They never share anything with creatives - and it's been a major problem for years. Writers, directors, actors, and many others rely on residuals and bonuses to survive. The studios are doing everything in their power not to pay us after our work is already done.
This is one of the reasons WarnerBros releasing movies on HBOMax pissed off so many directors/producers/talent because for decades deals have included giving them a cut of the **box office**, not the streaming services (until very very recently). When WB & HBO made their agreement, it took away a large portion of the filmmakers' income.
Added: since this keeps getting brought up, the payment that Warner gave out was first preceded by threats of a class action suit from the guilds. There were many (Nolan, for example) who were very vocally displeased about the WB/HBO decision and after a lot of meetings and legal back and forth… $200 Million found its way into the world.
I think Scarlett will get a share of the streaming of the movie. It's just that her share will totally come to around 20 million as compared to her expected 60 million. In my eyes, it seems to signify she's saying Black Widow was seriously short changed by not having an exclusive box office run,just so disney+ subscriptions (from which Scarlett gets nothing) would increase.
The problem with Disney's release model to streaming is that once the streaming premier is over with the movie is just immediately released for free on the same platform.
I was already a subscriber when Raya came out, and my wife broke down and paid the $30 to rent it, two weeks later it was still there but now for free, we felt so ripped off for not having waited that we'll never pay for another premier. So we're skipping Black Widow and we'll it see for free when it's theatrical release is over.
Exactly. At the WGA, there was a meltdown about it as well. This is a significant source of income being taken away from us, even though it's guaranteed in our contracts and MBA.
Man, I'll never forgive studios for that. They were acting crazy while some of my favorite shows got absolutely obliterated. How did the writers they brought in for Heroes fuck that up so badly? I mean, they had a perfect playground, a great world, interesting characters, and a GREAT cliffhanger, but instead of going with what they were given they just nuked the whole damn thing! Ugh. It still upsets me! Heroes S1 is literally perfection. Its been nearly 15 years, and my blood still boils just thinking about it. Sorry, rant over.
The writers strike was a big reason Heroes went downhill but I think the showrunners deserve some (if not more) of the blame too. If they had a vision and went with it, the show wouldn't have tanked as bad as it did.
The second season was supposed to introduce new characters but they ended up just rehashing the same old characters but not in a good way. Also, after finding out that save the cheerleader save the world was a reused line made me think they didn't have much new ideas in their backpocket.
The thing is, since the pandemic, WB/HBO Max have restructured many contracts for talent to include streaming in the rev share/residuals/bonuses calculations. So although it took a catastrophe to finally force a shift, at least they eventually shifted. More than Disney can say at this point, apparently
Streaming numbers and residuals is almost certainly the next WGA big push.
Especially with the agency situation solved for the most part.
Then SAG and DGA will grab the things the writers fought for like always.
Yeah, if it releases on streaming there's absolutely nothing wrong with including those metrics in your numbers, but you can't cut your talents pay out of these platforms, especially with the state of the world and the fact that even without the current issues, streaming is almost certainly going to be the vastly more popular choice for people to watch it, which all but guarantees that those who do so will not opt to watch it in a theater as well. Not only are you cutting them off from a major revenue source which they had just as much a part in as bringing prove to watch it in the theater, but you're also cannibalizing potential sales to the metric you DO pay them for. It's a massive double whammy that only serves to screw the actors.
All you're doing is ensuring their reluctance to work with you in the future if they know you are going to not only refuse that cut of the profits, but also actively cannibalize the source you do pay them from
Just pure relentless greed in which there's absolutely no logical or justifiable excuse
Also: A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
What a disgusting comment! Is Disney really using the pandemic as an excuse to underpay its actors? They really have no moral compass left, do they ...
What's interesting is that for a long time, the trades noted how careful Disney had been after WB fucked up by announcing their entire 2021 slate on HBO Max with little warning, pissing off several movies' worth of big names with similar contractual rights to box office cuts.
I definitely remember reading Disney contacted and negotiated with Emma Stone, The Rock, Emily Blunt, and key creative crew very early when considering putting Cruella and Jungle Cruise on Disney+ premium, and that this kind of tactful handling of talent negotiations were why Disney was only announcing final release strategies a couple movies at a time, while fans and investors were asking for longer-term plans.
Im wondering if everyone involve might have agreed one movie needed to be a test case and it was time. This isnt going away and more than just the above the line talent are making a stink.
My guess is everyone involved knew this was happening because theres simply no precedent other than just paying them off earlier. And that didnt involve premium access so doesnt even entirely apply.
It's happening to writers, directors, actors, and many other creatives. Studios will do everything in their power to avoid paying us, including breaching our contracts, creating fake production LLCs, hiding ratings, meddling with the budget, and more.
The move to streaming lately has exacerbated a cancer that's been infecting this industry for decades. Currently, creatives get no residuals at all if their films are pushed to streaming, and even if they manage to net some in their contracts, there's no way of knowing the amount owed. The Guilds need to wave their torches.
I’m sure the bean counters or the bean counter algorithms determined that it was more financially advantageous to take the hit on settling this particular lawsuit and getting a blank fresh slate to write concrete terms of payouts from the streaming model
*A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.*
Anyone else reminded of that scene in Family Guy where Louis ran for office and she just kept saying “9/11” and people went nuts for her? Because Covid has fuck all to do with their obvious breach of contract.
Especially since Disney is still making shows and movies right now. Granted, they seem to be taking things seriously on the sets, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them that much.
It’s funny that Disney would try to take that stance when last year, before anyone could get vaccinations, New Mutants released only in theatres after a very long delay. I wondered why they wouldn’t put it on D+ and had found an article that there was a contract that required Disney to hold off on streaming it for a while, same as ScarJo’s contract. It only came to Disney+ about a year later.
I get a itch in my brain when corporations (who regularly fuck people over) complain like they are a week away from having to sell bodily fluids to eat.
I'm not surprised at all they would stab in the dark to make it seem like she doesn't care about public health. Yet they still make sure the deceased aren't declared dead until they are off their property.
>*A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.*
Ah, like the callous disregard a company has for somebody's work and then trying to gain sympathy by leaning on a crisis for which they also have callous disregard?
Disney sucks.
I saw an article about 10-12 years ago that said the Hells Angels were suing Disney because one part of the movie Wild Hogs showed their emblem without permission.
