Scarlett Johansson sues Disney - and Emma Stone may be next to sue

[Joelist]

https://www.deseret.com/entertainme...sues-disney-black-widow-disney-plus-streaming

This is interesting. If what her attorneys are alleging is correct (that her contract specified an exclusive theatrical release) then Disney has a serious problem. Also discovery is almost certain and in this case would involve forcing Disney to release specifics about Disney+ subscriber counts and also exactly how many orders there were for Black Widow since it involved a surcharge. And rumors are Emma Stone may be filing a very similar suit soon.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

Interesting indeed. I take it from this that the contract specifies the actress would get an X percent of the proceeds from theatre visitors, but none of the proceeds (or perhaps some but much less) from streaming.

 

[Joelist]

I think it will all come down to wording and also emails afterward. If the contract says exclusive theatrical release Disney loses. Also if they made such a promise in emails that too sinks Disney.

 

[Quetesh]

Disney has come back and said she made even more money from the streaming, so I don't think her case is as strong as her lawyers tout it to be. Unless it says in that contract "regardless of worldwide pandemic events,", than I bet they lose, they really should not settle it would set a dangerous precedent, and more money grabbers, ala Emma Stone.. Beware of the fine print in contracts. She should also be careful about the courtroom of the public eye. People are losing jobs and livelihoods out there, and other stars like Dwayne Johnson are fine with the world of hybrid release. She can get on board or good luck getting anymore major movie roles. I won't shed a single tear for her "loss".


She probably gets paid a percent of the revenue of the picture and this would include the Disney premiere access monies, however they are assuming it would have been more if people had been forced to all go the theatres to see it instead of having a choice to watch at home or go to theatres, since not all people are vaccinated, and some medically cannot be and cases of vaccinated people getting sick are coming out, and the fear of the Delta variant....I think her lawyers have a bigger battle to fight. Which is more important her greed or the ability to keep an industry going in the face of a worldwide pandemic. I don't know about the US, but this new "variant" is pushing back more openings and we still can't even jump a plane over to England without a negative Covid test before we go, and 2 days after we get back. I think that it is ridiculous to say the streaming platforms can't offer an option for those that can't to watch a movie in person, so that she can make 50 million more than the 20 million from theatres and whatever she makes from the streaming for years to come, because let's face it is a part of the MCU world and will be re-watched for a decade to come.

I think personally there is nothing wrong with Disney telling everyone how much she made, if she is ashamed of it, then that alone says something about her claim. I used to like Scarlett Johannsen and Emily Stone, but this makes me see them in a while new light...... Greedy.

 

[Overmind One]

Disney is greedy, and so are these women suing Disney. Nobody is innocent here. The women are using a loophole, and Disney uses them all the time. I kinda hope Disney loses. Regardless of the outcome, Scarlett, Emma and anyone else who tries this will be "greylisted" in Hollywood. That means they get work, but nowhere near A-list work. Much like Brie Larson who is greylisted for other reasons.

 

[Joelist]

I took a look and do not see anything saying that Disney has claimed ScarJo’s contract included the streaming. Is there a link?

As to the suits, if the contract or a rider or amendment said theatrical then Disney does not have a leg to stand on legally. If they try to argue that pandemic lets them disregard terms of contracts that won’t fly. It also doesn’t help their case that other studios using this approach DID amend their contracts with cast and production companies to address streaming revenue. Examples include Warner Bros paying Legendary Films extra (on Godzilla v Kong) and also Gal Gadot being paid extra - both because of dual release.

On one level this is popcorn stuff in that we have rich people suing rich people for more money. On another level this is two of the few actors left whose name on a film can generate ticket sales (bankable) and Disney has an extremely bad reputation for playing payment games with authors, actors, producers and other sources for what they show.

 

[Quetesh]

I took a look and do not see anything saying that Disney has claimed ScarJo’s contract included the streaming. Is there a link?

As to the suits, if the contract or a rider or amendment said theatrical then Disney does not have a leg to stand on legally. If they try to argue that pandemic lets them disregard terms of contracts that won’t fly. It also doesn’t help their case that other studios using this approach DID amend their contracts with cast and production companies to address streaming revenue. Examples include Warner Bros paying Legendary Films extra (on Godzilla v Kong) and also Gal Gadot being paid extra - both because of dual release.

