|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 0:34:56 GMT
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. Exactly what you said doesn't include your daughter though. Did you have bringing your daughter in mind or was she a later addition to the plan?
It sounds to me like your son has a point. Better make sure you don't get sued in your living room.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 1:54:09 GMT
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. Exactly what you said doesn't include your daughter though. Did you have bringing your daughter in mind or was she a later addition to the plan?
It sounds to me like your son has a point. Better make sure you don't get sued in your living room. So you're saying I broke my promise to bring my son to the movies?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 2:17:09 GMT
Exactly what you said doesn't include your daughter though. Did you have bringing your daughter in mind or was she a later addition to the plan?
It sounds to me like your son has a point. Better make sure you don't get sued in your living room. So you're saying I broke my promise to bring my son to the movies? If he was upset that you brought your daughter too, he must have been under the understanding that it was supposed to be him and you.
If you hadn't included the fact that your son was upset in the analogy, it wouldn't have seemed like a broken promise. Something in the way you told him made him believe it would be the two of you. You're the dad. Your command of the language is stronger. Who do you feel is at fault for his misunderstanding, the way he heard it or the way you said it?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 3:38:43 GMT
So you're saying I broke my promise to bring my son to the movies? If he was upset that you brought your daughter too, he must have been under the understanding that it was supposed to be him and you.
If you hadn't included the fact that your son was upset in the analogy, it wouldn't have seemed like a broken promise. Something in the way you told him made him believe it would be the two of you. You're the dad. Your command of the language is stronger. Who do you feel is at fault for his misunderstanding, the way he heard it or the way you said it? We're not talking about who's upset or what the kid believed. I'm asking whether I broke my promise to bring him to the movies or not?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 3:58:46 GMT
If he was upset that you brought your daughter too, he must have been under the understanding that it was supposed to be him and you.
If you hadn't included the fact that your son was upset in the analogy, it wouldn't have seemed like a broken promise. Something in the way you told him made him believe it would be the two of you. You're the dad. Your command of the language is stronger. Who do you feel is at fault for his misunderstanding, the way he heard it or the way you said it? We're not talking about who's upset or what the kid believed. I'm asking whether I broke my promise to bring him to the movies or not? It was a part of your example. If you hadn't included it, it wouldn't have painted a picture of a misunderstanding.
I almost wish you had just said that you promised to take your son to see The Eternals on opening day - did you break your promise by bringing along his sister? Maybe you assumed you would be understood as you meant to be understood, but he's only going by what you said too.
Maybe we should back away from the analogies. I know it was for a little levity but they just don't work.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 6:46:51 GMT
We're not talking about who's upset or what the kid believed. I'm asking whether I broke my promise to bring him to the movies or not? It was a part of your example. If you hadn't included it, it wouldn't have painted a picture of a misunderstanding.
I almost wish you had just said that you promised to take your son to see The Eternals on opening day - did you break your promise by bringing along his sister? Maybe you assumed you would be understood as you meant to be understood, but he's only going by what you said too.
Maybe we should back away from the analogies. I know it was for a little levity but they just don't work.
Oh I think the analogies are working great, because it shows me where you're being objective and where you're being subjective. For example, you're unable to answer whether I broke my hypothetical promise to my kid without taking into consideration whether his hopes and feelings were hurt. The fact that your opinion is getting swayed by whether or not he complained seems to indicate you're unable to be objective about this. In fact, you specifically mentioned that you believe it's a broken promise because he was upset. And if you can't be objective regarding my hypothetical example with my kid, then what more the Disney v Scarjo situation?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 13:04:31 GMT
It was a part of your example. If you hadn't included it, it wouldn't have painted a picture of a misunderstanding.
I almost wish you had just said that you promised to take your son to see The Eternals on opening day - did you break your promise by bringing along his sister? Maybe you assumed you would be understood as you meant to be understood, but he's only going by what you said too.
Maybe we should back away from the analogies. I know it was for a little levity but they just don't work.
