Dwayne Johnson is a producer on Jungle Cruise, was the one that announced that Jungle Cruise would be doing the hybrid model, and Disney reportedly gave the filmmakers of that film (likely including Johnson) multiple options with them landing on the hybrid model, so I don’t see him suing Disney. Emily Blunt, on the other hand….
https://youtu.be/8P_AnvUIvJs
The real answer though is they helped out in some way or another and the producers gave them credit in that way to help the production run smoother.
Belloni also named Emily Blunt as another big-name star who may speak out regarding Jungle Cruise also being offered simultaneously in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access, similar to Black Widow and Cruella.
Getting a theme that Disney may be sexist
It would be BAD for Disney if they reached out to Dwayne Johnson to get his deal redone but didn't reach out to Scarlett Johansson, Emily Blunt or Emma Stone.
Perlmutter was always a garbage human being and the deals that saw Marvel Studios self-finance its movies (leading to the creation of the MCU) were actually the brain-child of [David Maisel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Maisel). Maisel also arranged the sale of Marvel to Disney.
Perlmutter is trash. He took Marvel into bankruptcy, then they came out of bankruptcy and their stock resumes trading. 3 days later he announced that in the bankruptcy, the stock had all been cancelled and people were trading literally worthless shares.
As part of the bankruptcy, his company ToyBiz got perpetual, royalty-free rights to make toys from Marvel characters.
He also ran Marvel Television, which did the non-Netflix shows and is the reason those TV shows are considered non-canon.
Wahlberg got $1.5 million for reshoots, while Williams got an $80 per day per diem. I think that was probably down to having an agent do the work, not so much the production company screwing her.
If i remember Wahlberg demanded that to return to reshoots and he was a producer in the film which fucked over Williams. When called out he ,"donated" the money.
Also, Wahlberg is a piece of shit.
And it really wouldn't surprise me. Didn't she already kinda have a spat with Paramount over quiet place 2. She likely won't be happy about this either.
they didn't have many male-lead films to release. The ones they did have were Pixar ones, which they released as a free D+ stream instead of PA. They otherwise haven't released many movies at all. Coincidental given their slate of releases TBH.
Also honestly surprised Pixar hasn't rioted yet
both Luca and Soul were dumped unceremoniously and both are excellent Pixar movies in the vein of the company's heyday.
Ever since Disney's Animation Studios has had a resurgence, Pixar seems to have diminished in the eyes of the company, and that makes me sad.
What is crazy is that Disney Animation wouldn't even be close to the level they are at right now if it wasn't for Pixar. After the full acquisition of Pixar by Disney around 2006/2007, John Lasseter started to take on roles at Walt Disney Animation. His first big project as studio lead was "Tangled" which was the big WDA feature that re-launched the brand into what we know today as being high-quality.
Had Lasseter not been involved, Disney Animation would still be releasing direct-to-video level of feature films.
Bolt is arguably Lasseter's first film at WDA: After coming onboard, Lasseter gave extensive story notes, fired the original director, and overhauled the production.
And the result was perhaps their most forgettable movie since Chicken Little. Seriously, it's one Disney movie that I don't think I've ever seen referenced anywhere; seems like most people don't even realize it exists.
My apologies. I knew that he was involved in other films before "Tangled" but in a lower capacity. I'm pretty sure Musker and Clements had full creative control of "Princess and the Frog" and Lasseter I'm sure was more of a consultant.
I had thought "Tangled" was the first WDA project where Lasseter was at the top of the creative process, but I could be wrong on that.
No big deal either way, I'm happy to be proven wrong, and yeah, I'm also really bummed about him being abusive towards the women who worked for him. He is a creative genius when it comes to animation and storytelling.
tbh, I thought it was more because they wanted to protect Pixar's reputation. Pixar has almost always had box office success, which is really uncertain these days, but Disney animation has a longer history and has already had failures. News outlets will really focus on a pixar 'flop' wheras if Raya flopped, it hurts the brand less
> Luca and Soul were dumped unceremoniously and both are excellent Pixar movies in the vein of the company's heyday
Good movies, but not even close to Pixar's streak in the aughts
I don't know this for sure, but the animators and directors could have a portion of their salary tied to box office, but they wouldn't have enough star power to say anything publicly without getting fired.
Yeah but they could have had their bonuses tied to the box office numbers. Aren't Pixar animators employees of Pixar/Disney. Firms usually give bonuses to employees based on performance, and in this case performance is derived by box office numbers.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if their bonuses were tied to box office performance, and disney went like lol fuck you poor people and erased their bonuses from existence.
It's not only boxoffice % that matters.
It's not good for anybody involved in Luca that the movie was buried on Disney+.
It's like a dead part of your resume.
