Disney cuts all ties with Scarlet Johansson—“how dare that bitch sue us!”

They are both insufferable and greedy.

I wouldn't want to be on Disney's bad side..... they know how to be villains.

That short bitch never rehung the clothes she tried on!!!!

This will kill Disney in the long run. No talent agency will want to work with them if they screw them and their clients over like that. Sure, they can focus on animation, but even those require voice actors.

Team Scarlett. I don't necessarily like her but Disney definitely f*cked her over.

Disney is greedy, but no one is worth 20 million dollars for anything short of curing cancer.

How much is she taking in the back end?

Team Scarlett. After the massive settlement she will get from them, she won't need to slum it with moronic Disney super hero movies anymore. She can do artistic films for the rest of her life and still be filthy rich.

[quote] but no one is worth 20 million dollars for anything short of curing cancer.

Oh I see, so the talentless money grabbers at Disney should keep the money instead of the actress who literally got people to watch the movie.

You’re just saying no one’s worth $20MM because she is, and you’re most definitely NOT, and you can’t comprehend that.

[quote] Disney is greedy, but no one is worth 20 million dollars for anything short of curing cancer.

Disney signed the contract. They screwed not only her, but also her manager and her talent agency out of money. Micky Mouse gets torn a new one.

Quelle surprise. They have no obligation to continue working with that greedy bitch.

R8 is such a cunt. Wow.

SJ will be ok but the lawsuit was ill advised. The industry is in chaos because of the the quarantine, everyone must compromise.

Are they going to go bad and re-edit and digitally enhance those Avenger movies now so her character dies?

The media is framing this as a petty maneuver by Disney. If they continue to act this unprofessional, Disney will get punched and deleted by Hollywood. Movie theaters may be on their way out, but the entertainment industry still needs actors.

[R4]This will kill Disney in the long run. No talent agency will want to work with them if they screw them and their clients over like that. Sure, they can focus on animation, but even those require voice actors.

What a fucking MARY.

[quote] SJ will be ok but the lawsuit was ill advised. The industry is in chaos because of the the quarantine, everyone must compromise.

Disney literally ghosted her and her management who wanted to negotiate a compromise after they heard from Disney's plans regarding Black Widow!

fuck this talentless tree

[Quote] How much is she taking in the back end?

Um, that's the whole point of her lawsuit: Disney screwed her out of an expected payday by releasing the film to streaming, thus diluting the box office and not sharing the streaming profits.

Scarlett is 36. Chris Hemsworth is 38. Chris Evans is 40. Jeremy Renner is 50. Robert Downey Jr is 56.

It's time to make way for the new generation of Marvel superheroes.

you have a right to legal recourse over contracts. this is entertainment law. Disney is wrong here. Scarlet has the right to do this. Let Disney prove their side, or just pay her. Obviously, they owe here money.

[quote] What a fucking MARY.

Sure, Mickey.

Has Stephen Dorff issued a statement?

Is this Bob Chapek or Bob Iger’s doing? I imagine the former. It seemed that Iger is/was too smooth to let this happen.

This was over for Disney the moment Andrea from 90210 took a day trip from her retirement home.

Unleash the Kraken.

R15 I don't think you realize where technology is going. In 10-20 years studios will be able to use AI to create synthetic actors and voices, and then own it as intellectual property. There was a thread the other week of how this was already done with Anthony Bourdain's voice in some documentary even though he's been dead for years.

Disney has been fucking over artists and people for decades. Fuck them. I'm glad she had the balls to stand up to them.

r26, celebrity culture is still big business. Not just Hollywood makes money off of celebrities. Spokespersons and endorsements, gossip entertainment, etc. They are not going down without a fight.

She’s just pissed because her ex husband (Ryan Reynolds) negotiated a better deal for Free Guy. It also had its release date moved back because of COVID, but his team fought for 45 days in theaters before the movie goes to streaming. She was poorly served by her agent.

[quote]Oh I see, so the talentless money grabbers at Disney should keep the money instead of the actress who literally got people to watch the movie.

The character got people to watch the movie. Black Widow existed for 20 years before Johansson was even born. Johansson got paid a lot of money to mouth the words given to her for the character, but there's no evidence that she brought in more viewers than any other known actress could have.

As Edward Norton and Terrence Howard, and Aaron Taylor Johnson learned, everyone in the MCU is replaceable.

If they broke the contract with her, they broke the contract with her. I don't understand how this is not a given.

She could have said "okay, no biggie" - and then they'd do it to everybody.

I'm not a huge Scarlet fan, but she is in the legal - and I would say ethical - right.

R31, there was only one who 100% wasn't - and he retired. Because his character is dead.

And he's probably thanking his lucky stars he got out while the getting was good.

Not a fan of this big tittied chick but I hope she takes The Mouse to the cleaners.

I couldn't care less about MCU and ScarJo's little comic book movies.

Her longevity shocks me. She's outlasted any number of female contemporaries who are prettier, funnier, sexier, more talented, and more versatile. Sure, ScarJo has some talent and a scrappy persona, but there's nothing really outstanding about her. She's.... okay, not much more.

She's also lost major points with me by defending her old pal Woody Allen. That is a bad look, ScarJo, increasingly so over time.

I think she’s a very inconsistent actress, but I’ve come to love Scarlett’s IDGAF attitude. She’ll defend Woody Allen when no one under the age of seventy would dare, she’ll claim that no role should be off limits to her, and she’ll take on the biggest force in entertainment.

[quote] No talent agency will want to work with them if they screw them and their clients over like that.

Some people can't even make their mortgage payment and Scarlett complaining about back end pay after receiving $20 million dollars up front? Sorry, it's hard for the public feel sympathy. And after seeing the ostentatious dump Hemsworth build in Oz with his millions, these guys need to do something more useful with their money. The days of super-hero movies should have been over years ago.

I don't think actors will ever be successfully replaced by AI but they can always look for new talent.

Sometimes she really thinks

She's going crazy in the night

When she hides down in the covers

And she won't turn out the light

She says nothing's gonna get to her

But then again it might

What can she do to keep from going

Crazy in the night

Hopefully there is a force majeure clause to protect Disney. A worldwide pandemic is an unforeseen event that prevented one of the parties from fulfilling the terms of the contract.

