Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
BetterButter

Black Widow (2020)

Recommended Posts

On 7/16/2021 at 1:54 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

That was a good article. One of the most ridiculous things about Captain America Winter Soldier is at the end. Natasha goes to Shield HQ for the final battle. But she is in disguise and wear a woman's business suit. But then after everything goes down she is on the helicopter with Fury, and she is wearing her usual zip up, super tight BW outfit. Which means some how after escaping the bad guy, and with all the shit going down, she still managed to find time to change clothes before getting the helicopter going. Even though she didn't fight anyone in the BW clothes.

See and I thought the most ridiculous thing involving Nat in Winter Soldier is how she gets a bullet dug out of her one minute and then is fine and dandy in the climax.  I know she doesn't have to fight a ton but still.  Just waving that shoulder around all willie nillie like it wasn't ripped open by a projectile 24 hours prior.

I watched this again tonight and I still really liked it.  Maybe even more than I did the first time.  And for as much love as Florence Pugh is getting, and totally deserves, I think Scarlett Johansson deserves a lot of credit for really grounding the film, which can sometimes be a thankless job.  And when she does get a chance to go off a little bit like when Nat has her conversation with Melina about her birth mother or when she gets to taunt Dreykov, it's very well done.  

And speaking of Scarlett and Florence, I'm only sorry we wont get more of Natasha and Yelena together because that duo is a treat.  I hope those two get to work together on something else in the future.  I can't overstate how much I love the car/vest scene.  It just rings so true to me.  You know when you have that moment when someone really close to you is crazy happy about something ridiculous, and you know it's ridiculous, but because their excitement is so pure you can't help but give in?  That's how a I read that scene.  Yelena is acting every bit the insecure kid sister just trying to impress and Nat has this proud smirk on her face like she's trying not to rain on Yelena's parade.    However, at the same time, Nat seems truly happy in the moment.  Maybe the happiest we will ever see her.  Kudos to the both of them for delivering that.

Edited by kiddo82
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

On 7/16/2021 at 3:09 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Natasha's styling has always been ridiculous.  I still can't get over Iron Man 2 when Nat changes her outfit in the car and for some reason known only to men she takes her hair down to fight.  Long flowing hair is a liability when fighting.  Not only is it hot, it can impede vison, and it gives your assailant something to grab.

I'd have loved to see someone grab her Iron Man 2 hair in a fight and come away with a wig rigged to electrocute them.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

 

So weird to see Honest Trailers on movies shortly after release. Thanks, pandemic and streaming services! 🙄

I gotta get a good pic of Alexi the pig. I’m hoping to get a sketch of him getting held by his namesake.

Edited by Lantern7

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed the movie a lot, I thought it was a nice sendoff for Scarlett Johannsson.  I think she did a great job, even if she is getting less praise than Florence Pugh and the supporting cast.  

I liked the exploration of her backstory, growing up in a "family" that was put together by the KGB, and the explanation of why she doesn't have a Russian accent.  Am I the only one that didn't realise initially that the kid with blue hair in the opening sequence was her?  I swear I thought that person was a boy.  I thought she was the little blonde girl and that this boy with blue hair was going to do something bad to her.  It wasn't until the tail end of those scenes that I realised it was Young Nat.  The person playing Young Nat had a very androgynous look, reminded me a lot of Nikki, the contestant who won the second season of Top Chef Junior.

The villains were the weakest part of the film.  I didn't care for Draygov.  And the reveal of Taskmaster was so predictable.  They kept mentioning this dead daughter.  I was positive the dead daughter was going to be revealed alive and it would be Olga Kurylenko since I saw her name in the credits.  I kept waiting for her to show up, since I haven't seen her in anything since that awful Bond movie (wonder if Daniel Craig stopped by the set to see his wife and re-united with Olga).  So as the movie went on, I just assumed she was Taskmaster.

Which was really a disappointment.  I don't understand why the movies have been insistent on gender-bending some known characters (Mar-Vell, various Eternals, etc).  The story would have been just as effective if Olga was revealed alive and another antagonist.  Why did they have to make her Taskmaster?  It was so obviously a man in the suit who was doing all the action, it was only Olga when the helmet came off.  I hated the sound effects... the mechanical sounding clumping, made it sound like we are supposed to accept "oh the suit is heavy or armored that's why it needs hydraulics to move so yeah ok I buy that it's a woman in there moving around".

On 7/10/2021 at 5:16 PM, MadyGirl1987 said:

That end credits scene definitely makes me more excited for Hawkeye if that is going to be a driving force in the series. Although I have to ask; am I the only one not upset about Black Widow dying instead of Hawkeye? I’m not glad she died, but she chose to sacrifice herself, to the point where she actually had to fight to be the one who went over. Isn’t that typical hero stuff, being willing to sacrifice yourself for others? She and Clint were both willing to go over, but only one could. Is there something I’m missing?

 

On 7/10/2021 at 5:28 PM, scarynikki12 said:

In general Black Widow has been better received than Hawkeye. I haven't read Hawkeye comics but, based on what other's have said, the MCU version doesn't seem to have much in common as far as personality which has turned a number of people off. I know others feel Renner was miscast but the main issue seems to be not letting him have his comic personality. 

 

On 7/12/2021 at 11:29 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I was not a fan of the way Natasha died in Endgame, not that she chose to sacrifice herself.  It's a writing and directing issue.  There should have been actual dialogue with both Natasha and Clint giving their reason why it should be her/him, not an action sequence IMHO.  The movie also took Clint to a dark place and never really acknowledged it or resolve it.  Natasha may have had red in her ledger she needed to wipe away, but so did Clint.  

