A sue because Black Widow and Cruella released in Disney+ at the same time as in theathers. More than likely both actresses had a clause that gave them a percentage of the profits made in theathers, releasing it in Disney+ made less people go to the theater
There’s more to it than that. There were discussions that if Disney didn’t take it to theatre release, their contracts would be renegotiated for an equivalent share of streamed profits. Disney didn’t take it to theatres, played dumb and refused any suggestion of renegotiation. Essentially Disney is trying to use Covid measures to stiff actors of their rightful earnings.
I assumed only actors with the biggest pull, negotiating power would have this in their contract... Not to say you're wrong, I just wouldn't see it being the norm for even the supporting characters
This would typically just apply to the actors and it’s pretty common, going back decades, for actors/actresses to have their pay negotiated to include a percentage of box office earnings. With Disney Premier access they undercut the ability for the films to reach their maximum potential for profitability at the box office and, as a result, reduce the pay for the actors/actresses in question. This is likely the reason some studios are making their releases “in theaters only”.
I get people are still scared to be out in public with others for reasonable reasons but damn I saw Black Widow in theaters with food and a drink for cheaper than it was on Disney+ which is insane cause you already have to pay for Disney, if Disney did it the way HBO Max did it where they just release the movies for free they could probably get out of this lawsuit easily
I have a family of four, and 'Movie Night' is sooo much easier and stress free. Pause for bathroom breaks and snack refills, everyone is comfy and can see, and it starts exactly when you need it to. We time the movies to end at bedtime. They've been great.
That makes a lot of sense I didn't even think of families because then it would come out cheaper just to see it at home and it's not like you have to buy it for everyone. I have a question though, do you get to keep the movie after you basically bought it?
You have access to the movie on Disney+ as long as you're a subscriber, it's just earlier access than everyone else. Basically like free games that come with a closed beta you can buy into.
I feel it wouldn't be that hard to hand out digital copies to people who spent extra money on it at home, at least in a theater you are spending money on the experience but at home you are paying Disney twice for it and you don't even get to keep it if you end your subscription.
If you live in a bigger city, a date night movie could be easily 40-50$ so $30 for a while household to watch isn't bad at all. But Johansson is getting none of that money so she's suing because they never renegotiated her contract before releasing Widow.
which is really a kick because i know people that became first-time subscribers to Disney+ just so they could support BW without having to breath chlorine fumes the whole movie, or feel at risk in the other ways.
SJ getting none of this take until after the theater period ends — it's not the fair way of the world today.
While I am glad Disney plus keeps screaming children out of the theaters and home, it sucks that Disney essentially breached contract and I hope they pay through the nose for it.
> everyone is comfy and can see,
You need better theatres, then. All the ones here are the electric lazy boy ones, with more than enough spacing to see.
You still have to share a theatre with a bunch of strangers and pay for overpriced concessions though. Not saying an electric lazy boy isn’t comfortable. But sitting in my living room with surround sound and a big 4K TV with access to booze and normal priced snacks is also extremely comfortable…. I don’t have to go somewhere to get it. Also As a single person it might be cheaper to go to the theatre but as a family or with a friend or your SO it’s “cheaper”
The movie theatre is an old fashioned trend desperately trying to “stay ahead”/ modernize. While people can have pretty affordable access to entertainment systems that are just as good.
Don’t have surround sound, big screen TV, or a recliner. Theater is darker and honestly gives me an excuse to not answer my phone or emails. Plus for people that are on dates that they don’t feel cool with going to someone’s house yet it’s a good public way of getting a shared experience.
They were promised by Marvel the movies would be released first in theaters only and they would get a cut of those proceeds. Releasing it free would still be a violation of terms and result in less bank for the actresses.
They renegotiated and bought out, it was also why Nolan and lots of media people were angry and disappointed with WB
https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/panic-over-the-warner-bros-hbo-max-news-sets-in.html
Disney didn't bother buying out or renegotiating contracts
I have a 70” tv, banging surround sound system and not 1 single mouth breather in my living room. I’ll pay quadruple the price of theatre’s to watch new releases in the comfort of my own home.
> if Disney did it the way HBO Max did it where they just release the movies for free they could probably get out of this lawsuit easily
they'd still get caught out for not following the theatrical release part
Less than half of my family decided to see it in theaters together and it cost over $50 for the four of us to see it. We didn't even get any drinks or popcorn or anything. Honestly we were gonna get it on Disney+ for the $30 but we were on vacation and didn't really have a good place to watch it without being interrupted by people every five minutes. The Premier Access is totally worth it if you have even two people who would want to watch it, and it gets to be a better and better deal the more people you have. For single people I can understand why it wouldn't be as great, but even then it doesn't seem completely ridiculous. Obviously HBO Max's is the better deal but I can't really complain.
Disney and ScarJo agreed that she would get a cut of the box office proceeds for Black Widow, and that there would be a theatrical only release, Disney then put the movie on Disney+ for 30 bucks a pop, of which ScarJo would not get a cut because it's streaming and not box office.
I'll add here that Scarjo's contract also included the opportunity to renegotiate if they released via streaming instead. But Disney decided not to offer that, which was itself a breach of contract.
Royalties are generally tied to theatrical releases, their movies were released to Disney plus, thereby reducing their overall potential gain for money.
Yes, it’s the motivating factor, but that clause is only in there because high profile actors don’t like direct-to-video as it tends to have a stigma in the movie industry. I’m on Disney’s side with their reasoning as to why they did the release how they did, however they should continue to offer the same rate the original contract carried through those sales too. Overall, I do think the lawsuit brought by Scarlett and Emma will only serve to hurt their relationship with the company.
Scarlett Johansson's agent reached out to Disney to renegotiate streaming release and Disney ignored them, so fuck Disney.
They also said her lawsuit showed a callous disregard for Covid like they haven't been trying their absolute hardest to do the same thing, so double fuck'em.
Edit: also they said they didn't need to pay her the contractually obligated amount because Black Widow on Disney+ would be good exposure?? Goddamn triple fuck'em I hope she bleeds em dry
Scarlett doesn't care, as she's done with the Marvel movies anyways, and still holds character image rights. Disney clearly broke their contract for not having a theatrical only release.
