|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 30, 2021 5:23:39 GMT
Despite a worldwide pandemic that has wreaked havoc on the finances of the the poor and middle classes, wealthy Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson - who was paid 20 million dollars for the comic book franchise film BLACK WIDOW, says she has lost a further 50 million dollars because the film was released on Disney's streaming channel at the same time. No wonder people despise the rich. Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney over 'Black Widow' Disney+ releaseOne of Marvel's biggest stars is suing Disney.
Actress Scarlett Johansson filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday that alleges Disney breached her contract by releasing the highly anticipated superhero film "Black Widow" on its streaming service, Disney+. The film was released simultaneously on the service and in theaters, which the suit claims broke an agreement between the star and the company. The suit alleges that Johansson agreed that her salary for the film would be based, in large part, on the film's box office haul.
"To maximize these receipts, and thereby protect her financial interests, Ms. Johansson extracted a promise from Marvel that the release of the picture would be a 'theatrical release,'" the suit claimed. "As Ms. Johansson, Disney, Marvel, and most everyone else in Hollywood knows, a 'theatrical release' is a release that is exclusive to movie theatres. Disney was well aware of this promise, but nonetheless directed Marvel to violate its pledge and instead release the picture on the Disney+ streaming service the very same day it was released in movie theatres." Disney (DIS) responded on Thursday saying that "there is no merit whatsoever to this filing" and that the suit is "especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."
"Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of 'Black Widow' on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date," a Disney spokesperson said in a statement. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the news. The suit comes at a pivotal moment for Hollywood, as the pandemic has accelerated several trends at once. Streaming has become the focal point of Hollywood while movie theaters and the box office struggle to return to normalcy following a pandemic that ravaged its business. Disney made big waves when it announced in March that "Black Widow" would be released on Disney+ for an extra charge and in theaters simultaneously. The film had been delayed multiple times because of the pandemic. It was originally set to be released in May of 2020. While other studios have done a same-day streaming and theatrical releases, the "Black Widow" news stood out because Marvel is the biggest blockbuster brand in all of Hollywood, bringing in nearly $23 billion at the global box office since 2008. Its July 9 release was an immediate success for Disney, in theaters and streaming, bringing in $80 million in its North America opening in theaters and $60 million globally on Disney+. The film's momentum has slowed down since and now stands at roughly $318 million worldwide, according to Comscore (SCOR). That's not a huge take for a Marvel film. Other issues have arisen as studios shifted their major blockbusters to streaming as the pandemic continues. Case in point: Warner Bros. reportedly paid star Gal Gadot and director Patty Jenkins each more than $10 million as the studio released "Wonder Woman 1984" on streaming service HBO Max as well as theaters in December. (WarnerMedia owns Warner Bros. and CNN.) "It's no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney+ to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price — and that it's hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so," John Berlinski, attorney for Johansson, told CNN Business. "But ignoring the contracts of the artists responsible for the success of its films in furtherance of this short-sighted strategy violates their rights and we look forward to proving as much in court." He added that this will "surely not be the last case where Hollywood talent stands up to Disney and makes it clear that, whatever the company may pretend, it has a legal obligation to honor its contracts." edition.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 30, 2021 5:29:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 30, 2021 5:39:51 GMT
She's no Jill St. John.
|
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jul 30, 2021 7:17:39 GMT
Fiddle dee dee  ! |
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Jul 30, 2021 14:52:08 GMT
I agree with Scarlett.
Her work in the movie is a big part of why it will make all that money, and she should share in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 30, 2021 15:00:17 GMT
I thought you were talking about Scarlett O'Hara! She was greedy, too, y'know. Constantly coveting her GF's husband!  |
|
|
|
Post by Spooky Ghost Ackbar on Jul 30, 2021 15:17:27 GMT
A contract is a contract. Sure, it’s kind of crazy to not be happy with 20 mil. But she’s entitled to what they promised her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 30, 2021 15:59:23 GMT
I have heard that some of these money claims are just hoopla for the sake of making them sound bigger than they are.
Hollywood accounting.
But that shows why Hollywood is failing--they waste so much money. All they ever talk about now is money. They don't talk about a film's ideas (unless its overtly political and insincere).
Between 1960 and 1975 the average cost of a Hollywood movie was a $1 million. And many companies were making movies for far less and seeing profit.
Then they claim they can't take risks which is such a lie.
It's just spectacular mis-management.
They do not know what they are doing. It's like a ballet school that decides it will hire square dancing instructors. You won't get ballet dancers if you do that.