[quote] She could have said "okay, no biggie" - and then they'd do it to everybody.

I am sure this is pushed by her management, because it creates a precedence where other studios follow suit and stop re-negotiating A-list actors' contracts to adjust to the new streaming distribution due to the pandemic. This affects all Hollywood talent agencies and could lead to a huge loss of income for them all. That's why even the SAG-AFTRA is getting involved. This about more than "just" Scarlett Johansson missing a payday.

[quote] The industry is in chaos because of the the quarantine, everyone must compromise.

Everyone must compromise except for Disney, right? Bootlicker.

[quote]Sorry, it's hard for the public feel sympathy.

I completely understand this but the truth is this is a problem between Scarlet, her people, and Disney. Everyone else is watching for entertainment value if they're watching at all. I don't think she's personally asking for anyone to feel sorry for her.

[quote]As Edward Norton and Terrence Howard, and Aaron Taylor Johnson learned, everyone in the MCU is replaceable.

They barely got out the gate but she has done MULTIPLE films with them. She was probably already done in her mind anyway which is why she went ahead with this.

[quote]In 10-20 years studios will be able to use AI to create synthetic actors and voices, and then own it as intellectual property.

But who wants to see that right now? People want to see someone they know is real. I'm not saying that won't happen at some point but at the moment the public isn't likely to go for someone completely synthetic.

Gabrielle Carteris and SAG/AFTRA are on Scarlet's side which apparently enraged Disney.

[quote] Some people can't even make their mortgage payment and Scarlett complaining about back end pay after receiving $20 million dollars up front? Sorry, it's hard for the public feel sympathy.

Who died to make you the voice of the public?

Sure it can R37. All Disney has to do is get young kids acclimated and conditioned to AI celebrities, and people will grow accustomed to it over time. They may even prefer it. They already have huge access to children thru their media empire.

Personalities and looks can be optimized instantly for audience consumption. Gen Z is already addicted to smart phones, it won't be difficult to get new generations addicted to digital simulacrums.

Who wants to do business with someone who is suing them?

Scarlet Johansson is totally in the right, and her lawsuit is VERY important for all actors and those involved in movies in this new age of "streaming at the same time of theatrical release".

Disney was TOTALLY in the wrong on this one, and Johansson's suit has TONS of merit, and I hope she wins it.

r43, that's a process that will take way more than what r26 predicted. Most of us will not be alive when that becomes a mainstream status quo.

The mouse is a rat.. So what else is new?

By the way the AI taking over for the performer was, of course, a Black MIrror movie with Miley Cyrus called, "Rachel, Jack and Ashely Too."

Anonymous reply 8, no one is worth that much money. They should make Scarlet wear a scarlet letter for being so greedy.

And yes, I am jealous. Like you would be of me, goofus!

Disney is in breach of contract. This isn't complicated.

I'm not a South Park fan, but their take on Mickey was spot on.

Again, I hope she milks them for all they’ve got, but if she doesn’t turn around and donate it to a worthy cause they will come for her too.

[quote]Disney is in breach of contract. This isn't complicated.

That's not the point. The point is, as Tommy Steele sang in [italic]The Happiest Millionaire[/italic], what do you do about it?

My brother-in-law worked for Disney as a computer engineer. He constantly complained about the low pay compared to other companies but he was just starting out and didn't want to move yet. The last straw was when he went to see a movie that he worked hard on. He was sitting with his family in the movie theatre, expecting to see his name at the end of the credits but his name wasn't there. After that, he got a better paying job with better benefits at a video game company. I've heard of more people complain about working at Disney so I'm not sure what is going on there, why they are such assholes.

Scarlett is a big time movie star. If they can get lowly employees and their stories, now that would kill their reputation.

What is DL’s obsession with Woody creeper Allen? And Roman Raper Polanski? They are sexual predators. Get the fuck out of here with your fangirl worship.

Only one of those men is guilty, R55.

[quote]Oh I see, so the talentless money grabbers at Disney should keep the money instead of the actress who literally got people to watch the movie.

With all due respect, they could have cast Joan Van Ark in the role and it still would have done huge box-office. The Marvel films have a rabid fanbase that will turn out no matter what. Florence Pugh is the star of the movie anyway, not Scarlet.

R56 how do you know? Were you hiding in Soon Yi’s 12year old asshole?

You're the one bringing up pedophilic imagery, R 58. Not I.

This seems pretty routine when you are being sued. Why work with an angry client? Hulu awaits for Scarlett.

R59 and you are the one defensing a pedophile.

Disney needs to be broken up. They have engaged in enough criminal behavior to warrant their entire board being thrown in prison. At minimum.

R61, you're the one projecting your own pedophilia, antisemitism, and racism onto me in order to justify continuing to defame a Jewish man.

And all the attacks on Soon-Yi are racist and misogynistic, rooted in the disgusting stereotype of the passive and submissive Asian trophy wife.

R14 Deleted by Hollywood? Disney owns half of the Hollywood. And brings in more money than all the other studios combined. They'll be fine.

That's what you get for "acting" in a CGI children's "movie".

[quote]The Marvel films have a rabid fanbase that will turn out no matter what.

That's not true. You only have to look at the box office from the early Marvel movies. The Incredible Hulk (2008), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), Thor (2011), Ant-Man (2015) & Iron Man (2008) were the lowest-grossing Marvel films.

The sequels all did well. The films that did the best were films that starred those characters and actors after years of world building and yes, at that point, they were all synonymous with the characters.

Scarlet had been playing the role for 11 years which consisted of 9 movies. At that point you can't just throw "Joan Van Ark" in there. It's also the reason they won't recast Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr. since they've been around just as long. They wouldn't dare recast Chadwick Boseman. It's also the reason that Anthony Mackie has been being pushed as the new Captain America since Avengers: End Game because they know fans will get used to him by the time Captain America 4 is shot and released but they knew they couldn't just throw him into the role. Florence Pugh also can't play Natasha because it's Scarlet's role.

(As for exceptions to this, The Black Panther was heralded as an event for black people and the box office gross and demographics shows that. However, it's still Chadwicks' role. The same goes for Captain Marvel. They pushed it as an event for women. They wouldn't dare recast Brie.)

