|
Post by darkpast on Aug 21, 2021 15:59:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 21, 2021 16:07:21 GMT
When the hell did Disney launch a misogynistic attack on Scarjo? I mean, sure their response was a bit below the belt but there was no misogyny in it.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 22, 2021 15:20:43 GMT
. If someone told me a year ago that Disney would have their own Fisher saga, I wouldn't believe them.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 3, 2021 14:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 4, 2021 17:38:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 4, 2021 20:07:38 GMT
Well that's bad news. Makes me pissed off at this lawsuit all the more.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 7, 2021 8:13:35 GMT
Technically, they're not wrong. Scarjo's case is pretty much purely dependent on social pressure at this point, because after reading what her contract entailed, it doesn't seem like Disney breached it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 9, 2021 19:06:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 22, 2021 0:03:27 GMT
"Following Scarlett Johansson's bombshell Black Widow lawsuit, Disney CEO Bob Chapek confirms the studio will adjust actor contracts in the future."
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 2:18:22 GMT
Well that's bad news. Makes me pissed off at this lawsuit all the more. Why the lawsuit and not Disney?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 3:10:50 GMT
Well that's bad news. Makes me pissed off at this lawsuit all the more. Why the lawsuit and not Disney? Because after reading the contract, it doesn't look like Disney broke the contract after all.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 3:20:03 GMT
Why the lawsuit and not Disney? Because after reading the contract, it doesn't look like Disney broke the contract after all. The stipulation is that she'd receive a bonus if Black Widow made a certain amount of money at the box office. If Disney split the distribution between box office and streaming, how is that not a violation of the condition of reaching the bonus both parties agreed to?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 3:43:43 GMT
Because after reading the contract, it doesn't look like Disney broke the contract after all. The stipulation is that she'd receive a bonus if Black Widow made a certain amount of money at the box office. If Disney split the distribution between box office and streaming, how is that not a violation of the condition of reaching the bonus both parties agreed to? Because she still got a percentage of the box office earnings, just as her contract stated. Therefore Disney did not violate the condition. There was a condition that Black Widow was supposed to get a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. I believe Disney released it to over 4000 theaters. Again, no violation. There was no stipulation in her contract that Disney could not release it on a streaming service at the same time nor was there a stipulation that it could only get a theatrical-only release.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 3:54:04 GMT
The stipulation is that she'd receive a bonus if Black Widow made a certain amount of money at the box office. If Disney split the distribution between box office and streaming, how is that not a violation of the condition of reaching the bonus both parties agreed to? Because she still got a percentage of the box office earnings, just as her contract stated. Therefore Disney did not violate the condition. There was a condition that Black Widow was supposed to get a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. I believe Disney released it to over 4000 theaters. Again, no violation. There was no stipulation in her contract that Disney could not release it on a streaming service at the same time nor was there a stipulation that it could only get a theatrical-only release. Releasing it to streaming would cut into box-office proceeds regardless of how many theaters it was released in.
If the wording were that literal, it could be argued that releasing the film to streaming wasn't in the contract either.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 5:15:42 GMT
Because she still got a percentage of the box office earnings, just as her contract stated. Therefore Disney did not violate the condition. There was a condition that Black Widow was supposed to get a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. I believe Disney released it to over 4000 theaters. Again, no violation. There was no stipulation in her contract that Disney could not release it on a streaming service at the same time nor was there a stipulation that it could only get a theatrical-only release. Releasing it to streaming would cut into box-office proceeds regardless of how many theaters it was released in.
If the wording were that literal, it could be argued that releasing the film to streaming wasn't in the contract either.
Based on what we've seen from Shang-Chi, that doesn't seem to be the case. Shang Chi wasn't released in streaming and it doesn't look like it's going to make that much more than Black Widow. Because there's really no guarantee that the people who watched it on streaming would have gone out to watch it in theaters had that been the only option. Most likely they would have simply waited till it was available on streaming eventually. And at least in this manner, Disney managed to make back a bit more of the movie's costs. Plus it should be noted that Scarjo also got a percentage of the Disney+ sales of her movie. And no, releasing the film to streaming is still not breaking the contract. The contract only stated that it would guarantee a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. Releasing it in streaming does not break that stipulation. Here, read it yourself: “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 Cat on Sept 22, 2021 13:18:11 GMT
Releasing it to streaming would cut into box-office proceeds regardless of how many theaters it was released in.
