|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 18:48:47 GMT
My confidence never wavered Disney was legally in the wrong. That's the truth.
My take on our conversation is that social justice articles and Youtube videos created a wall I had to climb without being able to see. The closest thing I have to a window into how anybody feels about the case is you guys.
That's why it kind of hurts a little. Even if it were my opinion that Disney or Johansson acted out of self-preservation or greed, it's immaterial to the suit because greed and self-preservation aren't crimes. They're just hot takes.
I mean, I'm fairly confident in saying both sides had a point but that Disney was more in the right based on the contract. That still wouldn't stop me from saying there's a chance Disney could lose the suit. Which is why it's only fair to point out that another possible outcome was that Scarjo could also lose the suit. I wasn't trying to be combative.I know. Reading over the internet is difficult sometimes but I did get that one right. It's all good my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 3, 2021 19:16:11 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue.
Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+.
Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 20:02:40 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 3, 2021 20:42:27 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson. It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 22:00:45 GMT
The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson.It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests. It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 3, 2021 23:50:21 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 0:00:07 GMT
The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit. Oh yeah it's totally like Django Unchained. So much like Django Unchained.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 4, 2021 0:14:48 GMT
You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit. Oh yeah it's totally like Django Unchained. So much like Django Unchained. Everyone knows that's what you think. No gives a shit about Scarlett's court case nothing more nothing less. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 0:19:23 GMT
Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson.It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests.It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
The unchecked growth of corporations is really a topic for another discussion. Again, I advocate solely for the consumer in my calculus. More content at a lower price is good for us. If every actor who stars in a Disney movie or series requires profit participation, that cost will be passed on to us. This, in my estimation, is bad. It's true, nobody likes being ripped off, but no one enjoys paying more than they should for a product either. In Scarlett's case, I posit that Disney overpaid for her as a celebrity. The reason for this is twofold, compensation in Hollywood is governed by bad economics (so-called Hollywood accounting), and even worse, by relationships. Compensation should be governed by performance, not Instagram followers, awards nominations received, or other vanity metrics. Scarlett's deal was based on horrible accounting and the idea that Marvel films always perform at a certain level. Scarlett's salary has no defensible platform because the simple truth is that she has not performed (box office-wise) at the same level as her male peers in the franchise. Whether due to lack of opportunity or poor craftsmanship, I leave that to others to decide. This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close. This comes from a hardcore Black Widow fan; if anyone in that room was actually using their head during those negotiations, Black Widow would and should have never been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 4, 2021 3:54:58 GMT
It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
The unchecked growth of corporations is really a topic for another discussion. Again, I advocate solely for the consumer in my calculus. More content at a lower price is good for us. If every actor who stars in a Disney movie or series requires profit participation, that cost will be passed on to us. This, in my estimation, is bad. It's true, nobody likes being ripped off, but no one enjoys paying more than they should for a product either. In Scarlett's case, I posit that Disney overpaid for her as a celebrity. The reason for this is twofold, compensation in Hollywood is governed by bad economics (so-called Hollywood accounting), and even worse, by relationships. Compensation should be governed by performance, not Instagram followers, awards nominations received, or other vanity metrics. Scarlett's deal was based on horrible accounting and the idea that Marvel films always perform at a certain level. Scarlett's salary has no defensible platform because the simple truth is that she has not performed (box office-wise) at the same level as her male peers in the franchise. Whether due to lack of opportunity or poor craftsmanship, I leave that to others to decide. This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close. This comes from a hardcore Black Widow fan; if anyone in that room was actually using their head during those negotiations, Black Widow would and should have never been made. RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth haven’t really demonstrated themselves to be major box office draws when they’re not in the MCU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 4:25:06 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I specifically sided with Disney in this dispute. Let's be clear here, I like Scarjo more than I like Disney as a whole. And both of them were being greedy in this dispute. The first reason I sided with Disney is simply because the written contract backed up what they were saying more than what Scarjo was saying. Second reason was because their position actually benefitted the consumers whereas Scarjo's position benefited only her. Lastly, and probably most importantly, because Disney was being greedy about money that they actually made whereas Scarjo was being greedy for money she only theoretically could have made (and a very slim chance at that). In other words, Disney wanted money based on actual earnings whereas Scarjo wanted money based on wishful thinking. That's a HUGE difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 14:11:32 GMT
The unchecked growth of corporations is really a topic for another discussion. Again, I advocate solely for the consumer in my calculus. More content at a lower price is good for us. If every actor who stars in a Disney movie or series requires profit participation, that cost will be passed on to us. This, in my estimation, is bad. It's true, nobody likes being ripped off, but no one enjoys paying more than they should for a product either. In Scarlett's case, I posit that Disney overpaid for her as a celebrity. The reason for this is twofold, compensation in Hollywood is governed by bad economics (so-called Hollywood accounting), and even worse, by relationships. Compensation should be governed by performance, not Instagram followers, awards nominations received, or other vanity metrics. Scarlett's deal was based on horrible accounting and the idea that Marvel films always perform at a certain level. Scarlett's salary has no defensible platform because the simple truth is that she has not performed (box office-wise) at the same level as her male peers in the franchise. Whether due to lack of opportunity or poor craftsmanship, I leave that to others to decide. This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close. This comes from a hardcore Black Widow fan; if anyone in that room was actually using their head during those negotiations, Black Widow would and should have never been made. RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth haven’t really demonstrated themselves to be major box office draws when they’re not in the MCU. Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 15:58:35 GMT
RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth haven’t really demonstrated themselves to be major box office draws when they’re not in the MCU. Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie. Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive.
