|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 20:17:46 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. RDJ got a bit over $70 million for IM3, but that was already including the profit shares he got... and his movie made well over a billion dollars. For Scarjo to ask for a $100 million flat-rate paycheck, without even knowing how much her movie would make especially in the middle of a pandemic, well... it should give you an idea of how unreasonable her position was. Because unless she and her team were completely delusional, they had to have known that there was no way their movie would earn $1 billion in the middle of a pandemic. Which is why as much as I dislike Disney, and as much as I'm not denying that their actions here are questionable, I have to say that Scarjo is being the far more unreasonable party in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 20:28:10 GMT
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.
Lawsuits don't move that fast, especially not when there's this much money being thrown around. Even when it's a pretty clear cut case it will still take time to finish. Scarjo's main lifeline here is her argument of "industry standards". If she can prove that the term "wide theatrical release" is understood in the industry as an exclusive theatrical release then she might have a chance. It's a very slim chance but that's basically what her argument rests on. And yes, that's apparently enough to start a lawsuit (lawsuits have been started for less). If I had to take a guess, I don't think Scarjo and her team counted on Disney to battle them in court this hard. Scarjo has more than enough social support that I think they believed Disney would simply settle from the sheer amount of social pressure their name was being dragged under. That still might happen, but if Disney tries to push this all the way till the end there's a far higher likelihood that Disney would win the case (provided the verdict is not judged by a jury)... though that would cost them quite a number of fans especially those who don't really do any research but just trust in anything Scarjo says.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 20:36:44 GMT
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.
Lawsuits don't move that fast, especially not when there's this much money being thrown around. Even when it's a pretty clear cut case it will still take time to finish. Scarjo's main lifeline here is her argument of "industry standards". If she can prove that the term "wide theatrical release" is understood in the industry as an exclusive theatrical release then she might have a chance. It's a very slim chance but that's basically what her argument rests on. If I had to take a guess, I don't think Scarjo and her team counted on Disney to battle them in court this hard. Scarjo has more than enough social support that I think they believed Disney would simply settle from the sheer amount of social pressure their name was being dragged under. That still might happen, but if Disney tries to push this all the way till the end there's a far higher likelihood that Disney would win the case. I personally don’t think that Chapek can afford to yield here. It would be a huge blow to his standing in the leadership if he had to capitulate to the first celebrity who came along publicly asking for more money. I think more talent would test him after that. He has to balance looking talent friendly on the outside with responding decisively to this threat to his decision making internally. Settling the case quickly and quietly would work out best for both Chapek and Johansson.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 20:54:55 GMT
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.
Lawsuits don't move that fast, especially not when there's this much money being thrown around. Even when it's a pretty clear cut case it will still take time to finish. Scarjo's main lifeline here is her argument of "industry standards". If she can prove that the term "wide theatrical release" is understood in the industry as an exclusive theatrical release then she might have a chance. It's a very slim chance but that's basically what her argument rests on. If I had to take a guess, I don't think Scarjo and her team counted on Disney to battle them in court this hard. Scarjo has more than enough social support that I think they believed Disney would simply settle from the sheer amount of social pressure their name was being dragged under. That still might happen, but if Disney tries to push this all the way till the end there's a far higher likelihood that Disney would win the case (provided the verdict is not judged by a jury)... though that would cost them quite a number of fans especially those who don't really do any research but just trust in anything Scarjo says. When you put it that way, it's even more solid an argument than I realized. Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"? Nobody's home is a theater. Even the model homes that come the closest aren't legally theaters, subject to public regulations. She's correct there.
I wouldn't have made the same guess you did. It's Disney. It's a billion-dollar company and industry. There's no such thing as suing Disney without expecting them to go hard. By the same token that her suing Disney for contract shenanigans is just business, defending themselves from the allegations, as well as the decisions that led to the events of breaching the contract, are also just business. Like I said, neither side is approaching their positions from a value-neutral perspective. There is a right and a wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 21:03:15 GMT
Lawsuits don't move that fast, especially not when there's this much money being thrown around. Even when it's a pretty clear cut case it will still take time to finish. Scarjo's main lifeline here is her argument of "industry standards". If she can prove that the term "wide theatrical release" is understood in the industry as an exclusive theatrical release then she might have a chance. It's a very slim chance but that's basically what her argument rests on. If I had to take a guess, I don't think Scarjo and her team counted on Disney to battle them in court this hard. Scarjo has more than enough social support that I think they believed Disney would simply settle from the sheer amount of social pressure their name was being dragged under. That still might happen, but if Disney tries to push this all the way till the end there's a far higher likelihood that Disney would win the case (provided the verdict is not judged by a jury)... though that would cost them quite a number of fans especially those who don't really do any research but just trust in anything Scarjo says. When you put it that way, it's even more solid an argument than I realized. Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"? Nobody's home is a theater. Even the model homes that come the closest aren't legally theaters, subject to public regulations. She's correct there.