 

I had no desire to watch the Disney+ Hawkeye show before the end scene.  With Yelena in the mix, I may just have to check it out.  For me, watching Jeremy Renner in a starring role is like watching paint dry.  

Hawkeye is my all-time favourite comic book character, and I truly despise what the MCU has done to him.  He's supposed to be irreverent and funny and hotheaded.  He was none of that in the films.  Always grim, occasionally says these deadpan lines which don't come across as funny.  I don't know why the producers decided that it had to be one or the other of them who had to sacrifice themselves, or why it had to be permanent.  I would have been the first to put Nebula or Mantis on that mission and thrown them over... talk about two useless characters.

I generally like Jeremy Renner but he was not right for this role.  I think he himself hated it, I believe there were articles talking about how he kept strongly hinting to the producers that he wanted to be killed off so he didn't have to be in the movies anymore.

I'm really hoping the TV show brings out a lighter side of Hawkeye, but I'm not holding out that much hope.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, blackwing said:

The person playing Young Nat had a very androgynous look, reminded me a lot of Nikki, the contestant who won the second season of Top Chef Junior.

Ever Anderson, the daughter of Milla Jovovich and director Paul W.S. Anderson.

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

I don't know why the producers decided that it had to be one or the other of them who had to sacrifice themselves, or why it had to be permanent. 

Because they're phasing out all these older contract players for younger, cheaper people.

Share this post


Link to post

First time I've been to the movies in 16 months. I often have days off work in the middle of the week, so I was able to go to a 9:30pm showing on a Tuesday when there were only two other people in the theater, which might become my go-to theater move through the rest of the pandemic.

Like many, my sentiment is, "Why didn't we get this movie 5 years ago?", but I remind myself that Florence Pugh probably wouldn't have been playing Yelena 5 years ago, so despite the sexism, things worked out for us.

It's interesting. Even though we've always seen her in a team context or supporting other people in their films, Natasha has always come across as such a self-sufficient character, so it's intriguing that, when she's separated from the other Avengers and on the run, the film almost immediately reconnects her with her OTHER dysfunctional "family." I loved Yelena, got a huge kick out of Alexei, and was very interested in Melina, and I really enjoyed getting to see different sides of Natasha through them. I'm trying to think, but I don't think we've EVER seen an Avenger tease Natasha and give her shit the way that these characters do, and I love it.

It also struck me that the MCU has given us plenty of FACTS about Natasha's history and the Red Room, but we really haven't gotten a lot about the trauma from that and how it feels. I appreciated the conversations Natasha and Yelena have about having been Widows, as well as the film's emphasis on trafficking. The opening credits were so evocative, incredibly well done.

I didn't mind the Taskmaster reveal, although it really increased the CA:TWS parallels. My main beef with the character was that I wanted to see a lot more of her fighting as different Avengers and the movie didn't take nearly enough advantage of that.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the twitter thread link for Kevin Feige's #BlackWidowWatchParty on July 19th - he answered fan questions and gave b-t-s info...

A few of his reply tweets from that thread:

Edited by tv echo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Russian Captain America | Marvel Studios’ Black Widow
Marvel Entertainment   Jul 22, 2021

Proud | Marvel Studios’ Black Widow
Marvel Entertainment   Jul 22, 2021

Seth’s Wish Day - Make a Wish | Marvel Studios’ Black Widow
Marvel Entertainment   Jul 22, 2021

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Red Guardian | Marvel Studios’ Black Widow
Marvel Entertainment   Jul 23, 2021

 

Share this post


Link to post

I always wondered what would happen if The Americans was a superhero movie...

So I finally got to see this, I wanted to wait to finally get the whole MCU movie experience at long last, and having had a busy few weeks I was stuck waiting around to finally get to see this movie, and I thought it was really good. Of course I adore just about all things Marvel, they basically have a permanent hand in my wallet, but I was still really happy to finally get a movie with Natasha front and center. Definitely one of the more low key Marvel movies (well, relatively) but I think that worked, we need a few low key movies after the Infinity War/Endgame one two punch, especially as a personal character study and farewell to a character that has been with the MCU for so long. I felt like Natasha's death in Endgame was sadly overlooked by everything else that happened, especially Tony's death, so I am really glad we got this movie to more appreciate her. I do really wish we had got this movie pre Endgame though. Her death would have been even more of a gut punch if we knew more about everything she has been through, and she does have a family that loves her outside of the Avengers. A really dysfunctional surrogate family that was formed under really strange and messed up circumstances, but one none the less. It does though make me happy knowing that, before she died, she was able to get closure on a lot of aspects of her life. She destroyed the Red Room for real, reconnected with her family, and was able to finally save the little girl who's supposed death has been eating at her for years. 

I know that ScarJo has been hit or miss for a lot of people, but I have found her consistently good when she gets good material, and I thought she did really well here, helped by her being really allowed to get into her feelings about what has happened to her and what she has done, and her great chemistry with the rest of the cast. As many others have said, Florence Pugh as Yelena really stole every scene she was in, especially her making fun of Natasha's landing hair flip. Its the superhero landing! They all do it, completely impractical! She was great throughout, if this is both a goodbye for Natasha as well as an origin story for Yelena going forward as a legacy character, I would be thrilled, I hope to see a lot more of her in the MCU. She really nailed the snarky banter, especially her very sibling feelings chemistry with Natasha, like her enthusiasm for her awesome vest with all of the pockets, as well as the quieter scenes, especially when she stormed away from dinner after hearing the rest of her "family" saying how their life together was all fake. Its just really sad, the only really good memories she has, that she has probably been clinging to for years as all these terrible things happened to her, were just a cover story and she is apparently the only one that it meant anything to. Especially as she was only around six at the time, so she would be around three when the mission started, she might not have even understood that these weren't her "real" parents and sister and must have had no idea why she was being taken away from them. 