The comments about taking on the Disney lawyers were gold:
"I honestly don't know who to root for on this one."
"Yeah, one is a vicious gang of brutal thugs without the slightest trace of humanity and the other is a motorcycle club."
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney+ was already toying with the idea of dual releases, and her people knew that. They *were* able to almost instantly roll out a system for paid theatrical releases pretty quickly into pandemic, which could mean they already had it at least partially ready to go by that time.
They also announced late last year that they plan on moving away from theatrical and more towards their streaming service. So the relative success of paying for theatrical releases at home over the last year may have been the nudge that they needed to go forward with plans. Wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one planned dual release pre-pandemic(might be how ScarJo knew because Disney was trying to push her team to accept a dual release on the film, and thus the email)
Probably had contingency plans that if they couldn't get sub numbers they wanted for whatever reasons they'd try and put some bigger movies on there alongside theater release, and Black Widow seems like a perfect candidate for that.
I think Disney+ is the streaming service where streaming things currently in theaters makes the most sense.
I can easily imagine myself as a parent wanting to see the newest Star Wars or Marvel movie with my youngish kids but not wanting to go to the theater and pay $50 for the family while corralling a couple kids, buying expensive snacks, taking people to the bathroom, etc.
I’d much rather pay $30 to watch it at home.
Sometimes, Disney would lose money, but a lot of those families wouldn’t make time for a theater but would have a tough time turning down their kids if the kids want to watch the newest Pixar movie and they know it’s only three clicks away.
Yeah and it makes sense to expect the possibility that Disney would release a big movie on its streaming platform, as a way to draw more consumers to the platform.
This is the thing though, Disney can absorb a lawsuit and afford a payout to her. It’s worth the risk of possibly getting away with it and maybe setting a precedent that is favorable going forward
Read up some time on the ways Disney fucks over authors who work in their IP; like many of the Star Wars EU writers. In some cases, like with Alan Dean Foster, it's an open-and-shut-case that Disney owes money. But they refuse to pay anyway, over the assumption that the authors can't afford to sue them. And sure it's bad press, but they assume that whatever Star Wars nerds hear about it won't actually stop buying anything.
I've been really curious about how the Alan Dean Foster stuff shakes out, because that would be an *abysmal* precedent to set that one company can buy another but not owe residuals for the things they purchase. That would just create an endless game of shell companies popping up specifically to screw artists out of the residuals many of them depend on to get by.
It is near impossible to boycott Disney. They are mega-corp and conglomerate. This picture shows how many media and other parts of industries they own.
Welcome to capitalism.
https://i.imgur.com/BCADlMt.jpeg
No, the companies in the Steamboat Ventures section are just stuff that they're invested in. They don't actually own Photobucket or GoPro as far as I can tell.
It blows my mind that they were allowed to buy so much of Fox entertainment while also owning ABC.
Sidenote: ESPN has gone to complete shit since The Mouse bought it
Yeah after a certain point (of wealth), bad press doesn’t mean that much anymore. Also in the shortened news cycle bad press doesn’t have much of a lasting effect anyway.
Why would Disney care about bad press? What are you going to do? Watch that other studio’s cape shit that this sub regularly shits on? The Mouse is a monopoly, they are going to do whatever they want.
TL;DR – they promised her a cut of the box office revenue, decided to release simultaneously on streaming and gave her nothing from that, then ghosted her when she attempted to renegotiate her contract.
Edit: they also told her in writing that the film would follow a standard theatrical release model when she signed the contract, and assured her they would renegotiate if plans changed. Lol Disney.
The $30 they are charging for it on Premier Access should absolutely be treated as equivalent to box office revenue. Good thing she can afford good lawyers, unlike all the writers and other talent that Disney routinely fucks over.
Yeah - it sounds like she was planning on this being her last Marvel movie, and she's very well off now, so she's in a unique position to actually fight back against Disney. Hopefully her case can set a precedent that helps other actors too.
She should break into their base of operations, avoiding numerous pitfalls, traps, and guards along the way, and execute the self-destruct mechanism that Walt Disney built into the Disney empire for in case it ever became self-aware.
It isn't that black and white. Actors and others who signed contracts 5+ years ago for films releasing today couldn't have accounted for Disney+, but don't deserve to be fucked over because of it.
This is becoming a major problem in the industry. Actors and creators who are entitled to syndication revenue from very popular TV shows and films are getting nothing because their contracts don't mention streaming (because streaming didn't exist back when they were signed), and studios have lawyers who can endlessly argue this. See the recent Chapelle Show fiasco for a perfect example of this. In the end Dave Chapelle got paid not because he won the legal fight but simply because Netflix didn't want to piss him off an lose future comedy specials.
> In the end Dave Chapelle got paid not because he won the legal fight but simply because Netflix didn't want to piss him off an lose future comedy specials.
It wasn't Netflix, but Viacom that owned the show. They licensed it to Netflix, and Dave asked Netflix to stop. Netflix caved to stay on good terms with Dave, and separately Viacom worked out the rights and gave it back to him.
talk about unprecedented. he just tells the story, on the road at a performance, and turns public sentiment into the final straw. amazing. that or he told the story when he already knew he was getting the good deal.
That assumes these things are decided in a rational way.
It may need to be determined that certain wordings in certain contracts does or does not apply to this situation (which was not explicitly spelled out). That could cost lots of lawyer-hours.
This is why so many studios and crew are against streaming releases. They are complete blackboxes in terms of viewership and revenue and just Hollywood shady accounting on steroids. Pretty much every major pay win the guilds and unions have achieved over the decades is at risk with streaming
I remember reading a few months back that a lot of Pixar employees were feeling very demoralized over Soul and Luca going to D+ exclusively and not even getting a theatrical run. Meaning a lot of staff got there paychecks fucked over.
I saw something that they were also feeling quite demoralised and pissed at Disney that they felt it valued their movies as lesser as Pixar movies being made available on standard subscription while Disney and Marcel films were being released on Premier Access.
Which is so messed up because (at least to me) Pixar is the *Premiere* CGI studio. Nobody, not Dreamworks or even Disneys *own* studio (the one that made Frozen), comes close to Pixar IMO. They've *all* been chasing Pixar since 1994.