Oh I think the analogies are working great, because it shows me where you're being objective and where you're being subjective. For example, you're unable to answer whether I broke my hypothetical promise to my kid without taking into consideration whether his hopes and feelings were hurt. The fact that your opinion is getting swayed by whether or not he complained seems to indicate you're unable to be objective about this. In fact, you specifically mentioned that you believe it's a broken promise because he was upset. And if you can't be objective regarding my hypothetical example with my kid, then what more the Disney v Scarjo situation? Yeah but if you wanted the analogy to compare to the Scar Jo situation, it would involve you making your son some sort of deal (do your homework by 8pm each night, get straight A's, etc. and I promise I'll take you to see The Eternals on opening day), and then cutting a path around it he couldn't follow: not letting him access the internet for homework, etc. My objective answer was my first response to the situation. You promised something to your son and delivered something that wasn't part of the plan. You think because you took your son to the movies, you bear no responsibility for changing a part of the deal because you lived up to a different part of it.
I'd argue that my literal way of looking at it is more suitable to contracts. I'm going by the written word (no more and no less), you're going by what you think your interpretation ought to be.
edit: Here's one for you. Tell your son you promise to take him to see The Eternals on opening day at a movie theater, then take him to a friend's house with Disney + and see if he thinks it's the same.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 14:03:48 GMT
Oh I think the analogies are working great, because it shows me where you're being objective and where you're being subjective. For example, you're unable to answer whether I broke my hypothetical promise to my kid without taking into consideration whether his hopes and feelings were hurt. The fact that your opinion is getting swayed by whether or not he complained seems to indicate you're unable to be objective about this. In fact, you specifically mentioned that you believe it's a broken promise because he was upset. And if you can't be objective regarding my hypothetical example with my kid, then what more the Disney v Scarjo situation? Yeah but if you wanted the analogy to compare to the Scar Jo situation, it would involve you making your son some sort of deal (do your homework by 8pm each night, get straight A's, etc. and I promise I'll take you to see The Eternals on opening day), and then cutting a path around it he couldn't follow: not letting him access the internet for homework, etc. My objective answer was my first response to the situation. You promised something to your son and delivered something that wasn't part of the plan. You think because you took your son to the movies, you bear no responsibility for changing a part of the deal because you lived up to a different part of it.
I'd argue that my literal way of looking at it is more suitable to contracts. I'm going by the written word (no more and no less), you're going by what you think your interpretation ought to be.
edit: Here's one for you. Tell your son you promise to take him to see The Eternals on opening day at a movie theater, then take him to a friend's house with Disney + and see if he thinks it's the same.
"A plan is not an agreement." Take Johansson’s situation. In some respects, she may be in a better legal position than other actors upset at how streaming has interfered with the expectation of backend bonanzas. Although it wasn’t highlighted in her suit, her team plans to stress that her Black Widow contract didn’t include a standard “distribution control” provision, which gives studios discretion on how they license a motion picture. Johansson’s camp is also emphasizing a 2019 email from Marvel’s chief counsel Dave Galluzzi stating, “We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”But look closely at that email. Even if it amounts to an enforceable amendment for a theatrical release (rather than just consultation), it doesn’t explicitly guarantee “exclusive” theatrical release. And, even if implicitly it does, how long must it play in theaters until Black Widow can show up on Disney+? That’s a pretty important point to gloss over, and yet, it’s that kind of indefiniteness that’s been rather characteristic of the paradigmatic Hollywood deal. “He was saying this is our plan,” says one attorney when reading the Marvel email. “That’s a red flag. What do you mean it’s our ‘plan’? That’s our deal. Plans change. Agreements don’t.”Johansson will now attempt to convince a judge (or arbitrator) to heed industry custom when interpreting what she was promised, which puts Disney in the position of shrugging its shoulders at the concept of any unstated understanding while telling a judge, “The contract is the contract. It’s pretty clear that Disney complied with its express obligations.”The merits of Johansson’s legal case can and will be debated…www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-black-widow-battle-could-change-long-standing-industry-customs-1235002215/
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 14:25:43 GMT
Yeah but if you wanted the analogy to compare to the Scar Jo situation, it would involve you making your son some sort of deal (do your homework by 8pm each night, get straight A's, etc. and I promise I'll take you to see The Eternals on opening day), and then cutting a path around it he couldn't follow: not letting him access the internet for homework, etc. My objective answer was my first response to the situation. You promised something to your son and delivered something that wasn't part of the plan. You think because you took your son to the movies, you bear no responsibility for changing a part of the deal because you lived up to a different part of it.
