Black Widow

[Lollypad]

I was looking forward to BW and was massively disappointed. It was funny in parts, but I think it was trying too hard to be funny. I also don't understand the timing:

Spoiler: Where in the timeline...

It's set in between Civil War and Infinity War right? So there was no peril whatsoever because you know Nat is in the rest of the films. I didn't really understand why we couldn't have had this filmed and released ACTUALLY between the two films? It being set in the past added nothing either - with Captain Marvel you had loads of fun easter eggs, like how Fury lost his eye etc, but I really didn't think it added anything. Would have been more interested in seeing the actual Budapest mission with her and Clint.

 

[Gimmethegossipgirl]

I'm not that into marvel these days and still think endgame wasn't all that

I thought I was the only one who didn’t think that much of endgame I thought both those films were meh and some of the things they did were just plain wrong/didn’t make sense!

Black widow was ok I expected more I think but it was worth the watch

 

[Yel]

If Disney mislead or if there wasn't a clause that covers covid changes she might win this. But either way she won't win over the public with the $50 million figure unless there's some very good pr! It's kinda unbelievable how someone can earn so much for playing dress up

Scarlett Johansson sues Disney over streaming Black Widow

Johansson alleges that she lost out of more than $50million as a result of the film being released on streaming service Disney+ at the same time as its debut in theaters

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[carriebooboo]

Disney has come out swinging, calling her 'callous' and playing the covid card. Callous for wanting her contract to be honoured? Reeks of sexism to me. They'd never openly insult the likes of RDJ or Hemsworth if they went legal.

 

[Tublet83]

Disney has come out swinging, calling her 'callous' and playing the covid card. Callous for wanting her contract to be honoured? Reeks of sexism to me. They'd never openly insult the likes of RDJ or Hemsworth if they went legal.

I agree good on her for making a stand, I don’t see the issue with it personally she’s seeking what she thinks she is owed.

Maybe this is why she didn’t turn up to the premieres

 

[Yel]

Disney has come out swinging, calling her 'callous' and playing the covid card. Callous for wanting her contract to be honoured? Reeks of sexism to me. They'd never openly insult the likes of RDJ or Hemsworth if they went legal.

But the problem is not that her contract wasn't honnored. But that in the post covid world it didn't anticipate that it would be released to streaming meaning her contract isnt as lucrative as anticipated.

I think they'd insult anyone who was unlikely to ever have another film with them again.

The base deal was 15million apparently before any of the bonuses and if no one streamed or watched it would still get that.

All depends on how the contract is worded. But she'll need to donate the winnings to feeding America or something to come out of this looking good.

 

[carriebooboo]

But the problem is not that her contract wasn't honnored. But that in the post covid world it didn't anticipate that it would be released to streaming meaning her contract isnt as lucrative as anticipated.

I think they'd insult anyone who was unlikely to ever have another film with them again.

The base deal was 15million apparently before any of the bonuses and if no one streamed or watched it would still get that.

All depends on how the contract is worded. But she'll need to donate the winnings to feeding America or something to come out of this looking good.

If her contract stated that the movie was to be released in theatres before streaming, and it wasn't honoured, then she has a case. She apparently went back to Disney and offered to renegotiate and they blanked her, which is why she's had to go legal. WB has had to renegotiate all their deals with talent for the same reason, the difference being that they are voluntarily (albeit after some pushing!) paying out.

Disney look far worse here. It's a business deal. Turning it into a personal attack and attaching morals to it is bizarre and unprofessional.

 

[Yel]

If her contract stated that the movie was to be released in theatres before streaming, and it wasn't honoured, then she has a case. She apparently went back to Disney and offered to renegotiate and they blanked her, which is why she's had to go legal. WB has had to renegotiate all their deals with talent for the same reason, the difference being that they are voluntarily (albeit after some pushing!) paying out.

Disney look far worse here. It's a business deal. Turning it into a personal attack and attaching morals to it is bizarre and unprofessional.