I wouldn't have made the same guess you did. It's Disney. It's a billion-dollar company and industry. There's no such thing as suing Disney without expecting them to go hard. By the same token that her suing Disney for contract shenanigans is just business, defending themselves from the allegations, as well as the decisions that led to the events of breaching the contract, are also just business. Like I said, neither side is approaching their positions from a value-neutral perspective. There is a right and a wrong.
"Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"?"
See, this is what you don't understand. Contracts don't care about your interpretation or my interpretation. It cares about the specific wording in the contract. If it doesn't say "exclusive", then it doesn't mean exclusive. Doesn't matter how you might "hear" it. The only chance Scarjo has it to prove without doubt that the terminology "wide theatrical release" is used as an industry standard to mean "exclusive theatrical release". She can't win by simply saying "this is how I heard it" (which is what you're trying to do). Disney is a billion-dollar company who's dependent on clients to keep purchasing their services. Yes, it's a very rich company but it also cares about its brand name (to an extent). At a certain point, companies need to to balance between their social image and their expenses. My guess is that Scarjo's team had counted on Disney to prioritize their image a bit more, but it seems they're willing to let that slide a bit in order to roll in the dirt with her over money.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 21:08:28 GMT
I thought Robert Downy Jr. had but even if that's not the case, somebody will inevitably be the first. RDJ got a bit over $70 million for IM3, but that was already including the profit shares he got... and his movie made well over a billion dollars. For Scarjo to ask for a $100 million flat-rate paycheck, without even knowing how much her movie would make especially in the middle of a pandemic, well... it should give you an idea of how unreasonable her position was. Because unless she and her team were completely delusional, they had to have known that there was no way their movie would earn $1 billion in the middle of a pandemic. Which is why as much as I dislike Disney, and as much as I'm not denying that their actions here are questionable, I have to say that Scarjo is being the far more unreasonable party in this argument. Some movie has to be the first to earn a billion in a post (or ongoing) pandemic world. It may take a while, but some film will earn a billion dollar box-office gross again.
Even if her position is unreasonable, it was agreed upon. If you enter an unreasonable contract, anything short of breaking the law (like indentured servitude) is honored by the contract. It's immaterial to me whether or not her demands are reasonable, but even if they are not, Disney agreed to them.
At the risk of going on too much of a hypothetical (here, I'll try and make you laugh a bit), lets say you and your wife enter a contract. Your wife proposes a deal: eat a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day for a 30 day period. It doesn't have to be the only food you eat, but you must eat at least one Big Mac per meal. If you accomplish this, your wife will assume babysitting responsibilities for a month, but the Big Macs you consume must be provided by her. If you go and acquire your own Big Macs, they do not count. You agree to this. 20 days into the deal, you have eaten a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day, all provided by your wife. With 10 days left to go in the 30-day period, your first meal of the day is spaghetti. There is no Big Mac in sight, and you know that according to your deal, you cannot go out and acquire one of your own. It will not count. Next meal, it's spaghetti again, and again, and every day for the rest of the 30 day-period. It was not a part of the deal that you could not eat food that wasn't a Big Mac, but a Big Mac provided by her had to be present at every meal. Because she has not provided you with a Big Mac for the remaining 10 days, you have failed the conditions by which you would have passed the test, and she will not do babysitting duty for a month.
Who violated the terms of the contract?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 21:12:05 GMT
When you put it that way, it's even more solid an argument than I realized. Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"? Nobody's home is a theater. Even the model homes that come the closest aren't legally theaters, subject to public regulations. She's correct there.
I wouldn't have made the same guess you did. It's Disney. It's a billion-dollar company and industry. There's no such thing as suing Disney without expecting them to go hard. By the same token that her suing Disney for contract shenanigans is just business, defending themselves from the allegations, as well as the decisions that led to the events of breaching the contract, are also just business. Like I said, neither side is approaching their positions from a value-neutral perspective. There is a right and a wrong.
"Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"?"