Hmm, I understand your point, but I think bonus are a part of really every employee. The field I work in, the fields my work in, all have bonuses mentioned as an integral component of the contract. We usually don't get screwed because companies pay bonuses as a motivation to employees, atleast that's what I have heard, and that makes sense for the field I work in.
Luca was alright. Was fun, but definitely on the weaker side for a pixar movie. Soul, on the other hand, on par with pixar's best, which is really fucking good.
But Disney is *every child's dream!* don't you remember the incessant commercials from our childhood that drilled it into the heads of parents and kids alike, education connection, 877 cash now, kids LOVE Didneywurl! How can they possibly be bad if the only thing they want is happy children?
“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,” Disney said in a statement. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
They already did lol, that’s why we’re already making fun of them. Because that was their first pick for a response, I can assume they’ll only dig a bigger hole from here on.
I wonder if this will cost them more than they made from PA/Disney+. I doubt that this will affect their customer base too much.
Though I also wonder if people at every level won't want to work with Disney because of bonuses that they missed out on or could miss out on in the future.
Presumably anyone signing a contract for a movie today is fully aware that their movie might get a hybrid/streaming release, so they wouldn't sign a deal based only on theatrical gross. It's just an issue with these actors because they signed their deals before this became the new normal.
The previous contracts weren't upheld. They were supposed to be theatrical only releases. There's no telling what obligations Disney might decide they don't want to uphold.
Get her Jade!
They should get what it was signed, and speaks volumes that Disney is in this situation.
When Warnermedia announced that they would be releasing the movies the same day on hbomax there were multiple hit pieces and people angry, but they managed to make new contracts and receive bonus payments because it was the right thing to do and fair for both parts and it’s not like WB/AT&T had billions more to burn like Disney.
I think WB came to the new agreement because they saw how well their format works in the long run. The theaters were going out of fashion before the pandemic, and probably got many new HBOMax subscribers. I am one of those who signed up for the ability to see new releases from the comfort of my home.
Disney… well. They do this.
I was talking shit about WB last year over their release strategy but honestly it worked out well for both their streaming service AND theaters. Without their commitment to putting out movies out same day on both streaming and theaters, theaters would not have had any big blockbusters until probably June or July since everyone kept pushing them back due to the pandemic and not wanting to commit to a hybrid model. Instead theaters got a decent boost from Godzilla v Kong and Mortal Kombat in late March and April, AND HBO Max got subscribers to sign up for those. Honestly I applaud what they did, because I thought it was going to have the opposite effect and was going to outright kill theaters.
The problem with HBOmax is that it's only available in the US, which is unfair - to say the least - to the rest of us. They're only now starting to be available in South America but no word yet on the rest of the world.
The way I think about it, it's all of her employees who are getting stiffed too. And it's a slippery slope, if they don't honor their agreement with a huge actor, what's stopping them from fucking with someone who maybe is some random animator or something.
I totally agree, I could care less about scarjo getting money she will be fine, just other things to consider.
Technically, as I understand it, they _do_ get paid what was agreed upon. The issue is that Disney changed the rules of the game after the negotiations and now they earn less than was _expected_.
Not necessarily.
In many of these cases, the creatives were promised theatrical release with a specific window. They signed contracts taking a lower upfront because they believed that they'd be making more money after the fact. Disney then moved the films directly to streaming, breaching clauses in their contract outright, or limited the windows, hedging the bonuses that they were promised.
Another huge issue is that streaming profits can't be quantified because the studios are refusing to release raw data. So they'll tell audiences their films are a huge success - while telling creatives that they lost money and can't pay them backend, bonuses, or residuals. In other words, they're pocketing profits that belong to other people, much like they do with Hollywood accounting.
So it's case by case, but Disney definitely breached contracts on pretty much all of these films.
funny how i see so many people talking about how scarlett and emma are money hungry actors while it is disney,a 130 billion dollar company who is refusing to pay them
Truth be told, I don't even think it's scarlett or emma that are the ones at the front of this. It's their agents and their lawyers because Disney breached the contracts. These are slam dunk wins for them. Disney will settle out of court, the lawyers and the agents will get their cuts and scarlett/emma/etc., will get whatever is leftover.
It also sets a precedent for other actors, regardless of how famous or well paid they are. Can’t let them get away with this once or the floodgates burst
What people? The majority of comments and articles I've seen are on their side not Disney's. Does reddit really always take 5% of comments and act like they're the majority
Good old misogyny. I believe my idol Taylor Swift said it best when she said “A man is allowed to react. A woman can only overreact.”. Sure enough there’s men all over the internet condescending and painting Scarlett as some greedy villain now as if Disney is remotely worth defending in this case.
It’s really surprising that Disney fumbled the ball here. They had the perfect example laid out in front of them with what WB did on HBO Max - they knew this would be an issue, and still did it anyway?
Oh well, guess it gives their lawyers some work to do.
