|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 17:22:48 GMT
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.
You used the terms selfish and selfishness; I didn't. I was quoting you. So, I do not really understand your point there. Disney did not "change" anything regarding the contract. They performed an action not specified within the contract that could be interpreted as undermining certain aspects of their agreement with Johansson. Your "objective fact" is clearly up for argument and debate - that is why everyone is in court right now and why courts exist in the first place. Executive producers do not dictate or control release strategies. Ironically enough, in the film industry, their chief concern is fundraising for a film. Curious to know where you've seen her referred to as Disney's client. In this scenario, I don't think Scarlett is anyone's client; she is "talent" and one of many "stakeholders" in the film's ultimate performance. if you have an article you can refer to, I'd obliged if you could provide a link. To hold Black Widow would have meant to hold up the MCU. The MCU is a uniquely interconnected and interdependent franchise. Disney could not delay her film further as it would have potentially delayed other movies and TV shows. What you're saying is that Scarlett's bonus is worth hundreds of people on other productions just waiting around for Black Widow to come out. Also, it's not a mental health crisis; it's a public health crisis. My hypotheticals surrounding Paltrow and Johannson in conversation were just that, a hypothetical. That said, I'm not trying to deny you your right to champion Scarlett and her bonus. I'm more concerned with the bigger picture regarding clearly defined compensation for talent - and all participants really - in the filmmaking process and consumer choice. Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 17:57:24 GMT
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.
You used the terms selfish and selfishness; I didn't. I was quoting you. So, I do not really understand your point there. Disney did not "change" anything regarding the contract. They performed an action not specified within the contract that could be interpreted as undermining certain aspects of their agreement with Johansson. Your "objective fact" is clearly up for argument and debate - that is why everyone is in court right now and why courts exist in the first place. Executive producers do not dictate or control release strategies. Ironically enough, in the film industry, their chief concern is fundraising for a film. Curious to know where you've seen her referred to as Disney's client. In this scenario, I don't think Scarlett is anyone's client; she is "talent" and one of many "stakeholders" in the film's ultimate performance. if you have an article you can refer to, I'd obliged if you could provide a link. To hold Black Widow would have meant to hold up the MCU. The MCU is a uniquely interconnected and interdependent franchise. Disney could not delay her film further as it would have potentially delayed other movies and TV shows. What you're saying is that Scarlett's bonus is worth hundreds of people on other productions just waiting around for Black Widow to come out. Also, it's not a mental health crisis; it's a public health crisis. My hypotheticals surrounding Paltrow and Johannson in conversation were just that, a hypothetical. That said, I'm not trying to deny you your right to champion Scarlett and her bonus. I'm more concerned with the bigger picture regarding clearly defined compensation for talent - and all participants really - in the filmmaking process and consumer choice. Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look. The argument that Johansson should be okay with what she has is a prelude to arguing her lawsuit is a result of selfishness, with or without the word "selfishness" being raised. I'm just as content to move on without using selfishness because neither decision from Disney or Johansson is value neutral. Disney changed the terms of the deal by which a bonus could be reached behind her back. This is an objective fact, with or without an adjective like selfish to describe it.
Performing an act not specified in the contract that results in altering a condition of changing the contract is changing the contract.
Holding Black Widow in limbo is a result of extenuating circumstances and already occurred over the last two years. Nothing's changed in that regard. It was held up. It could have been held up longer. It affected people in the process. It could have affected people longer. Scarlet Johansson, despite earning more money for her work provided and her role, is one of the people waiting around for Black Widow to come out.
I didn't say anything about mental health crisis or public health crisis. I said terms and conditions change on the daily, which is true. Had Disney held to the terms of the contract, it may be that box-office draw would not have reached the quota that would grant Johansson the bonus, but since they altered the method of distribution, there is room for doubt.
Disney, the much richer entity than Johansson, knew what they were entering into when they agreed to the terms of the bonus. This is a capitalist marketplace and she is playing by the rules just as Disney is. It does not depend on who is more selfish or what is not a good look.
I'm not championing Scarlet Johansson. If I never heard of her until yesterday, the terms by which Disney changed the deal is still clear.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:01:29 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.