See, this is what you don't understand. Contracts don't care about your interpretation or my interpretation. It cares about the specific wording in the contract. If it doesn't say "exclusive", then it doesn't mean exclusive. Doesn't matter how you might "hear" it. The only chance Scarjo has it to prove without doubt that the terminology "wide theatrical release" is used as an industry standard to mean "exclusive theatrical release". She can't win by simply saying "this is how I heard it" (which is what you're trying to do). Disney is a billion-dollar company who's dependent on clients to keep purchasing their services. Yes, it's a very rich company but it also cares about its brand name (to an extent). At a certain point, companies need to to balance between their social image and their expenses. My guess is that Scarjo's team had counted on Disney to prioritize their image a bit more, but it seems they're willing to let that slide a bit in order to roll in the dirt with her over money. That is what my argument has been all along. It has not changed and I've no intention of deviating from the only portion of the contract that matters, the written word. There is no "how I heard it". There is the stipulation that meeting a financial box-office quota would result in a bonus, a bonus that was circumvented by Disney's decision to partially release Black Widow onto Disney +, which is legally and objectively not a theater.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 21:51:24 GMT
"Don't you hear "exclusive theatrical release" when you hear "wide theatrical release"?"
See, this is what you don't understand. Contracts don't care about your interpretation or my interpretation. It cares about the specific wording in the contract. If it doesn't say "exclusive", then it doesn't mean exclusive. Doesn't matter how you might "hear" it. The only chance Scarjo has it to prove without doubt that the terminology "wide theatrical release" is used as an industry standard to mean "exclusive theatrical release". She can't win by simply saying "this is how I heard it" (which is what you're trying to do). Disney is a billion-dollar company who's dependent on clients to keep purchasing their services. Yes, it's a very rich company but it also cares about its brand name (to an extent). At a certain point, companies need to to balance between their social image and their expenses. My guess is that Scarjo's team had counted on Disney to prioritize their image a bit more, but it seems they're willing to let that slide a bit in order to roll in the dirt with her over money. That is what my argument has been all along. It has not changed and I've no intention of deviating from the only portion of the contract that matters, the written word. There is no "how I heard it", there is the stipulation that meeting a financial box-office quota would result in a bonus, a bonus that was circumvented by Disney's decision to partially release Black Widow onto Disney +, which is legally and objectively not a theater.
"...then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)"And Disney released it to over 4000 licensed theaters which more that qualifies for a "wide theatrical release". Therefore Disney did indeed fulfill this part of the contract. Them releasing to streaming simultaneously did not break this part of the contract. And no, I don't recall there being a stipulation that a certain financial box-office quota needed to be met before a bonus was given out. Scarjo was simply going to be granted a percentage of box office income, whatever income that was. Scarjo still received her bonus, it just wasn't as big as she wanted because the movie did not earn as much as she hoped it was going to earn.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 21:56:47 GMT
That is what my argument has been all along. It has not changed and I've no intention of deviating from the only portion of the contract that matters, the written word. There is no "how I heard it", there is the stipulation that meeting a financial box-office quota would result in a bonus, a bonus that was circumvented by Disney's decision to partially release Black Widow onto Disney +, which is legally and objectively not a theater.
"...then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)"And Disney released it to over 4000 licensed theaters which more that qualifies for a "wide theatrical release". Therefore Disney did indeed fulfill this part of the contract. Them releasing to streaming simultaneously did not break this part of the contract. And no, I don't recall there being a stipulation that a certain financial box-office quota needed to be met before a bonus was given out. Scarjo was simply going to be granted a percentage of box office income, whatever income that was. Releasing onto streaming does not qualify as a wide theatrical release. Releasing to streaming broke the part of the contract by altering the path to a bonus that was agreed upon. It does not matter how many theaters Disney released the movie to. Releasing it to streaming deviates from the agreed upon method of release.
That is true, regardless of opinions towards either side of the negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 22:01:38 GMT
RDJ got a bit over $70 million for IM3, but that was already including the profit shares he got... and his movie made well over a billion dollars. For Scarjo to ask for a $100 million flat-rate paycheck, without even knowing how much her movie would make especially in the middle of a pandemic, well... it should give you an idea of how unreasonable her position was. Because unless she and her team were completely delusional, they had to have known that there was no way their movie would earn $1 billion in the middle of a pandemic. Which is why as much as I dislike Disney, and as much as I'm not denying that their actions here are questionable, I have to say that Scarjo is being the far more unreasonable party in this argument. Some movie has to be the first to earn a billion in a post (or ongoing) pandemic world. It may take a while, but some film will earn a billion dollar box-office gross again.
