|
Post by poutinep on Oct 3, 2021 3:13:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 3, 2021 4:15:49 GMT
So 40 million on top of her already existing 20 million? Jeeze. Her movie was nowhere near good enough to have justified that kind of payday. Pretty good deal for her then.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 14:00:12 GMT
So 40 million on top of her already existing 20 million? Jeeze. Her movie was nowhere near good enough to have deserved that kind of payday. Pretty good deal for her. Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly. They all have the same basic look. Same with Captain Marvel Not a lot of choices in looks in Marvel leading female actors. Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly.
That will always be true. If it were Jennifer Lawrence playing Black Widow and embroiled in a contract dispute with Disney, Johansson would right up there as a substitute.
One of only 3 outcomes were possible in this situation: Disney could settle, Disney could lose the suit (because it's about contracts, not motivations), or Johansson could drop the case.
I'm starting to think this isn't about bonuses and contracts at all.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 15:26:39 GMT
Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly.
That will always be true. If it were Jennifer Lawrence playing Black Widow and embroiled in a contract dispute with Disney, Johansson would right up there as a substitute.
One of only 3 outcomes were possible in this situation: Disney could settle, Disney could lose the suit (because it's about contracts, not motivations), or Johansson could drop the case.
I'm starting to think this isn't about bonuses and contracts at all. To be fair, female superhero actors have a shorter shelf life than their male counterparts. At 36, ScarJo is aging out of the role. Sadly, the guys can continue into their fifties if they want. So, they should get all they can, while they can. My point is truer in the larger scheme of things.
Jodie Foster landed the role in Silence of the Lambs because Michelle Pfeiffer. We'll never know if Pfeiffer could have done a better job.
Samuel L Jackson landed the role in Pulp Fiction for 2 reasons: 1) Lawrence Fishburne turned down the role, and 2) Paul Calderon did such a good audition for the role that Jackson went back and did another one just to make sure he got the spot.
I said actresses because of the context but it's true of any role.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 3, 2021 17:15:50 GMT
Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly. They all have the same basic look. Same with Captain Marvel Not a lot of choices in looks in Marvel leading female actors. Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly.
That will always be true. If it were Jennifer Lawrence playing Black Widow and embroiled in a contract dispute with Disney, Johansson would right up there as a substitute.
One of only 3 outcomes were possible in this situation: Disney could settle, Disney could lose the suit (because it's about contracts, not motivations), or Johansson could drop the case.
I'm starting to think this isn't about bonuses and contracts at all. You forgot one other outcome: Scarjo could lose the suit.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 17:51:39 GMT
Any number of actresses could have done the part frankly.
That will always be true. If it were Jennifer Lawrence playing Black Widow and embroiled in a contract dispute with Disney, Johansson would right up there as a substitute.
One of only 3 outcomes were possible in this situation: Disney could settle, Disney could lose the suit (because it's about contracts, not motivations), or Johansson could drop the case.
I'm starting to think this isn't about bonuses and contracts at all. You forgot one other outcome: Scarjo could lose the suit. My confidence never wavered Disney was legally in the wrong. That's the truth.
My take on our conversation is that social justice articles and Youtube videos created a wall I had to climb without being able to see. The closest thing I have to a window into how anybody feels about the case is you guys.
That's why it kind of hurts a little. Even if it were my opinion that Disney or Johansson acted out of self-preservation or greed, it's immaterial to the suit because greed and self-preservation aren't crimes. They're just hot takes.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 3, 2021 18:22:10 GMT
To be fair, female superhero actors have a shorter shelf life than their male counterparts. At 36, ScarJo is aging out of the role. Sadly, the guys can continue into their fifties if they want. So, they should get all they can, while they can. My point is truer in the larger scheme of things.
Jodie Foster landed the role in Silence of the Lambs because Michelle Pfeiffer. We'll never know if Pfeiffer could have done a better job.
Samuel L Jackson landed the role in Pulp Fiction for 2 reasons: 1) Lawrence Fishburne turned down the role, and 2) Paul Calderon did such a good audition for the role that Jackson went back and did another one just to make sure he got the spot.
I said actresses because of the context but it's true of any role.
What ifs, couldas, shouldas or maybes is a rather pointless use of one's time.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 18:34:15 GMT
My point is truer in the larger scheme of things.
Jodie Foster landed the role in Silence of the Lambs because Michelle Pfeiffer. We'll never know if Pfeiffer could have done a better job.
Samuel L Jackson landed the role in Pulp Fiction for 2 reasons: 1) Lawrence Fishburne turned down the role, and 2) Paul Calderon did such a good audition for the role that Jackson went back and did another one just to make sure he got the spot.