I'd argue that my literal way of looking at it is more suitable to contracts. I'm going by the written word (no more and no less), you're going by what you think your interpretation ought to be.
edit: Here's one for you. Tell your son you promise to take him to see The Eternals on opening day at a movie theater, then take him to a friend's house with Disney + and see if he thinks it's the same.
"A plan is not an agreement." Take Johansson’s situation. In some respects, she may be in a better legal position than other actors upset at how streaming has interfered with the expectation of backend bonanzas. Although it wasn’t highlighted in her suit, her team plans to stress that her Black Widow contract didn’t include a standard “distribution control” provision, which gives studios discretion on how they license a motion picture. Johansson’s camp is also emphasizing a 2019 email from Marvel’s chief counsel Dave Galluzzi stating, “We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”But look closely at that email. Even if it amounts to an enforceable amendment for a theatrical release (rather than just consultation), it doesn’t explicitly guarantee “exclusive” theatrical release. And, even if implicitly it does, how long must it play in theaters until Black Widow can show up on Disney+? That’s a pretty important point to gloss over, and yet, it’s that kind of indefiniteness that’s been rather characteristic of the paradigmatic Hollywood deal. “He was saying this is our plan,” says one attorney when reading the Marvel email. “That’s a red flag. What do you mean it’s our ‘plan’? That’s our deal. Plans change. Agreements don’t.”Johansson will now attempt to convince a judge (or arbitrator) to heed industry custom when interpreting what she was promised, which puts Disney in the position of shrugging its shoulders at the concept of any unstated understanding while telling a judge, “The contract is the contract. It’s pretty clear that Disney complied with its express obligations.”The merits of Johansson’s legal case can and will be debated…www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-black-widow-battle-could-change-long-standing-industry-customs-1235002215/ This is a little blending of two situations that are two different. Even if Disney argues there way out of this, the proof is in the pudding. If Disney were fully compliant in honoring the terms as they presented them, they would have no impetus to change the wording in future contracts. Why would they change it if they were correct all along?
That's the tell that they were careless, an easy mistake to make during times of ever changing uncertainty. Even the email states her whole deal (not her understanding of the deal, but the deal itself) is the film would be widely theatrically released like their other pictures, none of which have been split between theaters and Disney + to this point.
If Disney wanted to split the release between the two, they should have used that in the contract and then Black Widow could have been a new template for this model going forward. If Disney wins the case, the result sets a precedent that studios can circumvent contracts under the premise that plans change. Today it'll be the pandemic, but tomorrow, the reason for changing the plans could be something entirely different, like a change in management. It's a lot bigger than these two entities; it will set precedents into the rights and privileges to interpret contracts after they've been ratified and under what circumstance they can be changed and by who.
It will spill over into the rest of the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 15:10:19 GMT
"A plan is not an agreement." Take Johansson’s situation. In some respects, she may be in a better legal position than other actors upset at how streaming has interfered with the expectation of backend bonanzas. Although it wasn’t highlighted in her suit, her team plans to stress that her Black Widow contract didn’t include a standard “distribution control” provision, which gives studios discretion on how they license a motion picture. Johansson’s camp is also emphasizing a 2019 email from Marvel’s chief counsel Dave Galluzzi stating, “We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”But look closely at that email. Even if it amounts to an enforceable amendment for a theatrical release (rather than just consultation), it doesn’t explicitly guarantee “exclusive” theatrical release. And, even if implicitly it does, how long must it play in theaters until Black Widow can show up on Disney+? That’s a pretty important point to gloss over, and yet, it’s that kind of indefiniteness that’s been rather characteristic of the paradigmatic Hollywood deal. “He was saying this is our plan,” says one attorney when reading the Marvel email. “That’s a red flag. What do you mean it’s our ‘plan’? That’s our deal. Plans change. Agreements don’t.”Johansson will now attempt to convince a judge (or arbitrator) to heed industry custom when interpreting what she was promised, which puts Disney in the position of shrugging its shoulders at the concept of any unstated understanding while telling a judge, “The contract is the contract. It’s pretty clear that Disney complied with its express obligations.”The merits of Johansson’s legal case can and will be debated…www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-black-widow-battle-could-change-long-standing-industry-customs-1235002215/This is a little blending of two situations that are two different. Even if Disney argues there way out of this, the proof is in the pudding. If Disney were fully compliant in honoring the terms as they presented them, they would have no impetus to change the wording in future contracts. Why would they change it if they were correct all along? That's the tell that they were careless, an easy mistake to make during times of ever changing uncertainty. Even the email states her whole deal (not her understanding of the deal, but the deal itself) is the film would be widely theatrically released like their other pictures, none of which have been split between theaters and Disney + to this point. If Disney wanted to split the release between the two, they should have used that in the contract and then Black Widow could have been a new template for this model going forward. If Disney wins the case, the result sets a precedent that studios can circumvent contracts under the premise that plans change. Today it'll be the pandemic, but tomorrow, the reason for changing the plans could be something entirely different, like a change in management. It's a lot bigger than these two entities; it will set precedents into the rights and privileges to interpret contracts after they've been ratified and under what circumstance they can be changed and by who. It will spill over into the rest of the industry.