Rachel Weisz is always great in everything, she brought a lot of dimensions to Melina, which is impressive as she spends most of the movie pretty stoic, especially next to David Harbour as Alexi, who is at a ten at pretty much all times. I knew that David Harbour was going to be a blast in this, and I was not disappointed, you could tell he was having a ton of fun, and the two of them actually had surprisingly good chemistry as a sort of couple. The dinner scene was definitely the highlight of the movie, it was hilarious watching all of them jump right back into their old family dynamic, while Natasha desperately tries to keep them on topic but also sliding into her old big sister role. It was funny but also got pretty real, especially ending on the one two feels punch of Natasha finding their old staged family album that Melina saved, and then Alexi singing a bit of American Pie with Yelena. They really did manage to sell that, yeah their family unit was a cover story given to them to steal top secret information for some very sketchy people, and its been years since any of them have seen each other, but that time really did mean a lot to all of them and the affection they had for each other is still real. Especially considering none of them really seemed to have had a great time after being separated, in fact Natasha seemed to have kind of won that one, as sad as that is. She at least has gotten to spend quite a few years with SHIELD and in the Avengers, and not in the Red Room or in a Siberian gulag. I definitely thought that Melina and/or Alexi would die in the big climax, as that is sort of what happens when your any kind of parental figure to a main character, but I was pleasantly surprised that they both made it, and are off with Yelena and the Widows to go save the other Widows from their brainwashing, which would make for an awesome Disney+ show by the way. Marvel, make it happen, take my money!  

I know that the Taskmaster thing is a point of contention among comic fans, and I do get it. Its basically a totally different character then the one from the comics, way more than "just" a gender flip, and it does feel like a bit of a waste of a pretty decent villain who would probably easily translate to film. They could still pull a Mandarin later on and give us a "real" Taskmaster later on, or someone else who (ironically) copies her powers and is a straight up bad guy and not another cyborg brainwashed assassin, which is a weirdly common thing to be in the MCU. Dreykov was not a particularly memorable bad guy, his deal was being just a horrible creepy wormy shit, but considering he is a non too subtle metaphor for human trafficking and abuse, he is presumably designed to be as easy to hate as possible. I did love that Natasha got to use her old "thank you for cooperating" bit where she just lets the bad guys monologue their whole evil plan so that she can use the information to stop them, he was just shook at how badly he got played. 

Speaking of being awful, I HATE Ross, it is truly an injustice that this slimy asshole just keeps surviving, despite making antagonizing superheroes and assassins his day job. I did laugh at him getting played over and over again by Natasha, lets all point and laugh at him. *Laughs* 

I have been avoiding spoilers, so I had no idea that JLD was going to be here as Valentina, still majorly channeling that Selina Meyers energy. Is she recruiting her own new Avengers team, like a new post Thanos Nick Fury? She got John Walker as the new Captain America, Yelena as the new Black Widow, who's next? She was certainly vague about how Clint "is the reason her sister is dead" when she was showing his picture to Yelena, hopefully Clint can get that sorted out with her soon, when Yelena hears the whole story there is no way she would blame Clint for Natasha's death. I also wondered whether or not Yelena, Alexi, or Melina got Snapped, presumably at least one or two of them did, just probability wise. This will presumably be answered in later instalments, but I wonder if, in the case that they all got Snapped, as she never mentioned any of them or having anyone besides the Avengers, that would just lead to Natasha being even more desperate to undo the Snap, to the point of sacrificing her own life. That would really add an extra level of sad to her death if, like Clint, she was trying to save her family. I have no idea how much of this movie was written by the time Endgame was written, but I can see them taking that angle in a future conflict with Yelena and Clint. 

I have loved the Disney+ MCU shows, and I am thrilled that they are so connected to the films and vice versa, but there is something special about seeing the MCU opening on the big screen. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I also wondered whether or not Yelena, Alexi, or Melina got Snapped, presumably at least one or two of them did, just probability wise. This will presumably be answered in later instalments, but I wonder if, in the case that they all got Snapped, as she never mentioned any of them or having anyone besides the Avengers, that would just lead to Natasha being even more desperate to undo the Snap, to the point of sacrificing her own life.

I think they all were. After the Snap there was almost no one left who was close to Natasha personally. Clint became a murderous vigilante while Steve struggled with his own non-murderous depression. I don't consider Nat and Bruce to be all that close but even he went off to become Professor Hulk rather than try to reconnect and form a real relationship. As we saw here Nat had just gotten her Russian family back and they were Snapped not long after so that would be a huge hit to her emotionally. After the five year jump the characters we saw who were hit the hardest emotionally were the ones who'd lost people close to them with little to no balance: Clint's family, Steve losing Bucky and Sam, and Thor losing Loki and Heimdall (plus half of Asgard). Stark was in the middle as he lost Peter but kept Pepper and gained Morgan. Among the characters who were coping the best were those who had been trained to fight through such loss: Nebula, Carol, and Okoye. Nat would normally have been part of this group, and she was certainly doing her best but was shown to be so worn down that I think it points to the Russian family all being gone. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 

According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.

The decision to put the movie on Disney+ is projected to cost Ms. Johansson more than $50 million, a person familiar with details of her contract claimed.

 

Disney should have negotiated with her, after all they changed the terms of their agreement.  But to the source speculating that the move cost Scarjo $50 million, they can't be sure of that. Films underperform all the time and with other territories not completely open when the film was release, who's to say that the global take would have been much more or if they were open, if audiences would be interested in seeing the film.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

I agree that if some portion of her compensation was tied to box office, they should have renegotiated with her after deciding to simultaneously release the film as a Premier Access title on the Plus.  There's absolutely no question that box office in the theaters was affected by the ability to pay $30 and watch at home.  I know several families that had BW watch parties.  One had 10 people.  Instead of $80 - $100 at the theater, they paid $30.   