LOL. Of all people, trolls try to use Soon-Yi to derail the thread?

[quote]defensing

Oh, dear!

Isn't the next phase for the MCU to reboot all the heroes per what happened in Loki? I thought part of that plan is to invert the genders of a lot characters so that this time around it is more female heavy.

[quote] Deleted by Hollywood? Disney owns half of the Hollywood.

Sure, but as of right now it's worth shit if the other half refuses to work with them. SAG-AFTRA, Billie Lourd / CAA don't mess around. They gonna cut you if you screw them out of their money.

[quote] Why work with an angry client? Hulu awaits for Scarlett.

Disney owns Hulu.

Disney needs actors more than actors need Disney, since there are plenty of other studios, not owned by Disney, around. And Disney can't weather the storm when their precious shareholders will be on their back the moment their stock plummets, because of some industry backlash.

Disney will have huge problems if they don't settle quick.

How ironic that the Sherman Antitrust laws proved powerless against Disney. Yes, I know they aren't named after THOSE Shermans. I just noticed it.

Guess who was president when this law was passed?

I bet Disney wants to break the unions.

Is this why they frequently film in Australia?

In the short run, ScarJo is right. In the long run, it may be bad for her career, but she is pushing 40 as it is. Now, even if she gets blacklisted she at least dies a heros death.

They filmed Unpete's Undragon in New Zealand despite being setting in Portland (as opposed to Maine like the 1977 musical [italic]Pete's Dragon[/italic] that it has the same name as).

Joan Van Ark would have been grateful for the opportunity and never would have sued.

r79, that's because she'd be in a constant state of dizziness from her plastic surgeries' anesthesia gas.

Disney would never cast Joan Van Ark in anything now because her facelift might give children nightmares.

To the person (it multiple people) crying how this is bad for Disney and how it will destroy Disney... please. In a couple of years no one will even remember this little scandal. And Disney will probably own 98% of Hollywood by then, unfortunately.

R82, take your dimestore nihilsm elsewhere.

[quote]She could have said "okay, no biggie" - and then they'd do it to everybody.

They did do it to everyone who had profit-sharing as part of their contract. It said in the article that she had the most power to make them change the contract once they decided to move it to a half-streaming release so she's the one that moved forward for all those with less power who had their money tied up in the theater profits before Disney decided to change their model.

She'll win and then Disney will pay her and everyone else.

Well doesn’t a Black Widow bite the head off its mate? What did they expect?

Disney isn't fighting ScarJo just because they are cheap, there is much more at stake. ScarJo got 20 mil upfront and she got a cut of the VOD (video on demand) money. The movie is said to have generated close to 30 mils on VOD so far.

But what she wants to know is how many new subscribers DisneyPlus got from her movie, how many streams it's generating outside of VOD, and be properly compensated for that. She wants old-fashioned royalties, and the streaming business doesn't work that way.

That's why Netflix pays so well; take this truckload on cash upfront and never ask how the movie did because we fully own it and you signed away any rights to further compensation or insight about audience numbers.

Disney got caught out with ScarJo, the contract was not properly formulated, but they are going to fight tooth and nail to crush her. If she gets her way, it opens the door for other actors to demand access to streaming data and royalties. They won't allow that to happen, it will ruin DisneyPlus.

How does HBOMax manage their artists when they run movies on their site? That piece of info Scarlett is demanding sounds like a headache. It's better to pay all artists up front.

Dune will be the biggest movie this year, premiering on HBOMax in October. How will Timothee be paid?

R87, HBOMax did the right thing, I think. They renegotiated the contracts and paid actors/directors generous compensation for lost cinema revenue.

But HBOMax doesn't charge the customer $30 to view first-run movies like Disney. It's free for the first 30 days. Of course, the monthly fee is higher - $15 vs $8.

[quote]Dune will be the biggest movie this year, premiering on HBOMax in October. How will Timothee be paid?

In weed and eyeliner.

[quote]Isn't the next phase for the MCU to reboot all the heroes per what happened in Loki?

R70, That's not quite what happened in Loki and that isn't the plan. All those Disney+ shows lead to new movies.

At the end of Vision and The Scarlet Witch, Monica Rambeau heads off to [bold]SWORD[/bold] (another series that's coming with Emilia Clark from Game of Thrones) in space where she'll encounter Captain Marvel which sends us to [bold]Captain Marvel 2: The Marvels[/bold]. Joining them will be [bold]Ms. Marvel[/bold] whose series is coming up next on Disney+ after [bold]What If ...[/bold] which will show us alternate universes like the ones we heard about in Loki.

Falcon and the Winter Soldier will lead into [bold]Captain America 4[/bold] and [bold]Black Panther 2.[/bold]

You already saw Julia Louie Dreyfuss appear in both Black Widow and Falcon and the Winter Soldier to recruit Yelena and USAgent, two characters that will no doubt end up in the Dark Avengers.

Loki's season will lead to the [bold]Ant-Man: Quantumania[/bold] movie, where Kang will appear. Kang is an Avengers villain and that, since they're building to it, will likely lead to Young Avengers since nearly all the members have already appeared or will appear. (We already met a Young Loki. Cassie is in Ant-Man already. Kate/Hawkeye is getting her own series, [bold]Hawkeye,[/bold] and was already in the Avengers movies. Wiccan & Speed were in the Scarlet Witch series as she heads off to find them in [bold]Doctor Strange and the Mind of Madness[/bold] where she'll meet Miss America (who was already cast) another Young Avengers character.)

They're not replacing all the old heroes. They're just bringing in new ones or rather shifting out the aging old actors and bringing in younger ones. They're even doing a Riri Williams/Ironheart (she's a smart black girl that builds her own Iron Man suit) next year.

So she's now the Nicolette Sheridan of MCU ?

Pertaining to what is posted at R91, I'm fucking exhausted. I was willing to watch the movies in chronological order to keep the stories straight and not lose the storylines but fuck this. I'm not watching ten thousand hours of television shows ranging from mediocre to good, at best, to keep up with the Marvel Universe and all the players. This shit is turning into Russian literature levels of complexity at this point.

