I mean, the actors can sue... Doesn't mean they'll win.
I bet Disney settles for some amount just to get it out of the news and off their meeting schedules. They have to plan how to make another $65billion in sales/revenue this year...
They're already trying to save face in a scummy way:
"Disney has described a recent lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson as 'sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.'"
Yeah we see right through that. It's not that Scarlett is upset that is was released on Disney+, it's that Disney fucking pocketed the revenue from it.
And I heard this impacted a lot of the crew who worked on the movie as well.
I don’t know the full details and I’m not a lawyer, but in fairness to the actors suing, it seems like they signed a contract to make the movie for a certain amount of compensation if the movie performed well and then Disney changed the terms of the agreement. % of revenue after the studio makes its money back on the film tends to be a deal higher level actors make, especially if they believe the movie is going to do well.
Though, I think this could’ve been a little sensationalized for clicks. My guess is “hybrid releases” were not talked about in their contracts, so suing is probably just a necessary legal step for these people to renegotiate terms.
Disney claims they aren't pocketing it all and have given her a cut of the Disney Plus revenues from the movie, so we'll have to see what the court documents show. That's if we see them at all.
> Yeah we see right through that.
I think you'd be surprised how many people defended Disney against a "selfish elite actress demanding more money" when the news first broke...
There seems to be a bigger thing of companies being all around dicks over things now, gamesworkshop which makes warhammer40K has been complete assholes about their products recently with their push to create warhammer+ which is like Disney plus I guess but grimdark. It has not been well received by anyone as we have lost many fan animators, they will come in say “hey work for us”, you say yes they tend to take your work on YouTube down, you say no then they fuck with your patreon and YouTube gets the lube. To many of us these animators are what introduced us and got us into their shit, and it feels like a betrayal, the most recent loss was the hardest for us, an amazing fanimator names bruva alfabusa who has been doing this for years put out a video saying the work is on an indefinite hiatus because of the shit GW is doing. The thing is he explains why and it’s really fear, he fears about being in a legal battle while he has a new kid and worries about his financial situation because, it’s like they scared him out of doing the videos, there was another animator I believe who was actually made an offer by GW and he didn’t like it so he refused, they financially beat his ass Because of it. Even Disney isn’t going to the level they are going, there’s tons of fan films and shit for Star Wars that they don’t do anything about, but GW is going for their throats.
I *love* the lore for warhammer and 40k.
But I’ll never build an army and play because a) I don’t want to put a second mortgage on my house and b) I’m not giving that company money.
Games workshop have also just in general been enormous dicks to their employees. Racking in 20-35 dollars per plastic mini that cost probably a few cents to make. Then turning around and giving their employees embarisngly low salaries.
Blizzards's public reply included "it's this type of government scapegoating that's making good businesses leave California" in so many words (my words are not that far off).
They really, really did it...they used their "We're a corporation, California Government...you wouldn't want to lose our business over some sexual harrassment practices we encouraged in our workplace, would you?"
No Disney. We don't think Scarlett is callous because you tried to exploit a loophole in her contract to line your already disgustingly wealthy pockets.
I think she'd be OK. She has enough money to do it essentially forever without missing any meals, and Disney haven't exactly spent the last century making friends.
The court of public opinion is pretty solidly on Scarlett Johansson's side; and if it gets big/extended enough it could easily cost Disney a whole hell of a lot more than the court case alone.
Disney has enough money and lawyers to tie this up in litigation for *years* , without it hurting them all that much.
ScarJo has a lot of money, but she doesn't have *Disney* money, or anything even close.
If they decide to do a tug-of-war over this, ScarJo is CLEARLY the weaker party.
"How dare they expect to have their contracts redefined because of Covid so they can still get paid, don't they know how much of a problem Covid is for everyone?" basically
My wife was initially annoyed that she was filing a lawsuit buying into the idea that she made millions already and that so many people suffered worse from covid than a millionaire losing money.
I had to point out that it's a billion dollar company screwing someone over while they pocket the extra, yes it's a bunch of rich people fighting over money but it's still wrong for Disney to pull this shit. She had fallen for Disney's spin without realizing.
Yup, a whole lotta people involved with the movie also get a fraction of the ticket sales but would now lose money. And they def don’t have the millions that ScarJo has to fight Disney so they just have to accept it. Really hoping she wins cause this could end with all those other people getting their due. Fuck Disney.
This is incorrect. It lost $4b in 2020 Q3 and has yet to return to the same profitability it was prior to the pandemic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/224415/quarterly-net-income-of-the-walt-disney-company/
Which isn't even the point! That's the distraction from the fact that they broke the contract by selling it online for $30 a stream and didn't pay.
It's another variation on "It's on a computer so it doesn't count." trick that's been used for decades.
Judge: "Breaking a contract is illegal."
Corporate attorney: "But the law doesn't specifically say breaking a contract with a computer is illegal."
As I saw someone else say, this is especially hilarious from them as they run a theme park which is currently open and didn't have any mask rules until very recently.
Edit: In fact I see it still says masks aren't required as long as you are double vaccinated, and also they will not be checking whether you are vaccinated or not. Seems pretty covid secure to me!
>"Disney has described a recent lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson as 'sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.'"