Granted it's hard to determine the exact financial impact (how to assign the revenue between the theater and the studio, etc) but there's no doubt that the box office, and therefore Scarlett's comp, was hurt by the home release.  Good for her for taking a stand,

  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, AngieBee1 said:

Disney should have negotiated with her, after all they changed the terms of their agreement.  But to the source speculating that the move cost Scarjo $50 million, they can't be sure of that. Films underperform all the time and with other territories not completely open when the film was release, who's to say that the global take would have been much more or if they were open, if audiences would be interested in seeing the film.  

Yea I am not sure how you would calculate the damages. Like would she rather they have tried to release it in theatres in 2020 when it was supposed to come out (and lose a crapload of money like Tenet did)? And even if they had just released it in theatres, I imagine the numbers probably wouldn't have been that much bigger since I feel like a lot of people would still be avoiding big crowds. Hell in Ontario theatres weren't even open yet when BW was released.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BetterButter said:

I think the key point will be if in contract is that movie will be released exclusively in theaters. If there is exclusivity than she will win even when loss of 50M is certainly exaggerated and she will probably get less money(question if she will work again with Disney in future). If there isn't explicitly said that there will be eclusive release in theaters than Disney are just assholes who took advantage of loophole in contract.

Maybe question for someone with more knowledge in movie industry, would it be common that there would be specified in contract that movie would be released exclusively in theaters when contract for BW was signed few years ago when streaming wasn't so common as today?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, Grimnar said:

I think the key point will be if in contract is that movie will be released exclusively in theaters. If there is exclusivity than she will win even when loss of 50M is certainly exaggerated and she will probably get less money(question if she will work again with Disney in future). If there isn't explicitly said that there will be eclusive release in theaters than Disney are just assholes who took advantage of loophole in contract.

Maybe question for someone with more knowledge in movie industry, would it be common that there would be specified in contract that movie would be released exclusively in theaters when contract for BW was signed few years ago when streaming wasn't so common as today?

Disney looking for a loophole not to pay the talent is not new.  Apparently, they have not paid out various writers for different projects.  So them trying to screw over Scarlett is par for the course for them.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

Disney should have renegotiated but, I'm not surprised that they didn't. They've been losing money because of the pandemic.

I think that $50M number is inflated for a COVID summer. I don't know if this will actually go to court but, of ot does, i imagine they will look at other movies that launched "only in theaters" to see what their BO was compared to what they expected last year (I'm thinking Fast 9). 

This does make me wonder what WB is doing? All of their movies are releasing to HBO Max same day as theaters and no extra charge.

Edited by Morrigan2575

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Disney looking for a loophole not to pay the talent is not new.  Apparently, they have not paid out various writers for different projects.  So them trying to screw over Scarlett is par for the course for them.

Did they screw her over though, who knows. Like @Grimnar said unless the contract said it would be released in theatres first it is not like they did anything wrong. Plus it is not like they could have planned for a global pandemic when they signed he to make the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,” Disney said in an unusually fiery statement. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

I give them points for trying to make her appear selfish and greedy amid a pandemic, but the question is why they didn't renegotiate with her as her attorney claims.  They said she received 20 million but that's, to my knowledge, is just her quote  - it doesn't speak to the backend compensation she is entitle.

I'm curious if Disney gave bumps to Emma Stone/Emma Thompson, Liu Yifei, Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt received extra compensation as "Cruella", "Mulan" and "The Jungle Cruise" received the same day and date treatment.  Johnson is a savvy businessman with a great team behind him. I can't see a reality where he didn't receive further compensation. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by AngieBee1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Grimnar said:

Maybe question for someone with more knowledge in movie industry, would it be common that there would be specified in contract that movie would be released exclusively in theaters when contract for BW was signed few years ago when streaming wasn't so common as today?

I have no idea if this is true, but I read elsewhere that SJ specifically put that clause in her contract because there was concern of using BW to push their streaming service. Not sure if the timing works out with when the contract was negotiated and how much was known about Disney+ at the time.

Didn't this basically happen when WB said they were putting their entire slate on HBO Max? I definitely remember the director of Dune being upset and Legendary trying to block the simultaneous release and Denzel Washington was pissed, too. I totally understand the creators and production companies getting upset that contracts were likely breached, and I also understand the dilemma of releasing during a pandemic, but you'd think they'd settle quietly. 

What I do now is every contract being drawn up in probably every industry is going to include a pandemic/Act of God clause. Wimbledon was ahead of its time. They included an infectious disease clause after the SARS outbreak in their insurance years ago and got a $141 million payout when they had to cancel in 2020.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Disney's right, she is being selfish by wanting her contract reworked to account for same day streaming release, like her counterparts at Warner got.  That's just pure selfishness to expect fair compensation, especially in the time of a massive pandemic.

Now go visit a Disney theme park during a massive pandemic.  Also pay more for Disney+, and pay $30 for these releases, during a massive pandemic.

In case you couldn't decipher the sarcasm, I'm 100% on ScarJo's side.

  • Like 11
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, calliope1975 said:

I have no idea if this is true, but I read elsewhere that SJ specifically put that clause in her contract because there was concern of using BW to push their streaming service. Not sure if the timing works out with when the contract was negotiated and how much was known about Disney+ at the time.

Didn't this basically happen when WB said they were putting their entire slate on HBO Max? I definitely remember the director of Dune being upset and Legendary trying to block the simultaneous release and Denzel Washington was pissed, too. I totally understand the creators and production companies getting upset that contracts were likely breached, and I also understand the dilemma of releasing during a pandemic, but you'd think they'd settle quietly. 