[quote]Some people can't even make their mortgage payment and Scarlett complaining about back end pay after receiving $20 million dollars up front? Sorry, it's hard for the public feel sympathy.

They probably should, because if Disney thinks they're so big and powerful they can screw over a huge star earning tens of millions of dollars, then they sure as hell are screwing over the supporting actors, staff and crew who are making working class wages.

[quote]But what she wants to know is how many new subscribers DisneyPlus got from her movie, how many streams it's generating outside of VOD, and be properly compensated for that. She wants old-fashioned royalties, and the streaming business doesn't work that way.

They used her likeness to sell subscriptions to their entire platform, which I'm sure is part of the issue here. Her contract likely had clauses for her likeness to be used in trailers, promotional bits, she probably got paid for photo shoots, etc. but it was all for the movie. Disney also used it to sell subscriptions.

When I was a kid you often had promotional products for movies like Indiana Jones lunchboxes or what have you, and you could tell if they got the rights to use the actors' likenesses or not, because you could find a legitimate licensed product that had some generic faces where the actors should have been. You saw this a lot on Bally pinball games with movie themes. The same principle applies here, it seems: if she didn't give permission for her likeness to be used to sell Disney channel subscriptions, then there's a problem.

This is a landmark case and the fall out is going to have a huge impact on the movie industry.

Disney have been really stupid here.

Scarlett was done playing the character, has plenty of money, and probably wants to focus on family for the next few years so them 'cutting all ties' with her probably doesn't bother her in the slightest. I'm glad that she was in the position she was to be able to stand up to them and not just accept being screwed over - I'm sure they have pulled similar stunts to many other people who have not felt able to stand up for themselves.

Disney are playing a very dangerous game here.

99% of the discussion here is just noise.

A contract is a contract is a contract.

Disney breached their contract with her.

Pandemic or no pandemic, they've gotta pay up.

SJ's lawsuit, if it is fully litigated, appealed, etc., could create significant precedent on several issues.

Team Disney here.

Interesting opinion below.

"And it’s not like the Covid defense holds water. Disney will probably claim that Marvel’s obligation under the original 2017 contract with Johansson is excused because of the legal doctrine of impossibility, which would indeed discharge Marvel or Disney if a supervening event made performance impossible and no one foresaw that event when the contract was signed. But to work, the argument has to be that the pandemic rendered its performance impossible — and the performance really has to be impossible under the legal standard; it can’t just be difficult or improbable.

Courts have held that the Covid-19 pandemic “does not conclusively establish the defense of impossibility ... particularly given the overlapping and sometimes contradictory state and local regulations, and evolving standards, for dealing with the virus.

In other words, it wasn’t impossible for Marvel to release the film in theaters. It might have been riskier during a pandemic to release it in theaters, but that doesn’t mean it was impossible. In fact, there’s no way it could be “impossible” because the film actually was released in theaters.

Disney’s high ground also has a lot of craters in it. If the defendants here were really concerned about the health risks of a theatrical release, why release it in theaters at all? The decision to release the film online evinces Disney’s concern — for its own bottom line.

I don’t think Disney is going to hurt that much after this, because they still by far have the best content of any entertainment company.

OP please resubmit your article with the headline “for reasons which are well known to her.”

R101, That's most likely true, although they risk alienating A and even B list talent with their actions.

There are so many law school exam question fact patterns coming out of this case.

"Best content" R101? HBO, Amazon and Netflix would beg to differ.

Could it be that Disney made as much money, perhaps more, on this film via streaming (considering potential new subscribers and the $29.99 to rent the film) and the theatrical release, and seized an opportunity to pay less to cast and crew who had back-end deals?

I can’t imagine Scarlett would ask for money that wasn’t there (not a good look in a pandemic), but Disney refused to renegotiate the pay structure. And as the linked article states, it wasn’t just Scarlett that got screwed, it was other cast and crew too. As the “face” of the film, if she wins in court, others will too.

And re the idea that no one is worth 20 million, etc. The entertainment industry is what it is. If you’re in the game, those are the rules. Pretty people (or athletic people, or folks who can sing) make a lot of money for a lot of people, and negotiate to get their share of a lot of money. So no surprise it ends up being a lot of money.

This is a super interesting thread! This case will be fascinating to watch.

Scarlet licky good good.

Rich people's problems

[quote]How much is she taking in the back end?

How would we know? This is a gay board. Ask Colin.

Calm the fuck down, r41. why are you so emotional about this?

R41 doesn't seem emotional at all.

[quote] Hopefully there is a force majeure clause to protect Disney. A worldwide pandemic is an unforeseen event that prevented one of the parties from fulfilling the terms of the contract.

Nope. Disney was not compelled by unforeseen circumstances to release the movie in the middle of a pandemic. It could have been shelved until it could have an exclusively theatrical release. Release dates are pushed all the time. Instead, it elected to release on digital platform to make $$$$ and deny Scarlett her agreed backend.

Her lawyers aren't stupid.

The only real winners will be the lawyers. $$$$

[quote]How much is she taking in the back end?

Not as much as I'd like.

[quote] a Black MIrror movie with Miley Cyrus called, "Rachel, Jack and Ashely Too."

I didn't know Miley could act.

[quote]Pertaining to what is posted at [R91], I'm fucking exhausted.

R93, I should have pointed out that, that while I know what's up because it is part of my job, I agree that it is all super ridiculous and exhausting.

Kevin Feige/Disney has created such a tightly knit-together bunch of properties that it's almost impossible to simply "jump on" and watch what you want. Wanna watch a movie? Watch the other ones first. Wanna know who that is on a tv show? Watch the movies they were in. Wanna know why people are doing this thing? Well, now you have to watch the TV show and the movie. Wanna know what happens next? Well now you have to watch this other TV series/movie.

(And the Hawkeye series is where Yelena and USAgent will be next which is a perfect example. Seeing the Black Widow movie + The Avengers Movies with Hawkeye + Falcon & Winter Soldier + Captain America's previous movies = non-comic fans knowing what's going on if you've never watched any of those and that's ignoring the Iron Man and Agent Carter references and characters that show up and any comic book references they don't explain.)

The best way to win the game is not to play it.