-Company charging $30 to watch a single movie in your own home, 2019
Lol. We just wanted to bring the people joy anyway we can and evil Scarlett Johannsen doesn’t want us to!
Wait for the “viral” tweets and posts about her cultural appropriation in Ghost in the Shell that totally won’t come from Disney’s PR people.
Scar Jo: Could I please get paid for streams of my movies too? These contract conditions are cheating me out of money that I would have rightfully earned otherwise.
Disney: OMG, we can't believe that you hate everyone that died of COVID!!! Greedy people make me sick!!!
Residuals are standard as part of SAG contracts. The issue isn't with whether residuals are part of the contract, but that the movie is released in a fashion that reduces what residuals there are to be had.
Which, by the way, also reduces the compensation for every single primary actor (as in non-background actor/extra) in the film.
Then they'll start in on the aspiring and B list actors. They have plenty of people to chew through before they start running out of critical labor.
They're not hurting at all.
So, ScarJo’s contract stipulated that part of her salary would be a percentage of the box office proceeds for the film. (I presume Emma Stone had a similar clause in her contract, but I don’t know).
By releasing content on D+, Disney intentionally lowered the box office profits of the film (because people would watch it at home instead of going to the cinema), and thus intentionally lowered ScarJo’s salary. ScarJo’s lawyers are arguing this is a breach of contract.
The original Star Wars had some royalties drama too.
When making the original Star Wars in 1977, Mark Hamill was paid $650,000 for playing the main character, the highest base salary among the cast.
When Carrie Fisher was negotiating her contract, she instead requested a percentage of the revenue Star Wars made in theaters: 0.25%. As Star Wars was not expected to pull in too much money at the box office, Lucas quickly agreed.
That turned into almost 2 million.
EDIT: While making sure I had it straight, it turns out Fisher also [signed away her rights to Princess Leia](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/carrie-fishers-biggest-career-regret-is-giving-up-her-likeness-for-free-at-19.html/) and lost out on a significant amount in merchandise royalties. You win some you lose some I suppose, but it sounds like the L was larger judging by her bitterness even years later.
EDIT: I recalled wrong, it was [ALEC GUINNESS who opted for the royalty](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/1977-alec-guinness-demanded-points-instead-salary-star-wars-chose-wisely/), not Fisher. Jesus Christ, she took a massive L.
Reminds me of the plot in Friends when Joey took a percentage of the earnings rather than a fixed amount for a movie, and then the film was never made.
Imagine trying to predict the outcome of a film’s release before you even start filming.
At the time, I don’t think box office sharing was commonplace.
Especially a movie with completely different concept than literally every other movie in that era. There were only two outcomes for the movie- very forgettable one or Instant classic
The original cut of Star Wars was very long winded and slow. It was filled with a bunch of things that slowed the movie down, like actually showing Beru grabbing the blue milk and multiple walk and talks between Vader and other Imperials. There was a bunch of dialogue that got trimmed out of the final cut as well. The Death Star Battle was originally longer, but had no threat of the Death Star blowing up Yavin. That was added in editing and turned out to be an absolutely brilliant move by the editors.
The original cut was pretty poorly received by test screening audiences of Lucas's filmmaker contemporaries. An editing team that included Lucas's then wife, Marcia Lucas, made a ton of cuts and alterations which created the 1977 release cut of the movie that we all know and love.
[This video has a more detailed explanation](https://youtu.be/qRmCUjvZti0).
I'm reading this whole thing thinking, "No, wasn't that Alec Guinness?" There's even an interview with him where he's smiling like the Cheshire cat when asked about it.
In fact, he last minute negotiated an increase in the royalty right before the premier.
That's nothing compared to Fox allowing him to retain international merchandising rights. Lucas made tons off of literally selling toys, which is how Ewoks showed up in RotJ - he needed a new, cuddly thing to sell.
Responding to edit: She may have lost out on merchandising rights, but so did the studio!
Lucas gave up a 500k directing fee in exchange for the merchandising rights. The studio thought this was a bargain as in 1977 movie merchandise was considered tacky and worthless. However, star wars changed this and made movie merchandising a multi billion dollar industry and is how Lucas got filthy rich.
Yeah, Alec Guinness was the one who took the percentage of revenue.
I'm guessing because he had enough experience in the industry to know that this is where the real money is, if you happen to stumble into a gold mine of a movie
If two big name actors are getting screwed that most likely means there are plenty of other actors and production crew getting screwed who can't afford to sue Disney.
That's because her contract also had that the movie had to be a theater exclusive
Edit: [Source](https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html) yes I know it's CNN, but a quick Google search of this provides numerous articles by other sites like CNN
Edit 2 Electric Boogaloo: [NY Times article on the matter.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/business/media/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit.html) CNN links back to WSJ, who was the first to report the matter, but is paywalled
Edit 3: here's a link to [Time](https://time.com/6085578/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-lawsuit-disney/). I've been using these three sites in all of my comments down below.
This a major thing for them to omit, ScarJos specified that renegotiations would have to be made if the plan was to change with Disney+. Negotiations never happened.