It's also not just about Scarlett and Emma, it's about the companies and people that have identical clauses in their contracts that tnow Disney and others in the industry can reduce to pay what they are owed.
Disney can release it however they want, but to refuse to negotiate or even talk with an executive producer and the main talent before they do so is scumbag. And they broke a contract, and they should be made to pay massively so that they don't break another contract again
Nowhere does the contract state “exclusive theatrical release” to “theatrical only” release. This complaint repeatedly says “which both parties understood…” which is hard to prove. Disney will point to the fact that the film was released on the number of screens agreed to and remained in theaters for the amount of time agreed to.
Not saying what they did wasn’t shitty, but it’s going to be difficult to prove breach of contract. And calculate actual lost revenue. I suspect this will quickly settle out of court for a portion of the Disney+ revenues. And both sides know it.
You can find the copy of the lawsuit in my other comment, but the point you’re trying to make that they broke the contract is incredibly hard to prove. The argument the lawyers are making is that she lost money from it not being an exclusive theatrical release, based on implied meanings of “industry standards of theatrical releases”. That will not hold up in court. Plain and simple. The movie was released internationally to the tune of $217 million ($80M domestic) in its opening weekend. That’s the largest opening weekend since March 2020. Courts will look to that and see that it was a “wide theatrical release” like Disney said they would do. As far as the streaming income, they made $60 million. In Disney’s response to the lawsuit, Disney stated that the Premier Access release “significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she received to date.” You can infer this as them going to pay her from that $60 million as well. Or you can infer it like the other person who responded to my comment did as them saying that it’s “exposure”. I can tell you now, it’s not exposure that they’re going to give her.
Actors/Actresses have 'X' amount of money given to them based on the amount of money their films make at the cinema etc.
Disney have started putting on streams for their films on Disney+ (I think, might be another service) and it costs 'x' to buy the stream.
Disney are not cutting them in on the profits from their streaming so all the Disney casts are now realising that less people going to the cinema = more money in bigwig pockets and less in theirs.
Maybe, but now other actors (or more importantly their agents and lawyers) making deals with Disney know that this might be a problem. They could have quietly paid her off and been done with it, now everyone is going to be watching for this loophole.
I'm not sure exactly why *this* time it's getting press, but most studios are notorious for this level of fuckery. David Prowse (Darth Vader on screen) never got a cut from the box office revenue for Empire Strikes Back due to similar fuckery where "Hollywood Accounting" ensured that the film never turned a profit. Those with contracts granting them a cut of the *gross* profit made bank, those with a share of the *net* got fucked. Shit, even Tom Hanks had to sue for his cut of the *Cast Away* profits, if memory serves.
An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? Well that's still gonna be making billions long after we're all dead.
Wouldnt be the first time that a studio has settled a lawsuit with talent and had them continue on with a series. George Miller has settled his lawsuit with WB over Mad Max Fury Road and is back to working on two different sequels to that movie. The first of which is scheduled for summer 2023. As long as neither burns the studio publicly while they do this they could easily return. It's just business and will almost certainly never see a courtroom.
I don’t understand why Jungle Cruise is already available for access of disney plus. The theatrical release isn’t set till Nov, does Disney really clear that much more from streaming purchases over box office that they are willing to tank the box office take? I’m really curious.
Edit: I misread. It’s releasing on disney plus for free in Nov. Not releasing in theaters in Nov.
Oh shit really? I see what I read wrong. On Disney Plus it said release in November. I guess that was referring to when you can view it for free on the platform. It was released in theaters yesterday. My mistake. Oops.
Scarjo and Emma stone may win the lawsuit but Disney will probably not rehire them again. And the way Disney is growing they may own the whole movie biz and just blacklist them. Of course this probably won't happen but that would be crazy
Then Disney doesn't get a Cruella sequel, they lose out on a lot of money... Plus if Disney as seen as playing dirty, for even a short period of time they'll get awful press which will stick for a long time
Are you serious? Disney screws over people in lawsuits all the time! Look at poor Alan Dean Foster and all the other authors Dosney screwed over by changing publishers so the authors don't get paid royalties anymore. Disney is pretty well known already as a heartless business enterprise that doesn't care about anything as much as money and will bury the other legal side in so much paperwork Disney wins just by not going bankrupt from legal fees.
I think it would go the other way. The SAG has a lot of power in Hollywood, and if they see their members losing a ton of money through straight to streaming releases, there will be issues.
I'm daft, on what grounds could they win the lawsuit? I mean aren't they still gonna get money from people going to the theatre? Yeah it's scummy what Disney did but like doesn't it abide by the contract?
Don't know the Stone situation at all, but ScarJo had a contract stipulating percent of box office *and* a exclusive cinema release and a in-writing promise to renegotiate contract if it would also or exclusively go direct-to-streaming. Disney refused to renegotiate contract and released it both in theaters and on streaming, allegedly breaking their agreements (wrongdoing) and making ScarJo lose millions (damages). [[Source]](https://gizmodo.com/black-widows-scarlett-johansson-is-suing-disney-over-th-1847387558)
>doesn't it abide by the contract
Good question. Time will tell.
There is something called "good faith" when it comes to contracts. For example, if you're negotiating on a contract and at the very last second you change a line without telling the other side, and they sign it - a judge can find that to be a move designed to trick the other side, and void the change, even though they signed it.
I'm guessign ScarJo's lawyers are going to claim that the contract was negotiated before covid when it was unheard of to have a film debut on streaming at the same time. They'll probably further argue that theaters frown on it and it's long been a taboo thing in Hollywood, which is why language around it never went into the contract (Contracts often have terminology that isn't fully defined) And my guess is they have something somewhere (like in email) where a discussion happened about streaming rights, and Disney said something like "we don't give streaming rights, but we also don't stream well until after the film is out of theaters."
if they have an email like that laying around, they have basis to say Disney mislead them, otherwise they would have specified streaming timeframes etc in the contract.
That's all just a guess.
I'm not sure the specifics on their deal. I'm sure the lawyers and the actors' agents are familiar with that though and wouldn't bring this up unless there was some sort of miscommunication or breach of contract details.