Yeah, no... that's not how contracts work. A contract will specifically dictate things that you need to do and it will also specify things that you cannot do. But it's not like you're no longer allowed to do anything else other than what is specified in a contract. For example if I sign a contract where I agree to ask permission from my wife everytime I want to eat a Big Mac, that doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to eat spaghetti. Disney agreeing to release Black Widow in theaters does not mean they're no longer allowed to release it in other mediums, not unless it was dictated in the contract. Otherwise how would they ever get them released on DVD and Bluray. As for Shang-Chi's performance, it's absolutely relevant. Scarjo's entire case is based on how other MCU movies have been released and performed. Heck, she was claiming her movie was going to make $1 billion in box office, based on no data other than because some MCU movies grossed more than $1 billion. So if she wants to use other MCU movies as comparison points to make her case, then Shang-Chi's performance is definitely relevant to this argument. At the end of the day, it still comes back to the fact that Disney did not breach the contract nor did they change it (as you keep mistakenly insisting). They gave Scarjo exactly what was indicated in her contract and then some (like giving her a cut of the D+ sales of her movie). That's not to say that what Disney did was not morally questionable, and I don't exactly want to defend Disney for their actions, but we need to stop this whole narrative of saying Disney broke the contract. And let's not pretend that Scarjo's intentions are that much more honorable than Disney's. Disney wants their film to make more money, Scarjo wants to get paid more. In the end, both of them just want more money.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:11:38 GMT
Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look. It should be noted that Scarjo's $50 million bonus wasn't guaranteed. That was just the projected amount the would receive IF her movie managed to earn $1 billion. She would have gotten less or more depending on the performance of her movie. Also want to add here that Scarjo and her team did try to renegotiate with Disney, and instead of getting a percentage of the box office profits they wanted to get upfront payment instead at which point Disney could release the movie however they want. Scarjo was demanding $100 million payment upfront, an extra $80 million on top of her existing $20 million payment.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:20:03 GMT
Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look. It should be noted that Scarjo's $50 million bonus wasn't guaranteed. That was just the projected amount the would receive IF her movie managed to earn $1 billion. She would have gotten less or more depending on the performance of her movie. Also want to add here that Scarjo and her team did try to renegotiate with Disney, and instead of getting a percentage of the box office profits they wanted to get upfront payment instead at which point Disney could release the movie however they want. Scarjo was demanding $100 million payment upfront, an extra $80 million on top of her existing $20 million payment. Yeah, I know. It’s completely laughable. I heard Disney didn’t even bother to counter, though.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 19:22:12 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.
Yeah... that's not how contracts work. A contract will specifically dictate things that you need to do and it will also specify things that you cannot do. But it's not like you're no longer allowed to do anything else other than what is specified in a contract. For example if I sign a contract where I agree to ask permission from my wife everytime I want to eat a Big Mac, that doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to eat spaghetti. Disney agreeing to release Black Widow in theaters does not mean they're no longer allowed to release it in other mediums, not unless it was dictated in the contract. Otherwise how would they ever get them released on DVD and Bluray. As for Shang-Chi's performance, it's absolutely relevant. Scarjo's entire case is based on how other MCU movies have been released and performed. Heck, she was claiming her movie was going to make $1 billion in box office, based on no data other than because some MCU movies grossed more than $1 billion. So if she wants to use other MCU movies as comparison points to make her case, then Shang-Chi's performance is definitely relevant to this argument. At the end of the day, it still comes back to the fact that Disney did not breach the contract nor did they change it (as you keep mistakenly insisting). They gave Scarjo exactly what was indicated in her contract and then some (like giving her a cut of the D+ sales of her movie). That's not to say that what Disney did was not morally questionable, and I don't exactly want to defend Disney for their actions, but we need to stop this whole narrative of saying Disney broke the contract. Because they clearly didn't. It is how contracts work. If a course of action take outside the contract affects the condition of the contract, it changes the contract. Releasing them on Blu-Ray or DVD later has nothing to do with the stipulation of its theatrical release. It looked to me even by the portion of the contract you offered that the deal was to release it to a minimum of 1500 theaters. Honoring this obligation is not license to release it elsewhere if a stipulation in the contract depends on box-office gains. Releasing the film in a platform outside of the box-office changes those terms, which could affect the outcome of the contract.