What I do now is every contract being drawn up in probably every industry is going to include a pandemic/Act of God clause. Wimbledon was ahead of its time. They included an infectious disease clause after the SARS outbreak in their insurance years ago and got a $141 million payout when they had to cancel in 2020.  

 

Regarding WB I read that they paid 200M to actors and directors to avoid this situation but it seems that WB wasn't legally obligated to do this as streaming wasn't part of the contract.

From articles I read from SJ's side and Disney's side, it will be key factor if exclusive theater release was in contract and if there weren't some conditions when it could be released in another way(in one article is written that they released BW to disney+ withou justification so it kind of implied there were some conditions).

If I understand well, SJ got 15M upfront and some % from BO but she is claiming that she lost 50+M due to Disney+. I would like to know how her side got to 50+M?  We are still in covid situation so BW wouldn't make most likely more than 700M.

I saw in one discussion valid point for Disney. In some areas theaters are still closed due to covid so disney+ was only option how they could see this movie. Some also claimed that they weren't comfortable with visiting theaters due to covid so they were glad for Disney+ as they wouldn't go to otherwise. So Disney can use this as some kind of justification. Also there was question if it was worth to push again release date for BW as entire Marvel schedule would be again delayed due to "glorified filler" movie.

Another question for people with movie industry knowledge - can actors and directors really demand how studios will release movies(only theaters or theaters+streaming or etc) only on basis they will get less from BO when nothing is specified in contract?


 

Share this post


Link to post

The other thing I wonder about is even before the pandemic, on demand streaming was a thing. So (assuming she didn't) there was nothing stopping her from asking for a cut of the on demand revenue (or dvd sales or toy sales). I kind of thing that taking a percentage of something is always a risk, sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't.

2 hours ago, Grimnar said:

I saw in one discussion valid point for Disney. In some areas theaters are still closed due to covid so disney+ was only option how they could see this movie. Some also claimed that they weren't comfortable with visiting theaters due to covid so they were glad for Disney+ as they wouldn't go to otherwise. So Disney can use this as some kind of justification. Also there was question if it was worth to push again release date for BW as entire Marvel schedule would be again delayed due to "glorified filler" movie.

That is the other thing I keep thinking about. Like I said above when the movie came out theatres in Ontario were still closed, and Canada counts as part of the domestic box office. For reference Ontario has about 15 million people making it bigger in population than all but the 4 biggest US states.

Plus even if theatres open does she really want people having to choose between seeing her movie when COVID is still out there. I bet if that was the choice a lot of people who paid for the Disney+ to see it would just not go. I mean look at Tenant. BW already in 3 weeks made more domestically than that movie did in its entire run.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

This does make me wonder what WB is doing? All of their movies are releasing to HBO Max same day as theaters and no extra charge.

From EW's article about SJ's lawsuit: "The complaint also compares Disney's approach to rival studio Warner Bros., which similarly moved some of its films — like Wonder Woman — to debut both in theaters and streaming on HBO Max. The suit alleges that Warner Bros. renegotiated with the stars of its films, while "Disney and Marvel largely ignored Ms. Johansson, essentially forcing her to file this action."

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, tv echo said:

From EW's article about SJ's lawsuit: "The complaint also compares Disney's approach to rival studio Warner Bros., which similarly moved some of its films — like Wonder Woman — to debut both in theaters and streaming on HBO Max. The suit alleges that Warner Bros. renegotiated with the stars of its films, while "Disney and Marvel largely ignored Ms. Johansson, essentially forcing her to file this action."

Of course a big difference is that WB has a big interest in keeping Gal Gadot happy about playing Wonder Woman, while Marvel doesn't have that same issue with Scarlett and Black Widow.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Of course a big difference is that WB has a big interest in keeping Gal Gadot happy about playing Wonder Woman, while Marvel doesn't have that same issue with Scarlett and Black Widow.

At the same time, this could become a cautionary tale for Florence Pugh. They may have already signed her to a film, not just the Hawkeye series. She's nowhere near as established as most of her co-stars here, but she's got a lot of hype right now, and it's deserved. Going forward, Marvel/Disney will be dealing with her, not ScarJo, and while fifty million dollars sounds like a really generous estimate given the circumstances, if they said they'd re-negotiate and then didn't, I can see how the actress who'll be the new lead could be paying attention.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

At the same time, this could become a cautionary tale for Florence Pugh. They may have already signed her to a film, not just the Hawkeye series. She's nowhere near as established as most of her co-stars here, but she's got a lot of hype right now, and it's deserved. Going forward, Marvel/Disney will be dealing with her, not ScarJo, and while fifty million dollars sounds like a really generous estimate given the circumstances, if they said they'd re-negotiate and then didn't, I can see how the actress who'll be the new lead could be paying attention.

I imagine it would be a cautionary tale for everyone, and any actor with a decent amount of power (like the ones who could ask for a percent of revenue) will now be asking for a percent of on demand revenue (or some kind of form of compensation for views on streamers where it isn't pay on demand). I think I have read somewhere that a few actors already typically ask for a take of on demand money. And things will change as actors figure this out, just like everyone knows, unless you have the world's worst agent, that asking for a percent of a movie's profit is a stupid thing to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

If that's what they do to their big female stars in the MCU, I wonder what kind of stuff they had cheated the actresses with smaller roles...or ones they have designated to be small...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

If that's what they do to their big female stars in the MCU, I wonder what kind of stuff they had cheated the actresses with smaller roles...or ones they have designated to be small...

I'm sure they're more than happy to screw over their less famous male stars too.  It's one of the perks of avoiding the big names when possible - can't pull this sort of thing on a Tom Cruise. 