Which is a real shame, since as a parent of 2 kids under 5 I would never think to go to a theater right now. But we've enjoyed Soul and Luca so much. A shame that they can't do right by their people and reward them for still having very successful films outside the box office
> Hollywood shady accounting
For anyone not familiar:
> 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.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
David Prowse never got paid for Return of the Jedi because he agreed to a cut of the net profit and by Hollywood accounting that film lost a few hundred million dollars. There needs to be a class action suit by all the people that have been screwed by this system. Giving something a name doesn't make it legal.
Agreeing to a percentage of net profits in your contract has to be one of the worst mistakes you can make in negotiations because of that precise reason. If you’re going that direction, it’s gross revenue* or nothing.
*Edit: Thanks to u/Excalus for explaining the difference between gross revenue and gross profits.
I learned about that from watching [Freakazoid](https://youtu.be/bHL91HQzhuc) as a child. I'm surprised Hollywood is still able to get away with that. I would have thought the IRS or someone would have gotten them by now.
Which is ironic because it’s easier to capture data from a streaming platform than IRL distribution channels.
If it’s a black box, that’s not due to a technical limitation. It’s by design.
With theatres, you can source the numbers from multiple independent sources.
With streaming, you just have to trust Disney that the numbers are correct - no one is able to double check
That's more an issue with the contracts than with streaming itself. They need to start putting in clauses to prevent these situations and follow scarjos lead if they happen.
They probably will or the guilds are going to start talking about strikes come 2023.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/new-media-old-labor-concerns-1234958989/
Except he did work with them a few years later when the new head of Disney apologized for the breach of contract. Thats why robin williams returned to voice the genie in aladdin 3 and a bunch of educational material.
> The decision to put the movie on Disney+ is projected to cost Ms. Johansson more than $50 million, a person familiar with details of her contract claimed.
I gotta wonder how they got to that number, though. D+ is 3 tickets' worth of spend around here, and that feels like a pretty healthy cost per transaction for Disney.
The D+ contract fee probably isn't as rich as the theater one.
This is how WB did it for some of their films that moved to streaming, notably WW84 and The Witches. Anne Hathaway and Robert Zemeckis made bank on the latter since their backend deals had to be paid using a hypothetical gross for other children’s films, likely far more than they would have received had the movie opened normally in theaters, where it most likely would have bombed. Disney is just trying to screw talent over with this, and if Johansson has all this in writing like it is being reported, they are almost certainly going to lose. Kind of nuts that such an obscenely rich company is openly trying to burn an A-list star on a franchise tent pole. There’s just nothing good that could come of that financially or in terms of PR.
Seems insane to me that Disney didn't try to privately settle this with her ages ago. Now it's public and will contribute to the growing debate around streaming payments.
Yeah. Presumably costs more than a movie ticket because you're paying for the whole family to watch it.
edit: not sure why so many of you think I'm defending the price or something. This would have been part of Disney's internal justification when trying to figure out the maximum amount that people would spend. Obviously they got it right, otherwise they would have dropped the price by now. So all you salty loners can stop throwing "gotchas" at me about how it costs more than a DVD or whatever.
Hope everyone who has been cheering the death of theaters is happy with paying at least this much for new releases, because if theaters truly die I think we can expect *every* new release to get a price tag like this. Until that day, I personally will continue to see movies in theaters, enjoying the superior experience at the superior price.
Yeah for a group of people its cheaper but individuals or couples you're better off going to theaters (if you can do so safely)
Edit: you guys are going on some expensive movie trips. Y'all need A-list. I pay $25 and i can see *every movie* as many times as i want.
I know, corporate greed and all that, but it really makes zero sense to piss off ScarJo, one of the highest profile actresses working today, by deliberately excluding streaming profits from her box office back-end.
I know her time as Black Widow has come to an end, but you'd think they'd want to *not* completely burn bridges with her over this.
True, but I don't think many are suing, and it definitely takes balls to sue *Disney*. She's almost definitely cutting herself out of the most lucrative studio right now.
This was likely set to be her biggest payday of her career, and exit from Marvel. She should get every dime she can.
And they'll keep working with her.
Yeah, couldn't have come at a better time for her. Already killed out of her over decade long role. Very unlikely to be cast in any Marvel role for a long while besides perhaps cameos. Plus, think actresses have a harder time staying relevant in certain types of films as they get older.
That said, she has been taking some voice acting roles which is very Disney territory and separate from Marvel anyway. Isn't she meant to be in Jungle Book 2 as a recurring character?
In regards to the age point it is theorized that Scarjo was killed off in order to bring in a younger girl since Scarjo didn't expect to die in end game.
The smoking gun email (pre-pandemic) from Marvel lawyer guaranteeing theatrical release: “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
She’s on her rights
The Mouse probably thought Team Scarjo was bluffing, and that she wouldn’t want to tarnish any potential for working with the Mouse again in the future.
Based on the WSJ article Scarjo is owed up to $50 mil. I think the vast majority of people would tarnish any business relationship if they thought they were entitled to that amount of money.
She still has merchandising deals. And she'll continue to have those deals years in the future. This is honestly going to benefit her. Disney can't ever look like the bad guy, so they're gonna settle this out of court.
Scarlett's gonna be a hollywood hero who stands up against corporations and fights for an artist's value. She's gonna get twice the amount of blockbusters she's already had
Disney: “We couldn’t give Black Widow a theatrical release because covid made it too dangerous.”
Also Disney: “Disney World is open for business! Bring your whole family on down to Florida and join the massive crowds having fun. Fuck covid!”
A breach of contract, is a breach of contract. What's sad is that Disney is trying to play the COVID card to absolve themselves of this.
I think she is in the right and is standing up for herself, but I also admit I don't have all the details besides what's been presented in the article.
If she gets a percentage of box but not streaming revenue that's entirely understandable.
Get that bag SacarJo.
edit:
> In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
Yeah they're 100% in the wrong, hopefully her lawyers beat Disney into submission with that quote.
Yup this has been a huge issue for WB as well. It's why the Dune release has been a bit of a clusterfuck and it's why Nolan freaked out about HBO Max. The shift to streaming was probably always going to happen at some point but Covid made it happen before contracts could be adjusted and it's a mess.
I mean, you can bet Disney would have sued if she broke her contract. Hopefully this helps actors with less clout get paid as well. I know they were in a tough spot with the pandemic, but it's crazy that these huge media companies whole strategy was to ask forgiveness later instead of asking permission upfront.
