|
Post by ck100 on Jul 30, 2021 22:40:37 GMT
No matter what happens, future acting contracts for movies will definitely make sure the actor/actress gets their share of the streaming profit pie.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 30, 2021 23:04:04 GMT
No matter what happens, future acting contracts for movies will definitely make sure the actor/actress gets their share of the streaming profit pie. That means those actors will have a hard time getting roles. And we'll see more and more unknown actors in big production movies.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 30, 2021 23:11:29 GMT
No matter what happens, future acting contracts for movies will definitely make sure the actor/actress gets their share of the streaming profit pie. That means those actors will have a hard time getting roles. And we'll see more and more unknown actors in big production movies. If those actors can sell tickets, increase subscriptions, generate lots of views for their work, help sell film merchandise, etc., they won't have trouble getting work since they generate profit for the studio as well as themselves. It would be less costly to go with unknown actors, but unknown actors are riskier, not known, etc. Usually the studio would rather play it safe by biting the bullet and giving the known actor whatever they want regardless of whether demands they have.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 31, 2021 0:01:32 GMT
That means those actors will have a hard time getting roles. And we'll see more and more unknown actors in big production movies. If those actors can sell tickets, increase subscriptions, generate lots of views for their work, help sell film merchandise, etc., they won't have trouble getting work since they generate profit for the studio as well as themselves. It would be less costly to go with unknown actors, but unknown actors are riskier, not known, etc. Usually the studio would rather play it safe by biting the bullet and giving the known actor whatever they want regardless of whether demands they have. I don't think you understand the repercussions of what you're asking. An actor who gets a share in box office income is a one and done deal. They only get proceeds from that single movie and their earnings are directly proportional to what that movie earns. If the movie bombs then they don't get much, if it does great then they get a lot. In comparison, if an actor gets a share of a streaming service's subscription then that means they're going to be getting payouts for a much longer period than the usual run of a movie in theaters. It also means they'll be gaining profit not just from their movie's success but from the accumulated success of every single show on that streaming service. Even if their movie is complete crap that nobody watches, if the streaming platform itself does well then they'll still be getting a good chunk of money. If a number of actors start demanding shares to subscription fees and the studio actually gives in, that will completely bankrupt that studio. It's not a sustainable business model. Sure, the studios can handle a handful of actors demanding something like that, but once they give in to one then a number of actors will demand the same, and there's just no way that it's a sustainable model.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 31, 2021 0:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 31, 2021 0:37:28 GMT
If Emma Stone sues next after Scarlett, then Emily Blunt will probably follow suit for Jungle Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jul 31, 2021 1:37:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 31, 2021 4:26:32 GMT
The relevant part of the agreement with Scarjo: “Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).” cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/johansson-vs-disney.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 31, 2021 16:17:38 GMT
I read the title as Scarlett Johansson Mary Sues Disney
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jul 31, 2021 17:37:02 GMT
The beginning of the end.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 31, 2021 17:52:08 GMT
The beginning of the end. For Disney? That seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 3, 2021 1:24:56 GMT
Her lawsuit blames Disney CEO Bob Chapek.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Aug 3, 2021 3:12:43 GMT
Disney is fighting back against Scarlett: movieweb.com/disney-responds-scarlett-johansson-black-widow-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR1pjHg7OeGE7T9rjynr6foyEgnGbZ7L3JwYPrnqJGiRmag945HHS7l7FnYDisney Hits Back at Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow Lawsuit: There Is No Merit Whatsoever "A spokesperson for the Walt Disney Company said, "There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date."" It's a nice try but it seems like they broke the contract balls out, now they're pulling the "callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged effects of the Covid-19 pandemic" card. It's just so delightfully worded. They could have negotiated some change in the contract but they felt they were entitled to breach it. Their excuse is she could have earned more the other way but that wasn't the terms of the deal. That's not an argument against the contract, that's defending their ass by suggesting it would have been to her advantage for them to violate the contract.
Slick. Disney did wrong by a contract so of course they're going to get sued. To not challenge them or file a suit is the same as saying it's okay. Not doing anything tells Disney they can do this again, which they will because money is the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 3, 2021 7:53:51 GMT
Disney is fighting back against Scarlett: movieweb.com/disney-responds-scarlett-johansson-black-widow-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR1pjHg7OeGE7T9rjynr6foyEgnGbZ7L3JwYPrnqJGiRmag945HHS7l7FnYDisney Hits Back at Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow Lawsuit: There Is No Merit Whatsoever "A spokesperson for the Walt Disney Company said, "There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date."" It's a nice try but it seems like they broke the contract balls out, now they're pulling the "callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged effects of the Covid-19 pandemic" card. It's just so delightfully worded. They could have negotiated some change in the contract but they felt they were entitled to breach it. Their excuse is she could have earned more the other way but that wasn't the terms of the deal. That's not an argument against the contract, that's defending their ass by suggesting it would have been to her advantage for them to violate the contract.
Slick. Disney did wrong by a contract so of course they're going to get sued. To not challenge them or file a suit is the same as saying it's okay. Not doing anything tells Disney they can do this again, which they will because money is the bottom line.