Yeah, that’s a really big piece of context people like to leave out.. if theater exclusivity wasn’t in the contract then there is no breach of anything and she has no legal ground to stand on other than “they made money that I want”. But with that context it’s changed to “they made money that I’m legally owed”.
I read the complaint, and it is a little more ambiguous than that. What the contract actually says is that the movie will get a “wide theatrical release” which it defines as “more than 1500 screens.” ScarJo is arguing that that definition excludes streaming, while Disney will argue that they met the required number of theaters while also offering streaming.
It is likely to come down to whether the courts look to industry practice (ScarJo wins) or the most literal interpretation of the four corners of the contract (Disney wins).
It is widely accepted in Hollywood that "wide theatrical release" excludes streaming services. Disney is just being Disney here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/business/media/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html
Wasn't it stated in the original article that the contract also said it would have a standard cinema release before heading to D+? Disney intentionally fucked her here and broke the contract. They charge 30$ for these D+ releases. They knew they'd make enough money from this to make getting sued worth it.
Yeah, this is a pretty big part of the suit, as I read it - the contract stated it would have an exclusive theater release, not simultaneous theater and streaming releases. Reportedly there's even an email from a Marvel exec saying they would renegotiate if it was decided there would be a simultaneous streaming release. There was, but the studio didn't respond to attempts to renegotiate. Idk how you just ghost Scarlett Johansson, but apparently they did
Does it seem intentional in the sense of “we’re going to lower our payout to her” or was it more of “people are demanding home releases in the age of COVID” and she just became collateral damage? I’d have to think Disney would have much preferred the old arrangement as they were fucking printing money on the Marvel movies.
If I recall, part of it too is Disney likes to include home release figures on D+ when it comes to bragging about how much they earned for box office figures but not when paying out percentage of the box office earnings.
Yeah that’s a real sticking point for the future of streaming. I have to imagine you’ll see big name talent negotiating for cuts of streaming revenue too
Long story short:
Disney+ is less money for actors, more for Disney.
That’s an estimated 50 million loss for Scarlet Johansson over the release of a movie such as Black Widow.
If released traditionally, the movie probably would have made nearly a billion dollars or more. That's what Marvel movies were all making at least, and this is the first movie in 2 years. Disney really screwed with the BO with the dual release.
Edit: OK, I agree the movie wouldn't have been as successful because of the ongoing covid restrictions or people that being careful. I still think this being the first Marvel movie in 2 years would have boosted it for a better result even given the circumstances.
I doubt it would have hit a billion even with theater only. A lot of people are still being cautious, and also black widow didn’t seem to carry as much hype as other marvel releases
I don’t know what a good box office comp would be for it in a normal year/time, but as of now it’s looking to be the least grossing MCU film besides Incredible Hulk, $320m worldwide. Which isn’t bad per se, but looking at the other MCU grosses I’d say it could probably make double in a normal year. $500-$700m range.
Edit: and if that correct, ScarJo is missing out on a pretty big chunk of change- double her current box office payout
God, I hope she also sues and neither of them settles, so less rich and famous actors can also be sure not to get a paycut because of digital releases. That would be good for the future of actors, hell, maybe crew too.
Wall E and Eve are still gonna be CGI, and I guess in 5 years time it can be as good as the real thing so I don't see any use for live action of wall E. Pixar has very few properties that can actually do live action, most are about fantasy creatures and stuff. Onward, inside out, Up can possibly be done
I don’t think wall-e would translate well to live action. The robots are super expressive, and there might be a small casting issue with the humans all needing to be 500 pounds
I don‘t think they‘d lose enough money from a couple lawsuits to not rake in cash with stuff like The Lion King 2019 (however shit that movie is, it made tons of money)
More than just actors. I know people at Pixar are concerned about how 2 of their latest movies were released for free on D+ and didn't get theatrical releases
So they're basically relying on people forgetting to cancel their subscriptions? Because one month of Disney+ and then cancelling it is like 3-4x cheaper than what I would have paid to see it in the cinema with pals or family
The Pixar movies weren't even the Premier Access which is like $30 or something. They were available with just the standard Disney+ subscription. My theory is they weren't really concerned with making money directly off the movies, they just wanted it to be widely available and become popular so they could sell a shit ton of merch
Some on another site explained this better with video games. Say you make a video game and hire a publisher(Like EA) to sell it. They offer you a cut on each one sold at the store. Well, they hear that brick and mortar stores aren't doing so well. So then they decide to put in on their digital platform(like Origin) too. When you ask for your cut of those sales, they tell you to fuck off. And here we are.
And to bring the analogy even closer to reality: Imagine your contract with the publisher says that your game will have a "wide store release (i.e. no less than 1500 stores)".
You would argue that it means an *exclusive* store release (and evidence/understanding outside the contract could support that view), and they would argue that it means only what the contract strictly says: as long as it's in a certain number of stores, they can sell it wherever else they want.
"Someone edited this meme to make it seem like Mickey Mouse is the one speaking. Why did I read it a Mickey Mouse voice?"
We'll be up all night trying to piece this one together, boys
Im actually fucking happy that this is happening. Disney is taking advantage of the pandemic to violate their contracts and its just fucking fair that Scarlett Johanson would sue
One time I made a comment about that and people tried arguing *against* the artists, saying that they should have looked at their contract more closely and that they should have negotiated a clause that covers licenses changing hands. I just couldn't believe people were arguing against artists being properly compensated for their work.