On one level this is popcorn stuff in that we have rich people suing rich people for more money. On another level this is two of the few actors left whose name on a film can generate ticket sales (bankable) and Disney has an extremely bad reputation for playing payment games with authors, actors, producers and other sources for what they show.

Yes, here is the extract from the link below:

Disney said there was "no merit" to the lawsuit, saying it had complied with her contract. It added in a statement that the release of the movie on its streaming platform had "significantly enhanced her (Johansson's) ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date.”

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/d...ver-black-widow-streaming-release-2021-07-29/

I agree that Disney is greedy, they are a corporation and that is the nature of corporations. Another thing about corporation as large as Disney is that sustain ten of thousands of jobs. Some of these jobs can be lost if these corporations lose revenue.
Another thing I don't like is the Hollywood Elite thinking they can dictate they way the public gets to watch movies because of their selfish greed of their own. I am really sick of them thinking they are above everyone else.

What would have happened if a giant snowstorm hit most of US on her opening weekend? She would have lost a ton, and not had a way to cry about it. The lawyers can argue the same thing, worldwide disaster has created an environment where there is need to allow the public to watch at home as well, She is dreaming by the way if she thinks a full movie theatre release would have filled the seats for 50M more dollars or made her the amount of coin like a Guardian of the Galaxy or Avengers movie. Black Widow is not exactly the most interesting of the bunch. I saw the movie, it was not that good, it was okay, and not worth a second watch at this time. Also, I would not go to a theatre packed with idiots breaking rules without masks just to see it.

I really hope Disney wins, if not the stars will just find a way to cry for more money. I also think that greylisted or not, I will not pay a single cent to ever watch any movie that she is in again, unless Marvel finds a way to bring back Black Widow in an Avengers movie, but somehow I think that possibility just got much less likely. As I said before, there will be plenty of other stars willing to suffer through the pittance of the hybrid movie world we live in. I am tired of Hollywood stars thinking they should have a right to influence the greater USA, and world because of their fame. I don't care what they think about politics or what they think about movies moving to streaming/hybrid release.

They are employees and get paid quite well to do their jobs, I wish they would just shut up and act.

If Disney had signed a contract/email that stated "exclusively theatrical" then she might have a decent case, but even that will be in trouble if there is small print in the contract about exceptions to the claim, and anyone who has every signed a contract knows there are entire appendixes on the exception clauses in most contracts.

 

[Joelist]

That Disney statement is extremely vague and sounds more like they are trying to claim being on Disney+ got her more exposure.

Disney has a bad reputation of shafting creators, writers and performers going back years. Johansson and Stone are in a better position than most to challenge their shady business practices because they are both in the top 5 most bankable "names" in Tinseltown. Disney has no safe way (especially in the environment they helped create with their own hypocrisy) to blacklist or even greylist them.

This again will come down to language - if the contracts speak of theatrical releases then Disney loses. If they speak of other avenues for the initial release such as streaming then they win. Their counsel's statements were not helpful and make it sound like they are going to go into court and expect the court to disregard the language because "pandemic". And stating ScarJo's earnings does not help them - it just makes them sound petty.

Remember what the argument here is; it is not that hybrid release models are wrong or should not happen. It is that Disney (note Warner Brothers who also is doing this is not being sued because THEY made sure all parties had the streaming source accounted for in contracts) negotiated deals based on theatrical release then turned around and released instead simultaneously on Disney+ for a surcharge. Disney both kept all of the surcharge funds AND by dint of increased subscribers had their stock price increase.

 

[Quetesh]

Time will tell indeed, one thing is for sure, this case is not just about 1 case and her career will never be the same. Another clear thing is the the studios will clearly write this into every contract gong forward. If the actor does not like it, then don't do the movie.

I don't think they are petty at all, she brought up the whole thing and opened that door, why should they not let everyone know how much she has already made.
if it is not a sealed contract, they have every right to say what they paid her. If she is ashamed of making that much and crying for more, then she not be so darn greedy. Why should this be kept such a secret?

Disney's success in theatres or streaming makes their stock price go up, they has nothing to do with it, and really they make movies all the time, so they don't live and die on the stock market by one or two movies. They will make more in the stock market if they win this case most likely then this 1 movie on their streaming service. This was already well and up and running long before Cruella and Black Widow. Ironically back then, it was the ONLY way a movie could be released and nobody complained about it a bit. Now that it's been a few month's later, Hollywood stars think the rest of the world will cow-tow to them and their desire for things to go back to the status norm....news flash, it won't be going back all the way. This is all good news for the actual fans, where a family of four can watch a movie for 30 dollars in total instead of shelling out 15 bucks a piece.