They would change the wording to add greater clarity for future deals. The full article highlights the problem of systemic and purposeful ambiguity in Hollywood contracts because both sides frequently rely on the strength of their relationships to resolve disputes and not the letter of the law.You could call it carelessness, but, again, the article highlights that their carelessness was likely intentional.Disney+ didn't exist when the contract was originally drafted. When the service came online in 2019, the Black Widow contract was nearly completed. Johansson's team did reach out to confirm that their film was getting a theatrical release (but not an exclusive theatrical release) when the service debuted. Disney confirmed that it would get a theatrical release, and they delivered on that aspect of the contract. I disagree with your interpretation of the final outcome of these proceedings and their impact on the industry overall. The more likely outcome is that deals will be worded more precisely and account for newly emerging distribution practices and channels. This is a good thing for the most part; however, the downside is that there will be less flexibility for involved parties to solve issues without going through the courts. Disney could have said mea culpa behind closed doors and offered Johansson a more lucrative opportunity in the future to make up for whatever losses she'd incurred on this deal. This will no longer be possible as both parties will have to look solely to the contract for guidance on disputes. This will signal the deterioration of the "Hollywood relationship" and usher in a new age where studios will act more like tech companies during negotiations. Talent's cache quotient will drop - and they will have to quantify their value to studios at any given moment in a data-driven and empirical manner instead of citing previous success. Had Disney used this approach during negotiations with Johansson, Black Widow would likely have never been made.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 16:12:26 GMT
Oh I think the analogies are working great, because it shows me where you're being objective and where you're being subjective. For example, you're unable to answer whether I broke my hypothetical promise to my kid without taking into consideration whether his hopes and feelings were hurt. The fact that your opinion is getting swayed by whether or not he complained seems to indicate you're unable to be objective about this. In fact, you specifically mentioned that you believe it's a broken promise because he was upset. And if you can't be objective regarding my hypothetical example with my kid, then what more the Disney v Scarjo situation? Yeah but if you wanted the analogy to compare to the Scar Jo situation, it would involve you making your son some sort of deal (do your homework by 8pm each night, get straight A's, etc. and I promise I'll take you to see The Eternals on opening day), and then cutting a path around it he couldn't follow: not letting him access the internet for homework, etc. My objective answer was my first response to the situation. You promised something to your son and delivered something that wasn't part of the plan. You think because you took your son to the movies, you bear no responsibility for changing a part of the deal because you lived up to a different part of it.
I'd argue that my literal way of looking at it is more suitable to contracts. I'm going by the written word (no more and no less), you're going by what you think your interpretation ought to be.
edit: Here's one for you. Tell your son you promise to take him to see The Eternals on opening day at a movie theater, then take him to a friend's house with Disney + and see if he thinks it's the same.
You keep saying I changed part of the deal yet no changes were made. This is the exact wording of my hypothetical promise to my son: "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters"Which part of that 'deal' did I supposedly not follow through with? You claim you're going by the written word, so show me which part of that written statement did I change or not fulfill.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 18:02:49 GMT
Yeah but if you wanted the analogy to compare to the Scar Jo situation, it would involve you making your son some sort of deal (do your homework by 8pm each night, get straight A's, etc. and I promise I'll take you to see The Eternals on opening day), and then cutting a path around it he couldn't follow: not letting him access the internet for homework, etc. My objective answer was my first response to the situation. You promised something to your son and delivered something that wasn't part of the plan. You think because you took your son to the movies, you bear no responsibility for changing a part of the deal because you lived up to a different part of it.