You don't see this with other creative industries--t-shirt manufacturing or beverage production--that doesn't change. It still functions. But cultural industries-the bigger they are, the more dysfunctional.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 30, 2021 16:28:54 GMT
I agree with Scarlett. Her work in the movie is a big part of why it will make all that money, and she should share in it. It didn't make that much money, and Scarlett's deal would have been her 20 million dollar salary, and a small percentage of the gross profits. And there ain't no gross profits until the the film makes about 700 million dollars worldwide - which this picture ain't gonna do. Her lawyers are saying because the film was available on Disney + (for a pricey payment of 29.99 a viewing) it didn't make as much money as it would have if it had only been shown day and date theatrically. She has sour groups because the picture hasn't recouped and allowed to her to rake in a fat back end payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 31, 2021 5:52:31 GMT
I thought you were talking about Scarlett O'Hara! She was greedy, too, y'know. Constantly coveting her GF's husband! LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Aug 1, 2021 13:19:14 GMT
This is not about greed is about getting what she is owned.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Aug 1, 2021 14:02:38 GMT
This is not about greed is about getting what she is owned (s.i.c.) Unless she wants the money to feed the poor, it is about greed Feoly, but, LOL, I too would like to see this whiny, wealthy movie star get "owned".
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Aug 1, 2021 15:52:50 GMT
What you have here is ScarJo vs. Disney's greed. You don't think Disney is taking advantage of her popularity hoping to gain more membership for that stupid online service. A contract is a contract. ScarJo has that right to sue Disney. Disney will not go broke for paying her off.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Aug 1, 2021 16:16:15 GMT
Scarlett wants to be paid commensurate with what her work is worth. That isn't greed, it is wanting fair pay. Everyone wants that, for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Aug 1, 2021 20:50:26 GMT
What you have here is ScarJo vs. Disney's greed. You don't think Disney is taking advantage of her popularity hoping to gain more membership for that stupid online service. A contract is a contract. ScarJo has that right to sue Disney. Disney will not go broke for paying her off. 
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Aug 1, 2021 22:50:06 GMT
Scarlett wants to be paid commensurate with what her work is worth. That isn't greed, it is wanting fair pay. Everyone wants that, for themselves. a Disney spokesperson said in a statement. Scarlett is one of the highest paid stars in the world, and all her earnings from Disney will come out in court. She will look like a rich bitch whining; something she is rapidly getting a reputation for anyway. It never looks good when one of the highest paid stars in the world - who is worth well over 150 million dollars - says they were underpaid when they only received 20 million and a fat cut of the Premium + screenings of an under performing picture that Marvel fans are not exactly wild about. Never. But, LOL, I'm sure she needs the money. Poor, poor Scarlett, I feel so sorry for her. If it wasn't for the pandemic she would now be worth over 200 million dollars. Screw that, I feel sorry for the middle classes (especially small to medium business owners) and the poor who had their incomes and livelihoods decimated by the pandemic. But all you anonymous keyboard warriors here are taking the side of a greedy, mega.rich movie star. It's not like she wants the money to feed the poor. Get some perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Aug 2, 2021 6:20:44 GMT
Her work in the movie is a big part of why it will make all that money, and she should share in it. Except, it didn't "make all that money."
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Aug 3, 2021 13:38:48 GMT
Unlike the greedy Scarlett, "Dwayne Johnson and his Seven Bucks camp have no intention of battling Disney for any anticipated loss of dollars on this day-and-date release on the Jaume Collet-Serra-directed movie; the action star’s camp was in lock-step with the Mouse House when the announcement was made to deliver the pic to a global audience everywhere at a time when certain offshore theatrical markets (like Southeast Asia) are offline due to Covid."
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Aug 3, 2021 23:12:49 GMT
IS SCARLETT JOHANSSON THE FACE OF A NEW SHOWBIZ REVOLUTION? NOT QUITE
It’s a narrative so compelling maybe Scarlett Johansson could have played the part of the protagonist in the movie: A plucky heroine strikes back against an oppressive system … to fight the good fight … for the sake of her people.
Lo and behold, Johansson has found herself in a real-life variation on this overused Hollywood trope. The example par excellence: the 1979 classic “Norma Rae.”
But there’s just one problem with this script. The story isn’t quite that simple.
Here’s the conventional wisdom on what everyone in Hollywood can’t stop talking about right now: Johansson is leveraging her status as an A-list actor to hold Disney to account for reneging on a guarantee the studio made to put “Black Widow” exclusively in a theatrical wide release. Her legal battle, so it is said, is poised to be a milestone moment in showbiz history, ensuring that actors in the future get their fair share of proceeds from a studio system trying to cheat these important profit participants.