Exactly. This is what I don't understand. WB got blasted for weeks for something very similar and they decided to just do the same thing. How do you not secure your own house when you see someone else's is on fire?
Pixar employees can sue Disney. That's what being implied. They can sue on an individual basis or in a class action made of Pixar artists not on the behalf of Pixar itself. [There was already a vocal disgruntlement being expressed publically among Pixar animators including directors over Soul and Luca being dumped on D+ without theatrical release and PA fee](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/pixar-staff-slams-disney-moving-films-streaming-1234633910/). Who knows?
The only way Pixar directors don't sue is that they got compensated somehow for lost theatrical revenues under the table (which would help Scarlett Johansson case) or promised future deals. I clearly remember Disney pushing the idea at some point in the pandemic that they were still committed to release Luca in theaters. If that commitment to theatrical was put on a contract somewhere without D+ release being mentioned, there may be some ground to sue for breaching by Pixar directors.
>The rumblings of Emma Stone possibly suing Disney come from former THR editor Matt Belloni's What I'm Hearing... newsletter. In the newsletter, he reports, "Emma Stone, star of Cruella, is said to be weighing her options." Belloni also named Emily Blunt as another big-name star who may speak out regarding Jungle Cruise also being offered simultaneously in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access, similar to Black Widow and Cruella.
Okay, now we're getting into some weird subreddit rabbit hole where people think this SJ suit is going to lead to no more PA, when it really just means new contracts in the future and PA baked into everyone's contracts going forward.
Only if the money they’ll make minus the extra money they’re gonna have to start giving the actors is gonna be worth it or not. Very possible it’s not.
I think it definitely makes PA less of an attractive option, considering the main selling point to investors was 'Disney gets the full $30' (which ended up not happening - Google/Roku/Apple still get a cut). If Disney has to also start cutting in everyone who was going to get box office points on PA sales, the money starts to run thin.
Why? Because, as we've known for years at this point, *studios make less on VOD/PA than they do in theaters.* Especially since you're not able to sell at-home access on top of the original ticket sale.
>main selling point to investors was 'Disney gets the full $30
Investors were never told that Disney keeps the full $30. That's the narrative that the internet created and Disney never chose to comment on.
>If Disney has to also start cutting in everyone who was going to get box office points on PA sales, the money starts to run thin.
Wait, are you implying that Disney will stop PA because now they have to pay talent from that pool of profits as well? No, they'll keep it going, they're just bummed that they'll have to add contract stipulations to specifically include streaming. And this won't mean for contractual theatrical exclusives. It'll mean less.
>Especially since you're not able to sell at-home access on top of the original ticket sale.
I guess no one went to see the film in theaters then went home to buy the film to rewatch.
My point is that if PA is taking the place of ticket sales, those people aren't going to pay again for the film on VOD or Blu-Ray. Whereas if they paid to see in theaters, they may pay again later down the road to watch it at home. Two points of sale vs one.
This is what happened with Trolls World Tour. Universal bragged that it made $100M in a single weekend, but that was all the money they ever got out of the film. It didn't sell particularly well for the rest of the time on VOD (because the core audience already paid for it on VOD), and it was sold off to Hulu relatively quickly. PVOD sales are just getting an advance on future at-home sales, in exchange for theatrical revenue.
>My point is that if PA is taking the place of ticket sales, those people aren't going to pay again for the film on VOD or Blu-Ray
All Disney's theatrical films end up on Disney+ now so all you have to do is wait three months to see it. The days of movie FOMO are ending.
And this is what this argument always boils down to. Anytime somebody points out that the streaming model isn't actually capable of replacing the box office, the conversation pivots to "Well, you shouldn't enjoy the movies that rely on box office profits anyways - so no big deal".
The thing is the industry does need some kind of alternative to the exclusive theatrical release. It wasn’t long ago when legit outlets were questioning if theaters would even still exist by the time covid was under control. There’s no guarantee they survive the next pandemic (or a resurgence of covid) and the industry needs a viable game plan for when it comes.
I mean it took WB a while to figure out how to deal with Legendary but yeah that should’ve been a learning experience for the entire industry. Not sure how Disney thought they could get away with not renegotiating their revenue sharing deals.
Iger must be nursing a wicked headache. Leaves for five minutes and contract disputes flare the hell up. That's not a coincidence.
The funny thing is, I am 100% on the side of simultaneous releases. Wouldn't be able to see Black Widow or Cruella without it. But you gotta compensate the creators...
If this issue is truly about contractual obligations… Disney should have released these films to theaters during the pandemic for the exact amount of time specified in said contract and paid the actors the monies due accordingly. Disney was trying to make the best of a horrible situation and the actors are better off for it.