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, cambridgeguy said:

I'm sure they're more than happy to screw over their less famous male stars too.  It's one of the perks of avoiding the big names when possible - can't pull this sort of thing on a Tom Cruise. 

There's no doubt they've done it to lesser known male stars.  But you can bet they kissed The Rock's ass and gave him everything he wanted when Jungle Cruise was announced to go to Disney+.  They ain't fucking over the biggest male star in Hollywood.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Jediknight said:

There's no doubt they've done it to lesser known male stars.  But you can bet they kissed The Rock's ass and gave him everything he wanted when Jungle Cruise was announced to go to Disney+.  They ain't fucking over the biggest male star in Hollywood.

Maybe, although Dwayne Johnson comes from pro wrestling, the world of Vince McMahon. That is a world where almost your entire salary can be tied to how many T shirts you sell, or how many PPV sales there are when you are in the main event, or how many of your action figures sell. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if his movie salaries were set up in a similar way so that it might not have needed to be changed when it came to his movie being on D+.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, now Emma Stone may be mulling suing and agent Bryan Lourd issued a statement. And apparently Kevin Feige is also upset with how this was all handled. Drahmah!

 

Edited by calliope1975
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Maybe, although Dwayne Johnson comes from pro wrestling, the world of Vince McMahon. That is a world where almost your entire salary can be tied to how many T shirts you sell, or how many PPV sales there are when you are in the main event, or how many of your action figures sell. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if his movie salaries were set up in a similar way so that it might not have needed to be changed when it came to his movie being on D+

Dwayne Johnson actually has more at stakes because he's a producer on the film and his production company also were involved with the production, so on two fronts he took a loss. But I don't think there is any universe where he  would walk away without further compensation.  

Share this post


Link to post

Get those coins, Scarlett!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AngieBee1 said:

But I don't think there is any universe where he  would walk away without further compensation.  

My point was more of a general thing about how if there was any actor who always had a line in his contract about getting a percentage of on demand revenue, it was the guy whose salary at his previous job was dependant on how many people ordered WrestleMania on PPV. So in his case it wouldn't surprise me if there was no need to renegotiate.

Edited by Kel Varnsen
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting point I saw on reddit was that as no one saw the contract, except involved parties, maybe the word "exclusive" isn't part of the contract but dispute will be over meaning "guaranteed theatrical release" or just "theatrical release" and if it means exclusive or not.

Covid speed up model how movies will be released in future, theater and stream option on day 1, which is for consumers best option. Problem is that as no one could predict covid, movies were postponed and contracts or most contracts didn't count with streaming option. Question will be if studios are legally obligated to compensate actors/directors for streaming option as it wasn't part of the contract.

I think that PR for both sides isn't good and most people just see it as multimilionare person and multibilionare company are fighting over money which are not critical for both sides.
Disney are trying to play covid card, which is true(and it can tip court decision in their favour) but no one will buy that it is Disney's main concern even if it would be rarely true(which certainly isn't).
SJ or her side is on other hand trying to present it as Disney's main reason to released it on Disney+ was way how to lessen her share from BO, which I think is actually byproduct and not direct intention from Disney's decision. Also I think it would be very difficult to prove that she lost 50+M as her side can't use previous Marvel movies as standard for BO success because this was before covid and other factors can play part(people wasn't interesed in BW movie, for some Marvel movies ended with Endgame, etc). Only example which they can use after covid is F9 I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Grimnar said:

Interesting point I saw on reddit was that as no one saw the contract, except involved parties, maybe the word "exclusive" isn't part of the contract but dispute will be over meaning "guaranteed theatrical release" or just "theatrical release" and if it means exclusive or not.

According to The Hollywood Reporter the specific language is, “if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).” Exclusive isn’t in the contract.

Black Widow opened at 4,000 theaters so it easily meets the screen requirement. SJ is arguing that, at the time it was written, a wide theatrical release is considered an exclusive theatrical release. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Dani said:

According to The Hollywood Reporter the specific language is, “if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).” Exclusive isn’t in the contract.

Black Widow opened at 4,000 theaters so it easily meets the screen requirement. SJ is arguing that, at the time it was written, a wide theatrical release is considered an exclusive theatrical release. 

Well, if Hollywood Reporter is correct than I think that Disney leagally did eveything correct but morally they should give her some cut from Disney+(if it will be enough for SJ is another question because money from Disney+ for BW will be much lower than from BO). How they wrote in article - "The problem is that the contract doesn’t explicitly say “exclusive,” and as far as industry custom and what was understood by the parties, that was before a pandemic disrupted pretty much everything.".

This part from SJ is quite unreasonable - In her complaint, Johansson suggests that Disney decided to release this film when “it knew the theatrical market was ‘weak,’ rather than waiting a few months for that market to recover.”

BW was postponed several times and now Disney probably couldn't postponed again as their whole schedule for phase 4 and next phase will be also postponed. And if they had to choose between BW or Shang-Chi for only theatrical release, it is obvious that they will choose new superhero who will be part of MCU in next movies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Disney's response, attacking SJ's lawsuit as “sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” is hypocritical and disingenuous. When I read that statement, my eyes rolled so hard they almost fell out of my head. IIRC, Disney+ subscribers had to pay an additional $30 to watch Black Widow at home, which certainly sounds like Disney was exploiting the pandemic situation both to increase its subscriber base and to earn more money through streaming. Also, Disney fired thousands of employees in the middle of the pandemic. So I don't think Disney is in any position to be criticizing others for "callous disregard."