Shang-Chi's performance isn't relevant. The film came out after so it wouldn't exist as a template for how Black Widow's box-office gains would be portioned. The contract regarding the release of Shang-Chi was different too, tweaked to avoid the same mistake. Going around the terms of the contract doesn't require data to prove. If the film made enough money at the box-office to justify Johansson's bonus while at the same time being released to streaming, it would still be altering the deal.
They went around the terms of the contract. It's not a narrative or a story, it's an objective fact. It doesn't need to be argued whether it was morally questionable. It was questionable to the legal language in the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:23:13 GMT
It should be noted that Scarjo's $50 million bonus wasn't guaranteed. That was just the projected amount the would receive IF her movie managed to earn $1 billion. She would have gotten less or more depending on the performance of her movie. Also want to add here that Scarjo and her team did try to renegotiate with Disney, and instead of getting a percentage of the box office profits they wanted to get upfront payment instead at which point Disney could release the movie however they want. Scarjo was demanding $100 million payment upfront, an extra $80 million on top of her existing $20 million payment. Yeah, I know. It’s completely laughable. I heard Disney didn’t even bother to counter, though. Yeah well, Chapek is apparently a cheap prick. Scarjo's price probably seemed so ridiculous that he just got completely turned off. She probably would have had more luck had she entered with a more reasonable number. They were willing to renegotiate with Dwayne Johnson after all, but then again his asking price was only $22 million.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:26:15 GMT
You used the terms selfish and selfishness; I didn't. I was quoting you. So, I do not really understand your point there. Disney did not "change" anything regarding the contract. They performed an action not specified within the contract that could be interpreted as undermining certain aspects of their agreement with Johansson. Your "objective fact" is clearly up for argument and debate - that is why everyone is in court right now and why courts exist in the first place. Executive producers do not dictate or control release strategies. Ironically enough, in the film industry, their chief concern is fundraising for a film. Curious to know where you've seen her referred to as Disney's client. In this scenario, I don't think Scarlett is anyone's client; she is "talent" and one of many "stakeholders" in the film's ultimate performance. if you have an article you can refer to, I'd obliged if you could provide a link. To hold Black Widow would have meant to hold up the MCU. The MCU is a uniquely interconnected and interdependent franchise. Disney could not delay her film further as it would have potentially delayed other movies and TV shows. What you're saying is that Scarlett's bonus is worth hundreds of people on other productions just waiting around for Black Widow to come out. Also, it's not a mental health crisis; it's a public health crisis. My hypotheticals surrounding Paltrow and Johannson in conversation were just that, a hypothetical. That said, I'm not trying to deny you your right to champion Scarlett and her bonus. I'm more concerned with the bigger picture regarding clearly defined compensation for talent - and all participants really - in the filmmaking process and consumer choice. Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look. The argument that Johansson should be okay with what she has is a prelude to arguing her lawsuit is a result of selfishness, with or without the word "selfishness" being raised. I'm just as content to move on without using selfishness because neither decision from Disney or Johansson is value neutral. Disney changed the terms of the deal by which a bonus could be reached behind her back. This is an objective fact, with or without an adjective like selfish to describe it.
Performing an act not specified in the contract that results in altering a condition of changing the contract is changing the contract.
Holding Black Widow in limbo is a result of extenuating circumstances and already occurred over the last two years. Nothing's changed in that regard. It was held up. It could have been held up longer. It affected people in the process. It could have affected people longer. Scarlet Johansson, despite earning more money for her work provided and her role, is one of the people waiting around for Black Widow to come out.
I didn't say anything about mental health crisis or public health crisis. I said terms and conditions change on the daily, which is true. Had Disney held to the terms of the contract, it may be that box-office draw would not have reached the quota that would grant Johansson the bonus, but since they altered the method of distribution, there is room for doubt.