ScarJo just comes off as a huge cunt to me. She actually complained about being called “ScarJo.” Like, bitch, get over yourself.

r93, I'm sure like any good soap opera, the movies will have recapping dialogue so those of us who skipped the TV shows can catch up.

[quote]Kevin Feige/Disney has created such a tightly knit-together bunch of properties that it's almost impossible to simply "jump on" and watch what you want.

It's somewhat a double-edged sword, though.

By creating such a tightly integrated series of properties, they've steadily decreased accessibility and significantly raised the barriers to entry. Also, as they've delved further into the comic book mythos, they've made it so that you may also need to read those to get the full impact of what you're seeing on screen.

While box office for the movies and tv shows is high enough that it may not seem to matter, over time they'll end up with a smaller and smaller audience as only diehard fans will continue to view everything. Not everyone is going to watch Wandavision, Loki, or Falcon/Winter Soldier, so even the next movies, like Dr. Strange, may be hard to follow - further alienating casual fans.

[quote]Could it be that Disney made as much money, perhaps more, on this film via streaming (considering potential new subscribers and the $29.99 to rent the film) and the theatrical release, and seized an opportunity to pay less to cast and crew who had back-end deals?

You bet! They get to keep significantly more of the streaming and VOD money. Black Widows has grossed about 130 mils in theatrical release in the US. Disney only gets half of that (65 mils), the rest goes to the movie theaters. If the movie is released in China, Disney gets about 25% of the gross, if that. No wonder the studios are so eager to establish their own streaming services. If they can keep movies inside their own ecosystems they can eliminate much of the profit sharing. It's not the end of back-end deals, but it's going to have to be worded carefully in future contracts how to calculate it.

[QUOTE]If they can keep movies inside their own ecosystems they can eliminate much of the profit sharing.

Whoa! Starting to sound a lot like United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., the anti-trust decision from the Supreme Court that forced the studios to divest their ownership in the theaters presenting their films.

Here we go again?

r119 If only you can get over yourself f@g?

Disney seems to be getting aggressively anti-consumer and now anti-talent, from the parks to the movies.

r6, she produced this movie. She deserved more than that. And they could have given her and others who had this type of contract pre-pandemic a % of the online premium price to watch this. Was that so difficult?

As Ricky Gervais said at the Golden Globes, if ISIS started a streaming service, actors and actresses would immediately call their agents.

This morning I was watching the new MCU show "What/If" and it included yet another crop of well known actors who've jumped on the Marvel train. People might agree with Scarlett in principle, but if Disney called today they would crawl over broken glass to accept any crumb thrown their way.

If Disney knew they were going to do this hybrid release, they could have negotiated her contract and added another $5 million upfront or .25% or something on each 29.99 rental from Disney+. (I don't know what the right % are so don't yell that that is too low or to high)

It's not just Scarjo pushing this. It's her team. Many folks who get a cut of whatever she makes.

I don't suspect it's just her ego. She has people to pay who depend and make plans based on what she's projected to earn.

She received her $20 million. She is just mad they released it on streaming too, which she feels cuts the box office down and she ends up with less money.

R130, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Black Widow has made $174 million domestically and $185 million overseas.

It was never making more than $600-$700 million even without Covid. Most people weren’t interested in her getting a solo movie to begin with. She’s not an exciting character

[Quote] Most people weren’t interested in her getting a solo movie to begin with.

Uhh yes they were. Fans had been asking for a Black Widow movie for years.

[quote] The character got people to watch the movie. Black Widow existed for 20 years before Johansson was even born.

Yes the character just sells itself. That’s why they cast a Tony and BAFTA award winning actress to play her.

I mean, we all know how the marvel characters just [italic]sell themselves[/italic] ….

Disney did not breach her contract. She didn’t get bonuses because the box office was weak. No actor can dictate how a studio releases a film. And spare me that is doing this for the little people.

No. The media Kept claiming everyone wanted a BW movie. That’s a lie. She also has the worst selling toys.

Give her the money, you damn chislers.

R135 answers the rhetorical question, “how stupid can a person be?”

Comic book movies, cartoons & dour Frances McDormand are the sole output of Hollywood.

Although it seems she may be in the right, I'm not a fan of hers. From what I've seen, she could care less about the "little people." More like she's used to getting her way.

R135, in her defense (and as mentioned above), her ex-husband also has a film being released by a Disney subsidiary and his film was also repeatedly got pushed back from its 2020 release due to COVID. However, he (Ryan Reynolds) was able to maintain the stipulation that Free Guy would get a 45-day release before it was available for streaming, but Scarlett's team was rebuffed.

Sad. She must be very unlikable and thinks too highly of herself. Her film bombed.

Presumably all the Team Disney Suits posters here are bots or, worse, Disney gays.

I loved Black Widow. They sent the character off and gave us Yelena. The idea that a shit movie by Ryan Reynolds got renegotiated is crazy.

I saw that stupid Hitman's wife's bodyguard on HBO Max and won't be watching Free Guy in the theatres. The only thing I ever liked him in was Dead Pool. The only time that stick worked and he keeps playing it over and over again.

The question in the complaint is if the film received a "wide theatrical release (there was at least 1,500 theaters)" which it met easily, and whether that meant exclusively in theaters or at least 1500 theaters. And frankly if there was a better passage for Johansson's case they would have cited it in the complaint.

Were I a judge, asked to determine what wide theatrical release means, I would look at the term in parentheses and say that wide theatrical release means 1500 screens. If it meant anything more than that, those additional restrictions would also be included in the parentheses.

R101 "I don’t think Disney is going to hurt that much after this, because they still by far have the best content of any entertainment company" This is the funniest thing I've read in a lot time. Hope you are not older than 13 or are trolling.

Also, I'm currently watching Wrath of the Titans with Neeson and Fiennes, who I last saw in Schindler's List.

Don't overestimate an actor's sense of honor when money is in play.

R100, that is not legal analysis. The focus on impossibility doctrine would only rule the day if Disney conceded breach, and ScarJo is actually suing on tortious interference and induced breach. Most likely to skirt mandatory arbitration. In this suit, she's not claiming Disney breached the contract- she's saying Disney MADE Marvel breach. It's convoluted.

