Fact is they also were the ones to come out attack ScarJo personally rather than keeping it to purely legal basis. The public are on the side of the actresses here because Disney is obviously trying to pull shady shit and see if they get away with it.
Confirmation, you say? Would you mind sharing your source? I would like to read more on the issue. I'm interested in seeing what the contract says.
The public doesn't give a fuuuuuccckkkk about facts.
Literally every news report about this has stated this literally two seconds of googling brings up how Scarjos lawyers have written confirmation from Disney stating that should it be released on D+ they will renegotiate the contract. That’s literally been the main driving home point with this case because they have so much on their side of “Disney tried to fuck us here” and why Disney is acting ScarJos character.
Yes they do, only one that doesn’t seem to want too is you since you keep trying to defend Disney when literally everyone has pointed out to you that Disney is in fact the bad guys here like 90% of the other times they’ve gotten bad press. The public cares the care just doesn’t last long once it’s not in the news anymore.
That's what they are SAYING. That's not what confirmation means.
You're just proving the latter part of my point. You puffed your chest out saying that this has confirmed and the fact of the matter is you don't "know" ANYTHING and have already picked a side. I, on the other hand, have not.