Disney, the much richer entity than Johansson, knew what they were entering into when they agreed to the terms of the bonus. This is a capitalist marketplace and she is playing by the rules just as Disney is. It does not depend on who is more selfish or what is not a good look.
I'm not championing Scarlet Johansson. If I never heard of her until yesterday, the terms by which Disney changed the deal is still clear.
As much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I have to say that, in the final analysis, I disagree with your interpretation. Disney did not change the terms of their contract with Scarlett Johansson. Changing a contract is a different activity than breaching a contract. Disney "allegedly" breached their contract with Johansson. A breach is different than a change in that it asserts a failure to perform an agreed-upon activity documented in a contract. It is not a change to the original agreement so much as it is a failure to perform or deliver on terms defined within.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 19:26:30 GMT
Johannson's 50M dollar bonus was likely predicated on the film making a billion dollars (probably based on Captain Marvel's performance) - which would not have been realistic regardless of a box-office only or hybrid release model in the current climate. If Disney is selfish, then Scarlett is greedy AF for asking for the MAX bonus on a film that likely would have never cleared that hurdle under even ideal circumstances. The bonus is based on a sliding scale - it was not a fixed dollar value. Even if you add pain and suffering plus inconvenience - it's not a good look. It should be noted that Scarjo's $50 million bonus wasn't guaranteed. That was just the projected amount the would receive IF her movie managed to earn $1 billion. She would have gotten less or more depending on the performance of her movie. Also want to add here that Scarjo and her team did try to renegotiate with Disney, and instead of getting a percentage of the box office profits they wanted to get upfront payment instead at which point Disney could release the movie however they want. Scarjo was demanding $100 million payment upfront, an extra $80 million on top of her existing $20 million payment. That's her prerogative. The amount of money they make is dizzying, but that's the system as it is. The MCU made plenty of people rich and plenty of rich people richer.
Regardless of what the number of the bonus was, alternative methods of distribution cut a path around it.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 19:28:19 GMT
The argument that Johansson should be okay with what she has is a prelude to arguing her lawsuit is a result of selfishness, with or without the word "selfishness" being raised. I'm just as content to move on without using selfishness because neither decision from Disney or Johansson is value neutral. Disney changed the terms of the deal by which a bonus could be reached behind her back. This is an objective fact, with or without an adjective like selfish to describe it.
Performing an act not specified in the contract that results in altering a condition of changing the contract is changing the contract.
Holding Black Widow in limbo is a result of extenuating circumstances and already occurred over the last two years. Nothing's changed in that regard. It was held up. It could have been held up longer. It affected people in the process. It could have affected people longer. Scarlet Johansson, despite earning more money for her work provided and her role, is one of the people waiting around for Black Widow to come out.
I didn't say anything about mental health crisis or public health crisis. I said terms and conditions change on the daily, which is true. Had Disney held to the terms of the contract, it may be that box-office draw would not have reached the quota that would grant Johansson the bonus, but since they altered the method of distribution, there is room for doubt.
Disney, the much richer entity than Johansson, knew what they were entering into when they agreed to the terms of the bonus. This is a capitalist marketplace and she is playing by the rules just as Disney is. It does not depend on who is more selfish or what is not a good look.
I'm not championing Scarlet Johansson. If I never heard of her until yesterday, the terms by which Disney changed the deal is still clear.
As much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I have to say that, in the final analysis, I disagree with your interpretation. Disney did not change the terms of their contract with Scarlett Johansson. Changing a contract is a different activity than breaching a contract. Disney "allegedly" breached their contract with Johansson. A breach is different than a change in that it asserts a failure to perform an agreed-upon activity documented in a contract. It is not a change to the original agreement so much as it is a failure to perform or deliver on terms defined within. The terms blend into each other. It's not that the contract was changed. The behaviour outside the contract was changed in a way that could be argued don't reflect the contract.
