|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 14:11:32 GMT
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. Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 15:58:35 GMT
RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth haven’t really demonstrated themselves to be major box office draws when they’re not in the MCU. Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie. Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive. The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency. Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
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.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 16:15:54 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. 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. I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 18:12:07 GMT
Their box-office performance inside the franchise has been exceptional. My narrative would be largely unaltered if Black Widow were a Hawkeye or Vision movie. Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive. The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency. Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
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.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so. Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 18:24:26 GMT
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. I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
Does that mean you agree with my other two reasons?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 18:30:01 GMT
Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive. The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency. Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
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.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so. Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. I can't even tell you how much I would love to have this conversation at a party but here will have to do.
It's possible too that Black Widow isn't a very high name. My education on the subject comes mostly from the movies, and cartoons. I've read maybe two comics in my life. I think for the first couple of movies, I thought Black Widow was going to turn into Scarlet Witch. Looking back, first, lol. Second, I think it's just something I thought because her hair was red and that was a hint. I hope it's as funny to you as it is to me.
The MCU breathed life into most of these characters for me. Even today, I'm less invested in Iron Man than I am RJD's Iron Man. I actually care about Thor now. But yeah, I never heard of Black Widow until the MCU and Scarjo is the only face of Black Widow I've ever seen.
It's amazing what name-value will accomplish. I thought the early DCEU movies were terrible but if you put Superman v Batman in the same movie, fans will come out of the woodwork for that. Man of Steel was...acceptable, Dawn of Justice was garbage (imo), Suicide Squad was okay (the sequel was way better) and Whedon's Justice League...anyways, I'd trade them all for one copy of Ant-Man - who I also never heard of before the MCU.
Maybe I'm veering off-topic a little because I think we're in a good place.
I can only add to the topic of price negotiations that other established stars take home obscene amounts of money both from their contract and for box-office quota bonuses their star power permits them to leverage. Don't quote me but I think Tom Cruise took home 70 million for one of the later Mission Impossible movies. 70 million for one film is another figure the combined total of millions of people across dozens of countries will never see with all their wealth combined. Money is fierce when your career is in it to win it.
Don't worry, your party conversation opinion is the conversation I'd prefer to be apart of at the same party.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 18:40:59 GMT
I still disagree with the interpretation of the contract.
If I knew for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Scarjo was in the wrong, my argument would look very different. I could argue from a point of ethical practices/flaws but I couldn't argue her merits from a legal standpoint. My brain can't fake that kind of sincerity.
There's probably something legal about not discussing a case publicly because it could influence the results, but I have no idea what her opinion is short of filing the suit. To this day, I don't know what she thinks.
I get it though, there's moral posturing on both sides. Even the faintest hint of greed is not a good look on anybody.
Does that mean you agree with my other two reasons? I'm on the fence about Disney's position benefiting the consumer. Personally I don't have Disney + and would prefer not to so it didn't benefit me. A theatrical release benefits me. I consider theaters equal-accessibility spaces and working class escapes. If I had Disney +, my preference would still be the theater because watching at home will never trump the theater experience. For me, personally.
Until they put it out on Disney +, I'd figure poor sales during a pandemic are just hard luck. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not win. There's contingencies that just can't be anticipated.
The reason I say I'm on the fence is because I accept that releasing Black Widow onto Disney + made it accessible for some, albeit not me, but it would be my preference for streaming services not to gain ground in the film release department because individual they take content out of the popular space and put it into whichever streaming service a house has. Without theaters, I can barely name 5 movies from 2021 because they're all being released on streaming services. I barely notice new releases on the streaming services I do have (Netflix), let alone the ones I don't.
Cinemas bear a lot of responsibility for streaming services gaining ground too. In a way, the prevalence of streaming services are just desserts for theaters turning into zoos, but then my concern is it's only a matter of time before streaming services become the less cheap option and just as much of a nuisance as theaters, but in other ways.
The other point about money based on wishful thinking. It can't be known now. In her position, I would still seek legal advice even if the box-office reached the bonus. What I would do with that advice once it's given, I just don't know.
edit: I guess technically, streaming services don't remove them from public space, they just release in a way that they were never in the public space.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 18:49:40 GMT
Hers is the only film marred by the pandemic.
I really liked your last post. I'm going to try and reply to it here in this one, just to keep the flow alive. The unchecked growth of corporations is not far off from this discussion. From my perspective, it's been the elephant in the room all along. I even considered mentioning that this subject might be more suited to the politics board.
I've been following Johansson's career since it began. To this day, I think she was one of the original 6 Avengers who was in the least need of work when the franchise began. From the 2000's on, she's been in Oscar fare, teen comedies, period pieces, and worked with the Coen Bros, Brian DePalma, Sofia Coppola, Woody Allen, not to mention a litany of talk-show appearances, commercials, the Justin Timberlake music video... She's done live-action, voice-work, magazine covers...it just goes on.