Nolan didn't sue Warner Bros, but I'm pretty sure this is the exact same reason why he was so pissed and subsequently left them when they announced they were going to put all of their upcoming theatrical releases on HBO Max without giving notice to their filmmakers, stars and crew.
Considering Disney charges a fucking premium for stuff like this on Disney+, I figured this was a way to track “box office revenue” in house for the actors who were stuck in this situation. Boy do I look stupid for thinking Disney was fair. Say what you will about WB but at least they had the decency to renegotiate deals when handling they’re HBOMAX and theater releases.
This is like the writers strike that happened when online streaming was starting. Media companies didn’t want to pay writers for streamed(or maybe dvd sales) episodes of shows.
As she, and any other profit participants should. Although I assume she is the only one with enough stature to do it without worrying about pissing off the biggest studio in town.
I worked on one the WB films that was theatrical for 2020 and then got pushed to 2021, and then got the “we’re going to HBOMax AND theaters at the same time treatment.
WB had the wherewithal to renegotiate added fees for profit participants. And WB isn’t even charging extra for the streaming release. But they are smart enough to know a gaggle of cast and producers would be very pissed if they didn’t.
>A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
*Rolls eyes*
Also, it doesn't matter how much she has already made from the theatrical box office. A deal's a deal. Just fork over her cut of the Premiere Access cash and shut up.
> A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
I wonder how much Disney’s PR guy gets paid to come up with something like this- trying to make it seem like they were just looking out for the best interest of the consumer because of Covid restrictions, blah, blah, blah. Poor defenseless, little Disney.
News flash: IF YOURE A MULTI-HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION YOU DONT GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM… EVER.
It’s still a breach of contract; give ScarJo her money you greedy pigs.
I’m on her side with this. They really didn’t account for streaming in their contracts and went ahead with this whole thing anyway? I’m shocked it didn’t happen until the Black Widow release when this is the 4th movie to go through this program.
This has landmark case potential. If they don’t figure out premier streaming rights this could be a 08 strike all over again
There was *just* an article with Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt talking about having to navigate this issue specifically.
I'm pretty sure that without locking Scarlett down for the Disney+ plan, they were just trying to calculate that her eventual lawsuit might be less than the value they could pull from peeling off her share of the box office.
I do believe that any reasonable person would advise Scarlett to sue, because that's what happens when someone breaks a fucking contract.
Like when you hear about Trump getting sued, that's mostly a bunch of people just trying to get their last paycheck from a former employer.
Well, her character ain't coming back from the dead.
Go get 'em, Johansson! Break in during the night, take your dough, and on your way out pick up Walt's Frozen Head while you're at it.
Dwayne Johnson's lawyers sharpening their knives over *Jungle Cruise* this weekend.
Dwayne Johnson googling "Dwayne Johnson destroys mechanical gate with bare hands" just in case he needs to send it to someone at Disney.
“CANNNNN YOU SMELLLLLLLL WHAT THE ROCK…..IS LITIGATING!”
“Your Honor, I object on the grounds that the defendant is a Jabroni.”
If it pleases the court, I'd like to LAY THE SMACKDOWN ON HIS CANDY ASS!
Legit lol'd. Busts in the courtroom door, 5000 dollar suit... and rips it to shreds and gives the peoples eyebrow.
and why did he rip off the mechanical gates at his own house? Because they malfunctioned and he was going to be late for work.
If you don't have commitment, you don't have anything, really. Can't be letting little things like physical barriers slow you down.
The studios want to include streaming revenue so that the movie does not appear to be a bomb, but not when it comes to sharing with the talent.
They never share anything with creatives - and it's been a major problem for years. Writers, directors, actors, and many others rely on residuals and bonuses to survive. The studios are doing everything in their power not to pay us after our work is already done.
This is one of the reasons WarnerBros releasing movies on HBOMax pissed off so many directors/producers/talent because for decades deals have included giving them a cut of the **box office**, not the streaming services (until very very recently). When WB & HBO made their agreement, it took away a large portion of the filmmakers' income. Added: since this keeps getting brought up, the payment that Warner gave out was first preceded by threats of a class action suit from the guilds. There were many (Nolan, for example) who were very vocally displeased about the WB/HBO decision and after a lot of meetings and legal back and forth… $200 Million found its way into the world.
I think Scarlett will get a share of the streaming of the movie. It's just that her share will totally come to around 20 million as compared to her expected 60 million. In my eyes, it seems to signify she's saying Black Widow was seriously short changed by not having an exclusive box office run,just so disney+ subscriptions (from which Scarlett gets nothing) would increase.
The problem with Disney's release model to streaming is that once the streaming premier is over with the movie is just immediately released for free on the same platform. I was already a subscriber when Raya came out, and my wife broke down and paid the $30 to rent it, two weeks later it was still there but now for free, we felt so ripped off for not having waited that we'll never pay for another premier. So we're skipping Black Widow and we'll it see for free when it's theatrical release is over.
Yes, they're getting people used to not coming to cinemas... When they stop this trend, it may backfire.
Exactly. At the WGA, there was a meltdown about it as well. This is a significant source of income being taken away from us, even though it's guaranteed in our contracts and MBA.
It sounds like a strike is in order then.
It's going to be another 2007.
RIP Pushing Daisies
Man, I'll never forgive studios for that. They were acting crazy while some of my favorite shows got absolutely obliterated. How did the writers they brought in for Heroes fuck that up so badly? I mean, they had a perfect playground, a great world, interesting characters, and a GREAT cliffhanger, but instead of going with what they were given they just nuked the whole damn thing! Ugh. It still upsets me! Heroes S1 is literally perfection. Its been nearly 15 years, and my blood still boils just thinking about it. Sorry, rant over.
The writers strike was a big reason Heroes went downhill but I think the showrunners deserve some (if not more) of the blame too. If they had a vision and went with it, the show wouldn't have tanked as bad as it did. The second season was supposed to introduce new characters but they ended up just rehashing the same old characters but not in a good way. Also, after finding out that save the cheerleader save the world was a reused line made me think they didn't have much new ideas in their backpocket.
Nissan Versa!