We just don't know the intricacies of it all and the clauses in the contracr, we sadly probably won't as they'll settle.

I find it hard to root for either side to be honest and I don't think it's purely one side is bad.

Disney trying to get out of paying a bonus and an overpaid rich actor and her team looking to get what they expected pre-covid. You do a deal with Disney and you know the devil you're dealing with.

Have to admit I'm not a huge fan of SJ after things like the Woody Allen defending and sodastream ads. It would be very difficult to ascertain how many people viewed it on Disney+ that would have otherwise gone to the cinema.

 

[Mark81]

Thing is, if she was due some sort of box office share then I don't see how if it had been released in cinemas only she would have been better off. Many are closed worldwide and many people are still staying home. They made 60million streaming, which when you factor that's pure profit for disney with no cinema fees its actually worth more.

I've read conflicting reports and as mentioned no one knows ins and outs of the contract, but I'd say streaming saved the film financially. Should she be entitled to a share of the streaming money? Maybe, but not sure she's owed 50million of it.

 

[Lollypad]

Disney has come out swinging, calling her 'callous' and playing the covid card. Callous for wanting her contract to be honoured? Reeks of sexism to me. They'd never openly insult the likes of RDJ or Hemsworth if they went legal.

Have to agree. Don’t make out she’s unsympathetic taking on a billion dollar corporation if they’ve breached contract. They’re not going to suffer…

 

[Yel]

Thing is, if she was due some sort of box office share then I don't see how if it had been released in cinemas only she would have been better off. Many are closed worldwide and many people are still staying home. They made 60million streaming, which when you factor that's pure profit for disney with no cinema fees its actually worth more.

I've read conflicting reports and as mentioned no one knows ins and outs of the contract, but I'd say streaming saved the film financially. Should she be entitled to a share of the streaming money? Maybe, but not sure she's owed 50million of it.

This exactly, it's going to be incredibly difficult to show that all those that streamed it would have gone to the cinema during covid.

Where would it stop, suing the government and cinema owners for reducing capacity that hit royalties?

Streaming was a very established industry a couple of years ago when she signed on for the project so I'm sure that would have been included as part of her bonus deal. So she quite possibly earnt more during covid with the dual release than if it had of been kept as cinema only.

Lots of conflicting reports and no one knows what the deal actually was so we can't say it's as simple as a mega corp not meeting contractual obligations.

I hope it does go to a full case and all the details are out there. I doubt either party would come out of it looking good.

 

[Guitarwarrior]

Should Disney honour the contract ? Yes legally it absolutely should be. Disney shouldn’t get away with not ensuring she’s had her fair share.

However I’ve little sympathy for a multimillionaire who’s already netted an alleged $75million from marvel movies alone and a net worth of $165mil complaining about lost earnings.When there’s thousands globally who’ve lost their entire livelihood because of the pandemic

I just find it in very very poor taste when there’s likely crew members she’s worked with who went months without work not knowing when they’d work in the industry again.This is why i think it should never have been made public until it had been resolved.

I can see this potentially backfiring against her with members of the public. The last 18 months have changed a lot of peoples outlook and put things in perspective.Non marvel/Disney fans might not see her in a good light anymore and opt out of seeing her in other movies.

 

[Yel]

I can see this potentially backfiring against her with members of the public.

She did get away with taking the sodastream cash over her humanitarian work - ditching that vanity project the first time it affected her earnings.


If she'd maybe made this about fairness and acknowledged all the freelancers in the industry that have have faced serious hardship it would be more palatable.

Another question is why if Disney announced it would go to Disney+ on the same day as theatres back in march (apparently) why did she wait until now before going public?

Are her lawyers using the argument that every family streaming it on d+ would have all gone to the theatre to see it? A bit like how the movie industry counts every pirated download as a lost sale, despite the vast majority would have never actually paid for it.

I think she's got more to lose as no one will be surprised a mega corp is screwing people.

 

[Tublet83]

I would imagine she held back from doing anything because she didn’t want the film to be released negatively, and affect its performance etc.