I'd argue that my literal way of looking at it is more suitable to contracts. I'm going by the written word (no more and no less), you're going by what you think your interpretation ought to be.
edit: Here's one for you. Tell your son you promise to take him to see The Eternals on opening day at a movie theater, then take him to a friend's house with Disney + and see if he thinks it's the same.
You keep saying I changed part of the deal yet no changes were made. This is the exact wording of my hypothetical promise to my son: "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters"Which part of that 'deal' did I supposedly not follow through with? You claim you're going by the written word, so show me which part of that written statement did I change or not fulfill. You didn't literally go back and add your daughter to the written word of the deal, but by adding her to the plan, you changed the execution of the plan that was arrived at by the wording in the deal. The wording of the deal did not include bringing your daughter.
It is an important distinction because you could justify adding anything to a plan that is supposed to reflect the deal by arguing you fulfilled the part that you agreed to. The problem is the other party did not agree to the terms you added to the plan after the deal was made.
Your son is going by the written word. "We're" refers to you and your son. If it referred to you, your son, and your daughter, you would have made the promise to the two of them at the same time or specified to your son that you, your son, and your daughter are heading to see The Eternals on opening day.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 23, 2021 18:47:47 GMT
You keep saying I changed part of the deal yet no changes were made. This is the exact wording of my hypothetical promise to my son: "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters"Which part of that 'deal' did I supposedly not follow through with? You claim you're going by the written word, so show me which part of that written statement did I change or not fulfill. You didn't literally go back and add your daughter to the written word of the deal, but by adding her to the plan, you changed the execution of the plan that was arrived at by the wording in the deal. The wording of the deal did not include bringing your daughter.
It is an important distinction because you could justify adding anything to a plan that is supposed to reflect the deal by arguing you fulfilled the part that you agreed to. The problem is the other party did not agree to the terms you added to the plan after the deal was made.
Your son is going by the written word. "We're" refers to you and your son. If it referred to you, your son, and your daughter, you would have made the promise to the two of them at the same time or specified to your son that you, your son, and your daughter are heading to see The Eternals on opening day.
No, you're assuming "we're" is referring to me and the son, but nowhere in the statement is that mentioned. That's simply you're assumption, it's not part of the "written word" as you say. "we're" is a collective statement used to indicate multiple people, it's not meant to limit to only 2 people. Because you said you're just following the written word, yes? So show me in this statement where it is written that it's only supposed to be me and the son who're going to the movies: "Son, I promise we're going to watch Eternals on opening day in the theaters"
Again, it's not about what you're assuming or what your interpretation is. I'm asking you to point out the exact word in the statement that I supposedly broke by bringing my daughter along.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 19:23:26 GMT
This is a little blending of two situations that are two different. Even if Disney argues there way out of this, the proof is in the pudding. If Disney were fully compliant in honoring the terms as they presented them, they would have no impetus to change the wording in future contracts. Why would they change it if they were correct all along? That's the tell that they were careless, an easy mistake to make during times of ever changing uncertainty. Even the email states her whole deal (not her understanding of the deal, but the deal itself) is the film would be widely theatrically released like their other pictures, none of which have been split between theaters and Disney + to this point. If Disney wanted to split the release between the two, they should have used that in the contract and then Black Widow could have been a new template for this model going forward. If Disney wins the case, the result sets a precedent that studios can circumvent contracts under the premise that plans change. Today it'll be the pandemic, but tomorrow, the reason for changing the plans could be something entirely different, like a change in management. It's a lot bigger than these two entities; it will set precedents into the rights and privileges to interpret contracts after they've been ratified and under what circumstance they can be changed and by who. It will spill over into the rest of the industry.