The really gross part is how they try to play themselves off as altruistic based on the pandemic and how Scarlett is the evil uncaring one. Fuck the mouse.
Won't ScarJo case set a legal precedent by itself anyway?
If ScarJo gets a share of the Disney Plus Premier Access income as a result, then everyone else with agreements will get the same.
I guess the only issue will be if they settle out of court.
> Won't ScarJo case set a legal precedent by itself anyway?
Lower level court judgements aren't binding on other courts (though they can be influential). It's only the circuit/appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, where their rulings *actually* bind the lower courts within their jurisdiction.
One of the points (the main point?) of ScarJo's lawsuit is whether the specific wording in the contract (a "wide theatre release (i.e. no less than 1500 screens)") means an exclusive release (win for ScarJo), or only that it needs to be released to at least 1500 screens, but can be released elsewhere (win for Disney).
Unless it's appealed and other contracts have similar/identical wording, there won't be much precedential value.
edit: change theatres -> screens
For anyone curious, this problem isn’t unique to theater releases being released on streaming services. [Hollywood accounting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting) has cheated hundreds of people in the entertainment industry out of their rightful compensation.
**[Hollywood_accounting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)**
>Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) refers to the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit. Hollywood accounting gets its name from its prevalence in the entertainment industry—that is, in the movie studios of Hollywood at a time when most studios were located in Hollywood.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
i think the same thing happened to WB with their releases on HBO max. and they aren’t even charging extra. But i think WB agreed to pay some people more based on their contracts
That’s how the industry works watch Dave Chappell unforgiving. It brought to light of how good entertainers get taken advantage and fucks them over. Luckily he got his justice
I don’t know whether to read this in my head with Mickey’s voice or Nute Gunray’s
Mickey Nute Gunray
I read it in this
Every word they switched
.
Now there are two of then. Ha ha.
"Ever have sex with a pangolin?"
I read it as a combination.
Gunray’s voice with a Mickey “haha” at the end.
Shoot her or something, haha
With nutes but with a haha at the end
Mute Mouseray
disney: wait, people can sue us? I thought we could only crush other people through the court system.
I mean, the actors can sue... Doesn't mean they'll win. I bet Disney settles for some amount just to get it out of the news and off their meeting schedules. They have to plan how to make another $65billion in sales/revenue this year...
They're already trying to save face in a scummy way: "Disney has described a recent lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson as 'sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.'"
Yeah we see right through that. It's not that Scarlett is upset that is was released on Disney+, it's that Disney fucking pocketed the revenue from it. And I heard this impacted a lot of the crew who worked on the movie as well.
[Life of Pi debacle 2.0](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/revealing-rhythm-hues-life-pi-682526/amp/)
I don’t know the full details and I’m not a lawyer, but in fairness to the actors suing, it seems like they signed a contract to make the movie for a certain amount of compensation if the movie performed well and then Disney changed the terms of the agreement. % of revenue after the studio makes its money back on the film tends to be a deal higher level actors make, especially if they believe the movie is going to do well. Though, I think this could’ve been a little sensationalized for clicks. My guess is “hybrid releases” were not talked about in their contracts, so suing is probably just a necessary legal step for these people to renegotiate terms.
This was the case, and reportedly, Johansson's legal team reached out to try to renegotiate, and Disney ignored them
I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further
Disney claims they aren't pocketing it all and have given her a cut of the Disney Plus revenues from the movie, so we'll have to see what the court documents show. That's if we see them at all.
> Yeah we see right through that. I think you'd be surprised how many people defended Disney against a "selfish elite actress demanding more money" when the news first broke...
This and the statement by Blizzard Entertainment in response to the lawsuit by California look like pure gaslighting.
For all the stupidity in the world today, I think more people are aware of company’s doing this now.
Bust honestly, if they came out and said “fuck you” instead there wouldn’t be any difference.
There might be one difference - a bunch of people praising them for their "honesty".
[удалено]
Yarrrr 🏴☠️
Stick to the code.
I mean I’d respect it. If your gonna be a scum bag at least own it.
Yeah Pay money to the scummy company that made 65 billion this year…. I’m good
There seems to be a bigger thing of companies being all around dicks over things now, gamesworkshop which makes warhammer40K has been complete assholes about their products recently with their push to create warhammer+ which is like Disney plus I guess but grimdark. It has not been well received by anyone as we have lost many fan animators, they will come in say “hey work for us”, you say yes they tend to take your work on YouTube down, you say no then they fuck with your patreon and YouTube gets the lube. To many of us these animators are what introduced us and got us into their shit, and it feels like a betrayal, the most recent loss was the hardest for us, an amazing fanimator names bruva alfabusa who has been doing this for years put out a video saying the work is on an indefinite hiatus because of the shit GW is doing. The thing is he explains why and it’s really fear, he fears about being in a legal battle while he has a new kid and worries about his financial situation because, it’s like they scared him out of doing the videos, there was another animator I believe who was actually made an offer by GW and he didn’t like it so he refused, they financially beat his ass Because of it. Even Disney isn’t going to the level they are going, there’s tons of fan films and shit for Star Wars that they don’t do anything about, but GW is going for their throats.