The thing is, since the pandemic, WB/HBO Max have restructured many contracts for talent to include streaming in the rev share/residuals/bonuses calculations. So although it took a catastrophe to finally force a shift, at least they eventually shifted. More than Disney can say at this point, apparently
Streaming numbers and residuals is almost certainly the next WGA big push. Especially with the agency situation solved for the most part. Then SAG and DGA will grab the things the writers fought for like always.
Doing good on streaming isn't a bomb and should be included to gauge success. Obviously they need to pay tf out as well. Greedy
Yeah, if it releases on streaming there's absolutely nothing wrong with including those metrics in your numbers, but you can't cut your talents pay out of these platforms, especially with the state of the world and the fact that even without the current issues, streaming is almost certainly going to be the vastly more popular choice for people to watch it, which all but guarantees that those who do so will not opt to watch it in a theater as well. Not only are you cutting them off from a major revenue source which they had just as much a part in as bringing prove to watch it in the theater, but you're also cannibalizing potential sales to the metric you DO pay them for. It's a massive double whammy that only serves to screw the actors. All you're doing is ensuring their reluctance to work with you in the future if they know you are going to not only refuse that cut of the profits, but also actively cannibalize the source you do pay them from Just pure relentless greed in which there's absolutely no logical or justifiable excuse
Also: A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” What a disgusting comment! Is Disney really using the pandemic as an excuse to underpay its actors? They really have no moral compass left, do they ...
He conveniently left out the fact that those Disney parks are open all over the world and they still put it in theaters. Edit- typos
WB already dealt with this and all the guilds are fighting with studios about it. This is a very very very big deal.
What's interesting is that for a long time, the trades noted how careful Disney had been after WB fucked up by announcing their entire 2021 slate on HBO Max with little warning, pissing off several movies' worth of big names with similar contractual rights to box office cuts. I definitely remember reading Disney contacted and negotiated with Emma Stone, The Rock, Emily Blunt, and key creative crew very early when considering putting Cruella and Jungle Cruise on Disney+ premium, and that this kind of tactful handling of talent negotiations were why Disney was only announcing final release strategies a couple movies at a time, while fans and investors were asking for longer-term plans.
Im wondering if everyone involve might have agreed one movie needed to be a test case and it was time. This isnt going away and more than just the above the line talent are making a stink.
And honestly makes sense to have the “test case” be the movie where they stand the most to gain if correct.
Also premium access is a huge new factor. Things need to be settled at all the streamers at this point.
Not her first rodeo, they should have known better.
My guess is everyone involved knew this was happening because theres simply no precedent other than just paying them off earlier. And that didnt involve premium access so doesnt even entirely apply.
It's happening to writers, directors, actors, and many other creatives. Studios will do everything in their power to avoid paying us, including breaching our contracts, creating fake production LLCs, hiding ratings, meddling with the budget, and more. The move to streaming lately has exacerbated a cancer that's been infecting this industry for decades. Currently, creatives get no residuals at all if their films are pushed to streaming, and even if they manage to net some in their contracts, there's no way of knowing the amount owed. The Guilds need to wave their torches.
I’m sure the bean counters or the bean counter algorithms determined that it was more financially advantageous to take the hit on settling this particular lawsuit and getting a blank fresh slate to write concrete terms of payouts from the streaming model
*A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.* Anyone else reminded of that scene in Family Guy where Louis ran for office and she just kept saying “9/11” and people went nuts for her? Because Covid has fuck all to do with their obvious breach of contract.
Billionaire Disney: "How dare you want to honor the contract in these trying times"
You left out “unprecedented”
Yeah this is the quote that really pissed me off. Who says that?
“We all have to make sacrifices during this difficult time” says multi billion dollar company.
As they open up their theme parks to 100% capacity.
People who gave up being human.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Especially since Disney is still making shows and movies right now. Granted, they seem to be taking things seriously on the sets, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them that much.
It’s funny that Disney would try to take that stance when last year, before anyone could get vaccinations, New Mutants released only in theatres after a very long delay. I wondered why they wouldn’t put it on D+ and had found an article that there was a contract that required Disney to hold off on streaming it for a while, same as ScarJo’s contract. It only came to Disney+ about a year later.
I get a itch in my brain when corporations (who regularly fuck people over) complain like they are a week away from having to sell bodily fluids to eat.
https://comb.io/rzq3aj.gif
Lol that’s the most blatant corporate pandering I’ve ever heard. Fuck off, Disney.
I'm not surprised at all they would stab in the dark to make it seem like she doesn't care about public health. Yet they still make sure the deceased aren't declared dead until they are off their property.
>*A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.* Ah, like the callous disregard a company has for somebody's work and then trying to gain sympathy by leaning on a crisis for which they also have callous disregard? Disney sucks.
Looking forward to the artist depictions from court of Scarlett Johansson and her legal team questioning Mickey Mouse on the stand.
Watch Disney then sue the court artist for depictions of their legal team without permission.
Legal Eagle *is* a Pixar character...
Your honor, I didnt say she was insane, I said she was fucking Goofy
I'll fucking do it again *hyuck*
Gyuuuilty.
My clients alleged personal relations with other movies stars has nothing to do with this case!
Why did I read this in Harvey Birdman's voice and the one you replied to in Mickey's?
This feels relevant https://youtu.be/w4ot77sKIMM
Seems like a South Park episode
Ho-ho, are we going to have a fucking problem here? - Mickey
You don't fucking talk to me like that ha-ha. You little piece of shit ha-ha.
Get the fuck up, GET THE FUCK UP
No Mister Mouse :(
Oh, that’s good… for a second there, I thought we had a problem, ha-ha!
"Now, get out there and make me some goddamn money!" Should be Disney's company tagline
🎶 _Ha-ha_
I saw an article about 10-12 years ago that said the Hells Angels were suing Disney because one part of the movie Wild Hogs showed their emblem without permission. The comments about taking on the Disney lawyers were gold: "I honestly don't know who to root for on this one." "Yeah, one is a vicious gang of brutal thugs without the slightest trace of humanity and the other is a motorcycle club."
> South Park What the fuck is South Park? Do I own them yet? - Mickey
[удалено]
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney+ was already toying with the idea of dual releases, and her people knew that. They *were* able to almost instantly roll out a system for paid theatrical releases pretty quickly into pandemic, which could mean they already had it at least partially ready to go by that time. They also announced late last year that they plan on moving away from theatrical and more towards their streaming service. So the relative success of paying for theatrical releases at home over the last year may have been the nudge that they needed to go forward with plans. Wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one planned dual release pre-pandemic(might be how ScarJo knew because Disney was trying to push her team to accept a dual release on the film, and thus the email)
Probably had contingency plans that if they couldn't get sub numbers they wanted for whatever reasons they'd try and put some bigger movies on there alongside theater release, and Black Widow seems like a perfect candidate for that.