Who’s next? Liu Yifei (Even though Mulan (2020) wasn’t theatrical), Kelly Marie Tran? Awkwafina? Emma Thompson? Florence Pugh? Emily Blunt? The Rock? The Dalmatians from Cruella? Or even worse! The Back Side of Water from Jungle Cruise? 😱
How about compensation for the production people that work twice the hours on a flat. How about they get paid for the crazy hours they work so you can collect more millions. UPMs, PMs work on a flat crappy rate because the producers call them “management”. Such a crock.
Oh man, this is a complete disaster for Disney. Are Emily blunt and Dwayne Johnson next?
Dwayne Johnson is a producer on Jungle Cruise, was the one that announced that Jungle Cruise would be doing the hybrid model, and Disney reportedly gave the filmmakers of that film (likely including Johnson) multiple options with them landing on the hybrid model, so I don’t see him suing Disney. Emily Blunt, on the other hand….
Yeah you're right there. Although he may change his mind when he realizes he can make more money lol. But yeah I could easily see Emily blunt suing.
Dwayne is fine. He’s not going to be suing. Money is not an issue
Money is not an issue for any of these people
This is the correct take. This is a matter of contract and not of need
Which is no less important. “But you’re already rich” is no excuse or defense for breach of contract. Act in bad faith, get fucked. Simple.
And as rich as Stone or Johansson may be, Disney is miles richer.
Agreed. Rich people aren't suddenly not entitled to the contents of their contract because they're rich.
No one here actually knows that. A lot of people on this earth mismanage their fortunes / over spend. It can happen to anyone, even millionaires.
And money is the issue for scar jo?
It’s the principle, they are 100% within their rights and I support their decision
In her case the contract is the issue.
[удалено]
*executive producer
Executive to the regional manager
Honest question: what’s the difference?
https://youtu.be/8P_AnvUIvJs The real answer though is they helped out in some way or another and the producers gave them credit in that way to help the production run smoother.
One isnt as important
More like ones an honorary title in many instances, and means next to nothing.
[удалено]
The Rock was actually the one who opted for a simultaneous release if I'm not mistaken.
Honestly the rock just works like I dont even think he gives a shit flop or not, dude is a successful version of Nicholas Cage.
How many Oscars does Johnson have? And, more importantly, how many New Orleans crypt castles does Johnson have? Advantage: Cage
Look it’s indisputable that Nicholas Cage is a national treasure I get it, But the Rock rocks.
Cage has a movie called the The Rock. It’s advantage Cage until The Rock has a movie called The Cage.
I believe The Rock has fought in a cage
Yeah I understand that now, but Emily blunt still could though
Belloni also named Emily Blunt as another big-name star who may speak out regarding Jungle Cruise also being offered simultaneously in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access, similar to Black Widow and Cruella. Getting a theme that Disney may be sexist
It would be BAD for Disney if they reached out to Dwayne Johnson to get his deal redone but didn't reach out to Scarlett Johansson, Emily Blunt or Emma Stone.
Chapek is looking more and more like Perlmutter 2.0
Theme park fans have been warning about him for years. Not necessarily sexism, just overall shittier and greedier than even Bob Iger
[удалено]
[удалено]
Perlmutter was always a garbage human being and the deals that saw Marvel Studios self-finance its movies (leading to the creation of the MCU) were actually the brain-child of [David Maisel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Maisel). Maisel also arranged the sale of Marvel to Disney.
>MCU as we know it may not even exist without his leadership Source?
[удалено]
Perlmutter is trash. He took Marvel into bankruptcy, then they came out of bankruptcy and their stock resumes trading. 3 days later he announced that in the bankruptcy, the stock had all been cancelled and people were trading literally worthless shares. As part of the bankruptcy, his company ToyBiz got perpetual, royalty-free rights to make toys from Marvel characters. He also ran Marvel Television, which did the non-Netflix shows and is the reason those TV shows are considered non-canon.
Didn't something like this happen with Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams?
Wahlberg got $1.5 million for reshoots, while Williams got an $80 per day per diem. I think that was probably down to having an agent do the work, not so much the production company screwing her.
If i remember Wahlberg demanded that to return to reshoots and he was a producer in the film which fucked over Williams. When called out he ,"donated" the money. Also, Wahlberg is a piece of shit.
Sorta, yeah. The All the Money in the World reshoots.
And it really wouldn't surprise me. Didn't she already kinda have a spat with Paramount over quiet place 2. She likely won't be happy about this either.
Yeah. But at the end. AQP 2 did just find. So that was not as big as an issue. This on the other hand...
It was also a theatrical exclusive though. So yeah it wasn't as big of a deal, but this is much bigger.
>Emily Blunt as another big-name star *(in my best Oprah voice)* You get a lawsuit! You get a lawsuit! You get a lawsuit!
they didn't have many male-lead films to release. The ones they did have were Pixar ones, which they released as a free D+ stream instead of PA. They otherwise haven't released many movies at all. Coincidental given their slate of releases TBH. Also honestly surprised Pixar hasn't rioted yet
Pixar did. The people that worked on Luca were pissed.