R147 Right! Anyone remember Patrick Stewart in "Blunt Talk?"

Her case is a loser. A judge will probably send them to arbitration or dismiss it.

Did they ban her from all Disney properties and theme parks?

Guess Stephen was right all along

Again, what is Black Widow’s super power, and if she got bit by a spider why isn’t she just Spiderwoman?

" If they continue to act this unprofessional, Disney will get punched and deleted by Hollywood."

This has got to be the single stupidest sentence ever written on Datalounge.

R153, read the extremely unprofessional complaint. It goes into laughable detail about her character, as well as other character's powers and skills. It's almost embarrassing and I wonder if she had final edit.

R155 are you referring to pg. 7 paragraph 20?

R156, yes! I love that! "Forged in the heart of a dying star"- if I were a cruel judge issuing a dismissal, I might be tempted to reuse that phrase.

Eventually the dam is going to bust and Disney’s winning streak in court is going to end.

“Black Widow relies solely on her wits….” I’m sorry, I like ScarJo, but I would put her in last place (tied with JLaw) to choose as a character who is supposed to be very intelligent. And it goes on to say she trained extensively for all the physical stuff, but nothing about bringing her IQ up to Mensa level standing. There surly must have been a Yale or Harvard graduated actress that could have played the part?

[quote] There surly must have been a Yale or Harvard graduate

we don't become "actresses " sweetie. Try "brain surgeon"

R159 You rang?

Ryan Reynolds was smart to get rid of this smelly fish. She has always been greatly overrated.

I suspect in future one of the domino effects of this will be Disney and all other studios etc will just make contracts more watertight and less lucrative for acting talent.

I loved Black Widow in the comics. ScarJo was a very poor choice for the role.

[quote]No. The media Kept claiming everyone wanted a BW movie. That’s a lie. She also has the worst selling toys.

Nah. They actually tried to do one in 2005 but then the studio got scared when AeonFlux bombed and called it off. It's not that weird to think people wanted this movie when the other actors all had multiple movies. (With the exception of Hawkeye but no one really likes Hawkeye.)

[quote]I suspect in future one of the domino effects of this will be Disney and all other studios etc will just make contracts more watertight and less lucrative for acting talent.

Other studios renegotiated with their actors. Sony even came up with a whole new pay structure in case this happens again. Disney is the odd man out which is why they're the only ones really getting hammered.

[quote]I loved Black Widow. They sent the character off and gave us Yelena.

They should have given us the alternate ending which would have been a better send-off.

Natasha returns to her old home and sees a bunch of kids playing and pretending to be Avengers with home made costumes. One runs up to her and pretends to be The Black Widow. The kid fake shoots her with her "widow's bite." She shoots back and then she smiles. She knows that she has made a difference and left a legacy before she goes off to die in End Game.

(Also at her grave when Yelena whistles while visiting her, at one point they were planning on having Natasha whistle back even though we don't see her or know if she's really there or just in Yelena's mind.)

R135 really doesn't get it.

[quote]There surly must have been a Yale or Harvard graduated actress that could have played the part?

Yes because it’s “surly” true that only characters who are Harvard or Yale graduates can live by their wits. Audiences demand it!

This thread is full of gays who seethe with hatred for Scarlett because she got the Reynolds rack, and they didn’t.

You never see stars complaining about Netflix. They pays A-list actors a fortune to star in their movies.

No. It’s just because she has a poor case, given that the film was not a big hit and she already was paid $25 million. I don’t see her as a victim, just demanding.

Netflix honors to its contracts and doesn't ghost you like some juvenile Valley Girl.

Sorry, Netflix honors its contracts and doesn't ghost you like some juvenile Valley Girl / teenager.

R170 keeps making it very clear he has no idea what he's talking about.

Wish this would damage Disney in some way, since they ruined Hollywood and the movie industry, but it won't. In a couple of months no one will ever remember it.

R163 Though I wouldn't describe ScarJo as 'acting talent'. She can't even get bums on seat (much less her own monster arse).

She was incredibly hot when she was younger. She hasn’t aged as well. I remember her frequently being voted sexiest woman if the year.

[quote] Were I a judge, asked to determine what wide theatrical release means, I would look at the term in parentheses and say that wide theatrical release means 1500 screens. If it meant anything more than that, those additional restrictions would also be included in the parentheses.

If I were the judge, I would find it compelling that at the time the parties made that agreement all parties contemplated that a "wide theatrical release" would be the exclusive manner of exhibition. It was not known or foreseeable to either party that one would elect to release the film on a proprietary digital platform in a manner which undermined the success and profitability of what the parties intended by "wide theatrical release."

They would have never done this sh*t to Robert Downey Jr., Evans or Hemsworth.

[quote]It was not known or foreseeable to either party that one would elect to release the film on a proprietary digital platform in a manner which undermined the success and profitability of what the parties intended by "wide theatrical release."

Oh, not known to Johansson, certainly. But Disney did not implement a digital platform without years of planning, development and analysis. At the time the deal with Johansson was being negotiated, Disney knew the exact status of the development of its digital platform. But did they mention any of it to Johansson?

I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, but why would it be necessary for SJ's attorney to include character backgrounds like "and Thor is the god of thunder who fights with a hammer forged by dwarves in the heart of a dying star" in a a legal brief?

To personalize and make it more interesting. So the clerk reading it for the judge doesn't fall asleep. Also, just in case the clerk is a comics geek, you want that person on your side. It mirrors the narrative of the films, a lone hero fighting the evil of the world. Root of ScarJo!

Her case is not compelling. You can keep saying that but it is a weak case.

All the more reason to use the papers to create some interest in her claims.

R179, because this isn't really a well written complaint from a winning case. It's a terrible PR game that she is losing, shakily built on ScarJo's rage and Lourd's unchecked egos, some bad lawyer from Michigan, and an unyielding corporate monolith adversary who doesn't care about any of this. A name brand so powerful it basically built animated motion pictures. Don't be willfully obtuse about what is at stake. I like ScarJo and was mad that people said BW bombed and that's why it was dumped on streaming- not vice versa. I thought she had an admirable success as a female superhero at 36 years old, no easy feat.