She started young - North (1994). I guess it couldn't hurt to go back and really look at the numbers, but her salary seems pretty defensible to me. At least one of those two Woody Allen movies was before the MCU, along with the other examples, and since the MCU, she's been nominated for two Oscars.
The Black Widow film is really the only opportunity to compare box office performance with her peers. I agree with you about Instagram users, though I would argue Instagram users is a modern metric of drawing power. I don't put stake in Instagram. My on again off again distaste for the Oscars could also be its separate thread. I think Oscars are an elitist participation trophy circle-jerk, but in Hollywood, they are valued currency. Without Google, of the six core Avengers, I'd say only Mark Ruffalo was not at risk of being typecast into his role because of his body of work up to that point. Jeremy Renner will also be fine.
I guess my point is if Scarlet Johansson's career were Budapest, you and I remember Budapest very differently.
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.
I definitely agree with this. Not that I'm thrilled, but I think that assessment is bang on.
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so.Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. Actually she's getting paid higher than almost all of her co-stars, male or female. The only person who consistently gets anything at that range is RDJ (who gets slightly more) and maybe, maybe Chris Hemsworth but only for Thor: Ragnarok. Chris Evans, as far as I can tell, does not get paid that high and none of the other MCU cast even come close.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 18:59:43 GMT
Johannson is an earner by anyone's standards in Hollywood. However, her per-film average significantly drops if you subtract her MCU output and voice work on ensemble films. If you remove the MCU films, her per-film average is in the sub 200 M range (we should fact-check this for sure - BTW). Giving her 70 M against that entails moderate risk - in my opinion. To put this into some context, her combined payday would have exceeded the Rock's deals on both Jungle Cruise and Red Notice combined. Full disclosure, Scarlett's per average box office is higher than Johnson's, but much of the difference can be attributed to ensemble work and the MCU. She asked for the kind of money you might be entitled to when your sub-franchise franchise is a proven earner. I don't think she was entitled to such a fat deal on the first solo outing for the character. She likely asked for that kind of money because she was reasonably sure she wasn't coming back. This won't make me popular at parties, but I think a big part of the reason for the somewhat inflated payday was to make sure they had parity between Scarlett and her male peers on compensation. There would have been public blowback had they not done so.Granted, the Black Widow is an established character of several years, but I still don't think that was enough to guarantee a high turnout for a solo outing. This is why I believe the majority of her earnings was tied to profit participation. If everyone at the table thought she was genuinely worth her TOTAL asking price, they would have given it to her upfront - without the need for a performance clause. Actually she's getting paid higher than almost all of her co-stars, male or female. The only person who consistently gets anything at that range is RDJ (who gets slightly more) and maybe, maybe Chris Hemsworth but only for Thor: Ragnarok. Chris Evans, as far as I can tell, does not get paid that high and none of the other MCU cast even come close. I suspected as much, but I wanted to be conservative given that I had no numbers at my fingertips to substantiate such a claim. And of course, since she's, by and large, making more money than her male cohort, there is no issue with pay disparity.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 19:22:51 GMT
Does that mean you agree with my other two reasons? I'm on the fence about Disney's position benefiting the consumer. Personally I don't have Disney + and would prefer not to so it didn't benefit me. A theatrical release benefits me. I consider theaters equal-accessibility spaces and working class escapes. If I had Disney +, my preference would still be the theater because watching at home will never trump the theater experience. For me, personally.
Until they put it out on Disney +, I'd figure poor sales during a pandemic are just hard luck. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not win. There's contingencies that just can't be anticipated.
The reason I say I'm on the fence is because I accept that releasing Black Widow onto Disney + made is accessible for some, albeit not me, but it would be my preference for streaming services not to gain ground in the film release department because individual streaming services take content out of the popular conscience and put it into whichever streaming service the individual house has. Without theaters, I can barely name 5 movies from 2021 because they're all being released on streaming services. I barely notice new releases on the streaming services I do have (Netflix), let alone the ones I don't.
Cinemas bear a lot of responsibility for streaming services gaining ground too. In a way, the prevalence of streaming services are just desserts for theaters turning into zoos, but then my concern is it's only a matter of time before streaming services become the less cheap option and just as much of a nuisance as theaters, but in other ways.
The other point about money based on wishful thinking. It can't be known now. In her position, I would still seek legal advice even if the box-office reached the bonus. What I would do with that advice once it's given, I just don't know.