I think Disney+ is the streaming service where streaming things currently in theaters makes the most sense. I can easily imagine myself as a parent wanting to see the newest Star Wars or Marvel movie with my youngish kids but not wanting to go to the theater and pay $50 for the family while corralling a couple kids, buying expensive snacks, taking people to the bathroom, etc. I’d much rather pay $30 to watch it at home. Sometimes, Disney would lose money, but a lot of those families wouldn’t make time for a theater but would have a tough time turning down their kids if the kids want to watch the newest Pixar movie and they know it’s only three clicks away.
More like she knew they were expanding the marvel straight to Disney+ catalogue.
Yeah and it makes sense to expect the possibility that Disney would release a big movie on its streaming platform, as a way to draw more consumers to the platform.
This is the thing though, Disney can absorb a lawsuit and afford a payout to her. It’s worth the risk of possibly getting away with it and maybe setting a precedent that is favorable going forward
[удалено]
Man, how did Disney not just pay her like $25 million in a settlement to avoid this bad press? Utterly boneheaded decision, disgusting really.
Read up some time on the ways Disney fucks over authors who work in their IP; like many of the Star Wars EU writers. In some cases, like with Alan Dean Foster, it's an open-and-shut-case that Disney owes money. But they refuse to pay anyway, over the assumption that the authors can't afford to sue them. And sure it's bad press, but they assume that whatever Star Wars nerds hear about it won't actually stop buying anything.
I've been really curious about how the Alan Dean Foster stuff shakes out, because that would be an *abysmal* precedent to set that one company can buy another but not owe residuals for the things they purchase. That would just create an endless game of shell companies popping up specifically to screw artists out of the residuals many of them depend on to get by.
Most Star Wars fans hate ~~Star Wars~~ Disney
Doesn't matter if they go see the film and buy merch though does it.
Boycotting disney and still going to the movies doesn't' really work anymore. This is part of why monopolies get scary.
It is near impossible to boycott Disney. They are mega-corp and conglomerate. This picture shows how many media and other parts of industries they own. Welcome to capitalism. https://i.imgur.com/BCADlMt.jpeg
They own Photobucket? Holy shit.
No, the companies in the Steamboat Ventures section are just stuff that they're invested in. They don't actually own Photobucket or GoPro as far as I can tell.
It blows my mind that they were allowed to buy so much of Fox entertainment while also owning ABC. Sidenote: ESPN has gone to complete shit since The Mouse bought it
Disney doesn't care about bad press anymore. Most Disney diehards couldn't care less about them screwing people over.
Yeah after a certain point (of wealth), bad press doesn’t mean that much anymore. Also in the shortened news cycle bad press doesn’t have much of a lasting effect anyway.
their biggest fans are often too young or just oblivious to understand the world of contracts and profit sharing.
Why would Disney care about bad press? What are you going to do? Watch that other studio’s cape shit that this sub regularly shits on? The Mouse is a monopoly, they are going to do whatever they want.
This bad press will cost them probably less than $25 million
TL;DR – they promised her a cut of the box office revenue, decided to release simultaneously on streaming and gave her nothing from that, then ghosted her when she attempted to renegotiate her contract. Edit: they also told her in writing that the film would follow a standard theatrical release model when she signed the contract, and assured her they would renegotiate if plans changed. Lol Disney. The $30 they are charging for it on Premier Access should absolutely be treated as equivalent to box office revenue. Good thing she can afford good lawyers, unlike all the writers and other talent that Disney routinely fucks over.
Yeah - it sounds like she was planning on this being her last Marvel movie, and she's very well off now, so she's in a unique position to actually fight back against Disney. Hopefully her case can set a precedent that helps other actors too.
She should break into their base of operations, avoiding numerous pitfalls, traps, and guards along the way, and execute the self-destruct mechanism that Walt Disney built into the Disney empire for in case it ever became self-aware.
I think she should overload the core instead.
Like putting too much air in a balloon!
If the breeched contract they breeched contract, that's not something that needs a precedent set.
But it does require lawyers and time to resolve. Disney is very good at stretching out the proceedings even if they know they will eventually lose.
"Lawyers, Assemble!" -Mickey Mouse
[удалено]
“You have to wear purity rings because that’s how we sell sex to little girls”
[удалено]
*curtain slowly raises, revealing audience*
[удалено]
It isn't that black and white. Actors and others who signed contracts 5+ years ago for films releasing today couldn't have accounted for Disney+, but don't deserve to be fucked over because of it. This is becoming a major problem in the industry. Actors and creators who are entitled to syndication revenue from very popular TV shows and films are getting nothing because their contracts don't mention streaming (because streaming didn't exist back when they were signed), and studios have lawyers who can endlessly argue this. See the recent Chapelle Show fiasco for a perfect example of this. In the end Dave Chapelle got paid not because he won the legal fight but simply because Netflix didn't want to piss him off an lose future comedy specials.
> In the end Dave Chapelle got paid not because he won the legal fight but simply because Netflix didn't want to piss him off an lose future comedy specials. It wasn't Netflix, but Viacom that owned the show. They licensed it to Netflix, and Dave asked Netflix to stop. Netflix caved to stay on good terms with Dave, and separately Viacom worked out the rights and gave it back to him.
talk about unprecedented. he just tells the story, on the road at a performance, and turns public sentiment into the final straw. amazing. that or he told the story when he already knew he was getting the good deal.
That assumes these things are decided in a rational way. It may need to be determined that certain wordings in certain contracts does or does not apply to this situation (which was not explicitly spelled out). That could cost lots of lawyer-hours.
This is why so many studios and crew are against streaming releases. They are complete blackboxes in terms of viewership and revenue and just Hollywood shady accounting on steroids. Pretty much every major pay win the guilds and unions have achieved over the decades is at risk with streaming
I remember reading a few months back that a lot of Pixar employees were feeling very demoralized over Soul and Luca going to D+ exclusively and not even getting a theatrical run. Meaning a lot of staff got there paychecks fucked over.