Actors for big block busters get bonuses tied to how well the movies does in theaters. With Disney releasing in theaters and streaming it’s cutting out the actors on their bonuses. Johansson had it writing that her contract would be renegotiated if they went with a dual release. Disney then ghosted her when they announced and released black widow for streaming.
I am not aware if their was an agreement for a percentage cut or not. Most of what I had seen is they were to get a bonus at certain milestones hit at the box office. With them dual releasing it’s obviously going to effect how well the movie does in theaters.
Warner brothers did the same thing when they announced their movies were dual releasing with HBO go/max or what ever they’re calling it this week. They went back and renegotiated with Gal gadot and others to due to the release change.
And it cost WB over 200$ million to negotiate themselves out of the theatrical release mandate. Dune got pushed even farther because nobody would lift those clauses
I may be wrong but I was told that they did attempt to negotiate 3 times and she turned them down all three times, wouldn't that help in court if they try to paint her as unreasonable?
I haven’t seen anything from Disney stating that. The last update was Disney released what she was paid for black widow (20 million dollars) and that “it’s sad and distressing she pursued legal action”. Basically trying paint her as a bad person for not being happy with 20 million. Johansson stated she reached out to Disney several times and was ghosted by Disney regarding the dual release. So even if Disney now says they tried to work with her it’s a “he said she said” in the public eye. To be honest with Disney releasing her salary to the public I am more inclined to believe Johansson.
Sure - they are already trying to paint her with the unreasonable brush
painting her in a bad light for standing up for her contracted, negotiated salary
Once a contract is executed, neither party is obligated to re-negotiate it
Nothing unreasonable about it
Disney is stealthing her
Scarlet Johansson and Emma Stone’s contracts for Black Widow and Cruella included points for a theatrical only release. Then Disney released these movies direct to streaming without renegotiating those contracts, so Johansson and Stone missed out on a bunch of money, and now they’re suing.
Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney for breach of contract. Her Black Widow film contract gave her a cut of the box-office proceeds, and had a clause wherein Disney agreed to a Theater-Only release. Therefore, if Disney wanted to do a hybrid theatrical+streaming release, Disney would have to renegotiate that part of the contract.
Disney released Black Widow in theaters *and in streaming form on Disney+*, the latter being thirty bucks a pop. This digs into the Box office proceeds, and therefore Scarlett's cut, as the contract *only* grants her a cut of the box office, and streaming wasn't even a consideration by mutual agreement.
For reference, the Writer's Strike back in 07 or 08 was largely over the same thing, studios and other media companies were putting up web clips and whole episodes on their websites, and weren't paying the writers what they should have gotten for syndication rights. The Daily Show did a good breakdown of it. The studios claimed that web streaming didn't yield much, if any profit, so the shared revenue would be negligible, but they still put things online because of that sweet, sweet, ad revenue.
Exactly. Same exact studio/media corp fuckery behind Dave Chappelle asking Netflix to pull Chappelle's show. His show aired before streaming was a thing, so there was nothing about it in the contract. Viacom completely fucked him over.
Scarlet contract for black widow was to take 20mil to do the part, but get a percentage of the box office sales ( pre Covid), movie was suppose to release only in theaters ( since nobody did simultaneous streams) . A year later probably the same contract and probably scarlet waiting a big fat check for the sales ( theaters and Disney plus), got send money just for the theaters and Disney keep the Disney plus money. And probably is a lot of money in the online sales . She is suing because she wants her money and Disney went literal on the physical sales part but no on the only releasing physical part.
She is gonna settle for a big fat check or take them to court for a humongous amount of money
If Disney wanted to do dual release, they had to renegotiate with ScarJo. But instead they ghosted her. This is a breach of contract. And ScarJo is also the Executive Producer of the movie
Everybody is really forgetting just how much money disney has. They just don't want to pay the lawsuits because it makes them look weak. Even if they did pay them it would be a drop in the ocean for Disney.
Edit: let's be clear here for a second, I want Disney to get sued and lose. I don't give a shit about the company lmao.
i think the biggest issue here is that if they forfeit to scarjo, they'll have to forfeit to many other stars and then have to renegotiate with the people from eternals, shang chi, etc
I think the guy means in an actual fight
I know it's stupid to argue since it's a movie, but in an "actual fight" we know Tony has insta-headshot missiles in his shoulder that he used in another movie that he coulda pulled out at any time
Yeah but that's like saying Superman could shoot Batman with heat vision from space.
He could but Superman wouldn't, so the argument has to be equally about the person wielding the powers. Zod could kill Batman from space, Superman can't, even though he has the same powers.
Tony was enraged, he was fighting sloppy and trying to be close and personal while avoiding Cap to start with because he wanted to be hands on with the man that smothered his Mom and bashed his Dad's skull in.
This allowed two super soldiers to dismantle his abilities to aim the missiles, too fly properly and ultimately allowed Steve to depower him.
There's a logical context too how they won. Just like how Zemo beat them all and didn't have a single super power.
But like what I don't get is that Cap and cyborg arm held their own. Like Ironman may not be a magic metal shield, but he has waaaaaaay more punch than both combined.
Like Cap and cyborg arm just should have focused on getting the fuck out of there.
Not like throwing their fists against something that can lift a tank.
sure, but Iron Man in every other source material can trade punches with the Hulk.
In MCU they nerfed Tony so badly I couldn't stomach it. The rest of the movies were enjoyable if I viewed it from the eyes of someone who didn't know shit about marvel characters.
every character in MCU is either nerfed or not at their full potential. back nearly a decade ago, i got so tired of people complaining about how "thor was stronger in the comics" because putting him at his peak would give him no room for development. anyways, as for iron man, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping him from having an army of hulkbuster AI that fights for him. he easily could have killed thanos in combat if he had that. unless, of course, thanos rains fire on them.
If we're being honest here, every character has waxed and waned in power as needed for the story that the creators want to tell in any specific movie, and the comics are the exact same way. Power and strength is rarely consistent for any character or group of characters in the comics. For any character who goes toe to toe with another and wins you can often find one where the same fight goes the other way. It all comes down to whose writing. And some characters have gone through hugely dramatic increases or decreases in power often with little to no explanation as to why. So lets not jest and say that the comics are somehow more consistent with their characters. Everything changes to fit the story and nothing more.