Disney still released her movie in the theaters though, so it's not like they stopped you from watching it in the movies if you wanted to. All they did was provide an extra option for those who didn't or couldn't watch it in the theaters. That's definitely helping the consumers, especially those with theaters still closed in their locations. It also helped lessen costs for big families who wanted to just pay a one-time fee to watch it. And for anyone who preferred watching it in the theaters, well that option was always there. From the consumer side, I think it's fairly obvious that Disney's stance was a lot more helpful than Scarjo's stance. As for money based on wishful thinking, Scarjo was asking for money based on what she thought her movie could have done WITHOUT the pandemic. Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, she was basically asking for pay based on what she wished her movie could have made... which would have been impossible given the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Oct 4, 2021 19:46:14 GMT
I'm on the fence about Disney's position benefiting the consumer. Personally I don't have Disney + and would prefer not to so it didn't benefit me. A theatrical release benefits me. I consider theaters equal-accessibility spaces and working class escapes. If I had Disney +, my preference would still be the theater because watching at home will never trump the theater experience. For me, personally.
Until they put it out on Disney +, I'd figure poor sales during a pandemic are just hard luck. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not win. There's contingencies that just can't be anticipated.
The reason I say I'm on the fence is because I accept that releasing Black Widow onto Disney + made is accessible for some, albeit not me, but it would be my preference for streaming services not to gain ground in the film release department because individual streaming services take content out of the popular conscience and put it into whichever streaming service the individual house has. Without theaters, I can barely name 5 movies from 2021 because they're all being released on streaming services. I barely notice new releases on the streaming services I do have (Netflix), let alone the ones I don't.
Cinemas bear a lot of responsibility for streaming services gaining ground too. In a way, the prevalence of streaming services are just desserts for theaters turning into zoos, but then my concern is it's only a matter of time before streaming services become the less cheap option and just as much of a nuisance as theaters, but in other ways.
The other point about money based on wishful thinking. It can't be known now. In her position, I would still seek legal advice even if the box-office reached the bonus. What I would do with that advice once it's given, I just don't know.
Disney still released her movie in the theaters though, so it's not like they stopped you from watching it in the movies if you wanted to. All they did was provide an extra option for those who didn't or couldn't watch it in the theaters. That's definitely helping the consumers, especially those with theaters still closed in their locations. It also helped lessen costs for big families who wanted to just pay a one-time fee to watch it. And for anyone who preferred watching it in the theaters, well that option was always there.
From the consumer side, I think it's fairly obvious that Disney's stance was a lot more helpful than Scarjo's stance. As for money based on wishful thinking, Scarjo was asking for money based on what she thought her movie could have done WITHOUT the pandemic. Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, it's wishful thinking. That's a good point that could go one way or another depending on the house. I understand that a group of 3-4 or more gets their money's worth. It costs less than a theater because the rate is flat, so if your home has 17 people, the rate is the same as the rental instead of the cost of 17 tickets.
I am a single man, so alone. I appreciate that a flat rate comes at a premium to larger groups but as an individual, it comes at a greater cost. The price of a rental is way higher than a single ticket.
That is totally a good point though.
Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, it's wishful thinking.
I don't mind the hope. Tenet failed to rake it in too. I don't know what other films' draws are like now. These movies reveal many possible things, onscreen and off-screen. Before the Black Panther film, I'd have thought it inconceivable for a character I saw once in the 90's in a Fantastic Four cartoon to rake in a billion dollars (or be nominated for Best Picture).
It was all inconceivable at a point. The success of the MCU has made people cynical (in my opinion) to its likelihood of success. It was never a guarantee Iron Man would work. RJD the actor was a 3rd strike risk even after Tropic Thunder. Fast forward to today and people will say throw Iron Man in something and it'll make bank at the BO but it wasn't always the case.
Even when the numbers line up, I think all capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking. There never is, was, or will be a guarantee of success in anything. Sometimes, sure things flop and shots in the dark light the world on fire, re Star Wars (1977).
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 19:56:36 GMT
Disney still released her movie in the theaters though, so it's not like they stopped you from watching it in the movies if you wanted to. All they did was provide an extra option for those who didn't or couldn't watch it in the theaters. That's definitely helping the consumers, especially those with theaters still closed in their locations. It also helped lessen costs for big families who wanted to just pay a one-time fee to watch it. And for anyone who preferred watching it in the theaters, well that option was always there.
From the consumer side, I think it's fairly obvious that Disney's stance was a lot more helpful than Scarjo's stance. As for money based on wishful thinking, Scarjo was asking for money based on what she thought her movie could have done WITHOUT the pandemic. Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, it's wishful thinking. That's a good point that could go one way or another depending on the house. I understand that a group of 3-4 or more gets their money's worth. It costs less than a theater because the rate is flat, so if your home has 17 people, the rate is the same as the rental instead of the cost of 17 tickets.
I am a single man, so along. I appreciate that a flat rate comes at a premium to larger groups but as an individual, it comes at a greater cost. The price of a rental is way higher than a single ticket.
That is totally a good point though.
Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, it's wishful thinking.
