Black Widow (July 9, 2021)

[Kaslo]

Are they allowed to do that? That seems like a big decision. Like would the attorney represent the agent or her?

Eh, I could see this affecting the little guy, like I would imagine that SAG-AFTRA agreements probably aren't equipped with the idea of skipping theaters. It's probably especially dicey because a lot films aren't going to be negotiated on a channel-by-channel basis like before. So actors might see a smaller cut.

There are a lot of claims you can assign to others, I would not be surprised if agents require their actors to assign claims to them as a matter of course.

[Katlan]

Such a rice person problem. She should come out and say that any money she recovers from the lawsuit will be donated instead of being a rich person issue to get richer.

[Jamison]

I don't exactly think that she needs any more money, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a big corporation trying to cop out from a contractual obligation either. More importantly, this could set a very important precedent for others in the industry who are regularly taken advantage of and make a far more modest living doing the creative work behind the scenes.

[Krandor]

It wouldn't set any kind of precedent, they either broke the contract or they didn't.

[6souls]

https://twitter.com/screenrant/statu...33292506685440

[carlweathers]

There are a lot of claims you can assign to others, I would not be surprised if agents require their actors to assign claims to them as a matter of course.

Oh....did not know that. That seems like that would be confusing for standing/damages, but I'll obviously defer to you.

[TummieGaruda]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a lot of the Marvel contracts are structured so that the actors make less than they normally would, but then receive a larger cut of the box office revenue (I think this conversation came up earlier in the pandemic when the discussions about releasing movies on Disney+ started). Marvel films can get away with it because they're almost all guaranteed successes (and because they've been doing it with everyone for years now), but I assume there aren't a lot of movies that can get away with paying less on the promise of major box office earnings.



This isn't a question of when it was released or how much money it made, it's a question of how it was released. Pretty much every article I've seen has said an exclusive theater release was written into her contract and the decision to release it on Disney+ was made without consulting her or her camp.

I believe most contracts in Hollywood are like that now and have been for some time. It's X dollars up front and then Y% of the back end gross, so yeah they can pay actors a smaller amount up front however ScarJo got the standard $15 million up front that both Hemsworth and Evans got for lead roles in their Marvel films. If her lawyer or whatever was saying she lost $50 million, then it would seem that her back end was 5% of a projected $1 billion in box office gross. Honestly I am not sure it would have grossed that much as I saw it more of a $500-700 million box office.

As far as the argument goes, both sides are pointing the finger at each other. The lawyer is saying that Disney released the movie on Disney+ on purpose to boost their subs and they are "hiding behind COVID-19 as a pretext to do so", and Disney is saying basically stfu you made some money already. I am by no means a fan of ScarJo but Disney should have renegotiated the contract for streaming release when it became evident that they couldn't do a normal theatrical release. I understand Disney wanting to get this movie out during the pandemic because they need to get the slate rolling due to connections to other events/films/shows, but I believe Disney's expectations were way higher in terms of how many people would pay the extra $30 for the premiere service on top of Disney+ to watch the movie. They probably should've also given her a small payout + X% of streaming side revenue.

[Katlan]

It wouldn't set any kind of precedent, they either broke the contract or they didn't.

As we have not seen the contract or any amendments to it for streaming, we don't know either way. It may be that Disney broke the contract or just that she is bitter she didn't get a bigger pay day because of COVID-19. This situation is also very different from HBO-MAX as they aren't charging anything other than their monthly sub to see a new release.

As far as the argument goes, both sides are pointing the finger at each other. The lawyer is saying that Disney released the movie on Disney+ on purpose to boost their subs and they are "hiding behind COVID-19 as a pretext to do so", and Disney is saying basically stfu you made some money already. I am by no means a fan of ScarJo but Disney should have renegotiated the contract for streaming release when it became evident that they couldn't do a normal theatrical release. I understand Disney wanting to get this movie out during the pandemic because they need to get the slate rolling due to connections to other events/films/shows, but I believe Disney's expectations were way higher in terms of how many people would pay the extra $30 for the premiere service on top of Disney+ to watch the movie. They probably should've also given her a small payout + X% of streaming side revenue.