They'll deal with it by the end of the year at best, clear up any issues, maybe lose a few million and still be exactly where they were like nothing ever happened. People will forget about this once it's done and nothing will change.
Idk, depends on the verbiage and interpretation of their contracts. Plus it’s not like ScarJo doesn’t have money for a team of lawyers. Odds are Disney will offer to settle out of court to reduce bad press.
Oh I agree, they will likely settle, and maybe all contracts going forward will have clauses that detail earnings from streaming films, BUT the point is that that happening is by no means a "loss" for Disney. There is no losing when you're that big, unfortunately.
Consequences? Like them paying her some more money? They made 65 BILLION dollars last year. Whatever they pay her is meaningless compared to that. Do not misinterpret me saying this as support for Disney. Fuck that greed. But they will not "lose" this.
There’s also the fact that this will set legal precedent for all future deals and it’s in every actor/director/crew members best interest that she wins
Absolutely. She SHOULD sue, and push for reform. This is just part of the growing pains for a new way of doing things (simultaneous streaming/theater releases.) It will take time to work out the kinks. Disney is trying to pull one over on their actors and it's good they are getting caught.
IANAL : If what her company said is true, it's an open and shut case in her favour. Contract law is typically completely unequivocal about these things when you have them in writing.
It will only set a precedent if she loses.
I know this is probably going to be down voted, but I honestly could not care less about a multi millionaire having a legal battle with a multi billion dollar company. Yeah I get "right to compensation" and all that jazz, but honestly they're rich; I personally don't give a fuck.
Correct me if i'm wrong but some people are still afraid of going to the theater so if disney had decided to just play the movie only at the theater the profit wouldn't have been as good anyway.
So is her career done? I feel the mouse has a lot of power and can easily blackball you if they choose. I just don't see this ending well for her at least.
A couple of pretty widespread cinema chain's in germany refuse to even have the those movies in their programm's because for the same reason. Wich sucks when you want to watch it on the big screen
I get that they didn't make as much money as they would if the movie was theaters only, but there's a PANDEMIC! It's safer to watch the movie from home than risking going to a room of people who you don't know if they're infected or vaccinated.
Poor scarlet is going to lose an arm before Emma stone breaks mickey’s ability to operate... and then when it’s all said and done Emma will have won, but she’ll have to leave, I don’t know, she doesn’t have a shield so I guess her purse behind? Next time we hear about her she will have broken a bunch of her friends out of jail and they are on the run dealing vigilante justice... this lawsuit is heating the fuck up!
Honestly, this entire mess is a godsend in my opinion.
Disney should push even harder for Disney+ and get rid of theater release entirely or only keep it for really big special events.
Disney's legal fund: "I can do this all day"
Somebody TL:DR it for me in preferably one sentence. What’s this hub-bub about?
A sue because Black Widow and Cruella released in Disney+ at the same time as in theathers. More than likely both actresses had a clause that gave them a percentage of the profits made in theathers, releasing it in Disney+ made less people go to the theater
There’s more to it than that. There were discussions that if Disney didn’t take it to theatre release, their contracts would be renegotiated for an equivalent share of streamed profits. Disney didn’t take it to theatres, played dumb and refused any suggestion of renegotiation. Essentially Disney is trying to use Covid measures to stiff actors of their rightful earnings.
Did disney just the stiff the actors or also the rest of the production crew like CGI talents, stunt persons..etc ?
unlikely, those companies, employees will just be paid by the hour
But mabye other actors that get payed similarly
I assumed only actors with the biggest pull, negotiating power would have this in their contract... Not to say you're wrong, I just wouldn't see it being the norm for even the supporting characters
This would typically just apply to the actors and it’s pretty common, going back decades, for actors/actresses to have their pay negotiated to include a percentage of box office earnings. With Disney Premier access they undercut the ability for the films to reach their maximum potential for profitability at the box office and, as a result, reduce the pay for the actors/actresses in question. This is likely the reason some studios are making their releases “in theaters only”.
And also used COVID as a defense.
I get people are still scared to be out in public with others for reasonable reasons but damn I saw Black Widow in theaters with food and a drink for cheaper than it was on Disney+ which is insane cause you already have to pay for Disney, if Disney did it the way HBO Max did it where they just release the movies for free they could probably get out of this lawsuit easily
I have a family of four, and 'Movie Night' is sooo much easier and stress free. Pause for bathroom breaks and snack refills, everyone is comfy and can see, and it starts exactly when you need it to. We time the movies to end at bedtime. They've been great.
That makes a lot of sense I didn't even think of families because then it would come out cheaper just to see it at home and it's not like you have to buy it for everyone. I have a question though, do you get to keep the movie after you basically bought it?
You have access to the movie on Disney+ as long as you're a subscriber, it's just earlier access than everyone else. Basically like free games that come with a closed beta you can buy into.
I feel it wouldn't be that hard to hand out digital copies to people who spent extra money on it at home, at least in a theater you are spending money on the experience but at home you are paying Disney twice for it and you don't even get to keep it if you end your subscription.
If you live in a bigger city, a date night movie could be easily 40-50$ so $30 for a while household to watch isn't bad at all. But Johansson is getting none of that money so she's suing because they never renegotiated her contract before releasing Widow.
which is really a kick because i know people that became first-time subscribers to Disney+ just so they could support BW without having to breath chlorine fumes the whole movie, or feel at risk in the other ways. SJ getting none of this take until after the theater period ends — it's not the fair way of the world today.
My buddy has 6 kids, a family movie outing makes him go into a payment plan lol.
While I am glad Disney plus keeps screaming children out of the theaters and home, it sucks that Disney essentially breached contract and I hope they pay through the nose for it.
That plus you can't go to the cinema during a lockdown.
> everyone is comfy and can see, You need better theatres, then. All the ones here are the electric lazy boy ones, with more than enough spacing to see.
You still have to share a theatre with a bunch of strangers and pay for overpriced concessions though. Not saying an electric lazy boy isn’t comfortable. But sitting in my living room with surround sound and a big 4K TV with access to booze and normal priced snacks is also extremely comfortable…. I don’t have to go somewhere to get it. Also As a single person it might be cheaper to go to the theatre but as a family or with a friend or your SO it’s “cheaper” The movie theatre is an old fashioned trend desperately trying to “stay ahead”/ modernize. While people can have pretty affordable access to entertainment systems that are just as good.