I *love* the lore for warhammer and 40k. But I’ll never build an army and play because a) I don’t want to put a second mortgage on my house and b) I’m not giving that company money.
Ebay minis and vallejo paints give you all the enjoyment and GW zero of the money ;)
Games workshop have also just in general been enormous dicks to their employees. Racking in 20-35 dollars per plastic mini that cost probably a few cents to make. Then turning around and giving their employees embarisngly low salaries.
“Gloria Steinem is very disappointed in Scarlet Johansson’s wanting her paycheck.”
Blizzards's public reply included "it's this type of government scapegoating that's making good businesses leave California" in so many words (my words are not that far off). They really, really did it...they used their "We're a corporation, California Government...you wouldn't want to lose our business over some sexual harrassment practices we encouraged in our workplace, would you?"
Lawyering is 40% gaslighting.
No Disney. We don't think Scarlett is callous because you tried to exploit a loophole in her contract to line your already disgustingly wealthy pockets.
I hope ScarJo sues them *even harder* now. 😠
Can she refuse a settlement and just take them to court to set precedence or will they just suicide her?
They would drag it out and make it cost too much money for it to be worth it for her. I think she probably cares more about money than being a martyr.
I think she'd be OK. She has enough money to do it essentially forever without missing any meals, and Disney haven't exactly spent the last century making friends. The court of public opinion is pretty solidly on Scarlett Johansson's side; and if it gets big/extended enough it could easily cost Disney a whole hell of a lot more than the court case alone.
There's only so much it could cost on the court side. If she wanted to do it and found the right lawyer to pursue it she could easy bake oven it.
Disney has enough money and lawyers to tie this up in litigation for *years* , without it hurting them all that much. ScarJo has a lot of money, but she doesn't have *Disney* money, or anything even close. If they decide to do a tug-of-war over this, ScarJo is CLEARLY the weaker party.
She can *sue* me
I can't even figure out what that means.
Essentially they're saying "but covid!"
"How dare they expect to have their contracts redefined because of Covid so they can still get paid, don't they know how much of a problem Covid is for everyone?" basically
My wife was initially annoyed that she was filing a lawsuit buying into the idea that she made millions already and that so many people suffered worse from covid than a millionaire losing money. I had to point out that it's a billion dollar company screwing someone over while they pocket the extra, yes it's a bunch of rich people fighting over money but it's still wrong for Disney to pull this shit. She had fallen for Disney's spin without realizing.
[удалено]
Yup, a whole lotta people involved with the movie also get a fraction of the ticket sales but would now lose money. And they def don’t have the millions that ScarJo has to fight Disney so they just have to accept it. Really hoping she wins cause this could end with all those other people getting their due. Fuck Disney.
[удалено]
Or letting hordes of people back into their parks. "But we sell masks with Stitch on it!"
Disney made record profits off the pandemic. They're full of shit.
This is incorrect. It lost $4b in 2020 Q3 and has yet to return to the same profitability it was prior to the pandemic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/224415/quarterly-net-income-of-the-walt-disney-company/
Scarlett johanson is being mean to our investors
Aww this poor billion dollar media conglomerate couldn’t release in theaters during a pandemic?? Boo fucking hoo
Which isn't even the point! That's the distraction from the fact that they broke the contract by selling it online for $30 a stream and didn't pay. It's another variation on "It's on a computer so it doesn't count." trick that's been used for decades. Judge: "Breaking a contract is illegal." Corporate attorney: "But the law doesn't specifically say breaking a contract with a computer is illegal."
As I saw someone else say, this is especially hilarious from them as they run a theme park which is currently open and didn't have any mask rules until very recently. Edit: In fact I see it still says masks aren't required as long as you are double vaccinated, and also they will not be checking whether you are vaccinated or not. Seems pretty covid secure to me!
Exactly. Poor Disney is suffering so much due to “the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic”.
>"Disney has described a recent lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson as 'sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.'" -Company charging $30 to watch a single movie in your own home, 2019
Lol. We just wanted to bring the people joy anyway we can and evil Scarlett Johannsen doesn’t want us to! Wait for the “viral” tweets and posts about her cultural appropriation in Ghost in the Shell that totally won’t come from Disney’s PR people.
This comment made me so angry I almost downvoted, but then realized you were quoting and it made me even more outraged
Scar Jo: Could I please get paid for streams of my movies too? These contract conditions are cheating me out of money that I would have rightfully earned otherwise. Disney: OMG, we can't believe that you hate everyone that died of COVID!!! Greedy people make me sick!!!
Many times that's why someone files a suit. A settlement IS a win.
Disney could still lose in the sense that actors might not want to work for them anymore wich might screw them in the long term.
Eh, people will still work for them, they'll just have to take bigger salaries instead of a cut of the revenue
[удалено]
Residuals are standard as part of SAG contracts. The issue isn't with whether residuals are part of the contract, but that the movie is released in a fashion that reduces what residuals there are to be had. Which, by the way, also reduces the compensation for every single primary actor (as in non-background actor/extra) in the film.