I can't speak about others, but having an 18 month old makes being able to buy a movie at release a godsend. We bought the movie on D+ and if it was theater only we would have waited to see it until it was released on BluRay.

Same thing for Jungle Cruise. We are going to be watching that this weekend.

[Kirin]

This is a situation where everyone involved can be both right and wrong at the same time. Just settle out of court and donate whatever the amount is to charity and move on.

It would be funny if this somehow ends up being a "fuck you" to Disney over Ryan Reynolds and Deadpool soon entering the MCU.

[6souls]

Deadpool soon entering the MCU.

He's already there.

[Kirin]

He's already there.

And the world is better for it.

[NynJa]

If your contract stayed “x% of box office revenue” then the production company opts to add the movie to their streaming platform after the contract was signed (not to mention releasing direct to streaming platform probably wasnt even a consideration at the time) and wont give you your cut cause “well its not box office revenue”, you would be pissed too and demand rightful compensation.

[Serra]

Ah yes, the classic rich person problem of getting screwed by an employer/not getting paid a previously agreed upon amount. Sure is great that non-rich people never have to deal with such a situation.

As we have not seen the contract or any amendments to it for streaming, we don't know either way. It may be that Disney broke the contract or just that she is bitter she didn't get a bigger pay day because of COVID-19. This situation is also very different from HBO-MAX as they aren't charging anything other than their monthly sub to see a new release.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe her camp since they have said it is a contract dispute and specifically pointed out the exclusive theater release clause. Kas or another lawyer can tell me if my reading of the situation is off, but if there's a part of the contract that clears Disney in this dispute, it seems like it'd be easy to point that out instead of putting out a statement that amounted to, Nuh-uh! But also Covid!"

[carlweathers]

I completely disagree with the take that "oh man rich person screwing over rich people". 1) This could affect smaller actors and smaller parties getting residuals. and 2) There is a huge difference between Scarlet's wealth vs Disney's wealth.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...it-1234990644/

This is an interesting article on Hollywood Reporter. This isn't a clean cut, contract break case, she's basically saying it is tortious interference because Disney made Marvel break the contract.

[NynJa]

Yes, ScarJo is rich...and Disney's net worth is 1000x that of ScarJo.

On one hand: ScarJo is being screwed out of 10 mil. "boohoo, she has a net worth of 160 mil, who gives a shit? She's not gonna miss 10 mil anyways!!"
However, the party screwing her over has a net worth of over 200 billion, thats 200,000 million. Whats 10 mil out of 200,000 million?

[carlweathers]

Eh, I know ScarJo is rich, but I wouldn't want anyone to get fucked over by the mouse, whether they barely make 5 figures or if they make 8.

[Serra]

Emma Stone is reportedly considering suing Disney over Cruella's hybrid release, after Black Widow's Scarlett Johansson filed her own lawsuit.

https://screenrant.com/cruella-movie...umors-updates/

[Kirin]

Something else is afoot here as this steamrolls. You would think Disney's legal department would have seen something like this coming if this is about to become 3, 4, 5, or more headliners filing lawsuits over the streaming service releases. Maybe this is Disney saying "we have to get the schedule ball moving again" and just are internally baking in settlements as the cost of doing business and a cheaper option for them instead of waiting to release some of these titles and losing out on bigger revenue spacing for films like Spiderman and Dr. Strange that will have a larger impact down the line than Black Widow does right now.

[Serra]

A person or organization with power used that position for personal gain!? Who saw that coming??

If all they cared about was the schedule, they could have renegotiated ScarJo's contract to account for the Disney+ release. Studios (not just Disney -- Emily Blunt and John Krasinski may or may not have a similar lawsuit with Paramount over A Quiet Place 2 and there was tons of outrage from the industry when Warner announced they were putting all their 2021 films on HBO Max) probably don't think actors will challenge them because, as has been pointed out already, it burns that bridge.

In ScarJo's case, Widow's storyline is done and the character is dead, so she doesn't really have to worry about that. Yes, this probably sours any chance of future roles under the Disney umbrella, but she's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) actress in Hollywood at the moment, so she's in a better position to call them on their BS that a lot of others.

[Kaslo]