Even if her position is unreasonable, it was agreed upon. If you enter an unreasonable contract, anything short of breaking the law (like indentured servitude) is honored by the contract. It's immaterial to me whether or not her demands are reasonable, but even if they are not, Disney agreed to them.
At the risk of going on too much of a hypothetical (here, I'll try and make you laugh a bit), lets say you and your wife enter a contract. Your wife proposes a deal: eat a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day for a 30 day period. It doesn't have to be the only food you eat, but you must eat at least one Big Mac per meal. If you accomplish this, your wife will assume babysitting responsibilities for a month, but the Big Macs you consume must be provided by her. If you go and acquire your own Big Macs, they do not count. You agree to this. 20 days into the deal, you have eaten a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day, all provided by your wife. With 10 days left to go in the 30-day period, your first meal of the day is spaghetti. There is no Big Mac in sight, and you know that according to your deal, you cannot go out and acquire one of your own. It will not count. Next meal, it's spaghetti again, and again, and every day for the rest of the 30 day-period. It was not a part of the deal that you could not eat food that wasn't a Big Mac, but a Big Mac provided by her had to be present at every meal. Because she has not provided you with a Big Mac for the remaining 10 days, you have failed the conditions by which you would have passed the test, and she will not do babysitting duty for a month.
Who violated the terms of the contract?
It would depend on how the contract is worded. If the contract clearly specified that I must absolutely eat a Big Mac for each meal and it specified that she must provide me that Big Mac (and nobody else), then she clearly violated the terms. However if the wording simply stated that I can only eat Big Macs that were provided by my wife, and that I needed to eat a Big Mac for 30 days to get her to babysit, then no she did not violate the contract. I didn't violate it either, she just doesn't need to babysit anymore. It's a shitty deal from my end but it's still a viable tactic for her to pull off, and I should have been smart enough to see the obvious loophole in the contract. if I brought that argument to court, I'd lose every single time.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 22:04:52 GMT
"...then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)"And Disney released it to over 4000 licensed theaters which more that qualifies for a "wide theatrical release". Therefore Disney did indeed fulfill this part of the contract. Them releasing to streaming simultaneously did not break this part of the contract. And no, I don't recall there being a stipulation that a certain financial box-office quota needed to be met before a bonus was given out. Scarjo was simply going to be granted a percentage of box office income, whatever income that was. Releasing onto streaming does not qualify as a wide theatrical release. Releasing to streaming broke the part of the contract by altering the path to a bonus that was agreed upon. It does not matter how many theaters Disney released the movie to. Releasing it to streaming deviates from the agreed upon method of release.
That is true, regardless of opinions towards either side of the negotiation.
No, releasing into streaming does not qualify as a wide theatrical release, but them releasing it to over 4000 theaters does. And releasing it in streaming does not suddenly negate the fact that they also released it to 4000 theaters. Therefore, they did not break the wide theatrical release clause because there was no stipulation in there that required it to be ONLY a wide theatrical release.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 22:12:24 GMT
Some movie has to be the first to earn a billion in a post (or ongoing) pandemic world. It may take a while, but some film will earn a billion dollar box-office gross again.
Even if her position is unreasonable, it was agreed upon. If you enter an unreasonable contract, anything short of breaking the law (like indentured servitude) is honored by the contract. It's immaterial to me whether or not her demands are reasonable, but even if they are not, Disney agreed to them.
At the risk of going on too much of a hypothetical (here, I'll try and make you laugh a bit), lets say you and your wife enter a contract. Your wife proposes a deal: eat a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day for a 30 day period. It doesn't have to be the only food you eat, but you must eat at least one Big Mac per meal. If you accomplish this, your wife will assume babysitting responsibilities for a month, but the Big Macs you consume must be provided by her. If you go and acquire your own Big Macs, they do not count. You agree to this. 20 days into the deal, you have eaten a Big Mac at each of your 3 meals a day, all provided by your wife. With 10 days left to go in the 30-day period, your first meal of the day is spaghetti. There is no Big Mac in sight, and you know that according to your deal, you cannot go out and acquire one of your own. It will not count. Next meal, it's spaghetti again, and again, and every day for the rest of the 30 day-period. It was not a part of the deal that you could not eat food that wasn't a Big Mac, but a Big Mac provided by her had to be present at every meal. Because she has not provided you with a Big Mac for the remaining 10 days, you have failed the conditions by which you would have passed the test, and she will not do babysitting duty for a month.