If the wording were that literal, it could be argued that releasing the film to streaming wasn't in the contract either.
Based on what we've seen from Shang-Chi, that doesn't seem to be the case. Shang Chi wasn't released in streaming and it doesn't look like it's going to make that much more than Black Widow. Because there's really no guarantee that the people who watched it on streaming would have gone out to watch it in theaters had that been the only option. Most likely they would have simply waited till it was available on streaming eventually. And at least in this manner, Disney managed to make back a bit more of the movie's costs. Plus it should be noted that Scarjo also got a percentage of the Disney+ sales of her movie. And no, releasing the film to streaming is still not breaking the contract. The contract only stated that it would guarantee a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. Releasing it in streaming does not break that stipulation. Here, read it yourself: “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 Getting a portion of Disney + sales doesn't have to do with the terms of the bonus. Even in that segment of the contract, there's nothing about going to streaming services. The release of a film like Shang Chi doesn't make a difference either. Different movie, different terms.
If the argument is that releasing Black Widow doesn't violate the contract because it wasn't stipulated that it wouldn't be released to streaming, the inverse exists too. It was never in the contract that the film could go to steaming. Reinventing terms of the contract is violating the contract by changing it.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 15:28:43 GMT
Based on what we've seen from Shang-Chi, that doesn't seem to be the case. Shang Chi wasn't released in streaming and it doesn't look like it's going to make that much more than Black Widow. Because there's really no guarantee that the people who watched it on streaming would have gone out to watch it in theaters had that been the only option. Most likely they would have simply waited till it was available on streaming eventually. And at least in this manner, Disney managed to make back a bit more of the movie's costs. Plus it should be noted that Scarjo also got a percentage of the Disney+ sales of her movie. And no, releasing the film to streaming is still not breaking the contract. The contract only stated that it would guarantee a wide theatrical release of at least 1500 theaters. Releasing it in streaming does not break that stipulation. Here, read it yourself: “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.pdfGetting a portion of Disney + sales doesn't have to do with the terms of the bonus. Even in that segment of the contract, there's nothing about going to streaming services. The release of a film like Shang Chi doesn't make a difference either. Different movie, different terms.
If the argument is that releasing Black Widow doesn't violate the contract because it wasn't stipulated that it wouldn't be released to streaming, the inverse exists too. It was never in the contract that the film could go to steaming. Reinventing terms of the contract is violating the contract by changing it.
If that is true, it would also negate Johansson's argument that Disney did not proceed with the Black Widow release according to the standard operating procedure of previous MCU releases. 'Different movie(s), different terms.' If she proceeds along that course, she pleads her case in a vacuum where she cannot point to other MCU releases to support her assertions.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 15:42:57 GMT
Getting a portion of Disney + sales doesn't have to do with the terms of the bonus. Even in that segment of the contract, there's nothing about going to streaming services. The release of a film like Shang Chi doesn't make a difference either. Different movie, different terms.
If the argument is that releasing Black Widow doesn't violate the contract because it wasn't stipulated that it wouldn't be released to streaming, the inverse exists too. It was never in the contract that the film could go to steaming. Reinventing terms of the contract is violating the contract by changing it.
If that is true, it would also negate Johansson's argument that Disney did not proceed with the Black Widow release according to the standard operating procedure of previous MCU releases. 'Different movie(s), different terms.' If she proceeds along that course, she pleads her case in a vacuum where she cannot point to other MCU releases to support her assertions. Other MCU releases weren't pushed back and delayed for almost two years. The release of Chang Chi is immaterial because its numbers are being used to suggest a full theatrical release wouldn't have made a difference to Black Widow's numbers. It's the same as asking to disprove a negative. It can't be known now if a full theatrical release with no streaming would have effected Black Widow's box office. All that is known is by changing the terms of the deal, the stipulation through which she would receive a bonus was changed.