Here's the actual relevant part of their contract. Not that I want to defend Disney, but there is nothing here that makes it clear Disney breached anything in the contract. “Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).”
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Aug 3, 2021 8:22:36 GMT
It's a nice try but it seems like they broke the contract balls out, now they're pulling the "callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged effects of the Covid-19 pandemic" card. It's just so delightfully worded. They could have negotiated some change in the contract but they felt they were entitled to breach it. Their excuse is she could have earned more the other way but that wasn't the terms of the deal. That's not an argument against the contract, that's defending their ass by suggesting it would have been to her advantage for them to violate the contract.
Slick. Disney did wrong by a contract so of course they're going to get sued. To not challenge them or file a suit is the same as saying it's okay. Not doing anything tells Disney they can do this again, which they will because money is the bottom line.
Here's the actual relevant part of their contract. Not that I want to defend Disney, but there is nothing here that makes it clear Disney breached anything in the contract. “Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).” I've no problem defending or offending Disney when the time is right. Disney's response to Scarlet lays it on pretty thick. Especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the pandemic. Not letting Disney wriggle out of this is insensitive to the pandemic? That's farfetched. That's thick PR.
Supposedly they're working out a deal to make the next film theatrical release only, which rather suggests a leak in the Disney ship that needs to be plugged. If they could go back and reword it for Johansson I'm sure they would, but they can't so here we are.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 3, 2021 17:05:06 GMT
Here's the actual relevant part of their contract. Not that I want to defend Disney, but there is nothing here that makes it clear Disney breached anything in the contract. “Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).” I've no problem defending or offending Disney when the time is right. Disney's response to Scarlet lays it on pretty thick. Especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the pandemic. Not letting Disney wriggle out of this is insensitive to the pandemic? That's farfetched. That's thick PR.
Supposedly they're working out a deal to make the next film theatrical release only, which rather suggests a leak in the Disney ship that needs to be plugged. If they could go back and reword it for Johansson I'm sure they would, but they can't so here we are.
Oh I think Disney is an absolute douchebag when it comes to running their business and handling employees. Their response to Scarjo just proves that. However in this case, it's Scarjo who has the weaker argument. Nothing in her contract stipulated a theatrical ONLY release, merely that the producer (Disney) needed to guarantee a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. They've done that and more. As far as legality goes, I don't really see how Disney actually breached the contract. That's not to say that they didn't possibly breach the spirit of the contract... which I think is what Scarjo is arguing for. Nevertheless, majority of Scarjo's case seems to rely on social pressuring Disney at this point. Because let's be honest here, if Black Widow was a huge success, say just shy of $1 billion, I'm almost 100% sure that Scarjo would never have sued Disney.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Aug 3, 2021 20:11:46 GMT
I've no problem defending or offending Disney when the time is right. Disney's response to Scarlet lays it on pretty thick. Especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the pandemic. Not letting Disney wriggle out of this is insensitive to the pandemic? That's farfetched. That's thick PR.
Supposedly they're working out a deal to make the next film theatrical release only, which rather suggests a leak in the Disney ship that needs to be plugged. If they could go back and reword it for Johansson I'm sure they would, but they can't so here we are.
Oh I think Disney is an absolute douchebag when it comes to running their business and handling employees. Their response to Scarjo just proves that. However in this case, it's Scarjo who has the weaker argument. Nothing in her contract stipulated a theatrical ONLY release, merely that the producer (Disney) needed to guarantee a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. They've done that and more. As far as legality goes, I don't really see how Disney actually breached the contract. That's not to say that they didn't possibly breach the spirit of the contract... which I think is what Scarjo is arguing for. Nevertheless, majority of Scarjo's case seems to rely on social pressuring Disney at this point. Because let's be honest here, if Black Widow was a huge success, say just shy of $1 billion, I'm almost 100% sure that Scarjo would never have sued Disney. I don't know what kind of box office figures it did but I'm certain you don't get box office run-off when there's no box office. Every rental on Disney + is money that goes to them but not Johansson. That's money out of her pocket.
My take is even though the pandemic sacked theaters for a while, putting the film on Disney + cuts into the box office draw. It could be argued on her behalf BW would have seen better returns if it were a theater only release. We'll never know otherwise now, but it didn't seem like Disney was making any overtures to compensate Johansson with Disney + rental money. I don't see how anybody but Disney is the architect of this mess.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 3, 2021 20:53:45 GMT
Every rental on Disney + is money that goes to them but not Johansson. That's money out of her pocket. Not according to Disney. According to the response Disney gave out, Scarjo actually does get a share of the D+ purchases of her movie. What she doesn't get a share of are the subscription fees. Now this has not been corroborated by Scarjo, but she also has not denied or refuted it which means it's highly likely to be true. In the end, I'm not saying Scarjo probably did not lose money due to getting a simultaneous streaming release. What I'm saying is that Disney didn't actually seem to breach her contract by doing so.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 7, 2021 0:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 20, 2021 16:44:49 GMT
|
|