FYI:
Marvel Pres. Kevin Feige Reportedly Livid, “Embarrassed” About ‘Black Widow’
Posted on July 30, 2021 by Rebekah Barton
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/07/kevin-feige-livid-black-widow-release-rwb1/ 

Quote

Now, it seems that Johansson is not the only person associated with Marvel who has a beef with Disney over how Black Widow‘s release was handled. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige is reportedly furious about the situation.

The latest What I’m Hearing… newsletter from former The Hollywood Reporter editor Matthew Belloni notes, in part:

“[Feige is] a company man, and not prone to corporate showdowns or shouting matches. But I’m told he’s angry and embarrassed. He lobbied Disney against the day-and-date plan for Black Widow, preferring the big screen exclusivity and not wanting to upset his talent. And then when the sh** hit the fan, the movie started tanking, and Johansson’s team threatened litigation, he wanted Disney to make this right with her. (Disney declined to comment on Feige.)”

Kevin Feige reportedly "angry and embarrassed" about Disney's handling of ScarJo
William Hughes  July 31, 2021
https://www.avclub.com/kevin-feige-reportedly-angry-and-embarrassed-about-di-1847397547 

Quote

.... Disney is already reportedly reaching out to stars, trying to do the renegotiations they apparently refused to do with Johansson—and which Warner Bros. notably performed for Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot ahead of Wonder Woman 1984 getting similar hybrid treatment—presumably because there’s only so many of these high-profile talent revolts that even the leviathan can stomach.

 

Edited by tv echo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Warner Brothers took the huge loss and paid all their stars for releasing their movies on streaming. But I also don't think SJ can claim her 50 million loss. Her box office record is not that great. I think they said her highest grossing non-Disney movie is Lucy and that made about the same as BW. Also considering not having it on streaming is no guarantee that the 60 million made from it would've gone to theaters. If they look at other movies, people are just not ready to go back to theaters for every movie. 

How long did she want them to hold on to it? The pandemic is far from over and if they kept pushing it back, the interest would keep going down. Especially for a movie that takes place in the middle of the MCU timeline and features a character that is dead in the current timeline. 

I suppose it really matters what the contract says. The wording matters in any legal issue. 

However if they have to start paying the stars for streaming then the cost of streaming will go up. So in the long run this could hurt us the audience more then the already rich stars and corporate suits. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Grimnar said:

Interesting point I saw on reddit was that as no one saw the contract, except involved parties, maybe the word "exclusive" isn't part of the contract but dispute will be over meaning "guaranteed theatrical release" or just "theatrical release" and if it means exclusive or not.

Covid speed up model how movies will be released in future, theater and stream option on day 1, which is for consumers best option. Problem is that as no one could predict covid, movies were postponed and contracts or most contracts didn't count with streaming option. Question will be if studios are legally obligated to compensate actors/directors for streaming option as it wasn't part of the contract.

I think that PR for both sides isn't good and most people just see it as multimilionare person and multibilionare company are fighting over money which are not critical for both sides.
Disney are trying to play covid card, which is true(and it can tip court decision in their favour) but no one will buy that it is Disney's main concern even if it would be rarely true(which certainly isn't).
SJ or her side is on other hand trying to present it as Disney's main reason to released it on Disney+ was way how to lessen her share from BO, which I think is actually byproduct and not direct intention from Disney's decision. Also I think it would be very difficult to prove that she lost 50+M as her side can't use previous Marvel movies as standard for BO success because this was before covid and other factors can play part(people wasn't interesed in BW movie, for some Marvel movies ended with Endgame, etc). Only example which they can use after covid is F9 I think.

And that got a Chinese release date which is where it made most of there box office

2 hours ago, tv echo said:

Disney's response, attacking SJ's lawsuit as “sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” is hypocritical and disingenuous. When I read that statement, my eyes rolled so hard they almost fell out of my head. IIRC, Disney+ subscribers had to pay an additional $30 to watch Black Widow at home, which certainly sounds like Disney was exploiting the pandemic situation both to increase its subscriber base and to earn more money through streaming. Also, Disney fired thousands of employees in the middle of the pandemic. So I don't think Disney is in any position to be criticizing others for "callous disregard."

FYI:
Marvel Pres. Kevin Feige Reportedly Livid, “Embarrassed” About ‘Black Widow’
Posted on July 30, 2021 by Rebekah Barton
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/07/kevin-feige-livid-black-widow-release-rwb1/ 

Kevin Feige reportedly "angry and embarrassed" about Disney's handling of ScarJo
William Hughes  July 31, 2021
https://www.avclub.com/kevin-feige-reportedly-angry-and-embarrassed-about-di-1847397547 

 

He should stop spending Disney money on projects then and expect them to sit on release dates until he says so. And maybe hold back on telling Florence to come back for a TV show that you want made ,skirt round Valentina beeing crammed into another show in the meantime  and then moan about moving $1 b of films that is not his money  back again to some random time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

How long did she want them to hold on to it? The pandemic is far from over and if they kept pushing it back, the interest would keep going down. Especially for a movie that takes place in the middle of the MCU timeline and features a character that is dead in the current timeline.

Of course with that logic, they shouldn't have even given Tom Hiddleston a streaming show, and I'm not saying that just to be disagreeable. I wondered how they were going to make Loki work without resurrecting the character, because they haven't, how we were supposed to care about what happens to him when he died in Infinity War. But it worked. I don't think anything with the Marvel brand wouldn't sell at this point.

I would further argue that SJ being on her way out doesn't really factor in. They're going to have to get a younger crop of leads now, not just Pugh but maybe/probably Hailee Steinfeld. If Disney tried to get around some promise about re-negotiating with Johansson, who has the clout (and the lawyers) to make them give her what they said they would, they can try it with someone who isn't as experienced about the business. She doesn't even have to be doing it "for them" for it to benefit the ones who follow in her wake.