Posters here seem to forget how unbelievably harsh Hollywood is and how everyone is completely expendable- ask Polly Platt, Kim Basinger, Kevin Spacey's digitally erased performance for heavens sake!

IMO, someone on Johansson's team is incompetent or using her as a test.

In this case, the damages are clear. She is not seeking performance of a contract, the damages are monetary. It is easy for a court to decide that Disney breached contract and owes SJ money. Case will settle before trial -- stakes are too high for Disney. A win in court by SJ would set an awful precedent.

No, it’s not easy for a court to decide “damages” since there were none. She was paid $20 million.

R185, still an idiot.

So, Disney is hoping to cut a bitch with ScarJo?

Disney will probably have ScarJo knocked off in an accident.

Disney could no longer afford the craft services bills on her movies anymore

You’re the idiot for saying she has a winning case. Dream on my darling.

Disney is already regretting the decision to stick to releasing Shang-Chi exclusively in theaters early next month. ScarJo isn't going to be a trailblazer whose actions benefit artists...she's pulling up the ladder behind her. Film companies are going to point to decreasing film attendance to justify less generous box office points agreements. And the streaming market is becoming so saturated, $30 PPV prices won't fly much longer.

I hate the optics of telling a woman to shut up and be quiet, but she's no Norma Rae. She's Veruca Salt.

And boom goes the dynamite. Whitesell and Emma Stone have put the nail in Scarlett Letter's coffin.

[quote]In this case, the damages are clear. She is not seeking performance of a contract, the damages are monetary. It is easy for a court to decide that Disney breached contract and owes SJ money. Case will settle before trial -- stakes are too high for Disney. A win in court by SJ would set an awful precedent.

Has the full details of her contract been released to the public? If not, how can a breach be determined? I thought the argument was that when she realized it was going to day and date on Disney+ her team wanted to renegotiate her contract and Disney wouldn't entertain it. Her contract - from what has been reported - is that she gets backend from the theatrical release; which she did. She's just now arguing over the dollar amount because the argument is that the streaming ate into her cut. If the contract didn't state that she would get a cut of streaming, it sucks, but it's not as if she's being purposely screwed over. One report stated that they worked a deal out with The Rock for "Jungle Cruise", but I think the big difference is that while Scarjo was an executive producer on "Black Widow", Rock's production company 50 Bucks was one of the financiers for the film.

Ah yes, noted insider publication...giant freaking robot dot com

Time marches on...

Why doesn’t Stone just take over the Black Widow role?

The new Black Widow will be Florence Pugh. Johannsson's storyline actually ended in "Endgame".

Snooty Scarlett is left out in the cold.

Marvel Gays are far, far more unhinged and idiotic that Disney Gays.

That lunatic way upthread detailing the importance of each movie and tv show in the "world building".... what a freak.

I wonder what ScarJo is doing right now....

Fucking Colin Jost, probably.

R200 I think at least once a day she goes to a room in her house that is knee deep in hundred dollar bill and just rolls around and throws it into the air for about twenty minutes. If Colin has been good that day she lets him come in too.

R199 Marvel=Disney

R197 That fat ugly slag.

Will Florence Pugh get a stand alone Black Widow film? Doesn’t seem likely with the abortion this release turned out to be. It’s also just remarkable how the chubby little English girl out of nowhere was more entertaining than Shitstain Johansson in a NINTH Marvel film. Just gag. I don’t think she should have a penny more. I just don’t.

Her career is tied to Disney. She won't get any big jobs again.

R154 [quote] This has got to be the single stupidest sentence ever written on Datalounge.

Wait 5 minutes

R204 She's hot, you dumbass

She can always do Saturday Night Live.

R199, Disney owns Marvel.

WTF did you even think was going on in this thread?

She’ll go get a role in some DC Comic movie just to fuck with Disney.

She’s not getting any new roles, unless it’s a tv series. Her brand is done and she is pushing 40. Maybe a baby will fill the void.

Scarlet is almost 40, which is old by Hollywood standards. Her peak career is in its final days.

Her superhero days are over. She'll now have to compete for the few roles for older women against actors who have charisma and talent

Maybe Goop and Cameron Diaz will call her to tell her to also quit while she's ahead

Watch out, Glennie.

ScarJo can sing, she's the right age for the role, and she has a following that is the right age for box office success. She can sell a fuck of a lot more tickets than you can.

ScarJo for Norman Desmond!

Nasty bitch IRL. She is a pedophile supporter ) (woody Allen) and not genuine at all. She’s loathed in the Hamptons but they deal with her since she has money to spend. I wish Disney would counter sue her for ruining the Avengers movies.

[quote]She’ll go get a role in some DC Comic movie just to fuck with Disney.

Risky.

Check out the vid at 17:20 mark. She just rudely grabs from the black woman not even a thank you. She's clearly used to getting her way on things. She's spoiled.

She might be reduced to a MyFans sight the way things are going with the 'career'.

This makes me like her even more than I did. She's a decent, sometimes very good actress, and doesn't jump on cancel culture bullshit like everyone else.

Also I have multiple friends who have met her in private settings like house parties and said she was remarkably chill. Not nasty at all.

If she were a man, I don't think she'd get this kind of criticism.

Her team messed up negotiations. If she was likable they would have happily paid her so she would stick around for future projects. They are done with her. The lawsuit is just going to ensure she is blacklisted.

She'll probably win the lawsuit, but become unemployable in Hollywood. She is over.

[quote]...but become unemployable in Hollywood. She is over.

PERFECT for "Sunset Boulevard."

[quote]She’s not getting any new roles, unless it’s a tv series. Her brand is done and she is pushing 40. Maybe a baby will fill the void.

This is what Sue Mengers told client Joan Collins when she was around the same age as Scarlet:

Joan Collins was turning middle-aged, with children, a broken marriage, going through a bad patch. Sue said to Joan, ‘Give it up. You’ve got enough money to live on, you’ve got children to raise, just settle down, forget the business.’ With that, Joan left Sue and got Dynasty, I think just to show her up.”

She'll get roles. In "indie" movies like The Marriage Story. She doesn't need the money anyhow, she's loaded.

R216 ruining the Avengers movies? How can someone ruin something that was garbage from the start?