But talk to enough lawyers representing top talent in this town, and an alternative interpretation starts to take shape. And it’s a stark departure from the prevailing narrative worth considering if you’re trying to project what’s going to happen next here.
For starters, there’s the distinct possibility that Johansson really doesn’t have much of a case. Consider what is being seized on as the smoking gun of this conflict: an email from Marvel’s chief counsel. While her lawyers are holding it up as an example of an understanding that “Black Widow” would get a traditional release, the email is clearly ambiguous enough to give the studio room to say they met the minimum requirements for the wide release she was promised.
And even if the email contained more incriminating language, the relevance of those words is debatable. Though the entertainment industry had never reckoned with an external force like the pandemic, 2021 really isn’t the first time a studio has been forced to alter distribution plans for a movie due to unforeseen circumstances. In these instances, the basic legal concept of mitigation ensures companies will have the flexibility to take liberties with how they navigate a new marketplace reality in a way that protects their businesses. Which isn’t to say Disney wasn’t sensitive to Johansson’s own business interests. Besides paying her an upfront fee for her starring and executive producer roles, the studio did give her an unspecified percentage of revenue that came from her movie’s performance on Disney+.
Was that percentage going to make her as much money as the $50 million in bonuses her representatives claimed she stood to make at the box office? Of course not. But see how sympathetic a jury is going to be — in the highly unlikely prospect this lawsuit ever makes it to trial — to the notion that she was entitled to all that money on top of a $20 million upfront salary for a movie that underperformed.
I t’s also hard to believe a jury would look at the studio’s distribution strategy for “Black Widow” — charging consumers $30 a pop to stream a movie from home at a time when people are leery of entering theaters in a pandemic — as irresponsible.
Where you can find fault with Disney would be its public response to Johansson's suit. By disclosing how much she made upfront and characterizing her suit as "callous" in the COVID era, Disney wasn't bothering to hide its infuriation at the lawsuit, to the point where it has practically invited the kind of controversy that elicits condemnation not only from CAA but women's advocacy groups. This is exactly what Johansson's reps want, of course — for this battle to play out in the court of public opinion, where a massive conglomerate is not going to look good pitted against a beloved actress no matter what the facts are on the ground. In that respect, Johansson has been successful so far, putting pressure on Disney to reach the kind of settlement that will make this PR headache go away.
Whatever that dollar amount is, it's probably more than she stood to get from the kind of closed-door negotiations that would have settled this matter 9 times out of 10. That's the basic bet behind the aggressive legal strategy Johansson is pursuing.
But while Johansson is being held up as this rare example of talent with the clout capable of taking on a studio, the opposite may be true. Her lawsuit here has been misread as an exercise in leverage, when in reality it reflects the lack thereof.
The ugly truth is the way Disney is conducting itself here is indicative of a studio that has made the calculation that it doesn't need to be in business with her anymore. And why should it? The Black Widow character is not central to the Marvel mythology, and regardless of whether the character is important or not, Disney has no interest in doing more with the "Black Widow" IP.
This is a key point because in a new world dominated by streaming services, the generous backend deals of yore are going away and never coming back. Netflix single-handedly steered the entire industry to capped backends. The day-and-date pivot Warner Bros. made to its film slate last year kicked off a transition phase for contracts that will be playing out for years. However, there is one leverage point that still exists in this franchise-heavy world, and that is the ability of talent to command top dollars for participating in all-important sequels. With no future for "Black Widow," Johansson lacked the leverage to say, "Better make me whole now, or else I'm not coming back for 'Black Widow 2.' " So what Johansson is doing here isn't some kind of demonstration of her clout but an act of desperation. With speculation rampant that Emma Stone ("Cruella") or Emily Blunt ("Jungle Cruise") could be among the next A-list talent to challenge Disney over divvying up the proceeds, they're probably going to be more circumspect about antagonizing the studio. The backend riches of yesteryear may be gone forever, but they still need to stay on good terms at Disney in the future. It's understandable to see potential for the Johansson lawsuit to set some kind of dramatic precedent — optics are seductive that way. But look deeper than the classic "Norma Rae" premise, which can be irresistible to the press as framing for examining the lawsuit, and there's just not a lot of there there.
variety.com/vip/is-scarlett-johansson-the-face-of-a-new-showbiz-revolution-not-quite-1235032206/?cx_testId=51&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 3, 2021 23:14:46 GMT
Whoever wins
the audience loses
|
|
!