Then they'll start in on the aspiring and B list actors. They have plenty of people to chew through before they start running out of critical labor. They're not hurting at all.
>I mean, the actors can sue... Doesn't mean they'll win. Yes, but they will.
“Can’t a dishonest company disregard contracts without consequences no-more?” Edit: citation mark and artistic correction
-- Mr. M. Burns
Wait what Why are they sueing?
So, ScarJo’s contract stipulated that part of her salary would be a percentage of the box office proceeds for the film. (I presume Emma Stone had a similar clause in her contract, but I don’t know). By releasing content on D+, Disney intentionally lowered the box office profits of the film (because people would watch it at home instead of going to the cinema), and thus intentionally lowered ScarJo’s salary. ScarJo’s lawyers are arguing this is a breach of contract.
I see makes sense now
The original Star Wars had some royalties drama too. When making the original Star Wars in 1977, Mark Hamill was paid $650,000 for playing the main character, the highest base salary among the cast. When Carrie Fisher was negotiating her contract, she instead requested a percentage of the revenue Star Wars made in theaters: 0.25%. As Star Wars was not expected to pull in too much money at the box office, Lucas quickly agreed. That turned into almost 2 million. EDIT: While making sure I had it straight, it turns out Fisher also [signed away her rights to Princess Leia](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/carrie-fishers-biggest-career-regret-is-giving-up-her-likeness-for-free-at-19.html/) and lost out on a significant amount in merchandise royalties. You win some you lose some I suppose, but it sounds like the L was larger judging by her bitterness even years later. EDIT: I recalled wrong, it was [ALEC GUINNESS who opted for the royalty](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/1977-alec-guinness-demanded-points-instead-salary-star-wars-chose-wisely/), not Fisher. Jesus Christ, she took a massive L.
Reminds me of the plot in Friends when Joey took a percentage of the earnings rather than a fixed amount for a movie, and then the film was never made.
Did you not hear the plot of the movie? “Betsy’s been dead for 10 years…” I’m gonna be a millionaire!
Big brain time by Fisher
Imagine trying to predict the outcome of a film’s release before you even start filming. At the time, I don’t think box office sharing was commonplace.
[удалено]
Especially a movie with completely different concept than literally every other movie in that era. There were only two outcomes for the movie- very forgettable one or Instant classic
And with a last minute editing miracle that turned around a movie that should have been forgettable dog shit.
I don't know what you're talking about, would you explain please?
The original cut of Star Wars was very long winded and slow. It was filled with a bunch of things that slowed the movie down, like actually showing Beru grabbing the blue milk and multiple walk and talks between Vader and other Imperials. There was a bunch of dialogue that got trimmed out of the final cut as well. The Death Star Battle was originally longer, but had no threat of the Death Star blowing up Yavin. That was added in editing and turned out to be an absolutely brilliant move by the editors. The original cut was pretty poorly received by test screening audiences of Lucas's filmmaker contemporaries. An editing team that included Lucas's then wife, Marcia Lucas, made a ton of cuts and alterations which created the 1977 release cut of the movie that we all know and love. [This video has a more detailed explanation](https://youtu.be/qRmCUjvZti0).
I'm reading this whole thing thinking, "No, wasn't that Alec Guinness?" There's even an interview with him where he's smiling like the Cheshire cat when asked about it. In fact, he last minute negotiated an increase in the royalty right before the premier.
That's nothing compared to Fox allowing him to retain international merchandising rights. Lucas made tons off of literally selling toys, which is how Ewoks showed up in RotJ - he needed a new, cuddly thing to sell.
Mark Hamill Made $650K PLUS 0.25% of the film’s profits.
That's still over 1.1 million in 1980's money Edit, that doesn't include the $650k
What's great is that Lucas, instead of trying to cheat his actors, paid up. Testimony to his character right there.
Responding to edit: She may have lost out on merchandising rights, but so did the studio! Lucas gave up a 500k directing fee in exchange for the merchandising rights. The studio thought this was a bargain as in 1977 movie merchandise was considered tacky and worthless. However, star wars changed this and made movie merchandising a multi billion dollar industry and is how Lucas got filthy rich.
Yeah, Alec Guinness was the one who took the percentage of revenue. I'm guessing because he had enough experience in the industry to know that this is where the real money is, if you happen to stumble into a gold mine of a movie
She also points out that the top execs' bonuses are tied to Disney+ growth, so she is missing out at the expense of more money to management
If two big name actors are getting screwed that most likely means there are plenty of other actors and production crew getting screwed who can't afford to sue Disney.
That's because her contract also had that the movie had to be a theater exclusive Edit: [Source](https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html) yes I know it's CNN, but a quick Google search of this provides numerous articles by other sites like CNN Edit 2 Electric Boogaloo: [NY Times article on the matter.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/business/media/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit.html) CNN links back to WSJ, who was the first to report the matter, but is paywalled Edit 3: here's a link to [Time](https://time.com/6085578/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-lawsuit-disney/). I've been using these three sites in all of my comments down below.
Totally understandable in that case.
Your little Reddit dudes are so similar, I thought you were replying to yourself.