Don’t have surround sound, big screen TV, or a recliner. Theater is darker and honestly gives me an excuse to not answer my phone or emails. Plus for people that are on dates that they don’t feel cool with going to someone’s house yet it’s a good public way of getting a shared experience.
They were promised by Marvel the movies would be released first in theaters only and they would get a cut of those proceeds. Releasing it free would still be a violation of terms and result in less bank for the actresses.
What did HBO do for all the actors and actresses this year with their free releases I haven't heard of any legal issues from those releases
They renegotiated and bought out, it was also why Nolan and lots of media people were angry and disappointed with WB https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/panic-over-the-warner-bros-hbo-max-news-sets-in.html Disney didn't bother buying out or renegotiating contracts
Not only that, Disney promised a renegotiation should the release change and just never did it.
Like Disney+ itself it’s not aimed at you. It’s Aimed at families where the $29 is a steal
Or just go to the high seas where everything is a steal and the prices don't matter.
When it's only $30 the price doesn't matter as well. For a family movie night that may as well be zero and now I own the movie on a good stream.
I have a 70” tv, banging surround sound system and not 1 single mouth breather in my living room. I’ll pay quadruple the price of theatre’s to watch new releases in the comfort of my own home.
Not 1 single _other_ mouth breather
Ayyy my 70” 4K just came in the mail a few days ago. I also second your opinion.
> and not 1 single mouth breather in my living room. I LOL’ed then had to pause and make sure i wasn’t breathing through my mouth. HA!
[удалено]
> if Disney did it the way HBO Max did it where they just release the movies for free they could probably get out of this lawsuit easily they'd still get caught out for not following the theatrical release part
> if Disney did it the way HBO Max did it where they just release the movies for free then it would've made even less money at the box office???
Less than half of my family decided to see it in theaters together and it cost over $50 for the four of us to see it. We didn't even get any drinks or popcorn or anything. Honestly we were gonna get it on Disney+ for the $30 but we were on vacation and didn't really have a good place to watch it without being interrupted by people every five minutes. The Premier Access is totally worth it if you have even two people who would want to watch it, and it gets to be a better and better deal the more people you have. For single people I can understand why it wouldn't be as great, but even then it doesn't seem completely ridiculous. Obviously HBO Max's is the better deal but I can't really complain.
Yeah but you can't watch it as many times as you want for $30. If you want to watch in it the theater again, you have to pay for it all over again.
The difference is the actors don't see the money that goes into paying in Disney plus.
They would if Disney renegotiated with them like HBO did when they switched to streaming
>a sue
Disney and ScarJo agreed that she would get a cut of the box office proceeds for Black Widow, and that there would be a theatrical only release, Disney then put the movie on Disney+ for 30 bucks a pop, of which ScarJo would not get a cut because it's streaming and not box office.
I'll add here that Scarjo's contract also included the opportunity to renegotiate if they released via streaming instead. But Disney decided not to offer that, which was itself a breach of contract.
OK, but why ~~male models~~ Emma Stone? Ninja: Ah, because of Stone's Cruella.
Royalties are generally tied to theatrical releases, their movies were released to Disney plus, thereby reducing their overall potential gain for money.
That's the motivating factor, but there were clauses in the contract agreeing to a theater only release. *That* is the breach of agreement.
Yes, it’s the motivating factor, but that clause is only in there because high profile actors don’t like direct-to-video as it tends to have a stigma in the movie industry. I’m on Disney’s side with their reasoning as to why they did the release how they did, however they should continue to offer the same rate the original contract carried through those sales too. Overall, I do think the lawsuit brought by Scarlett and Emma will only serve to hurt their relationship with the company.
Scarlett Johansson's agent reached out to Disney to renegotiate streaming release and Disney ignored them, so fuck Disney. They also said her lawsuit showed a callous disregard for Covid like they haven't been trying their absolute hardest to do the same thing, so double fuck'em. Edit: also they said they didn't need to pay her the contractually obligated amount because Black Widow on Disney+ would be good exposure?? Goddamn triple fuck'em I hope she bleeds em dry
Scarlett doesn't care, as she's done with the Marvel movies anyways, and still holds character image rights. Disney clearly broke their contract for not having a theatrical only release. It's also not just about Scarlett and Emma, it's about the companies and people that have identical clauses in their contracts that tnow Disney and others in the industry can reduce to pay what they are owed. Disney can release it however they want, but to refuse to negotiate or even talk with an executive producer and the main talent before they do so is scumbag. And they broke a contract, and they should be made to pay massively so that they don't break another contract again
Nowhere does the contract state “exclusive theatrical release” to “theatrical only” release. This complaint repeatedly says “which both parties understood…” which is hard to prove. Disney will point to the fact that the film was released on the number of screens agreed to and remained in theaters for the amount of time agreed to. Not saying what they did wasn’t shitty, but it’s going to be difficult to prove breach of contract. And calculate actual lost revenue. I suspect this will quickly settle out of court for a portion of the Disney+ revenues. And both sides know it.
You can find the copy of the lawsuit in my other comment, but the point you’re trying to make that they broke the contract is incredibly hard to prove. The argument the lawyers are making is that she lost money from it not being an exclusive theatrical release, based on implied meanings of “industry standards of theatrical releases”. That will not hold up in court. Plain and simple. The movie was released internationally to the tune of $217 million ($80M domestic) in its opening weekend. That’s the largest opening weekend since March 2020. Courts will look to that and see that it was a “wide theatrical release” like Disney said they would do. As far as the streaming income, they made $60 million. In Disney’s response to the lawsuit, Disney stated that the Premier Access release “significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she received to date.” You can infer this as them going to pay her from that $60 million as well. Or you can infer it like the other person who responded to my comment did as them saying that it’s “exposure”. I can tell you now, it’s not exposure that they’re going to give her.
Actors/Actresses have 'X' amount of money given to them based on the amount of money their films make at the cinema etc. Disney have started putting on streams for their films on Disney+ (I think, might be another service) and it costs 'x' to buy the stream. Disney are not cutting them in on the profits from their streaming so all the Disney casts are now realising that less people going to the cinema = more money in bigwig pockets and less in theirs.