Male or female doesn't matter, it's all about making money. If Black Widow had made Disney more money, there wouldn't be any issues. But they gave her a lot of creative control over the movie and it's not going to make them nearly as much money as the other Marvel films.

Lesson learned, time to walk away from her. Disney would have liked to have separated quietly, but she and her team needed to make a public issue out of something that happens every day in Hollywood. Walking away from people who are no longer worth what they are being paid

I hadn't heard that story before, R225. Interesting. (The notion that Mengers represented Joan Collins at the time seems unlikely, given how badly Joan was doing pre-DYNASTY.) As a matter of fact, Joan didn't "have enough money to live on." Joan was notoriously bad with money and was struggling. There are accounts that she actually sent Aaron Spelling her unpaid bills (groceries, etc.) when she was signing on to DYNASTY.

The world has changed considerably. If ScarJo decided to go "slumming" in a TV series, she'd be competing for roles with Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, Kate Winslet, Meryl, and a hundred other actresses. Good luck with that.

PS: ScarJo is (conservatively) estimated to be worth over $165 million. So she, by contrast, really does have "fuck-you money."

She should take up pottery or something.

Disney has been glorifying ameriKKKan terrorism with its war propaganda for decades.

I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

The momentum with her lawsuit is already over. Disney has made big deals with more likable and lucrative talent (Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Dwayne Johnson, etc.).

Scarlet's beef with Disney is her's alone. There is already a line a mile long of actresses waiting to get those $20 million deals with Disney.

Scarlet is about to find herself where Suzanne Somers was when she left Three's Company over a contract dispute. She'll be replaced by another actress and find herself unable to get prime roles again. Everyone is Hollywood is replaceable.

[quote]Everyone is Hollywood is replaceable.

Just as Betty Hutton.

She's always been a supremely untalented fucktoy. She can't act her way out of a wet paper bag.

Between ScarJo and NatPo in "The Other Boleyn Girl" the two of them gave competing Worst Performances Ever.

She is Leonard Pinth Garnell-level bad. Like a giant vanilla pudding on two stumpy legs.

Team Disney here Scarjo has that loud smoker voice and was overrated in looks to me - ditto for little boybod portman. Time for the new gen girls anyway

This isn't going the way we planned

I've never heard of her.

The Emma Stone deal signals the nail in Scarlet’s coffin. There was can assumption Emma would re-visit her own deal, and instead she’s partnering with Disney for a future project. Emma still owes Scarlet a fruit basket though. Her team now knows where all the jewelry is hidden, and they don’t just have to ask for what’s in the safe (box office points…an executive producer credit).

Disney is in breech of contract, and I hope ScarJo prevails. Not just for her, but for all the actors and creatives that Disney is ripping off.

C'mon guys! Isn't she hilarious?😉

Every one of my takes could make the blooper reel!

[quote]There is already a line a mile long of actresses waiting to get those $20 million deals with Disney.

Her character was killed off two years ago and she got her standalone movie. She wasn't going to do more with Disney anyway.

And why begrudge her the money that she's due? I really wonder if she were a man would all your panties be in a bunch about her lawsuit or question whether $20 was too much?

Disney giving her a $20 bill would be fair as long as ScarJo could make change for them

*$20 million

R243 [quote] I really wonder if she were a man…

As if you’d even need to give it a second thought given the misogyny around here. And I’m a guy.

[quote]As if you’d even need to give it a second thought given the misogyny around here.

I'm feeling generous. And I expect better.

[quote]The Emma Stone deal signals the nail in Scarlet’s coffin. There was can assumption Emma would re-visit her own deal, and instead she’s partnering with Disney for a future project.

Disney did the evil but smart thing and promised Emma Stone a big cut of the streaming profits to further spite ScarJo.

Essentially, they don't have to revisit her old deal (which she already threatened to do), they simply promised her an even better one for their next project together.

Disney couldn't have handled them both going after them so they eliminated the younger one who wasn't quite done with them yet as a threat.

R243 Is that why she is suing them? Cause her character was killed and she knew this was her last movie for them?

No, R249. Her production company was developing a Tower of Terror film, based on the theme park ride.

[Quote] How can someone ruin something that was garbage from the start?

Meh, Avengers was one of the better Marvel-verse movies.

[Quote] Disney has made big deals with more likable and lucrative talent (Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Dwayne Johnson, etc.).

Playing the same character for 20 years had to pay off eventually for Ryan.

"Meh, Avengers was one of the better Marvel-verse movies" That doesn't say much, does it?

[quote]Is that why she is suing them?

She is suing them because she was promised a theatrical release in her contract and a percentage of the gross. She got her theatrical release but Disney simultaneously released the movie on their Disney+ streaming platform. Disney increased their subscriber base and also charged a premium to watch the movie at home. She did not get a cut of the premium Disney charged. So basically, they sold tickets on Disney+ and she did not get her percentage of the gross and she sued for it.

R253 Yeah, but she knew she's not gonna be casted in the newer upcoming movies, if her character was killed off, right? So she had nothing to lose then

Casted.

Oh, no. Here we go AGAIN!

[quote] casted

^ English isn't my first language, sorry. How should I've said it?

r257, "cast" is correct for present, past, and future tense:

Tyrone Power was cast in The Razor's Edge.

Ryan Reynolds is cast as the title character in Free Guy.

Lady Gaga will be cast as Norma Desmond in the long delayed big screen version of Sunset Blvd.

OVER MY DEAD BODY SHE WILL!

I'm sure that's how it will play out, G.

She's the Olivia de Havilland of our time.

Go, Scarlet!!

That CEO of Disney is really fucked up. Disney is going to have a lot of trouble with him and it will end badly. It will also cost Disney a small fortune

All her contract said is that there would be a wide release, which there was. Disney did not breach her contract. She just wants more money.

R264, Disney absolutely did breech the contract. The simultaneous release also cut into the theater gross, costing her even more money. They're being greedy dicks about this, using Disney+ as a loophole to make more money for themselves, while stiffing actors and creators.

BREACH of Contract.... not Breech

She needs the Disney money for beauty treatments but they don't appear to be working.

Marvel and DC face backlash over pay: ‘They sent a thank you note and $5,000 – the movie made $1bn’