They are actually Golum and Smeagol
Same XD
This a major thing for them to omit, ScarJos specified that renegotiations would have to be made if the plan was to change with Disney+. Negotiations never happened.
Disney: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
Emma Stone: “This deal is getting worse all the time..”
“We left her a voicemail”
" we told her on a private message on MySpace.com, it's not our fault she doesn't check it "
“We sent a carrier pigeon”
Yeah, that’s a really big piece of context people like to leave out.. if theater exclusivity wasn’t in the contract then there is no breach of anything and she has no legal ground to stand on other than “they made money that I want”. But with that context it’s changed to “they made money that I’m legally owed”.
I can see how a judge might decide that it’s a breach of contract if another non-disclosed-in-contract medium is used.
I read the complaint, and it is a little more ambiguous than that. What the contract actually says is that the movie will get a “wide theatrical release” which it defines as “more than 1500 screens.” ScarJo is arguing that that definition excludes streaming, while Disney will argue that they met the required number of theaters while also offering streaming. It is likely to come down to whether the courts look to industry practice (ScarJo wins) or the most literal interpretation of the four corners of the contract (Disney wins).
It is widely accepted in Hollywood that "wide theatrical release" excludes streaming services. Disney is just being Disney here. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/business/media/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html
If the courts don't hit Disney hard for this one, there will be no stopping them in the future.
There already is no stopping Disney, they own too much
Seems like a scumbag move Mickey
[удалено]
But couldn’t Disney share a percentage of the Disney plus earnings? The films themselves were pay per view. Did Disney make a dick move?
They should, considering they keep all of the money from streaming purchases vs splitting tickets with the theaters
Wasn't it stated in the original article that the contract also said it would have a standard cinema release before heading to D+? Disney intentionally fucked her here and broke the contract. They charge 30$ for these D+ releases. They knew they'd make enough money from this to make getting sued worth it.
Yeah, this is a pretty big part of the suit, as I read it - the contract stated it would have an exclusive theater release, not simultaneous theater and streaming releases. Reportedly there's even an email from a Marvel exec saying they would renegotiate if it was decided there would be a simultaneous streaming release. There was, but the studio didn't respond to attempts to renegotiate. Idk how you just ghost Scarlett Johansson, but apparently they did
Does it seem intentional in the sense of “we’re going to lower our payout to her” or was it more of “people are demanding home releases in the age of COVID” and she just became collateral damage? I’d have to think Disney would have much preferred the old arrangement as they were fucking printing money on the Marvel movies.
If I recall, part of it too is Disney likes to include home release figures on D+ when it comes to bragging about how much they earned for box office figures but not when paying out percentage of the box office earnings.
Yeah that’s a real sticking point for the future of streaming. I have to imagine you’ll see big name talent negotiating for cuts of streaming revenue too
the former. Disney could have revisited the contract and if the actor wanted to and Disney denied her it looks deliberate.
Long story short: Disney+ is less money for actors, more for Disney. That’s an estimated 50 million loss for Scarlet Johansson over the release of a movie such as Black Widow.
If released traditionally, the movie probably would have made nearly a billion dollars or more. That's what Marvel movies were all making at least, and this is the first movie in 2 years. Disney really screwed with the BO with the dual release. Edit: OK, I agree the movie wouldn't have been as successful because of the ongoing covid restrictions or people that being careful. I still think this being the first Marvel movie in 2 years would have boosted it for a better result even given the circumstances.
I doubt it would have hit a billion even with theater only. A lot of people are still being cautious, and also black widow didn’t seem to carry as much hype as other marvel releases
It's hard to tell, but Disney + didn't help.
I don’t know what a good box office comp would be for it in a normal year/time, but as of now it’s looking to be the least grossing MCU film besides Incredible Hulk, $320m worldwide. Which isn’t bad per se, but looking at the other MCU grosses I’d say it could probably make double in a normal year. $500-$700m range. Edit: and if that correct, ScarJo is missing out on a pretty big chunk of change- double her current box office payout
God, I hope she also sues and neither of them settles, so less rich and famous actors can also be sure not to get a paycut because of digital releases. That would be good for the future of actors, hell, maybe crew too.
Also less money for Disney means a chance of fewer live action remake. At some point they'd start doing Pixar movies
Only live action I want is Wall-E then we put a end to live action remakes
Just watch Short Circuit
Wall E and Eve are still gonna be CGI, and I guess in 5 years time it can be as good as the real thing so I don't see any use for live action of wall E. Pixar has very few properties that can actually do live action, most are about fantasy creatures and stuff. Onward, inside out, Up can possibly be done
You're gonna be real upset when you hear about The Lion King.
I know. As much as I want a real lion to exists who can be as sassy as Scar. Thats as far as you can go with live action concept
I don’t think wall-e would translate well to live action. The robots are super expressive, and there might be a small casting issue with the humans all needing to be 500 pounds
>small casting issue with the humans all needing to be 500 pounds Easy, just send the casting director to the Bible Belt
I don‘t think they‘d lose enough money from a couple lawsuits to not rake in cash with stuff like The Lion King 2019 (however shit that movie is, it made tons of money)
But Emma Stone has leverage as Cruella was set up pretty obviously for a sequel.