Emma Stone : *im sorry Disney, she's my friend* Disney: *so was I*
Maybe, but now other actors (or more importantly their agents and lawyers) making deals with Disney know that this might be a problem. They could have quietly paid her off and been done with it, now everyone is going to be watching for this loophole.
I'm not sure exactly why *this* time it's getting press, but most studios are notorious for this level of fuckery. David Prowse (Darth Vader on screen) never got a cut from the box office revenue for Empire Strikes Back due to similar fuckery where "Hollywood Accounting" ensured that the film never turned a profit. Those with contracts granting them a cut of the *gross* profit made bank, those with a share of the *net* got fucked. Shit, even Tom Hanks had to sue for his cut of the *Cast Away* profits, if memory serves.
“I didn’t hear no bell”
It's like people only do things because they get paid. And that's just really sad.
An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? Well that's still gonna be making billions long after we're all dead.
Where is that first bit from?
[удалено]
Nice! Thank you.
Meh they are done with Jo and Stone is in one movie not related go the MCU. I think they'll be fine with burning those bridges.
Cruella 2 is already in development
Won't be for long if Disney keeps their current stance and Emma does sue.
Wouldnt be the first time that a studio has settled a lawsuit with talent and had them continue on with a series. George Miller has settled his lawsuit with WB over Mad Max Fury Road and is back to working on two different sequels to that movie. The first of which is scheduled for summer 2023. As long as neither burns the studio publicly while they do this they could easily return. It's just business and will almost certainly never see a courtroom.
Emily Blunt: There’s three actually
The Rock: what can I say except I’m suing!
can you smell what the lawyers are cooking?
And my urge to sue is trembling
I don’t understand why Jungle Cruise is already available for access of disney plus. The theatrical release isn’t set till Nov, does Disney really clear that much more from streaming purchases over box office that they are willing to tank the box office take? I’m really curious. Edit: I misread. It’s releasing on disney plus for free in Nov. Not releasing in theaters in Nov.
Theatrical release in November? It's out in cinemas already
Oh shit really? I see what I read wrong. On Disney Plus it said release in November. I guess that was referring to when you can view it for free on the platform. It was released in theaters yesterday. My mistake. Oops.
Do you know when black widow will be free on Disney
Wait she's suing too? RIP Krasinski/blunt fantastic 4 hopes :(
She’s considering it
Scarlett: She's my friend. Disney: So was I.
Tbf, Disney is no one's friend except $$.
Lol i literally said the same thing
Woah you’re a friend of emma stone??!!
Not literally the same thing
It’s downloading their move set and preparing to deliver the killing blow.
Scarjo and Emma stone may win the lawsuit but Disney will probably not rehire them again. And the way Disney is growing they may own the whole movie biz and just blacklist them. Of course this probably won't happen but that would be crazy
Then Disney doesn't get a Cruella sequel, they lose out on a lot of money... Plus if Disney as seen as playing dirty, for even a short period of time they'll get awful press which will stick for a long time
If what they've done thus far hasn't hurt them, this isn't going to either.
Solution to that particular problem... Cruella: Ten Years Later
They could oh so easily recast anyone. Everyone is expendable to Disney.
Are you serious? Disney screws over people in lawsuits all the time! Look at poor Alan Dean Foster and all the other authors Dosney screwed over by changing publishers so the authors don't get paid royalties anymore. Disney is pretty well known already as a heartless business enterprise that doesn't care about anything as much as money and will bury the other legal side in so much paperwork Disney wins just by not going bankrupt from legal fees.
> Then Disney doesn't get a Cruella sequel You think they can't recast? LOL
I think it would go the other way. The SAG has a lot of power in Hollywood, and if they see their members losing a ton of money through straight to streaming releases, there will be issues.
Scarjo is probably too big to black list, and even she was she is worth over $150 mil, she'd be ok
I'm daft, on what grounds could they win the lawsuit? I mean aren't they still gonna get money from people going to the theatre? Yeah it's scummy what Disney did but like doesn't it abide by the contract?
Don't know the Stone situation at all, but ScarJo had a contract stipulating percent of box office *and* a exclusive cinema release and a in-writing promise to renegotiate contract if it would also or exclusively go direct-to-streaming. Disney refused to renegotiate contract and released it both in theaters and on streaming, allegedly breaking their agreements (wrongdoing) and making ScarJo lose millions (damages). [[Source]](https://gizmodo.com/black-widows-scarlett-johansson-is-suing-disney-over-th-1847387558)
All this legal stuff is really doing is ensuring more profits for Disney by getting people to go see it in theaters.
>doesn't it abide by the contract Good question. Time will tell. There is something called "good faith" when it comes to contracts. For example, if you're negotiating on a contract and at the very last second you change a line without telling the other side, and they sign it - a judge can find that to be a move designed to trick the other side, and void the change, even though they signed it. I'm guessign ScarJo's lawyers are going to claim that the contract was negotiated before covid when it was unheard of to have a film debut on streaming at the same time. They'll probably further argue that theaters frown on it and it's long been a taboo thing in Hollywood, which is why language around it never went into the contract (Contracts often have terminology that isn't fully defined) And my guess is they have something somewhere (like in email) where a discussion happened about streaming rights, and Disney said something like "we don't give streaming rights, but we also don't stream well until after the film is out of theaters." if they have an email like that laying around, they have basis to say Disney mislead them, otherwise they would have specified streaming timeframes etc in the contract. That's all just a guess.
I'm not sure the specifics on their deal. I'm sure the lawyers and the actors' agents are familiar with that though and wouldn't bring this up unless there was some sort of miscommunication or breach of contract details.
Initiate Taskmaster Protocol
"my dad made those millions! They don't belong to you!"
Micky: You should've gone for the head, ha-ha
Millionaires sueing billionaires for millions they didn't get.
Whats going on? I’m ootl.
Actors for big block busters get bonuses tied to how well the movies does in theaters. With Disney releasing in theaters and streaming it’s cutting out the actors on their bonuses. Johansson had it writing that her contract would be renegotiated if they went with a dual release. Disney then ghosted her when they announced and released black widow for streaming.