Jungle Cruises is Disney and I am happy to read that Dwayne Johnson has no plan to sue Disney over they hybrid release. Maybe because his movies are usually more popular than both Cruella and Black Widow and their mediocore release. More likely because he hopes to have a long and prosperous career for years to come by not biting the hands that feed him, both the movies studios and his fans.

 

[Joelist]

The argument I described is what the suit alleges. The suit says that Disney contracted to pay based on an exclusive theatrical release model then turned around and released it at the same time on Disney+. Per ScarJo's lawyers they repeatedly tried to engage Disney on this before the release back to when the Disney+ plan was announced and Disney did not engage at all. If this is correct Disney loses.

As to Disney's lawyers statement I am FAR from the only one thinking it was petty. What they needed to do was shut up and do their talking in court. What has happened instead is the same "Woke" and "MeToo" crowds that Disney has been pandering to since the whole Captain Marvel fiasco are now flaming Disney and calling them hypocrites. It's actually kind of funny to watch the wokesters on Disney and the wokesters in the internet world eating each other.

As to releasing on streaming, I like the idea. It is less expensive overall as long as surcharges are not excessive. And outside of Disney+ the other streamer doing this (HBO Max) has not been surcharging and they also were careful to approach the actors and production studios involved in advance and where needed negotiate amended contracts.

I have a funny feeling Disney settles out of court. One big reason is if this gets to discovery they can expect to have the detailed numbers and records for Disney+ subpoenaed. And they probably do not want that information out there.

 

[YJ02]

Streaming has been the future for awhile; the pandemic and all the closures and restrictions, has helped to seal that fate.

Why pay the equivalent of a membership fee of like 2 months of disney + and get all of the content there for one movie sitting in theater with smelly people, making noise all carrying maybe who knows what disease, when you can sit at home in comfort?

 

[Joelist]

I agree streaming is going to grow even more. I disagree about the idea that being together in social settings is somehow faulty - that is the downside of all the chat rooms, video conferencing and such. Humans need real contact with other humans and electronic contract just doesn't cut it.

Disney is getting a big public black eye here and may well also lose in court ESPECIALLY if the contract speaks in any way of exclusivity. I actually expect they will settle out of court rather than have the inner workings and exact numbers of Disney+ exposed via discovery. Also, I expect that they will be having every actor they have under contracts they negotiated pre Disney+ coming back to renegotiate so they get a cut of streaming (which by the way Warner Bros did with their production companies and actors once they went with HBO Max - for example they paid Legendary Films and also Gal Gadot extra beforehand).

 

[YJ02]

I agree streaming is going to grow even more. I disagree about the idea that being together in social settings is somehow faulty - that is the downside of all the chat rooms, video conferencing and such. Humans need real contact with other humans and electronic contract just doesn't cut it.

Disney is getting a big public black eye here and may well also lose in court ESPECIALLY if the contract speaks in any way of exclusivity. I actually expect they will settle out of court rather than have the inner workings and exact numbers of Disney+ exposed via discovery. Also, I expect that they will be having every actor they have under contracts they negotiated pre Disney+ coming back to renegotiate so they get a cut of streaming (which by the way Warner Bros did with their production companies and actors once they went with HBO Max - for example they paid Legendary Films and also Gal Gadot extra beforehand).

oh i like in public too! i am just saying, with the current trend towards streaming, with all the issues going on, places like theaters are not doing themselves any favors when they are not adapting to the change

ex: i know what the theater "experience" or even better a rock concert "experience" is, but many under 30's do not. and therefore, they see no reason why they should ever experience it. when you have the quality there is with streaming with many devices and with VR devices, etc, its hard to tell a kid that real life is better. Add to that the virus and maybe the possibility of a mass shooting or some other issue...

so, when places like movie theaters or those who sell concert tickets keep prices sky high, they are not helping themselves stay alive-- more like build a nice parachute for their escape to bankruptcy maybe

 

[Joelist]

And........I called it!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...k-widow-settlement/ar-AAP1dBI?ocid=uxbndlbing

Once this thing got past the usual attempt by the defendant (Disney) to dismiss it was clear Discovery was upcoming, and Disney clearly wants no one to see the actuals on Disney+.