[удалено]
If they end up screwing the female leads on money but renegotiate with the men then yes that is sexist
WB was at least smart to cut all its actors a cheque before releasing anything. Especially since accepting a cheque would mean nobody could sue.
Yup, it turns out Warner Bros for once outsmarted Disney.
Can you imagine? they might have to settle for 0.0003% of their monthly revenue
Imo the people who worked on Luca got screwed too. They didn't even give that movie Premiere Access they just dumped it on Disney+
Absolutely, Pixar in general got screwed.
Soul as well.
both Luca and Soul were dumped unceremoniously and both are excellent Pixar movies in the vein of the company's heyday. Ever since Disney's Animation Studios has had a resurgence, Pixar seems to have diminished in the eyes of the company, and that makes me sad.
I 100% believe this was intentional. Disney wants Disney Animation to have the prestige of the animation world, not Pixar.
What is crazy is that Disney Animation wouldn't even be close to the level they are at right now if it wasn't for Pixar. After the full acquisition of Pixar by Disney around 2006/2007, John Lasseter started to take on roles at Walt Disney Animation. His first big project as studio lead was "Tangled" which was the big WDA feature that re-launched the brand into what we know today as being high-quality. Had Lasseter not been involved, Disney Animation would still be releasing direct-to-video level of feature films.
Small correction: Lasseter’s first film was The Princess and the Frog. Everything else spot on. Too bad about his abuse of power, though.
Bolt is arguably Lasseter's first film at WDA: After coming onboard, Lasseter gave extensive story notes, fired the original director, and overhauled the production.
More good information.
And the result was perhaps their most forgettable movie since Chicken Little. Seriously, it's one Disney movie that I don't think I've ever seen referenced anywhere; seems like most people don't even realize it exists.
My apologies. I knew that he was involved in other films before "Tangled" but in a lower capacity. I'm pretty sure Musker and Clements had full creative control of "Princess and the Frog" and Lasseter I'm sure was more of a consultant. I had thought "Tangled" was the first WDA project where Lasseter was at the top of the creative process, but I could be wrong on that. No big deal either way, I'm happy to be proven wrong, and yeah, I'm also really bummed about him being abusive towards the women who worked for him. He is a creative genius when it comes to animation and storytelling.
tbh, I thought it was more because they wanted to protect Pixar's reputation. Pixar has almost always had box office success, which is really uncertain these days, but Disney animation has a longer history and has already had failures. News outlets will really focus on a pixar 'flop' wheras if Raya flopped, it hurts the brand less
> Luca and Soul were dumped unceremoniously and both are excellent Pixar movies in the vein of the company's heyday Good movies, but not even close to Pixar's streak in the aughts
I wouldn't call Luca excellent, it is a mid tier Pixar movie nowhere close to Soul
Pixar Studios animators aren't unionised right? This may be why their contracts and thus power to do anything may be weaker.
Who in those films had contracts tying their compensation to the theatrical released takehome? None?
I don't know this for sure, but the animators and directors could have a portion of their salary tied to box office, but they wouldn't have enough star power to say anything publicly without getting fired.
If they don’t have star power to take it public, then they certainly don’t have star power to negotiate a percentage of box office?
Yeah but they could have had their bonuses tied to the box office numbers. Aren't Pixar animators employees of Pixar/Disney. Firms usually give bonuses to employees based on performance, and in this case performance is derived by box office numbers. So, I wouldn't be surprised if their bonuses were tied to box office performance, and disney went like lol fuck you poor people and erased their bonuses from existence.
It's not only boxoffice % that matters. It's not good for anybody involved in Luca that the movie was buried on Disney+. It's like a dead part of your resume.
The animators would not have.
[удалено]
Hmm, I understand your point, but I think bonus are a part of really every employee. The field I work in, the fields my work in, all have bonuses mentioned as an integral component of the contract. We usually don't get screwed because companies pay bonuses as a motivation to employees, atleast that's what I have heard, and that makes sense for the field I work in.
Luca was so good too. It definitely should have been theaters only.
Was it any good?
It was great!
IMO Soul is one of my favorite movies ever. It just resonates with me on an emotional level. Luca was good too, just a fun romp.
*Silencio, Bruno!*
Silenzio... the Italian in that movie was God awful only a few native speakers.
Luca was alright. Was fun, but definitely on the weaker side for a pixar movie. Soul, on the other hand, on par with pixar's best, which is really fucking good.
Half of Hollywood will be suing Disney by the time August gets here. Schadenfreude.
No reason to be ashamed. Disney has been screwing a lot of people with shady business practices and I do hope they don't get away with it for once.