I don't mind the hope. Tenet failed to rake it in too. I don't know what other films' draws are like now. These movies reveal many possible things, onscreen and off-screen. Before the Black Panther film, I'd have thought it inconceivable for a character I saw once in the 90's in a Fantastic Four cartoon to rake in a billion dollars (or be nominated for Best Picture).
It was all inconceivable at a point. The success of the MCU has made people cynical (in my opinion) to its likelihood of success. It was never a guarantee Iron Man would work. RJD the actor was a 3rd strike risk even after Tropic Thunder. Fast forward to today and people will say throw Iron Man in something and it'll make bank at the BO but it wasn't always the case.
Even when the numbers line up, I think all capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking. There never is, was, or will be a guarantee of success in anything. Sometimes, sure things flop and shots in the dark like the world on fire, re Star Wars (1977).
Well yeah, most capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking, which is why Disney had the stronger stance in this case because they weren't depending on wishful thinking. They weren't asking for any money that they might have made in an endeavor, they simply wanted whatever money they actually made from that endeavor. Scarjo wanted money that her movie had no chance of making with the current circumstances. The highest grossing movie of the pandemic is F9 which comes from a franchise that have been making well over a billion dollars in their last few movies... and this movie only made around $700 million. And that's with a China release. And yes, for a single person it's cheaper to watch a movie in the theaters as opposed to streaming, but like I said that option was still available for Black Widow anyway. Disney didn't take away the option of seeing it in theaters, just gave consumers a second option.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 4, 2021 20:05:15 GMT
That's a good point that could go one way or another depending on the house. I understand that a group of 3-4 or more gets their money's worth. It costs less than a theater because the rate is flat, so if your home has 17 people, the rate is the same as the rental instead of the cost of 17 tickets.
I am a single man, so along. I appreciate that a flat rate comes at a premium to larger groups but as an individual, it comes at a greater cost. The price of a rental is way higher than a single ticket.
That is totally a good point though.
Even if Disney allowed an exclusive theatrical release, there's just no way in hell that Black Widow could have earned over a billion dollars with the pandemic about. So yeah, it's wishful thinking.
I don't mind the hope. Tenet failed to rake it in too. I don't know what other films' draws are like now. These movies reveal many possible things, onscreen and off-screen. Before the Black Panther film, I'd have thought it inconceivable for a character I saw once in the 90's in a Fantastic Four cartoon to rake in a billion dollars (or be nominated for Best Picture).
It was all inconceivable at a point. The success of the MCU has made people cynical (in my opinion) to its likelihood of success. It was never a guarantee Iron Man would work. RJD the actor was a 3rd strike risk even after Tropic Thunder. Fast forward to today and people will say throw Iron Man in something and it'll make bank at the BO but it wasn't always the case.
Even when the numbers line up, I think all capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking. There never is, was, or will be a guarantee of success in anything. Sometimes, sure things flop and shots in the dark like the world on fire, re Star Wars (1977).
Well yeah, most capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking, which is why Disney had the stronger stance in this case because they weren't depending on wishful thinking. They weren't asking for any money that they might have made in an endeavor, they simply wanted whatever money they actually made from that endeavor. Scarjo wanted money that her movie had no chance of making with the current circumstances. The highest grossing movie of the pandemic is F9 which comes from a franchise that have been making well over a billion dollars in their last few movies... and this movie only made around $700 million. And that's with a China release. And yes, for a single person it's cheaper to watch a movie in the theaters as opposed to streaming, but like I said that option was still available for Black Widow anyway. Disney didn't take away the option of seeing it in theaters, just gave consumers a second option. As an aside, If you live in a major metro like Los Angeles or New York, the Disney+ premier access option is cheaper than going to the theater - even as a single individual.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 4, 2021 21:21:04 GMT
Well yeah, most capitalist endeavors are wishful thinking, which is why Disney had the stronger stance in this case because they weren't depending on wishful thinking. They weren't asking for any money that they might have made in an endeavor, they simply wanted whatever money they actually made from that endeavor. Scarjo wanted money that her movie had no chance of making with the current circumstances. The highest grossing movie of the pandemic is F9 which comes from a franchise that have been making well over a billion dollars in their last few movies... and this movie only made around $700 million. And that's with a China release. And yes, for a single person it's cheaper to watch a movie in the theaters as opposed to streaming, but like I said that option was still available for Black Widow anyway. Disney didn't take away the option of seeing it in theaters, just gave consumers a second option. As an aside, If you live in a major metro like Los Angeles or New York, the Disney+ premier access option is cheaper than going to the theater - even as a single individual. Fair point. I live in Vancouver, Canada. Tickets for a decent theater here (widescreen, surround sound, etc.) is around $19 CAD without tax. D+ premium for Black Widow was $29 CAD if I remember correctly, and that was already with tax. So it's already fairly close, and I haven't even included gas/transit fare or whatever snacks I purchase in the theater.
|
|