The argument that she got a portion of the proceeds of streaming sales isn't an argument against Disney changing the terms of the deal. It's more an argument that she has enough... which is fine as an opinion, but it's an argument that cuts both ways.
It can and will likely be argued Disney was selfish to release the film in such a way that makes back some portions of its costs in a way that cuts Johansson out of her pathway to a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 16:34:17 GMT
If that is true, it would also negate Johansson's argument that Disney did not proceed with the Black Widow release according to the standard operating procedure of previous MCU releases. 'Different movie(s), different terms.' If she proceeds along that course, she pleads her case in a vacuum where she cannot point to other MCU releases to support her assertions. Other MCU releases weren't pushed back and delayed for almost two years. The release of Chang Chi is immaterial because its numbers are being used to suggest a full theatrical release wouldn't have made a difference to Black Widow's numbers. It's the same as asking to disprove a negative. It can't be known now if a full theatrical release with no streaming would have effected Black Widow's box office. All that is known is by changing the terms of the deal, the stipulation through which she would receive a bonus was changed.
The argument that she got a portion of the proceeds of streaming sales isn't an argument against Disney changing the terms of the deal. It's more an argument that she has enough... which is fine as an opinion, but it's an argument that cuts both ways.
It can and will likely be argued Disney was selfish to release the film in such a way that makes back some portions of its costs in a way that cuts Johansson out of her pathway to a bonus.
Without the foundation of other MCU theatrical-only releases to point to, Disney is free to move the goal post and point to a dynamically changing consumer landscape and a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to justify the streaming release. Disney is a corporation. It doesn't experience emotions like selfishness. It seeks maximum profit as quickly as possible via any means available. In that context, Scarlett's bonus is collateral damage in a war against a demonstrably declining box office. Several other less famous people also had to hold the L regarding the loss of profit-sharing opportunities. We only care about Scarlett because she's famous. I don't care at all about what Johansson is entitled regarding her bonus. That will be worked out in arbitration, and I can bet you a non-vital organ that it ain't gonna be $50 M (assuming her side even agrees to arbitration). Godspeed to her and her accountants and managers on that front. Here is what is more important to me. Consumers must have a choice in a free market. You can't lock people into going to public venues in the middle of a health crisis. Talent and studios need to accept and adapt to the changing landscape. Pushing a theater's only agenda for profit or maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. Consumers will grow wise and respond accordingly. Talent can't dictate distribution strategies - even if they are also producers. They are not Executives, and they lack the training and experience needed to comprehend how to release a film in a dynamically changing landscape. This case proves that talent would only dictate a release strategy catered to its own interests and not the public good. Rather than letting Scarlett boss the Disney release calendar, Chapek should have cut her in on streaming upfront. That said, Scarlett and her team knew about Disney+ before day one. They supposedly reached out to Disney before the service was even released to ensure that Black Widow would receive an "appropriate theatrical window" before being added to streaming. They should have been way more aggressive and pushed for an amendment to the existing agreement. Their lack of due diligence makes them culpable in my eyes - especially given Chapek's notorious reputation as a tightwad. Chapek also bears responsibility here as this would have never happened under Iger's leadership. The funny thing is that the $50 M is clearly Johansson's exit strategy from the tights and leg-tossing game. She obviously had a nice chat with mama Paltrow on the set of Endgame about how to get those GOOP dollars. It takes quite a bit of seed money. I'm sure this bonus was intended to fuel a smooth transition from highly-paid action star to Alba-style cosmetics mogul. When the dough didn't rise in the proverbial oven, I'm sure her team put the full-court press on her to sue. I mean, why the fuck should we let a little thing like a pandemic slow down a skincare empire? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 16:49:39 GMT
Other MCU releases weren't pushed back and delayed for almost two years. The release of Chang Chi is immaterial because its numbers are being used to suggest a full theatrical release wouldn't have made a difference to Black Widow's numbers. It's the same as asking to disprove a negative. It can't be known now if a full theatrical release with no streaming would have effected Black Widow's box office. All that is known is by changing the terms of the deal, the stipulation through which she would receive a bonus was changed.