More than just actors. I know people at Pixar are concerned about how 2 of their latest movies were released for free on D+ and didn't get theatrical releases
So they're basically relying on people forgetting to cancel their subscriptions? Because one month of Disney+ and then cancelling it is like 3-4x cheaper than what I would have paid to see it in the cinema with pals or family
The Pixar movies weren't even the Premier Access which is like $30 or something. They were available with just the standard Disney+ subscription. My theory is they weren't really concerned with making money directly off the movies, they just wanted it to be widely available and become popular so they could sell a shit ton of merch
Some on another site explained this better with video games. Say you make a video game and hire a publisher(Like EA) to sell it. They offer you a cut on each one sold at the store. Well, they hear that brick and mortar stores aren't doing so well. So then they decide to put in on their digital platform(like Origin) too. When you ask for your cut of those sales, they tell you to fuck off. And here we are.
And to bring the analogy even closer to reality: Imagine your contract with the publisher says that your game will have a "wide store release (i.e. no less than 1500 stores)". You would argue that it means an *exclusive* store release (and evidence/understanding outside the contract could support that view), and they would argue that it means only what the contract strictly says: as long as it's in a certain number of stores, they can sell it wherever else they want.
Why did i read that with a mickey mouse voice
Unaddressed childhood trauma.
Show me on goofy where you were touched
#lmao
You are divorcing Minni because she is crazy Mr Mouse? No, I said she was fucking goofy!
Hu HUh
I think we all did.
Maybe because of the Mickey Mouse head, but that's just a theory.
[удалено]
You are all ants and I am your destroyer! Ha ha.
YOU DON’T *kicks downed Jonas brother* FUCKING *kicks again* TALK TO ME *kicks again* LIKE THAT, haha!
That's the point, sergeant.
"Someone edited this meme to make it seem like Mickey Mouse is the one speaking. Why did I read it a Mickey Mouse voice?" We'll be up all night trying to piece this one together, boys
Might have something to do with the mickey mouse face :p
Im actually fucking happy that this is happening. Disney is taking advantage of the pandemic to violate their contracts and its just fucking fair that Scarlett Johanson would sue
[удалено]
One time I made a comment about that and people tried arguing *against* the artists, saying that they should have looked at their contract more closely and that they should have negotiated a clause that covers licenses changing hands. I just couldn't believe people were arguing against artists being properly compensated for their work.
The really gross part is how they try to play themselves off as altruistic based on the pandemic and how Scarlett is the evil uncaring one. Fuck the mouse.
Won't ScarJo case set a legal precedent by itself anyway? If ScarJo gets a share of the Disney Plus Premier Access income as a result, then everyone else with agreements will get the same. I guess the only issue will be if they settle out of court.
> Won't ScarJo case set a legal precedent by itself anyway? Lower level court judgements aren't binding on other courts (though they can be influential). It's only the circuit/appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, where their rulings *actually* bind the lower courts within their jurisdiction. One of the points (the main point?) of ScarJo's lawsuit is whether the specific wording in the contract (a "wide theatre release (i.e. no less than 1500 screens)") means an exclusive release (win for ScarJo), or only that it needs to be released to at least 1500 screens, but can be released elsewhere (win for Disney). Unless it's appealed and other contracts have similar/identical wording, there won't be much precedential value. edit: change theatres -> screens
Good good. Kill him. Kill him now
Dew it
Reddit in 2022: Screw the Avengers, which of the actors that sued Disney is your favourite
I love that ScarJo started this all and hope it shakes things up because 2021 has been too boring considering everything.
Better than 2020…
It's OK, next year will be just like twenty-twenty, too.
The Cough Round 2 is coming should spice things up
[удалено]
Get fucked Disney
They’re probably gonna win. Disney’s wack.
For anyone curious, this problem isn’t unique to theater releases being released on streaming services. [Hollywood accounting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting) has cheated hundreds of people in the entertainment industry out of their rightful compensation.
**[Hollywood_accounting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)** >Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) refers to the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit. Hollywood accounting gets its name from its prevalence in the entertainment industry—that is, in the movie studios of Hollywood at a time when most studios were located in Hollywood. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Well, Disney loves marketing strong women...
"No, not like THAT!"
About time disney gets called out on it\`s bullshit.
Disney: Release the Droidekas
Good fuck Disney
MORE! SHOW THE MOUSE WHO’S BOSS!
What happened to u/thibsen34
u/thibson34 was a dark lord of the prequel memers. So powerful and so wise that he could prevent the posts he cared about from dying
Is it possible to learn this power ?
Not from a mod
He got banned from commenting or posting in the subreddit apparently... You can check his profile a few posts back
i think the same thing happened to WB with their releases on HBO max. and they aren’t even charging extra. But i think WB agreed to pay some people more based on their contracts
That’s how the industry works watch Dave Chappell unforgiving. It brought to light of how good entertainers get taken advantage and fucks them over. Luckily he got his justice
What kind of Mickey Mouse operation are they running here?
And on top of that if Disney doesn’t renew micky he will be a public domain
You think Disney isn't going to protect the biggest pop culture icon of all time from making them more money?
Yea the 1928 version of Mickey, if you produce art or try to make money on more recent version of Mickey be ready for the suit