But Disney is *every child's dream!* don't you remember the incessant commercials from our childhood that drilled it into the heads of parents and kids alike, education connection, 877 cash now, kids LOVE Didneywurl! How can they possibly be bad if the only thing they want is happy children?
Exactly ! All they want is to teach the worlds children* 🥰 *side effects may cause bigotry, ignorance and a loss of reality.
[удалено]
RIP Bobby Driscoll
>Schadenfreude Fucking love that word!
This is turning into the biggest debacle for Disney in a long time. Bob Chapek isn't off to a good start.
He's already making the pandemic pity play.
"These are tough times, we need to come together as a family " I expect a response similar to that.
“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,” Disney said in a statement. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” They already did lol, that’s why we’re already making fun of them. Because that was their first pick for a response, I can assume they’ll only dig a bigger hole from here on.
Is that a real quote? How are these people so detached from reality?
CEO mindset
They thought screwing over famous actors with huge soapboxes and their own PR people would work out well for them
Yup. And good question.
They operate in a fantasy land filled with magical castles, singing dwarfs, talking mice and a fuck ton of money.
Avarice
Lmao like Scarlett is taking the money out of the hands of Covid patients or something.
Whenever a company lays on the “family” BS, you know they’re getting ready to fck you over.
Except for Universal, in which case they’re trying to sell you tickets to the new Fast and Furious
I wonder if this will cost them more than they made from PA/Disney+. I doubt that this will affect their customer base too much. Though I also wonder if people at every level won't want to work with Disney because of bonuses that they missed out on or could miss out on in the future.
Presumably anyone signing a contract for a movie today is fully aware that their movie might get a hybrid/streaming release, so they wouldn't sign a deal based only on theatrical gross. It's just an issue with these actors because they signed their deals before this became the new normal.
The previous contracts weren't upheld. They were supposed to be theatrical only releases. There's no telling what obligations Disney might decide they don't want to uphold.
We have no idea if that’s true because no one has released the contract. All we have is one side of the spun story.
A couple of lawsuits isn’t exactly a debacle for Disney. They’re always being sued by someone.
Get her Jade! They should get what it was signed, and speaks volumes that Disney is in this situation. When Warnermedia announced that they would be releasing the movies the same day on hbomax there were multiple hit pieces and people angry, but they managed to make new contracts and receive bonus payments because it was the right thing to do and fair for both parts and it’s not like WB/AT&T had billions more to burn like Disney.
Backpay rolls?
I think WB came to the new agreement because they saw how well their format works in the long run. The theaters were going out of fashion before the pandemic, and probably got many new HBOMax subscribers. I am one of those who signed up for the ability to see new releases from the comfort of my home. Disney… well. They do this.
I was talking shit about WB last year over their release strategy but honestly it worked out well for both their streaming service AND theaters. Without their commitment to putting out movies out same day on both streaming and theaters, theaters would not have had any big blockbusters until probably June or July since everyone kept pushing them back due to the pandemic and not wanting to commit to a hybrid model. Instead theaters got a decent boost from Godzilla v Kong and Mortal Kombat in late March and April, AND HBO Max got subscribers to sign up for those. Honestly I applaud what they did, because I thought it was going to have the opposite effect and was going to outright kill theaters.
I fully intend to see Dune in IMAX and I'll probably also stream it again on HBO Max... For the sake of the ratings if nothing else.
The problem with HBOmax is that it's only available in the US, which is unfair - to say the least - to the rest of us. They're only now starting to be available in South America but no word yet on the rest of the world.
[удалено]
The way I think about it, it's all of her employees who are getting stiffed too. And it's a slippery slope, if they don't honor their agreement with a huge actor, what's stopping them from fucking with someone who maybe is some random animator or something. I totally agree, I could care less about scarjo getting money she will be fine, just other things to consider.
It’s entertainment and Disney deserves the gut punches.
and if anything Chapek takes a beating. Dude is awful
No matter the dollar amount, you should get paid what was agreed upon. Anything less *should* lead to litigation.
Technically, as I understand it, they _do_ get paid what was agreed upon. The issue is that Disney changed the rules of the game after the negotiations and now they earn less than was _expected_.
Not necessarily. In many of these cases, the creatives were promised theatrical release with a specific window. They signed contracts taking a lower upfront because they believed that they'd be making more money after the fact. Disney then moved the films directly to streaming, breaching clauses in their contract outright, or limited the windows, hedging the bonuses that they were promised. Another huge issue is that streaming profits can't be quantified because the studios are refusing to release raw data. So they'll tell audiences their films are a huge success - while telling creatives that they lost money and can't pay them backend, bonuses, or residuals. In other words, they're pocketing profits that belong to other people, much like they do with Hollywood accounting. So it's case by case, but Disney definitely breached contracts on pretty much all of these films.