They would change the wording to add greater clarity for future deals. The full article highlights the problem of systemic and purposeful ambiguity in Hollywood contracts because both sides frequently rely on the strength of their relationships to resolve disputes and not the letter of the law.You could call it carelessness, but, again, the article highlights that their carelessness was likely intentional.Disney+ didn't exist when the contract was originally drafted. When the service came online in 2019, the Black Widow contract was nearly completed. Johansson's team did reach out to confirm that their film was getting a theatrical release (but not an exclusive theatrical release) when the service debuted. Disney confirmed that it would get a theatrical release, and they delivered on that aspect of the contract. I disagree with your interpretation of the final outcome of these proceedings and their impact on the industry overall. The more likely outcome is that deals will be worded more precisely and account for newly emerging distribution practices and channels. This is a good thing for the most part; however, the downside is that there will be less flexibility for involved parties to solve issues without going through the courts. Disney could have said mea culpa behind closed doors and offered Johansson a more lucrative opportunity in the future to make up for whatever losses she'd incurred on this deal. This will no longer be possible as both parties will have to look solely to the contract for guidance on disputes. This will signal the deterioration of the "Hollywood relationship" and usher in a new age where studios will act more like tech companies during negotiations. Talent's cache quotient will drop - and they will have to quantify their value to studios at any given moment in a data-driven and empirical manner instead of citing previous success. Had Disney used this approach during negotiations with Johansson, Black Widow would likely have never been made. The two situations I referred to as blending were the Johansson lawsuit and Skathaar's family outing hypothetical.
If and when the wording in the contracts change, it'll be to eliminate future room for error. That's already happened/happening. I only call it careless because it's the lesser of two evils. Intentional ambiguity, a backdoor by which to grant one party greater leverage over the other is... careless, but only in the sense that if they get caught, the ensuing fallout could create a mess. Johansson's lawsuit exposed a loophole, a loophole that Disney rationaizes by referencing the pandemic and obligations to consumers, which is fine, but it also cuts Johansson out of her path to what was agreed. Outside of the language in the contract, both camps are trying to claim the moral high ground. The problem I see is if it goes Disney's way, they will have legally vindicated exploiting a loophole that allowed studios to change adjust their plans in a way that doesn't reference the original contract; this puts all actors/employees of show business at a disadvantage by granting the studio privileges in adjusting the execution of a contract according to their needs, not the employees. Rich or not, Johansson is an employee.
Studios have taken advantage of actors for years anyways. They don't drop millions of dollars just for the effort of the work. It's part of it, but their value also exists within a capitalist marketplace. Marlon Brando, for example, was paid 3.7 million dollars for his cameo in Superman (1978) before getting a portion of the box-office. That's 3.7 million for 10 minutes, about 370,000 a second. Was it that hard? I don't know, but a patchwork of net worth, career value and drawing power justified an asking price to which the studio agreed. It could be argued that any no-name stage actor could have done it, but they banked on Brando for his name value. It's capitalism. As long as it's the system wherein we function, asking prices for actors will get higher and higher. Scarlet Johansson didn't invent the system, she just works in it.
I don't see why people should let themselves be taken advantage of by playing according to the rules of a system they didn't make. Contracts are also limitations. The wording in a contract isn't just a guide to achieve a means to an end, it's also a limitation. It seems redundant, but if it's not in a contract, it's not in a contract. The wording is there to stop a contract from evolving into something that was never specified within the parameter of its terms.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:18:56 GMT
"A plan is not an agreement." Take Johansson’s situation. In some respects, she may be in a better legal position than other actors upset at how streaming has interfered with the expectation of backend bonanzas. Although it wasn’t highlighted in her suit, her team plans to stress that her Black Widow contract didn’t include a standard “distribution control” provision, which gives studios discretion on how they license a motion picture. Johansson’s camp is also emphasizing a 2019 email from Marvel’s chief counsel Dave Galluzzi stating, “We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”But look closely at that email. Even if it amounts to an enforceable amendment for a theatrical release (rather than just consultation), it doesn’t explicitly guarantee “exclusive” theatrical release. And, even if implicitly it does, how long must it play in theaters until Black Widow can show up on Disney+? That’s a pretty important point to gloss over, and yet, it’s that kind of indefiniteness that’s been rather characteristic of the paradigmatic Hollywood deal. “He was