The argument that she got a portion of the proceeds of streaming sales isn't an argument against Disney changing the terms of the deal. It's more an argument that she has enough... which is fine as an opinion, but it's an argument that cuts both ways.
It can and will likely be argued Disney was selfish to release the film in such a way that makes back some portions of its costs in a way that cuts Johansson out of her pathway to a bonus.
Without the foundation of other MCU theatrical-only releases to point to, Disney is free to move the goal post and point to a dynamically changing consumer landscape and a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to justify the streaming release. Disney is a corporation. It doesn't experience emotions like selfishness. It seeks maximum profit as quickly as possible via any means available. In that context, Scarlett's bonus is collateral damage in a war against a demonstrably declining box office. Several other less famous people also had to hold the L regarding the loss of profit-sharing opportunities. We only care about Scarlett because she's famous. I don't care at all about what Johansson is entitled regarding her bonus. That will be worked out in arbitration, and I can bet you a non-vital organ that it ain't gonna be $50 M (assuming her side even agrees to arbitration). Godspeed to her and her accountants and managers on that front. Here is what is more important to me. Consumers must have a choice in a free market. You can't lock people into going to public venues in the middle of a health crisis. Talent and studios need to accept and adapt to the changing landscape. Pushing a theater's only agenda for profit or maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. Consumers will grow wise and respond accordingly. Talent can't dictate distribution strategies - even if they are also producers. They are not Executives, and they lack the training and experience needed to comprehend how to release a film in a dynamically changing landscape. This case proves that talent would only dictate a release strategy catered to its own interests and not the public good. Rather than letting Scarlett boss the Disney release calendar, Chapek should have cut her in on streaming upfront. That said, Scarlett and her team knew about Disney+ before day one. They supposedly reached out to Disney before the service was even released to ensure that Black Widow would receive an "appropriate theatrical window" before being added to streaming. They should have been way more aggressive and pushed for an amendment to the existing agreement. Their lack of due diligence makes them culpable in my eyes - especially given Chapek's notorious reputation as a tightwad. Chapek also bears responsibility here as this would have never happened under Iger's leadership. The funny thing is that the $50 M is clearly Johansson's exit strategy from the tights and leg-tossing game. She obviously had a nice chat with mama Paltrow on the set of Endgame about how to get those GOOP dollars. It takes quite a bit of seed money. I'm sure this bonus was intended to fuel a smooth transition from highly-paid action star to Alba-style media mogul. When the dough didn't rise in the proverbial oven, I'm sure her team put the full-court press on her to sue. I mean, why the fuck should we let a little thing like a pandemic slow down a skincare empire? LOL! The argument that Disney cut Johansson out of her path to a bonus doesn't require selfishness. It's an objective fact. The point of a contract is they are not free to change it on the fly in accordance with public needs. Johansson is an executive producer of Black Widow. She is one of those people to whom Disney's desires to rearrange the deal are beholden. She's not just the talent, she's also a client.
If they can't go locking people into theaters during a mental health crisis, they should have delayed it again, or renegotiated the contract to accommodate streaming. The situation regarding stages, lock-downs and mandates changes every day. This idea that they should go around the terms of her contract to make back the costs of the film is just that, a method by which they can recover financial losses. While it may be prudent for Disney to try, it's not an argument for the public good.
I can't say I believe this idea that Johansson and Paltrow talked shop about exit strategy. Even if it were true, it doesn't count against her claim that Disney changed the deal. Besides, a little known rumor is Paltrow was very frosty towards Johansson on the set of Iron Man 2, so even though it's a small detail, I've reason to believe they're not allies or even friends. Even with that, Disney is just as capable of mobilizing strategies and forces that justify their course of action.
A lot of this concerns actions that are done and done. If Disney didn't want to incur the risk of giving Johansson control, they could have not made her an executive producer. Ain't no turning back the clock on this one. Future contracts have already been rewritten to avoid this type of confusion, which rather suggests the higher-ups at Disney know fine-well Johansson's argument is legally valid.
|
|