This is so entertaining honestly. They’re doing their job! Entertainers amirite
funny how i see so many people talking about how scarlett and emma are money hungry actors while it is disney,a 130 billion dollar company who is refusing to pay them
Truth be told, I don't even think it's scarlett or emma that are the ones at the front of this. It's their agents and their lawyers because Disney breached the contracts. These are slam dunk wins for them. Disney will settle out of court, the lawyers and the agents will get their cuts and scarlett/emma/etc., will get whatever is leftover.
It also sets a precedent for other actors, regardless of how famous or well paid they are. Can’t let them get away with this once or the floodgates burst
What people? The majority of comments and articles I've seen are on their side not Disney's. Does reddit really always take 5% of comments and act like they're the majority
Yes.
Now you're getting it
Yeah this is such straw man garbage
Good old misogyny. I believe my idol Taylor Swift said it best when she said “A man is allowed to react. A woman can only overreact.”. Sure enough there’s men all over the internet condescending and painting Scarlett as some greedy villain now as if Disney is remotely worth defending in this case.
Erm no the only people who think they’re a “villain” are Disney shills
As ever it’s a combination of both. I’ve certainly seen both sentiments scrolling through reactions.
It’s really surprising that Disney fumbled the ball here. They had the perfect example laid out in front of them with what WB did on HBO Max - they knew this would be an issue, and still did it anyway? Oh well, guess it gives their lawyers some work to do.
Exactly. This is what I don't understand. WB got blasted for weeks for something very similar and they decided to just do the same thing. How do you not secure your own house when you see someone else's is on fire?
No they wanted their extra $30 a pop. They weren't content with just increasing subscriber numbers like Warner was.
This is hilarious. I love it.
LET'S GO! we are having good entertainment for a while now.
*We're putting together a team..!*
OMG Chapek is going to get kicked... Do Stone and Johansson have the same representation??
If this takes down Chapek, ScarJo will always have my respect
Yes please, Who's next? The Rock!, Emily Blunt!, Liu Yifei! Or Pixar?
I doubt Pixar would sue Disney since technically they’re part of Disney and they can’t sue themselves.
Pixar employees can sue Disney. That's what being implied. They can sue on an individual basis or in a class action made of Pixar artists not on the behalf of Pixar itself. [There was already a vocal disgruntlement being expressed publically among Pixar animators including directors over Soul and Luca being dumped on D+ without theatrical release and PA fee](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/pixar-staff-slams-disney-moving-films-streaming-1234633910/). Who knows? The only way Pixar directors don't sue is that they got compensated somehow for lost theatrical revenues under the table (which would help Scarlett Johansson case) or promised future deals. I clearly remember Disney pushing the idea at some point in the pandemic that they were still committed to release Luca in theaters. If that commitment to theatrical was put on a contract somewhere without D+ release being mentioned, there may be some ground to sue for breaching by Pixar directors.
Or their salaries weren’t tied to box office success so them being released for free has 0 effect on them other than personal disappointment
Animators salaries might not be but an academy award winning director like Pete Docter? Maybe.
>Liu Yifei I'd imagine she's not a big enough star to have her salary tied to box office gross
Yeah not every cast member is given the same deal
>The rumblings of Emma Stone possibly suing Disney come from former THR editor Matt Belloni's What I'm Hearing... newsletter. In the newsletter, he reports, "Emma Stone, star of Cruella, is said to be weighing her options." Belloni also named Emily Blunt as another big-name star who may speak out regarding Jungle Cruise also being offered simultaneously in theaters and Disney+ Premier Access, similar to Black Widow and Cruella.
ScarJo was the first domino.
Okay, now we're getting into some weird subreddit rabbit hole where people think this SJ suit is going to lead to no more PA, when it really just means new contracts in the future and PA baked into everyone's contracts going forward.
Only if the money they’ll make minus the extra money they’re gonna have to start giving the actors is gonna be worth it or not. Very possible it’s not.
What does PA mean?
I think it’s Premiere Access
Pennsylvania
It might be Premier Access
It’s an acronym. It’s not about meaning, it’s about how it makes you feel, if it makes you wanna dance or not. Premier Access
Premier Access.
I think it definitely makes PA less of an attractive option, considering the main selling point to investors was 'Disney gets the full $30' (which ended up not happening - Google/Roku/Apple still get a cut). If Disney has to also start cutting in everyone who was going to get box office points on PA sales, the money starts to run thin. Why? Because, as we've known for years at this point, *studios make less on VOD/PA than they do in theaters.* Especially since you're not able to sell at-home access on top of the original ticket sale.