For what it's worth, I definitely enjoyed this discussion too.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:30:49 GMT
Yeah... that's not how contracts work. A contract will specifically dictate things that you need to do and it will also specify things that you cannot do. But it's not like you're no longer allowed to do anything else other than what is specified in a contract. For example if I sign a contract where I agree to ask permission from my wife everytime I want to eat a Big Mac, that doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to eat spaghetti. Disney agreeing to release Black Widow in theaters does not mean they're no longer allowed to release it in other mediums, not unless it was dictated in the contract. Otherwise how would they ever get them released on DVD and Bluray. As for Shang-Chi's performance, it's absolutely relevant. Scarjo's entire case is based on how other MCU movies have been released and performed. Heck, she was claiming her movie was going to make $1 billion in box office, based on no data other than because some MCU movies grossed more than $1 billion. So if she wants to use other MCU movies as comparison points to make her case, then Shang-Chi's performance is definitely relevant to this argument. At the end of the day, it still comes back to the fact that Disney did not breach the contract nor did they change it (as you keep mistakenly insisting). They gave Scarjo exactly what was indicated in her contract and then some (like giving her a cut of the D+ sales of her movie). That's not to say that what Disney did was not morally questionable, and I don't exactly want to defend Disney for their actions, but we need to stop this whole narrative of saying Disney broke the contract. Because they clearly didn't. It is how contracts work. If a course of action take outside the contract affects the condition of the contract, it changes the contract. Releasing them on Blu-Ray or DVD later has nothing to do with the stipulation of its theatrical release. It looked to me even by the portion of the contract you offered that the deal was to release it to a minimum of 1500 theaters. Honoring this obligation is not license to release it elsewhere if a stipulation in the contract depends on box-office gains. Releasing the film in a platform outside of the box-office changes those terms, which could affect the outcome of the contract.
Shang-Chi's performance isn't relevant. The film came out after so it wouldn't exist as a template for how Black Widow's box-office gains would be portioned. The contract regarding the release of Shang-Chi was different too, tweaked to avoid the same mistake. Going around the terms of the contract doesn't require data to prove. If the film made enough money at the box-office to justify Johansson's bonus while at the same time being released to streaming, it would still be altering the deal.
They went around the terms of the contract. It's not a narrative or a story, it's an objective fact. It doesn't need to be argued whether it was morally questionable. It was questionable to the legal language in the contract.
Nope, wrong again. Releasing on streaming did not stop Disney from honoring what was written in the contract, which was that it would release in at least 1500 theaters. Disney did that and more (release to over 4000 theaters). Are you telling me that Scarjo and her team would have raised a fuss if Disney released her movie on streaming 6 months later because "Honoring this obligation is not license to release it elsewhere"? Heck, even Scarjo and her team aren't arguing that Disney broke the contract. Their complaint is that Disney broke the spirit of the contract, because (according to her) they had had an implied understanding that the release was going to be theaters only. Based on the way they word their argument, it's clear even they know that Disney did not break the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:31:37 GMT
Yeah, I know. It’s completely laughable. I heard Disney didn’t even bother to counter, though. Yeah well, Chapek is apparently a cheap prick. Scarjo's price probably seemed so ridiculous that he just got completely turned off. She probably would have had more luck had she entered with a more reasonable number. They were willing to renegotiate with Dwayne Johnson after all, but then again his asking price was only $22 million. I think Chapek looked at his risk profile… His choice was to either capitulate and have egg on his face when the film inevitably underperformed, or release it and brace for the inevitable lawsuit. The lawsuit must have been the more viable option.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:34:04 GMT
It should be noted that Scarjo's $50 million bonus wasn't guaranteed. That was just the projected amount the would receive IF her movie managed to earn $1 billion. She would have gotten less or more depending on the performance of her movie. Also want to add here that Scarjo and her team did try to renegotiate with Disney, and instead of getting a percentage of the box office profits they wanted to get upfront payment instead at which point Disney could release the movie however they want. Scarjo was demanding $100 million payment upfront, an extra $80 million on top of her existing $20 million payment. That's her prerogative. The amount of money they make is dizzying, but that's the system as it is. The MCU made plenty of people rich and plenty of rich people richer.
Regardless of what the number of the bonus was, alternative methods of distribution cut a path around it.