I said actresses because of the context but it's true of any role.
What ifs, couldas, shouldas or maybes is a rather pointless use of one's time. Thank you for summarizing my point and repeating it back to me. You're absolutely right.
Could someone else have played Black Widow? Who cares, it's a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 3, 2021 18:36:46 GMT
You forgot one other outcome: Scarjo could lose the suit. My confidence never wavered Disney was legally in the wrong. That's the truth.
My take on our conversation is that social justice articles and Youtube videos created a wall I had to climb without being able to see. The closest thing I have to a window into how anybody feels about the case is you guys.
That's why it kind of hurts a little. Even if it were my opinion that Disney or Johansson acted out of self-preservation or greed, it's immaterial to the suit because greed and self-preservation aren't crimes. They're just hot takes.
I mean, I'm fairly confident in saying both sides had a point but that Disney was more in the right based on the contract. That still wouldn't stop me from saying there's a chance Disney could lose the suit. Which is why it's only fair to point out that another possible outcome was that Scarjo could also lose the suit. I wasn't trying to be combative.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 18:48:47 GMT
My confidence never wavered Disney was legally in the wrong. That's the truth.
My take on our conversation is that social justice articles and Youtube videos created a wall I had to climb without being able to see. The closest thing I have to a window into how anybody feels about the case is you guys.
That's why it kind of hurts a little. Even if it were my opinion that Disney or Johansson acted out of self-preservation or greed, it's immaterial to the suit because greed and self-preservation aren't crimes. They're just hot takes.
I mean, I'm fairly confident in saying both sides had a point but that Disney was more in the right based on the contract. That still wouldn't stop me from saying there's a chance Disney could lose the suit. Which is why it's only fair to point out that another possible outcome was that Scarjo could also lose the suit. I wasn't trying to be combative.I know. Reading over the internet is difficult sometimes but I did get that one right. It's all good my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 3, 2021 19:16:11 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue.
Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+.
Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 20:02:40 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 3, 2021 20:42:27 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson. It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 3, 2021 22:00:45 GMT
The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson.It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests. It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 3, 2021 23:50:21 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 0:00:07 GMT
The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit. Oh yeah it's totally like Django Unchained. So much like Django Unchained.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 4, 2021 0:14:48 GMT
You need to tone down the Django Unchained Scarlett Johansson movie that's going on in your head. Scarlett has the misfortune of being a multi millionaire actress in a pandemic complaining about getting short changed by a richer company it doesn't mean anyone is on Disney's side. it's just that no one gives a shit. Oh yeah it's totally like Django Unchained. So much like Django Unchained. Everyone knows that's what you think. No gives a shit about Scarlett's court case nothing more nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 0:19:23 GMT
Most people tend to favor individuals in disputes like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that corporations are faceless. That which has no face is inherently unrelatable to the human animal. This reflexive mistrust of large, profit-seeking organizations only benefits upper-class individuals - like Scarlett Johansson.It is much rarer to see anyone side with a Company like Disney because they are seen as greedy and corrupt. In truth, Disney is operating according to the central tenets of American capitalism… Greed is good. Greed is right. My only allegiance to Disney is that I know they will use every available resource at their disposal to win the current streaming wars. It is nothing short of a matter of their survival. This type of competition is good for the consumer. It creates a competitive landscape and choice. The forty million dollars Scarlett just pocketed could have paid for two more episodes of Disney+ content. And Disney, given their current posture, would have gladly spent that money on content production. That's really all I care about. Scarlett getting another 40 M for a middling product does absolutely nothing for me, you, or anyone else not related to her by blood or business interests.It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
The unchecked growth of corporations is really a topic for another discussion. Again, I advocate solely for the consumer in my calculus. More content at a lower price is good for us. If every actor who stars in a Disney movie or series requires profit participation, that cost will be passed on to us. This, in my estimation, is bad. It's true, nobody likes being ripped off, but no one enjoys paying more than they should for a product either. In Scarlett's case, I posit that Disney overpaid for her as a celebrity. The reason for this is twofold, compensation in Hollywood is governed by bad economics (so-called Hollywood accounting), and even worse, by relationships. Compensation should be governed by performance, not Instagram followers, awards nominations received, or other vanity metrics. Scarlett's deal was based on horrible accounting and the idea that Marvel films always perform at a certain level. Scarlett's salary has no defensible platform because the simple truth is that she has not performed (box office-wise) at the same level as her male peers in the franchise. Whether due to lack of opportunity or poor craftsmanship, I leave that to others to decide. This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close. This comes from a hardcore Black Widow fan; if anyone in that room was actually using their head during those negotiations, Black Widow would and should have never been made.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 4, 2021 3:54:58 GMT
It does a little something for me.