Who violated the terms of the contract?
It would depend on how the contract is worded. If the contract clearly specified that I must absolutely eat a Big Mac for each meal and it specified that she must provide me that Big Mac (and nobody else), then she clearly violated the terms. However if the wording simply stated that I can only eat Big Macs that were provided by my wife, and that I needed to eat a Big Mac for 30 days to get her to babysit, then no she did not violate the contract. I didn't violate it either, she just doesn't need to babysit anymore. It's a shitty deal from my end but it's still a viable tactic for her to pull off, and I should have been smart enough to see the obvious loophole in the contract. if I brought that argument to court, I'd lose every single time. It may be a shitty deal but you entered it. Deals have issues but once you enter into them, you're in them. It's not really a courtroom argument, it's just for fun, but I would argue that your wife, in this hypothetical situation, cut off your avenue to completing your half of the deal. I'm certain the stipulation was that Big Macs don't need to be the only thing you ate at each meal, but you must have a minimum of one, provided by her. That was an important distinction because it was carefully never stipulated that you couldn't eat spaghetti, it just doesn't count towards the prize.
I'd say you have a case that she should do some babysitting.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 22:14:32 GMT
It would depend on how the contract is worded. If the contract clearly specified that I must absolutely eat a Big Mac for each meal and it specified that she must provide me that Big Mac (and nobody else), then she clearly violated the terms. However if the wording simply stated that I can only eat Big Macs that were provided by my wife, and that I needed to eat a Big Mac for 30 days to get her to babysit, then no she did not violate the contract. I didn't violate it either, she just doesn't need to babysit anymore. It's a shitty deal from my end but it's still a viable tactic for her to pull off, and I should have been smart enough to see the obvious loophole in the contract. if I brought that argument to court, I'd lose every single time. It may be a shitty deal but you entered it. Deals have issues but once you enter into them, you're in them. It's not really a courtroom argument, it's just for fun, but I would argue that your wife, in this hypothetical situation, cut off your avenue to completing your half of the deal. I'm certain the stipulation was that Big Macs don't need to be the only thing you ate at each meal, but you must have a minimum of one, provided by her. That was an important distinction because it was carefully never stipulated that you couldn't eat spaghetti, it just doesn't count towards the prize.
I'd say you have a case that she should do some babysitting.
Not really. Again, it depends on the wording. If the wording was, "I am required to eat a Big Mac in every meal", then yes, I have a case against her. If the wording was, "She would babysit if I ate a Big Mac every meal", then no, I would lose that case as there was nothing indicated that she was required to buy me a Big Mac in every meal.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 22:16:49 GMT
It may be a shitty deal but you entered it. Deals have issues but once you enter into them, you're in them. It's not really a courtroom argument, it's just for fun, but I would argue that your wife, in this hypothetical situation, cut off your avenue to completing your half of the deal. I'm certain the stipulation was that Big Macs don't need to be the only thing you ate at each meal, but you must have a minimum of one, provided by her. That was an important distinction because it was carefully never stipulated that you couldn't eat spaghetti, it just doesn't count towards the prize.
I'd say you have a case that she should do some babysitting.
Not really. Again, it depends on the wording. If the wording was, "I am required to eat a Big Mac in every meal", then yes, I have a case against her. If the wording was, "I need to eat a Big Mac every meal in order for her to babysit", then no, I would lose that case as there was nothing indicated that she was required to buy me a Big Mac in every meal. That was definitely the wording. A minimum of one Big Mac in every meal provided by her and only her. If she puts spaghetti in front of you and you rush off to get your own Big Mac, it does not count because it was not provided by her. This is the role she plays in the deal.
I assure you that you have a case. Put your feet up, mama's babysitting for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 22:21:01 GMT
Not really. Again, it depends on the wording. If the wording was, "I am required to eat a Big Mac in every meal", then yes, I have a case against her. If the wording was, "I need to eat a Big Mac every meal in order for her to babysit", then no, I would lose that case as there was nothing indicated that she was required to buy me a Big Mac in every meal. That was definitely the wording. A minimum of one Big Mac in every meal provided by her and only her. If she puts spaghetti in front of you and you rush off to get your own Big Mac, it does not count because it was not provided by her. This is the role she plays in the deal.
I assure you that you have a case. Put your feet up, mama's babysitting for a while.