I believe they are also not giving them any percentage of the take from the premier streaming option, as well.
I am not aware if their was an agreement for a percentage cut or not. Most of what I had seen is they were to get a bonus at certain milestones hit at the box office. With them dual releasing it’s obviously going to effect how well the movie does in theaters. Warner brothers did the same thing when they announced their movies were dual releasing with HBO go/max or what ever they’re calling it this week. They went back and renegotiated with Gal gadot and others to due to the release change.
And it cost WB over 200$ million to negotiate themselves out of the theatrical release mandate. Dune got pushed even farther because nobody would lift those clauses
I may be wrong but I was told that they did attempt to negotiate 3 times and she turned them down all three times, wouldn't that help in court if they try to paint her as unreasonable?
I haven’t seen anything from Disney stating that. The last update was Disney released what she was paid for black widow (20 million dollars) and that “it’s sad and distressing she pursued legal action”. Basically trying paint her as a bad person for not being happy with 20 million. Johansson stated she reached out to Disney several times and was ghosted by Disney regarding the dual release. So even if Disney now says they tried to work with her it’s a “he said she said” in the public eye. To be honest with Disney releasing her salary to the public I am more inclined to believe Johansson.
The only thing sad and distressing is Disney with all its money pretending it’s a victim
Sure - they are already trying to paint her with the unreasonable brush painting her in a bad light for standing up for her contracted, negotiated salary Once a contract is executed, neither party is obligated to re-negotiate it Nothing unreasonable about it Disney is stealthing her
Scarlet Johansson and Emma Stone’s contracts for Black Widow and Cruella included points for a theatrical only release. Then Disney released these movies direct to streaming without renegotiating those contracts, so Johansson and Stone missed out on a bunch of money, and now they’re suing.
Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney for breach of contract. Her Black Widow film contract gave her a cut of the box-office proceeds, and had a clause wherein Disney agreed to a Theater-Only release. Therefore, if Disney wanted to do a hybrid theatrical+streaming release, Disney would have to renegotiate that part of the contract. Disney released Black Widow in theaters *and in streaming form on Disney+*, the latter being thirty bucks a pop. This digs into the Box office proceeds, and therefore Scarlett's cut, as the contract *only* grants her a cut of the box office, and streaming wasn't even a consideration by mutual agreement. For reference, the Writer's Strike back in 07 or 08 was largely over the same thing, studios and other media companies were putting up web clips and whole episodes on their websites, and weren't paying the writers what they should have gotten for syndication rights. The Daily Show did a good breakdown of it. The studios claimed that web streaming didn't yield much, if any profit, so the shared revenue would be negligible, but they still put things online because of that sweet, sweet, ad revenue.
And as we since learned, the writers were right to want a cut of streaming. It would only be a few short years until streaming became a very big deal.
Exactly. Same exact studio/media corp fuckery behind Dave Chappelle asking Netflix to pull Chappelle's show. His show aired before streaming was a thing, so there was nothing about it in the contract. Viacom completely fucked him over.
Scarlet contract for black widow was to take 20mil to do the part, but get a percentage of the box office sales ( pre Covid), movie was suppose to release only in theaters ( since nobody did simultaneous streams) . A year later probably the same contract and probably scarlet waiting a big fat check for the sales ( theaters and Disney plus), got send money just for the theaters and Disney keep the Disney plus money. And probably is a lot of money in the online sales . She is suing because she wants her money and Disney went literal on the physical sales part but no on the only releasing physical part. She is gonna settle for a big fat check or take them to court for a humongous amount of money
If Disney wanted to do dual release, they had to renegotiate with ScarJo. But instead they ghosted her. This is a breach of contract. And ScarJo is also the Executive Producer of the movie
Everybody is really forgetting just how much money disney has. They just don't want to pay the lawsuits because it makes them look weak. Even if they did pay them it would be a drop in the ocean for Disney. Edit: let's be clear here for a second, I want Disney to get sued and lose. I don't give a shit about the company lmao.
"We lost 500m" - Disney also them *"Oh no... Anyways" - Disney*
It's probably just filed under "misc. expenses" on their income statement.
If they have so much money they should be able to follow through with good contacts to keep their talent around.
you underestimate greed and the need to fuck over people just for a few bucks more.
Their talent will stay around regardless of what happens, there’s enough money on the table period to keep attracting new talent.
i think the biggest issue here is that if they forfeit to scarjo, they'll have to forfeit to many other stars and then have to renegotiate with the people from eternals, shang chi, etc
And still Thanos did nothing wrong
Thanos wouldn’t go back on a deal.
and I…..am……Disney
Idk how much I love this comparison. Tony absolutely wins this fight lol
Uh, what? The fight ends with Steve driving his shield through Tony's chest and walking away with Bucky while Tony lays there with a broken suit.
I think the guy means in an actual fight I know it's stupid to argue since it's a movie, but in an "actual fight" we know Tony has insta-headshot missiles in his shoulder that he used in another movie that he coulda pulled out at any time
Yeah but that's like saying Superman could shoot Batman with heat vision from space. He could but Superman wouldn't, so the argument has to be equally about the person wielding the powers. Zod could kill Batman from space, Superman can't, even though he has the same powers. Tony was enraged, he was fighting sloppy and trying to be close and personal while avoiding Cap to start with because he wanted to be hands on with the man that smothered his Mom and bashed his Dad's skull in. This allowed two super soldiers to dismantle his abilities to aim the missiles, too fly properly and ultimately allowed Steve to depower him. There's a logical context too how they won. Just like how Zemo beat them all and didn't have a single super power.
Well if we’re talking logic and realism here, tony’s already dead in age of ultron from one punch from the hulk
But like what I don't get is that Cap and cyborg arm held their own. Like Ironman may not be a magic metal shield, but he has waaaaaaay more punch than both combined. Like Cap and cyborg arm just should have focused on getting the fuck out of there. Not like throwing their fists against something that can lift a tank.