And it's Disney's prerogative to turn down a renegotiation. Disney is under to obligation to entertain renegotiations once a contract has been signed. It should be noted that no single MCU actor has ever gotten paid anywhere near $100 million for a single movie.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 19:37:47 GMT
Yeah well, Chapek is apparently a cheap prick. Scarjo's price probably seemed so ridiculous that he just got completely turned off. She probably would have had more luck had she entered with a more reasonable number. They were willing to renegotiate with Dwayne Johnson after all, but then again his asking price was only $22 million. I think Chapek looked at his risk profile… His choice was to either capitulate and have egg on his face when the film inevitably underperformed, or release it and brace for the inevitable lawsuit. The lawsuit must have been the more viable option. Well to be fair, the movie did cost $200 million to produce. Based on the fact that they (rightly) assumed the movie would underperform, I'd understand why they were being tight with their purse strings. Giving an actor $100 million on top of the $200 million budget during a pandemic release is just not a sound decision anyway you look at it. Or releasing it to theaters only, seeing it underperform and knowing that you could have gotten extra profits from streaming had you just released it at the same time... can't really blame Disney for trying to make money off of the product. Of course had I been in his shoes, I would have at least replied with a counter offer. Oh well, it's not like I claimed Disney was a likeable company.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:41:16 GMT
As much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I have to say that, in the final analysis, I disagree with your interpretation. Disney did not change the terms of their contract with Scarlett Johansson. Changing a contract is a different activity than breaching a contract. Disney "allegedly" breached their contract with Johansson. A breach is different than a change in that it asserts a failure to perform an agreed-upon activity documented in a contract. It is not a change to the original agreement so much as it is a failure to perform or deliver on terms defined within. The terms blend into each other. It's not that the contract was changed. The behaviour outside the contract was changed in a way that could be argued don't reflect the contract.
For what it's worth, I definitely enjoyed this discussion too. The terms "change" and "breach" don't blend together in my experience. I still do not fully understand your argument, but I admit freely to not being a lawyer and having no substantive legal expertise. I am solely attempting to apply critical thinking and analysis to this situation. Neither party is clearly in the right, and neither party is acting in an entirely honorable manner. That said, I do tend to side with Disney as their alleged breach paves the way for greater consumer choice and flexibility during a difficult time. There are plenty of movies I'd watch on streaming for a reasonable premium that I would not dream of seeing in a theater. Corporations either want that money, or they don't.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 19:49:59 GMT
That's her prerogative. The amount of money they make is dizzying, but that's the system as it is. The MCU made plenty of people rich and plenty of rich people richer.
Regardless of what the number of the bonus was, alternative methods of distribution cut a path around it.
And it's Disney's prerogative to turn down a renegotiation. Disney is under to obligation to entertain renegotiations once a contract has been signed. It should be noted that no single MCU actor has ever gotten paid anywhere near $100 million for a single movie. I thought Robert Downy Jr. had but even if that's not the case, somebody will inevitably be the first.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:51:39 GMT
I think Chapek looked at his risk profile… His choice was to either capitulate and have egg on his face when the film inevitably underperformed, or release it and brace for the inevitable lawsuit. The lawsuit must have been the more viable option. Well to be fair, the movie did cost $200 million to produce. Based on the fact that they (rightly) assumed the movie would underperform, I'd understand why they were being tight with their purse strings. Giving an actor $100 million on top of the $200 million budget during a pandemic release is just not a sound decision anyway you look at it. Or releasing it to theaters only, seeing it underperform and knowing that you could have gotten extra profits from streaming had you just released it at the same time... can't really blame Disney for trying to make money off of the product. Of course had I been in his shoes, I would have at least replied with a counter offer. Oh well, it's not like I claimed Disney was a likeable company. I would have amended the performance-related clauses in the contract to account for profit participation on streaming. There is no world in which she would have gotten a flat fee for performance from me. I genuinely believe that Scarlett and her team thought they had a billion-dollar film on their hands, and they likely spent the money they were due before it ever arrived. If this were not the case, they would have argued that Disney cheated them out of streaming revenue and not that Disney undercut the film's box office. Rumor has it that her end of the streaming was 20M - and - Disney (apparently) paid it to her. The difference in the approach to the argument is subtle, as one speaks to greed and desperation while the other addresses an equitable share of profits that's sustainable moving forward. Scarlett's posture was such that she was ready and willing to torch the entire relationship. You don't do something like that unless you're in a bind of some sort otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 19:52:08 GMT
And it's Disney's prerogative to turn down a renegotiation. Disney is under to obligation to entertain renegotiations once a contract has been signed. It should be noted that no single MCU actor has ever gotten paid anywhere near $100 million for a single movie. I thought Robert Downy Jr. had but even if that's not the case, somebody will inevitably be the first. He topped out at 75M I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 19:52:40 GMT
The terms blend into each other. It's not that the contract was changed. The behaviour outside the contract was changed in a way that could be argued don't reflect the contract.