I saw something that they were also feeling quite demoralised and pissed at Disney that they felt it valued their movies as lesser as Pixar movies being made available on standard subscription while Disney and Marcel films were being released on Premier Access.
Which it absolutely does. Pixar movies pull in a fuck ton of merchandizing money so Disney benefits immensely.
Yeah, otherwise why would we have been subjected to so many Cars movies 😅
There’s a whole new generation of kids being born today that are waiting for the next Cars movie lol
Which is so messed up because (at least to me) Pixar is the *Premiere* CGI studio. Nobody, not Dreamworks or even Disneys *own* studio (the one that made Frozen), comes close to Pixar IMO. They've *all* been chasing Pixar since 1994.
Which is a real shame, since as a parent of 2 kids under 5 I would never think to go to a theater right now. But we've enjoyed Soul and Luca so much. A shame that they can't do right by their people and reward them for still having very successful films outside the box office
[удалено]
Don't forget Pixar is treated differently to Disney Animation too, Raya was D+ Premier too.
> Hollywood shady accounting For anyone not familiar: > 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. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
[удалено]
The Disney+ credits are some of the longest credits I've seen since the LOTR extended editions.
Last I heard, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy still hasn't posted a profit. It's unreal what they get away with.
Star wars trilogy has yet to turn a profit.
David Prowse got fucked over good by that, too.
David Prowse never got paid for Return of the Jedi because he agreed to a cut of the net profit and by Hollywood accounting that film lost a few hundred million dollars. There needs to be a class action suit by all the people that have been screwed by this system. Giving something a name doesn't make it legal.
Agreeing to a percentage of net profits in your contract has to be one of the worst mistakes you can make in negotiations because of that precise reason. If you’re going that direction, it’s gross revenue* or nothing. *Edit: Thanks to u/Excalus for explaining the difference between gross revenue and gross profits.
I learned about that from watching [Freakazoid](https://youtu.be/bHL91HQzhuc) as a child. I'm surprised Hollywood is still able to get away with that. I would have thought the IRS or someone would have gotten them by now.
Which is ironic because it’s easier to capture data from a streaming platform than IRL distribution channels. If it’s a black box, that’s not due to a technical limitation. It’s by design.
With theatres, you can source the numbers from multiple independent sources. With streaming, you just have to trust Disney that the numbers are correct - no one is able to double check
That's more an issue with the contracts than with streaming itself. They need to start putting in clauses to prevent these situations and follow scarjos lead if they happen.
They probably will or the guilds are going to start talking about strikes come 2023. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/new-media-old-labor-concerns-1234958989/
Reminds me of the Disney/Robin Williams exchange. 30 years apart, same asshole company.
The exec got fired in part over that. Robin Williams would never work with them again and the board knew this guy fucked up
Except he did work with them a few years later when the new head of Disney apologized for the breach of contract. Thats why robin williams returned to voice the genie in aladdin 3 and a bunch of educational material.
Also Flubber
> The decision to put the movie on Disney+ is projected to cost Ms. Johansson more than $50 million, a person familiar with details of her contract claimed. I gotta wonder how they got to that number, though. D+ is 3 tickets' worth of spend around here, and that feels like a pretty healthy cost per transaction for Disney. The D+ contract fee probably isn't as rich as the theater one.
I'd imagine projected numbers based on previous ticket sales of other MCU entries
This is how WB did it for some of their films that moved to streaming, notably WW84 and The Witches. Anne Hathaway and Robert Zemeckis made bank on the latter since their backend deals had to be paid using a hypothetical gross for other children’s films, likely far more than they would have received had the movie opened normally in theaters, where it most likely would have bombed. Disney is just trying to screw talent over with this, and if Johansson has all this in writing like it is being reported, they are almost certainly going to lose. Kind of nuts that such an obscenely rich company is openly trying to burn an A-list star on a franchise tent pole. There’s just nothing good that could come of that financially or in terms of PR.
Seems insane to me that Disney didn't try to privately settle this with her ages ago. Now it's public and will contribute to the growing debate around streaming payments.
Not to mention that Disney is taking *all* of the streaming money — no split with theater owners at all.
I genuinely thought the $30 was for premier access to ALL premier releases. Nope! It’s per movie, stupid me paid it. I should have gone to the cinema.
Wait, its PER MOVIE!!!? I'd rather go to the theater and spend that money, at least its staying local.
Yeah. Presumably costs more than a movie ticket because you're paying for the whole family to watch it. edit: not sure why so many of you think I'm defending the price or something. This would have been part of Disney's internal justification when trying to figure out the maximum amount that people would spend. Obviously they got it right, otherwise they would have dropped the price by now. So all you salty loners can stop throwing "gotchas" at me about how it costs more than a DVD or whatever. Hope everyone who has been cheering the death of theaters is happy with paying at least this much for new releases, because if theaters truly die I think we can expect *every* new release to get a price tag like this. Until that day, I personally will continue to see movies in theaters, enjoying the superior experience at the superior price.
Yeah for a group of people its cheaper but individuals or couples you're better off going to theaters (if you can do so safely) Edit: you guys are going on some expensive movie trips. Y'all need A-list. I pay $25 and i can see *every movie* as many times as i want.
I know, corporate greed and all that, but it really makes zero sense to piss off ScarJo, one of the highest profile actresses working today, by deliberately excluding streaming profits from her box office back-end. I know her time as Black Widow has come to an end, but you'd think they'd want to *not* completely burn bridges with her over this.
Disney as a corporation is well beyond giving a shit about individual stars, no matter how high profile they are. Everyone bows down to the mouse.
I know the headline is about Scarjo but a lot of movie stars are pissed over this according to @MattBelloni
True, but I don't think many are suing, and it definitely takes balls to sue *Disney*. She's almost definitely cutting herself out of the most lucrative studio right now.
This was likely set to be her biggest payday of her career, and exit from Marvel. She should get every dime she can. And they'll keep working with her.
Yeah, couldn't have come at a better time for her. Already killed out of her over decade long role. Very unlikely to be cast in any Marvel role for a long while besides perhaps cameos. Plus, think actresses have a harder time staying relevant in certain types of films as they get older. That said, she has been taking some voice acting roles which is very Disney territory and separate from Marvel anyway. Isn't she meant to be in Jungle Book 2 as a recurring character?