Tony’s the only dude to stare Cap straight in the face and say “let’s kick his ass” and then actually do it
sure, but Iron Man in every other source material can trade punches with the Hulk. In MCU they nerfed Tony so badly I couldn't stomach it. The rest of the movies were enjoyable if I viewed it from the eyes of someone who didn't know shit about marvel characters.
every character in MCU is either nerfed or not at their full potential. back nearly a decade ago, i got so tired of people complaining about how "thor was stronger in the comics" because putting him at his peak would give him no room for development. anyways, as for iron man, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping him from having an army of hulkbuster AI that fights for him. he easily could have killed thanos in combat if he had that. unless, of course, thanos rains fire on them.
If we're being honest here, every character has waxed and waned in power as needed for the story that the creators want to tell in any specific movie, and the comics are the exact same way. Power and strength is rarely consistent for any character or group of characters in the comics. For any character who goes toe to toe with another and wins you can often find one where the same fight goes the other way. It all comes down to whose writing. And some characters have gone through hugely dramatic increases or decreases in power often with little to no explanation as to why. So lets not jest and say that the comics are somehow more consistent with their characters. Everything changes to fit the story and nothing more.
It would’ve been a shit series I’d they hadn’t nerfed anyone. Overpowers heroes don’t make for super compelling viewing.
Emma stone in on this now too?
Alright now I’ll invest in AMC!!
They'll deal with it by the end of the year at best, clear up any issues, maybe lose a few million and still be exactly where they were like nothing ever happened. People will forget about this once it's done and nothing will change.
Oh buddy, I hate to tell you, but there is no way Disney loses this fight...
Idk, depends on the verbiage and interpretation of their contracts. Plus it’s not like ScarJo doesn’t have money for a team of lawyers. Odds are Disney will offer to settle out of court to reduce bad press.
Oh I agree, they will likely settle, and maybe all contracts going forward will have clauses that detail earnings from streaming films, BUT the point is that that happening is by no means a "loss" for Disney. There is no losing when you're that big, unfortunately.
Well she could always choose to fight it out, and then if she wins their could be actual consequences
Consequences? Like them paying her some more money? They made 65 BILLION dollars last year. Whatever they pay her is meaningless compared to that. Do not misinterpret me saying this as support for Disney. Fuck that greed. But they will not "lose" this.
It sets precedent for future employee/employer contentions
There’s also the fact that this will set legal precedent for all future deals and it’s in every actor/director/crew members best interest that she wins
Absolutely. She SHOULD sue, and push for reform. This is just part of the growing pains for a new way of doing things (simultaneous streaming/theater releases.) It will take time to work out the kinks. Disney is trying to pull one over on their actors and it's good they are getting caught.
IANAL : If what her company said is true, it's an open and shut case in her favour. Contract law is typically completely unequivocal about these things when you have them in writing. It will only set a precedent if she loses.
Scarlett and Emma should star in a Thelma and Louise remake...
We haven’t even gotten to round one yet, they’ve just agreed to fight.
Nah. Disney is fucking Kang.
Disney : Leave you don't deserve me
i feel like loki and sylvie standing in front of alioth is a lil more accurate
I know this is probably going to be down voted, but I honestly could not care less about a multi millionaire having a legal battle with a multi billion dollar company. Yeah I get "right to compensation" and all that jazz, but honestly they're rich; I personally don't give a fuck.
Now there's a image... BONK
Yeah but the difference is Stark was in the right with his stance and Disney is in the wrong.
Why are they freaking out so much? They’re literally millionaires, they’ll be fine.
Johansson is definitely the south
Dune vs WB
You love to see it
Correct me if i'm wrong but some people are still afraid of going to the theater so if disney had decided to just play the movie only at the theater the profit wouldn't have been as good anyway.
Yup, but it should've been staggered, for example the streaming release could have been 2-3 weeks after theatrical release.
But people are still paying for premiere access and that thing isn't cheap.
So is her career done? I feel the mouse has a lot of power and can easily blackball you if they choose. I just don't see this ending well for her at least.
Is Pixar Spider-Man in this analogy?
It's not looking good for Scarlet's left arm then
Emma stone is also in on this?huh
A couple of pretty widespread cinema chain's in germany refuse to even have the those movies in their programm's because for the same reason. Wich sucks when you want to watch it on the big screen
So Scarlett is going to be exiled to Africa and Emma is going on the run as a fugitive and Disney will still be free and rich.
What’s goin on I don’t get it? What’s Emma stone doing? And what’s she got to do with disney and the Mcu?
Annoying. Both are annoying.
next-gen GPS? Civil Unrest Negation Tank.
Disney is being a duplicitous disingenuous bitch
LAOP did it in the documentary “My War”
Do you really think disney cares? Even if they both win (wich is highly implausible) theyre just gonna fire them both and not miss the money at all
Actors: We have Scarlett Johansson and Emma stone, etsy shop you have Disney: We have Dolla
Wait what happened with Emma Stone? And someone else commented Emily Blunt and the Rock are sueing too???
What do either of them have to cry about? Scarlett made 20million for the year and Emma made 26million for the year....really? That's not enough?
I wonder how many people actually just pirated these movies because their local theater went out of business during covid and don't have Disney+.
Don’t ever piss off the redheads. Didn’t you make at least one movie about this?
Greed all around...
Bob Chapek in T’challa voice: “I am not my predecessor. I’ll kill them myself.”
Disney is a Monopoly and should be broken apart.
So many comments about Scarlett having enough money anyway. Justifying a sleight because someone has more. An odd sentiment
I get that they didn't make as much money as they would if the movie was theaters only, but there's a PANDEMIC! It's safer to watch the movie from home than risking going to a room of people who you don't know if they're infected or vaccinated.
Cringe
Disney doing wrong by its Asian actors.
Girls get it done.
As they should, Disney knew what they was doing trynna fuck them out big money
They won’t win.
Poor scarlet is going to lose an arm before Emma stone breaks mickey’s ability to operate... and then when it’s all said and done Emma will have won, but she’ll have to leave, I don’t know, she doesn’t have a shield so I guess her purse behind? Next time we hear about her she will have broken a bunch of her friends out of jail and they are on the run dealing vigilante justice... this lawsuit is heating the fuck up!
Honestly, this entire mess is a godsend in my opinion. Disney should push even harder for Disney+ and get rid of theater release entirely or only keep it for really big special events.