 

1 hour ago, Humbugged said:

He [Feige] should stop spending Disney money on projects then and expect them to sit on release dates until he says so. And maybe hold back on telling Florence to come back for a TV show that you want made ,skirt round Valentina beeing crammed into another show in the meantime  and then moan about moving $1 b of films that is not his money  back again to some random time

Technically, it's not Disney's money either, or if it is it's because the collective We gave it to them. And Hawkeye's show is already filmed, though it won't be aired on the streaming service until November, so it's not "a TV show you want made." Even if that was the case, they must have intended to go forward with Florence based on her work here, and they'd need a reason for her to show up in the new show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how serious SJ's team took the $50 million number. I just saw it as a ballpark to always go high and then settle for less. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Of course with that logic, they shouldn't have even given Tom Hiddleston a streaming show, and I'm not saying that just to be disagreeable. I wondered how they were going to make Loki work without resurrecting the character, because they haven't, how we were supposed to care about what happens to him when he died in Infinity War. But it worked. I don't think anything with the Marvel brand wouldn't sell at this point.

I would further argue that SJ being on her way out doesn't really factor in. They're going to have to get a younger crop of leads now, not just Pugh but maybe/probably Hailee Steinfeld. If Disney tried to get around some promise about re-negotiating with Johansson, who has the clout (and the lawyers) to make them give her what they said they would, they can try it with someone who isn't as experienced about the business. She doesn't even have to be doing it "for them" for it to benefit the ones who follow in her wake.

SJ being on her way out is why Black Widow is very different than Loki. One of the frequent criticisms of Black Widow is that it was too low stakes and there was just no way around that. Endgame really hurt anticipation for Black Widow. Loki didn’t have that problem. 

If Disney doesn’t settle, I have a feeling that this lawsuit could be more of a detriment to the younger stars. I absolutely believe that actors should get a cut of streaming revenue but SJ’s particular case is weak unless she has an stronger argument she didn’t include in the initial filing.

Hollywood Reporter mentions that SJ’s team deliberately (and smartly) did this in a way that would get a lot of press attention. Realistically, this was a very strategic move to get Disney to negotiate. 

On 7/29/2021 at 3:27 PM, AngieBee1 said:

I give them points for trying to make her appear selfish and greedy amid a pandemic, but the question is why they didn't renegotiate with her as her attorney claims.

I’m guessing it’s because they felt they weren’t required to based on the language of the contract. The lawsuit filing is available to be read. After Disney+ was announced their lawyer promised her they would renegotiate if it didn’t get a wide theatrical release. The movie did get a wide theatrical release. I do agree with her that the intention was for it to be a theater exclusive at the time based on what was the standard but the standard had changed by the time it was released. 

 

5 hours ago, tv echo said:

Also, Disney fired thousands of employees in the middle of the pandemic. So I don't think Disney is in any position to be criticizing others for "callous disregard."

Aren’t big cooperations synonymous with “callous disregard”. There exist to make money and if the leaders deviate to far from that they found themselves on their ass. Having said that, I disagree that firing employees in a pandemic is an example of callous disregard. What else were they supposed to do when there is no work for those people and profits fall off a cliff? Pandemics suck. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Of course with that logic, they shouldn't have even given Tom Hiddleston a streaming show, and I'm not saying that just to be disagreeable. I wondered how they were going to make Loki work without resurrecting the character, because they haven't, how we were supposed to care about what happens to him when he died in Infinity War. But it worked. I don't think anything with the Marvel brand wouldn't sell at this point.

I would further argue that SJ being on her way out doesn't really factor in. They're going to have to get a younger crop of leads now, not just Pugh but maybe/probably Hailee Steinfeld. If Disney tried to get around some promise about re-negotiating with Johansson, who has the clout (and the lawyers) to make them give her what they said they would, they can try it with someone who isn't as experienced about the business. She doesn't even have to be doing it "for them" for it to benefit the ones who follow in her wake.

 

Technically, it's not Disney's money either, or if it is it's because the collective We gave it to them. And Hawkeye's show is already filmed, though it won't be aired on the streaming service until November, so it's not "a TV show you want made." Even if that was the case, they must have intended to go forward with Florence based on her work here, and they'd need a reason for her to show up in the new show.

Like I said they got her into film a TV show that he does not want to air until he sees fit to show it or his work wife gets her made up $50 m (come back when the film his $800 m 'currently at $300 m) meanwhile he delivered a fu to Flo and Hailee

And I did not pay for Cruella or Jungle Cruise or the next 6 Marvel movies (yet) it is Disney's shareholders cash at the minute and he was to move them back again for no reason and he wanted them to keep up production and be back burnered until he wants them shown

 

---------

 

Talking of Flo/Hailee it is weird that they have both worked with one of the Stark daughters (Flo stabbing the Widow in Morocco was all Maisie and her jacket at the end was all Cher from Clueless who played her butler when she met her boyfriend)and then there is Toby who was in Barely Lethal with Hailee and SophieTurner .Funnily enough he might be in  show on ABC

Share this post


Link to post

On wikipedia is that BW made in BO cca 320M. According to Disney they made 60M from disney+ on opening weekend. This means that 2M people payed for BW on disney+. If we add that everyone watched with another 3 people, we will have 8M people who didn't go to theater. If ticket would be for 10$ it is loss of 80M from BO under assumption that everyone from these 8M would go to theater. So it seems that SJ didn't lost that much money from BO even with BW being on disney+. So even if she win this in court, her actuall compensation can be less than 10M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

Warner Brothers took the huge loss and paid all their stars for releasing their movies on streaming

They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they used the "free" moves to pump up HBO Max Subscriptions. I have no idea if it works but, that is the business model they went with.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size