saying this is our plan,” says one attorney when reading the Marvel email. “That’s a red flag. What do you mean it’s our ‘plan’? That’s our deal. Plans change. Agreements don’t.”Johansson will now attempt to convince a judge (or arbitrator) to heed industry custom when interpreting what she was promised, which puts Disney in the position of shrugging its shoulders at the concept of any unstated understanding while telling a judge, “The contract is the contract. It’s pretty clear that Disney complied with its express obligations.”The merits of Johansson’s legal case can and will be debated…www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-black-widow-battle-could-change-long-standing-industry-customs-1235002215/ I daresay, none of this was Johansson idea to sue. Her lawyers probably found something in the contract to exploit. That Disney released her movie to the streaming services was to get their products rolling after the Covid delays. Other projects’ schedules depended upon it. I get Disney has deep pockets and is greedy, but an actress already getting millions sues them for making a business decision that goes way beyond one actor’s payday is also greedy. So, I don’t admire her for doing this even if she gets something out of it. She comes off as just another Hollywood dirtbag. Agreed, Johansson's team manages every aspect of her business dealings. She's publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that her future interests lie in starting a skincare products line - suggesting a pivot from action star to cosmetics mogul. A venture like that requires the deepest financing… and I'm sure members of her management team were offered a chance to become stakeholders - in exchange for passing on their more traditional cash fees. I'm conjecturing here, but Black Widow was likely an opportunity they advanced to Marvel so she could get the capital needed to parlay it into other ventures. Notice how she made sure to get her acting fee upfront before participation bonuses kicked in. Smart move if you're trying to hedge against having to come out of pocket if the receipts come up short at the box office or your future ventures fall through. If everyone on the team is tied to participation for their compensation (except for you) when Black Widow bombs, you can shrug your shoulders and say, "sorry, fellas…." That said, I'm sure her team balked at that and said, we need to sue, or you're going to have to get in the tights and do some leg throws in Black Widow 2: Electric Bugaloo. Scarlett's clearly not feeling that… Furthermore, I think they started the cosmetics venture in motion before they ever saw dollar one of Black Widow. And why not? Marvel movies are money in the bank; they likely put non-refundable deposits on boats and third homes until the pandemic hit.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 22:26:08 GMT
"A plan is not an agreement." Take Johansson’s situation. In some respects, she may be in a better legal position than other actors upset at how streaming has interfered with the expectation of backend bonanzas. Although it wasn’t highlighted in her suit, her team plans to stress that her Black Widow contract didn’t include a standard “distribution control” provision, which gives studios discretion on how they license a motion picture. Johansson’s camp is also emphasizing a 2019 email from Marvel’s chief counsel Dave Galluzzi stating, “We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”But look closely at that email. Even if it amounts to an enforceable amendment for a theatrical release (rather than just consultation), it doesn’t explicitly guarantee “exclusive” theatrical release. And, even if implicitly it does, how long must it play in theaters until Black Widow can show up on Disney+? That’s a pretty important point to gloss over, and yet, it’s that kind of indefiniteness that’s been rather characteristic of the paradigmatic Hollywood deal. “He was saying this is our plan,” says one attorney when reading the Marvel email. “That’s a red flag. What do you mean it’s our ‘plan’? That’s our deal. Plans change. Agreements don’t.”Johansson will now attempt to convince a judge (or arbitrator) to heed industry custom when interpreting what she was promised, which puts Disney in the position of shrugging its shoulders at the concept of any unstated understanding while telling a judge, “The contract is the contract. It’s pretty clear that Disney complied with its express obligations.”The merits of Johansson’s legal case can and will be debated…www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-black-widow-battle-could-change-long-standing-industry-customs-1235002215/I daresay, none of this was Johansson idea to sue. Her lawyers probably found something in the contract to exploit. That Disney released her movie to the streaming services was to get their products rolling after the Covid delays. Other projects’ schedules depended upon it. I get Disney has deep pockets and is greedy, but an actress already getting millions sues them for making a business decision that goes way beyond one actor’s payday is also greedy. So, I don’t admire her for doing this even if she gets something out of it. She comes off as just another Hollywood dirtbag. It amazes me how much flack she is getting for a decision Disney made to go around her contract. There is no entitlement to succeed in capitalism. If Black Widow were released into theaters and failed to make back the costs, it would have flopped financially by its own terms. The idea that Disney has the right to go around their client's contracts to make back their costs is their way of saying they're too big to fail.