For what it's worth, I definitely enjoyed this discussion too. The terms "change" and "breach" don't blend together in my experience. I still do not fully understand your argument, but I admit freely to not being a lawyer and having no substantive legal expertise. I am solely attempting to apply critical thinking and analysis to this situation. Neither party is clearly in the right, and neither party is acting in an entirely honorable manner. That said, I do tend to side with Disney as their alleged breach paves the way for greater consumer choice and flexibility during a difficult time. There are plenty of movies I'd watch on streaming for a reasonable premium that I would not dream of seeing in a theater. Corporations either want that money, or they don't. We've all given each other something to think about. I suggest a break. Smoke em if you got em.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 20:17:33 GMT
It is how contracts work. If a course of action take outside the contract affects the condition of the contract, it changes the contract. Releasing them on Blu-Ray or DVD later has nothing to do with the stipulation of its theatrical release. It looked to me even by the portion of the contract you offered that the deal was to release it to a minimum of 1500 theaters. Honoring this obligation is not license to release it elsewhere if a stipulation in the contract depends on box-office gains. Releasing the film in a platform outside of the box-office changes those terms, which could affect the outcome of the contract.
Shang-Chi's performance isn't relevant. The film came out after so it wouldn't exist as a template for how Black Widow's box-office gains would be portioned. The contract regarding the release of Shang-Chi was different too, tweaked to avoid the same mistake. Going around the terms of the contract doesn't require data to prove. If the film made enough money at the box-office to justify Johansson's bonus while at the same time being released to streaming, it would still be altering the deal.
They went around the terms of the contract. It's not a narrative or a story, it's an objective fact. It doesn't need to be argued whether it was morally questionable. It was questionable to the legal language in the contract.
Nope, wrong again. Releasing on streaming did not stop Disney from honoring what was written in the contract, which was that it would release in at least 1500 theaters. Disney did that and more (release to over 4000 theaters). Are you telling me that Scarjo and her team would have raised a fuss if Disney released her movie on streaming 6 months later because "Honoring this obligation is not license to release it elsewhere"? Heck, even Scarjo and her team aren't arguing that Disney broke the contract. Their complaint is that Disney broke the spirit of the contract, because (according to her) they had had an implied understanding that the release was going to be theaters only. Based on the way they word their argument, it's clear even they know that Disney did not break the contract. If it was an issue of the spirit of the contract, there would be no grounds for a suit. We're talking big money here. People don't go to court of millions of dollars on spirit. If the contract stipulates theatrical release conditional of a bonus, that's the benchmark. Honoring the 1500 theater stipulation isn't generous on their part, it's the bare minimum. It doesn't matter how many theaters it was released to, releasing it in another format during the period of this release, not 6 months from now, alters her path to a contractually agreed upon bonus and therefore alters the deal. Disney doesn't get brownie points for releasing it to 4000 or more theaters.
Disney's argument is that they're hurt because they assumed Scarlet Johansson would be onboard with the changes they felt they had to make. That's their fault. Individuals within Disney may be off-put or even hurt by her decision to sue, but it's business.
Show me one piece of the contract (or the whole thing, if you have access) that references streaming services or alternative methods of distribution during the period of theatrical release and we'll see where we stand.
|
|