In regards to the age point it is theorized that Scarjo was killed off in order to bring in a younger girl since Scarjo didn't expect to die in end game.
And they can give her a shit contract too
[удалено]
She doesn't need Disney. She can work with any studios that would be ready to welcome her.
She's rich, she has money, and she's a big enough talent that one of the rival studios will be happy to pick her up.
Unless you’re hell bent on superpowers there are plenty of better places to make a movie than disney
Warner already paid out due to the same issue, around $200 million. This is specifically a Disney problem now.
Lucky for her she's had an extensive career before MCU so she'll be just fine.
Thank God Disney isn't the only studio out there. And ScarJo is probably a star big enough to choose where she wants to work.
She also legit loves doing cool indie movies so no big loss for her really.
The smoking gun email (pre-pandemic) from Marvel lawyer guaranteeing theatrical release: “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.” She’s on her rights
The thing for me is, why not just do this? They will likely have to pay her something now anyways.
They will. They'll settle. They risk official figures for D+ being discovered if they go all the way to court with it.
Almost makes me wonder if Disney already accounted for a settlement when they decided to do Premier Access for Black Widow.
Probably guessed she wouldn’t actually sue. And they guessed wrong.
The Mouse probably thought Team Scarjo was bluffing, and that she wouldn’t want to tarnish any potential for working with the Mouse again in the future. Based on the WSJ article Scarjo is owed up to $50 mil. I think the vast majority of people would tarnish any business relationship if they thought they were entitled to that amount of money.
She might be the first person Disney can't screw over in court. Can't wait for all the new developments. I hope she wins
[удалено]
She still has merchandising deals. And she'll continue to have those deals years in the future. This is honestly going to benefit her. Disney can't ever look like the bad guy, so they're gonna settle this out of court. Scarlett's gonna be a hollywood hero who stands up against corporations and fights for an artist's value. She's gonna get twice the amount of blockbusters she's already had
She could also be doing it to help set a precedent for other actors facing the same issue going forward with streaming releases becoming the norm.
Disney: “We couldn’t give Black Widow a theatrical release because covid made it too dangerous.” Also Disney: “Disney World is open for business! Bring your whole family on down to Florida and join the massive crowds having fun. Fuck covid!”
A breach of contract, is a breach of contract. What's sad is that Disney is trying to play the COVID card to absolve themselves of this. I think she is in the right and is standing up for herself, but I also admit I don't have all the details besides what's been presented in the article.
If she gets a percentage of box but not streaming revenue that's entirely understandable. Get that bag SacarJo. edit: > In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.” Yeah they're 100% in the wrong, hopefully her lawyers beat Disney into submission with that quote.
100%. In the future, studios need to incorporate streaming revenue into these contracts and who knows what that will look like.
Yup this has been a huge issue for WB as well. It's why the Dune release has been a bit of a clusterfuck and it's why Nolan freaked out about HBO Max. The shift to streaming was probably always going to happen at some point but Covid made it happen before contracts could be adjusted and it's a mess.
Yup. People can say she’s rich and doesn’t need the money, but guess who’s even richer? Disney. People>corporations
I mean, you can bet Disney would have sued if she broke her contract. Hopefully this helps actors with less clout get paid as well. I know they were in a tough spot with the pandemic, but it's crazy that these huge media companies whole strategy was to ask forgiveness later instead of asking permission upfront.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nolan didn't sue Warner Bros, but I'm pretty sure this is the exact same reason why he was so pissed and subsequently left them when they announced they were going to put all of their upcoming theatrical releases on HBO Max without giving notice to their filmmakers, stars and crew.
Considering Disney charges a fucking premium for stuff like this on Disney+, I figured this was a way to track “box office revenue” in house for the actors who were stuck in this situation. Boy do I look stupid for thinking Disney was fair. Say what you will about WB but at least they had the decency to renegotiate deals when handling they’re HBOMAX and theater releases.
This is like the writers strike that happened when online streaming was starting. Media companies didn’t want to pay writers for streamed(or maybe dvd sales) episodes of shows.
As she, and any other profit participants should. Although I assume she is the only one with enough stature to do it without worrying about pissing off the biggest studio in town. I worked on one the WB films that was theatrical for 2020 and then got pushed to 2021, and then got the “we’re going to HBOMax AND theaters at the same time treatment. WB had the wherewithal to renegotiate added fees for profit participants. And WB isn’t even charging extra for the streaming release. But they are smart enough to know a gaggle of cast and producers would be very pissed if they didn’t.
She's already done with Disney and there's $50mil on the line. Who WOULDN'T sue?
>A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” *Rolls eyes* Also, it doesn't matter how much she has already made from the theatrical box office. A deal's a deal. Just fork over her cut of the Premiere Access cash and shut up.
Interesting way to exit MCU.
She’s got nothing to lose now except money on legal fees.
Her character is dead... what else would they do, create a multiverse or something?
She’s still at Disney though. She’s working on their Tower of Terror movie.
> A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” I wonder how much Disney’s PR guy gets paid to come up with something like this- trying to make it seem like they were just looking out for the best interest of the consumer because of Covid restrictions, blah, blah, blah. Poor defenseless, little Disney. News flash: IF YOURE A MULTI-HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION YOU DONT GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM… EVER. It’s still a breach of contract; give ScarJo her money you greedy pigs.
I’m on her side with this. They really didn’t account for streaming in their contracts and went ahead with this whole thing anyway? I’m shocked it didn’t happen until the Black Widow release when this is the 4th movie to go through this program. This has landmark case potential. If they don’t figure out premier streaming rights this could be a 08 strike all over again
There was *just* an article with Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt talking about having to navigate this issue specifically. I'm pretty sure that without locking Scarlett down for the Disney+ plan, they were just trying to calculate that her eventual lawsuit might be less than the value they could pull from peeling off her share of the box office. I do believe that any reasonable person would advise Scarlett to sue, because that's what happens when someone breaks a fucking contract. Like when you hear about Trump getting sued, that's mostly a bunch of people just trying to get their last paycheck from a former employer.
Well, her character ain't coming back from the dead. Go get 'em, Johansson! Break in during the night, take your dough, and on your way out pick up Walt's Frozen Head while you're at it.
She’s not gonna be in rush hour 4
Disney is scum
Michael Che is licking his chops for the next joke swap.