The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency.
Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 16:15:54 GMT
The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I specifically sided with Disney in this dispute. Let's be clear here, I like Scarjo more than I like Disney as a whole. And both of them were being greedy in this dispute. The first reason I sided with Disney is simply because the written contract backed up what they were saying more than what Scarjo was saying. Second reason was because their position actually benefitted the consumers whereas Scarjo's position benefited only her. Lastly, and probably most importantly, because Disney was being greedy about money that they actually made whereas Scarjo was being greedy for money she only theoretically could have made (and a very slim chance at that). In other words, Disney wanted money based on actual earnings whereas Scarjo wanted money based on wishful thinking. That's a HUGE difference. I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 18:12:07 GMT
Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie. Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive.
The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency.
Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so. Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 18:24:26 GMT
I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I specifically sided with Disney in this dispute. Let's be clear here, I like Scarjo more than I like Disney as a whole. And both of them were being greedy in this dispute. The first reason I sided with Disney is simply because the written contract backed up what they were saying more than what Scarjo was saying. Second reason was because their position actually benefitted the consumers whereas Scarjo's position benefited only her. Lastly, and probably most importantly, because Disney was being greedy about money that they actually made whereas Scarjo was being greedy for money she only theoretically could have made (and a very slim chance at that). In other words, Disney wanted money based on actual earnings whereas Scarjo wanted money based on wishful thinking. That's a HUGE difference. I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
Does that mean you agree with my other two reasons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 18:30:01 GMT
Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive.
The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency.
Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so. Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. I can't even tell you how much I would love to have this conversation at a party but here will have to do.
It's possible too that Black Widow isn't a very high name. My education on the subject comes mostly from the movies, and cartoons. I've read maybe two comics in my life. I think for the first couple of movies, I thought Black Widow was going to turn into Scarlet Witch. Looking back, first, lol. Second, I think it's just something I thought because her hair was red and that was a hint. I hope it's as funny to you as it is to me.
The MCU breathed life into most of these characters for me. Even today, I'm less invested in Iron Man than I am RJD's Iron Man. I actually care about Thor now. But yeah, I never heard of Black Widow until the MCU and Scarjo is the only face of Black Widow I've ever seen.
It's amazing what name-value will accomplish. I thought the early DCEU movies were terrible but if you put Superman v Batman in the same movie, fans will come out of the woodwork for that. Man of Steel was...acceptable, Dawn of Justice was garbage (imo), Suicide Squad was okay (the sequel was way better) and Whedon's Justice League...anyways, I'd trade them all for one copy of Ant-Man - who I also never heard of before the MCU.
Maybe I'm veering off-topic a little because I think we're in a good place.
I can only add to the topic of price negotiations that other established stars take home obscene amounts of money both from their contract and for box-office quota bonuses their star power permits them to leverage. Don't quote me but I think Tom Cruise took home 70 million for one of the later Mission Impossible movies. 70 million for one film is another figure the combined total of millions of people across dozens of countries will never see with all their wealth combined. Money is fierce when your career is in it to win it.
Don't worry, your party conversation opinion is the conversation I'd prefer to be apart of at the same party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 18:40:59 GMT
I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
Does that mean you agree with my other two reasons? I'm on the fence about Disney's position benefiting the consumer. Personally I don't have Disney + and would prefer not to so it didn't benefit me. A theatrical release benefits me. I consider theaters equal-accessibility spaces and working class escapes. If I had Disney +, my preference would still be the theater because watching at home will never trump the theater experience. For me, personally.
Until they put it out on Disney +, I'd figure poor sales during a pandemic are just hard luck. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not win. There's contingencies that just can't be anticipated.
The reason I say I'm on the fence is because I accept that releasing Black Widow onto Disney + made it accessible for some, albeit not me, but it would be my preference for streaming services not to gain ground in the film release department because individual they take content out of the popular space and put it into whichever streaming service a house has. Without theaters, I can barely name 5 movies from 2021 because they're all being released on streaming services. I barely notice new releases on the streaming services I do have (Netflix), let alone the ones I don't.
Cinemas bear a lot of responsibility for streaming services gaining ground too. In a way, the prevalence of streaming services are just desserts for theaters turning into zoos, but then my concern is it's only a matter of time before streaming services become the less cheap option and just as much of a nuisance as theaters, but in other ways.
The other point about money based on wishful thinking. It can't be known now. In her position, I would still seek legal advice even if the box-office reached the bonus. What I would do with that advice once it's given, I just don't know.
edit: I guess technically, streaming services don't remove them from public space, they just release in a way that they were never in the public space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 18:49:40 GMT
Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive.
The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency.
Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so.Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. Actually she's getting paid higher than almost all of her co-stars, male or female. The only person who consistently gets anything at that range is RDJ (who gets slightly more) and maybe, maybe Chris Hemsworth but only for Thor: Ragnarok. Chris Evans, as far as I can tell, does not get paid that high and none of the other MCU cast even come close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 18:59:43 GMT
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so.Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. Actually she's getting paid higher than almost all of her co-stars, male or female. The only person who consistently gets anything at that range is RDJ (who gets slightly more) and maybe, maybe Chris Hemsworth but only for Thor: Ragnarok. Chris Evans, as far as I can tell, does not get paid that high and none of the other MCU cast even come close. I suspected as much, but I wanted to be conservative given that I had no numbers at my fingertips to substantiate such a claim. And of course, since she's, by and large, making more money than her male cohort, there is no issue with pay disparity.
|
|