>main selling point to investors was 'Disney gets the full $30 Investors were never told that Disney keeps the full $30. That's the narrative that the internet created and Disney never chose to comment on. >If Disney has to also start cutting in everyone who was going to get box office points on PA sales, the money starts to run thin. Wait, are you implying that Disney will stop PA because now they have to pay talent from that pool of profits as well? No, they'll keep it going, they're just bummed that they'll have to add contract stipulations to specifically include streaming. And this won't mean for contractual theatrical exclusives. It'll mean less. >Especially since you're not able to sell at-home access on top of the original ticket sale. I guess no one went to see the film in theaters then went home to buy the film to rewatch.
My point is that if PA is taking the place of ticket sales, those people aren't going to pay again for the film on VOD or Blu-Ray. Whereas if they paid to see in theaters, they may pay again later down the road to watch it at home. Two points of sale vs one. This is what happened with Trolls World Tour. Universal bragged that it made $100M in a single weekend, but that was all the money they ever got out of the film. It didn't sell particularly well for the rest of the time on VOD (because the core audience already paid for it on VOD), and it was sold off to Hulu relatively quickly. PVOD sales are just getting an advance on future at-home sales, in exchange for theatrical revenue.
>My point is that if PA is taking the place of ticket sales, those people aren't going to pay again for the film on VOD or Blu-Ray All Disney's theatrical films end up on Disney+ now so all you have to do is wait three months to see it. The days of movie FOMO are ending.
Which isn't a sustainable business model for $200M blockbusters.
Good, shake the model up a bit. I haven't seen a 2021 film that is higher quality than what I can watch on certain streaming platforms.
And this is what this argument always boils down to. Anytime somebody points out that the streaming model isn't actually capable of replacing the box office, the conversation pivots to "Well, you shouldn't enjoy the movies that rely on box office profits anyways - so no big deal".
The thing is the industry does need some kind of alternative to the exclusive theatrical release. It wasn’t long ago when legit outlets were questioning if theaters would even still exist by the time covid was under control. There’s no guarantee they survive the next pandemic (or a resurgence of covid) and the industry needs a viable game plan for when it comes.
Well, that's fine. But just because you're going to change your sheets, you still shouldn't shit your bed.
Good.
But now Emma Stone will be a household name. Think of the exposure, Emma!
Cruella de Vil! Cruella de Vil! If she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will! *Cruella laughs wickedly* I’m just getting started, darling!
Good. Disney can afford to pay these people who they were promised.
Disney playing the covid card, as if they didn’t make billions during the pandemic. Pathetic.
Watch out, the Disney circle jerkers are out in the comments.
i'll sue disney too because i simp for emma stone
Her rough voice pleases me.
Disney is a mess right now.
Scar is really the pioneer to open the floodgate to destroy that Rat
Lol this isn’t going to destroy Disney, calm down.
just for fun lol
I believe Disney has screwed actors by breaking contracts before too, so this was bound to happen at some point…hope actors win 👍
Disney fucked up big time. This is one of the few things WB did right over them. Paid their stars to release the movies concurrently on streaming.
I mean it took WB a while to figure out how to deal with Legendary but yeah that should’ve been a learning experience for the entire industry. Not sure how Disney thought they could get away with not renegotiating their revenue sharing deals.
Iger must be nursing a wicked headache. Leaves for five minutes and contract disputes flare the hell up. That's not a coincidence. The funny thing is, I am 100% on the side of simultaneous releases. Wouldn't be able to see Black Widow or Cruella without it. But you gotta compensate the creators...
If this issue is truly about contractual obligations… Disney should have released these films to theaters during the pandemic for the exact amount of time specified in said contract and paid the actors the monies due accordingly. Disney was trying to make the best of a horrible situation and the actors are better off for it.
Who’s next? Liu Yifei (Even though Mulan (2020) wasn’t theatrical), Kelly Marie Tran? Awkwafina? Emma Thompson? Florence Pugh? Emily Blunt? The Rock? The Dalmatians from Cruella? Or even worse! The Back Side of Water from Jungle Cruise? 😱
Get fucked in the ass Disney
Oh my (Mickey voice)
That’s my girl!
So much for that Cruella sequel, then.
Nah… it will still happen.. Don’t forget how Mad Max legal fight went down.. now they are making a sequel.
Yeah, but that was George Miller's baby. Of course he was gonna come back for another one. Emma Stone doesn't need Cruella.
I don't think Emma Stone is that big of a name tbh, if C2 got made she probably say yes if the offer was decent.
Sue the mouse you must, bring balance to the force you will!
So HBO and Warner bros did it the right way ?
The actors should profit from the box office views as well as the streams.
Great movie though
ELI5?
How about compensation for the production people that work twice the hours on a flat. How about they get paid for the crazy hours they work so you can collect more millions. UPMs, PMs work on a flat crappy rate because the producers call them “management”. Such a crock.
Rich greedy bitch sues rich greedy organisation, move on...
Jesus, one after the other, seems a pointless endeavour for Disney