I find her position relatable because I don't like being ripped off. I think it's a shame to watch people get away with it because the victim "has enough", as if that's an excuse. I've been take advantage before. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
Regarding choice, I would argue it's not completely good for the consumer or choice. It is and it isn't. If Disney continues on its path of buying studios and properties, they can choose to withhold, edit or censor content they purchase. It's a paradox of capitalism. Competition is only good until somebody wins.
After HBO released the Michael Jackson documentary, Disney removed the Michael Jackson episode from its Simpsons catalogue. It's their privilege to do so, but the idea of winning streaming wars results in this type of selective censorship. If you owned the DVD, you'd never be without that episode again, no matter the political taboo or social attitudes of the day.
It may even take years to notice an episode of a show or a film is no longer available. Not that it matters because if you noticed right away, there's nothing you could do about it short of owning your own copy.
Captain America's argument to Iron Man about government applies just as much to corporations. They're run by people with agendas and agendas change. Fighting back ain't cheap. You practically have to be rich to stand a fighting chance. You saw the $201,549,000,000 figure I posted. 40 million dollars is 1.98% of that. If Disney wanted to pump out two more episodes of What If, they'll find the money.
I appreciate your honesty that your position has a lot to do with being a fan. Mine has to do with feeling corporations have too much leverage and it's only getting worse.
The unchecked growth of corporations is really a topic for another discussion. Again, I advocate solely for the consumer in my calculus. More content at a lower price is good for us. If every actor who stars in a Disney movie or series requires profit participation, that cost will be passed on to us. This, in my estimation, is bad. It's true, nobody likes being ripped off, but no one enjoys paying more than they should for a product either. In Scarlett's case, I posit that Disney overpaid for her as a celebrity. The reason for this is twofold, compensation in Hollywood is governed by bad economics (so-called Hollywood accounting), and even worse, by relationships. Compensation should be governed by performance, not Instagram followers, awards nominations received, or other vanity metrics. Scarlett's deal was based on horrible accounting and the idea that Marvel films always perform at a certain level. Scarlett's salary has no defensible platform because the simple truth is that she has not performed (box office-wise) at the same level as her male peers in the franchise. Whether due to lack of opportunity or poor craftsmanship, I leave that to others to decide. This, more than anything else, is why management is shifting the power dynamic. I know this will sound radical, but soon, talent will be judged on many dynamically shifting variables; social clout, previous box office performance, current controversies, etc. An AI will likely drive decision-making, and the era of old Hollywood will draw to a close. This comes from a hardcore Black Widow fan; if anyone in that room was actually using their head during those negotiations, Black Widow would and should have never been made. RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth haven’t really demonstrated themselves to be major box office draws when they’re not in the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 4:25:06 GMT
Ultimately, through deft sleight of hand, Disney is the big winner here. By catering to Johannson's singular desire to make more money, they effectively tabled the issue of talent participation in streaming revenue. Scarlett specifically received remuneration for hypothetical lost profits on the "theatrical" release of Black Widow. She did not receive a share of the profits Disney made on Premier Access on Disney+. Newer contracts will likely specifically allow Disney to exhibit their film, however, wherever and whenever they want, without say or interference from talent. These revised contracts are also likely to severely limit or eliminate any revenue talent could earn from streaming.
The power dynamic is slowly shifting away from talent and more towards management. As is the case with tech companies, management will earn and keep most of the profits made by a media company. The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm still at a loss as to why Johansson is critiqued for a singular desire to make money but not Disney and their $201.549 billion dollars in total assets (2020).
The contract part of the conversation (written word, intent, etc.) is over, so we can talk shop a little with our opinions.
It is very unlikely a single user in the entire V2 forum will be anywhere near Disney management level, including all of us. I genuinely find baffling that some of you find Disney's ambitions of increasing their leverage over their talent so relatable. I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you why I specifically sided with Disney in this dispute. Let's be clear here, I like Scarjo more than I like Disney as a whole. And both of them were being greedy in this dispute. The first reason I sided with Disney is simply because the written contract backed up what they were saying more than what Scarjo was saying. Second reason was because their position actually benefitted the consumers whereas Scarjo's position benefited only her. Lastly, and probably most importantly, because Disney was being greedy about money that they actually made whereas Scarjo was being greedy for money she only theoretically could have made (and a very slim chance at that). In other words, Disney wanted money based on actual earnings whereas Scarjo wanted money based on wishful thinking. That's a HUGE difference.
|
|