They may have given her a portion of Disney + sales, but they would be under no legal obligation to because it wasn't in the contract. The idea that they could buy her off after the fact is tantamount to bribing their way out of a lawsuit they know they would have brought on themselves, which they did.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:30:01 GMT
Agreed, Johansson's team manages every aspect of her business dealings. She's publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that her future interests lie in starting a skincare products line - suggesting a pivot from action star to cosmetics mogul. A venture like that requires the deepest financing… and I'm sure members of her management team were offered a chance to become stakeholders - in exchange for passing on their more traditional cash fees. I'm conjecturing here, but Black Widow was likely an opportunity they advanced to Marvel so she could get the capital needed to parlay it into other ventures. Notice how she made sure to get her acting fee upfront before participation bonuses kicked in. Smart move if you're trying to hedge against having to come out of pocket if the receipts come up short at the box office or your future ventures fall through. If everyone on the team is tied to participation for their compensation (except for you) when Black Widow bombs, you can shrug your shoulders and say, "sorry, fellas…." That said, I'm sure her team balked at that and said, we need to sue, or you're going to have to get in the tights and do some leg throws in Black Widow 2: Electric Bugaloo. Scarlett's clearly not feeling that… Furthermore, I think they started the cosmetics venture in motion before they ever saw dollar one of Black Widow. And why not? Marvel movies are money in the bank; they likely put non-refundable deposits on boats and third homes until the pandemic hit. I wonder why she’s wants to start a cosmetics business? The field is saturated. It is, but if you hit, it can be worth billions. Ask Paltrow and Alba. After you cross the 500 M mark it's all gravy… breezy UNICEF ads and holding bloated belly, babies in one arm behind a green screen while rocking Jeans and your favorite vintage tee… "Oh my, doesn't her skin just glow."
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Sept 23, 2021 22:42:24 GMT
It amazes me how much flack she is getting for a decision Disney made to go around her contract. There is no entitlement to succeed in capitalism. If Black Widow were released into theaters and failed to make back the costs, it would have flopped financially by its own terms. The idea that Disney has the right to go around their client's contracts to make back their costs is their way of saying they're too big to fail. They may have given her a portion of Disney + sales, but they would be under no legal obligation to because it wasn't in the contract. The idea that they could buy her off after the fact is tantamount to bribing their way out of a lawsuit they know they would have brought on themselves, which they did.
If they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:42:48 GMT
It amazes me how much flack she is getting for a decision Disney made to go around her contract. There is no entitlement to succeed in capitalism. If Black Widow were released into theaters and failed to make back the costs, it would have flopped financially by its own terms. The idea that Disney has the right to go around their client's contracts to make back their costs is their way of saying they're too big to fail. They may have given her a portion of Disney + sales, but they would be under no legal obligation to because it wasn't in the contract. The idea that they could buy her off after the fact is tantamount to bribing their way out of a lawsuit they know they would have brought on themselves, which they did.
If they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. The open hand is now a closed fist. Disney has begun its pincer move. First things last, cut off all public support she could get from anyone they are currently in bed with. Stone took the sequel and Johnson took the short. Next, rework all future deals to account for streaming revenue - simple but effective. That pretty much leaves Johansson, Olsen and all of their stans to stunt on their own. When you do a deal with the devil, here's what you always need to be thinking about… Stone took the L and moved on.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 23, 2021 22:53:22 GMT
If they went around her contact. That’ll be determined in court, or she’s probably angling for a sweet settlement. Disney has deeper pockets, but she’s got the sympathy. But if they let her win, then a whole can of worms from other actors and not just Marvel superheroes will happen. And Marvel is caught in the middle. But Scar has made her money working for them, so what does she care. Why does she have sympathy, though? It's because Disney took a calculated risk and lost. They banked that if they shared a portion of the profits from streaming sales with her, she would have no impetus to sue for breach of contract. The fact Disney went around her to make back their costs is already an indication that they'll make executive decisions to suit their needs. At that point, sharing a portion of streaming sales they weren't legally obligated to because it wasn't in a contract is charity. They don't have to and they could just as easily not in the future.
It is about money but it's also about power. If Disney wins this, it'll mean they can go around their client's contract to make back their money, citing desperation, and then choose not to share the profits. What makes it worse is they'll always have "the fans" or "the little guy" to parade in front of the clients they betrayed. It's just more turning people against each other for the bottom line.
They've effectively already won. No industry is going to let a single actor, or even a coalition of actors, disrupt the streaming meal-ticket, it's pure, uncut, undiluted revenue… straight from the consumer's bank account to the mouses' pocket. Auto debit, every month, until the twelfth of forever. No exhibitors, no China, no middlemen of any kind. 125 M in the hand beats 25 cents on the dollar + bullshit out of the Middle Kingdon. It's like a nickel bag sold in the park after dark. No middle-men, just a straight hand-to-hand buy. No way Scarlett or anyone else is up-ending that.
|
|