If that was the requirement then yeah, I should win that case. But that's not really a great analogy of the situation in Disney v. Scarjo. Because, again, Disney was able to provide everything they promised in their contract. It's like they gave Scarjo a Big-mac but Scarjo argued that it should have come with a side of fries and drinks. Because she assumed Disney was going to give her a Big Mac meal whereas Disney only promised the Big Mac. Here's a better analogy for you: Let's say I promised my son I'd take him to watch The Eternals on opening day. "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters". On opening day, I took both him and my daughter to watch the movie. He complained because he thought it was just going to be me and him. Did I break my promise to my son by taking my daughter as well?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 22:26:26 GMT
That was definitely the wording. A minimum of one Big Mac in every meal provided by her and only her. If she puts spaghetti in front of you and you rush off to get your own Big Mac, it does not count because it was not provided by her. This is the role she plays in the deal.
I assure you that you have a case. Put your feet up, mama's babysitting for a while.
If that was the requirement then yeah, I should win that case. But that's not really a great analogy of the situation in Disney v. Scarjo. Because, again, Disney was able to provide everything they promised in their contract. It's like they gave Scarjo a Big-mac but Scarjo argued that it should have come with a side of fries. Here's a better analogy for you: Let's say I promised my son I'd take him to watch The Eternals on opening day. "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters". On opening day, I took both him and my daughter to watch the movie. He complained because he thought it was just going to be me and him. Did I break my promise to my son by taking my daughter as well? Definitely. Your boy's night out turned into something you didn't disclose.
Although in this much smaller analogy, I'd say this makes you a good parent. He'll get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 22:34:02 GMT
If that was the requirement then yeah, I should win that case. But that's not really a great analogy of the situation in Disney v. Scarjo. Because, again, Disney was able to provide everything they promised in their contract. It's like they gave Scarjo a Big-mac but Scarjo argued that it should have come with a side of fries. Here's a better analogy for you: Let's say I promised my son I'd take him to watch The Eternals on opening day. "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters". On opening day, I took both him and my daughter to watch the movie. He complained because he thought it was just going to be me and him. Did I break my promise to my son by taking my daughter as well? Definitely. Your boy's night out turned into something you didn't disclose.
Although in this much smaller analogy, I'd say this makes you a good parent. He'll get over it.
But how did I break my promise? I never promised a boys' night out. I merely promised I'd take him to watch a movie which I absolutely did.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 22, 2021 22:39:06 GMT
I think it's also worth noting that studios typically have wide latitude in how they choose to release their own films. Scarlett was lucky to negotiate a theatrical release at all, let alone one that was tied to profit participation. The assumption that Disney was not allowed to release the film on streaming is dubious considering how many other studios release their films straight to VOD, have short theatrical windows, or never release them if it doesn't suit their interest.
The contract never states that the wide release needed to be timely to the best of my knowledge. Disney could have held the film indefinitely until it was worthless to all parties. Of course, this would not have suited their interests, but it's a legit possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 22, 2021 22:41:21 GMT
Definitely. Your boy's night out turned into something you didn't disclose.
Although in this much smaller analogy, I'd say this makes you a good parent. He'll get over it.
But how did I break my promise? I never promised a boys' night out. I merely promised I'd take him to watch a movie which I absolutely did. If our guards are down on the subject of the lawsuit, I'd say by that logic you could bring your son and the entire Dallas Cowboys to see The Eternals on opening day and you could argue you didn't break your promise.
I'm not sure. I can only assure you I'm being honest as possible by going with my gut instinct. I'm pretty sure my answer would be the same if I slept on it, but my feeling is your son would feel like you told him one thing and delivered another.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 0:18:03 GMT
But how did I break my promise? I never promised a boys' night out. I merely promised I'd take him to watch a movie which I absolutely did. If our guards are down on the subject of the lawsuit, I'd say by that logic you could bring your son and the entire Dallas Cowboys to see The Eternals on opening day and you could argue you didn't break your promise.
I'm not sure. I can only assure you I'm being honest as possible by going with my gut instinct. I'm pretty sure my answer would be the same if I slept on it, but my feeling is your son would feel like you told him one thing and delivered another.
And therein lies the problem. In this scenario, the son is going off based on his assumption of what the father meant, whereas the father is going off of exactly what he said. Scarjo is going off of her assumption of the contract, whereas Disney is going off of the exact wording of the contract. In the court of law, wording of a contract will trump assumptions.
|
|