She did very little press though and didn’t turn up to the premieres. I’ve read she’s pregnant though?

Tbh if it wasn’t her it would be someone else who would make this claim, and studios surely must have been expecting it.

 

[EastofHollywood]

Yes I'm not sure how I feel.about this. On the one hand, women are always told to play nice when they are shafted. I bet RDJ or Chris Hemsworth would have just got a payout, not been slagged off by Disney.They should have renegotiated the contract accordingly or not released it on Disney + until later as per her contract. It was at a premium price on Disney +, so we went to the cinema instead as it was cheaper for 3 of us (£15 instead of £20) They have made a lot of money from the streaming that they havent had to pass on through a negotiated contract. OTOH, she is a very rich film star, complaining about not getting a cut of the potential box office so

 

[Mark81]

Yeah if it had just opened in cinemas she wouldn't have a large box office to have a share of anyway as so many are closed and audiences aren't back to pre pandemic levels. So not sure how much grounds she really has.

It's not really big corporation vs actress though in the usual sense as disney has lost billions during the pandemic. Aside streaming, every other income stream they have was stopped. Not saying they are a small company, just that they like so many have been hit hard in the last year or so.

 

[thatstupidcat]

At the first hint of a contracted, Robert Downey Jr style, payday for a lady being taken to court, people immediately gather round to defend the poor evil corporation that sues schools for copyright infringement, exploits workers in its theme parks, fills the worlds’ oceans up with plastic tat and rinses children for their money etc.

It’s a funny old world.

 

[Yel]

Possibly unpopular opinion, but I'm not a fan of this jumping to sexism. I bet Disney would screw over any one regardless of gender in pursuit of greater profits. I think if any of the male avengers had of reached the end of the line with their Disney characters they'd of been treated the same.

I think she should have raised public objections back in march long before it came out, rather than waiting until now.

People assuming sexism and that Disney must be in breach while not being aware of all the information I think hinders the cause.

The ft today have a quite balanced article, the wording “wide theatrical release” seems like it could go either way. It doesn't mention at all the "exclusive theatrical release" that other news outlets have, so is this made up?

Streaming is here, it doesn't favour the actors and they don't like it. But they might just have to get over it, as have musical artists.

Johansson’s suit hinges on the interpretation of her contract, which promises a “wide theatrical release”. Does “wide theatrical release” preclude streaming? A top entertainment lawyer says it is “murky”. But even if Johansson wins, her battle cry will probably not prompt the watershed moment actors are hoping for.

https://archive.is/bi3s7

I wish the article had of mentioned that t swift gave in and put up her back catalogue on streaming just as Katy Perry released her new album, being the queen of petty she is

 

[Tublet83]

Personally I think she didn’t do this in March because she didn’t want to cloud the film’s release - performance and reviews. I’m sure her team have been trying to negotiate in the background for some time. Decisions like this aren’t made over night, especially with a huge corporation like Disney.

Someone would always make this claim - it just so happens its Scarlett.

 

[Yel]

This video is saying it's all about getting a cut of the Disney + monthly membership (and she is getting a wedge of the $30 per rent view) because the movie drove subs. If F9 performed about the same at the cinema and wasn't available to stream it does seem difficult to say it underperformed in the cinema in the new covid world.

It is a very fascinating case with lots to consider beyond the headlines that simplify it. The most interesting legal case in entertainment.

Hopefully it does go to court and all the private Disney numbers get out there.



This comment kinda sums up my thoughts:

People seem to be mindlessly jumping on the 'evil Disney' bandwagon and backing Scarlett. Yes, Disney is a highly questionable corporation but Scarlett Johansson is also far from a beacon of moral virtue. The one thing Disney and Scarlett have in common is their cut-throat attitude aimed towards earning as much money as possible. Let's not forget Scarlett Johansson chose to support Israeli Apartheid over Oxfam, has said she deserves to play any race she wants to, stood up for Woody Allen (bizarrely whilst also supporting the Women's March). I'm not rooting for her, at all.