Black Widow (2020)

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

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

“His work wife”? If this was Evans or RDJ suing would anyone refer to them as Fiege’s work husband? 
Also when Feige was apparently pushing Disney to delay or renegotiate it was when many believed things would be closer to normal in months. Jungle Cruise is supposed to be the last movie released with the new strategy. The argument the movie should be delayed a couple of months was a lot more valid when these conversations would have happened. 

[Humbugged]

31 minutes ago, Dani said:

“His work wife”? If this was Evans or RDJ suing would anyone refer to them as Fiege’s work husband? 
Also when Feige was apparently pushing Disney to delay or renegotiate it was when many believed things would be closer to normal in months. Jungle Cruise is supposed to be the last movie released with the new strategy. The argument the movie should be delayed a couple of months was a lot more valid when these conversations would have happened. 

It doesnt work though .Feige expected Florence to show up the film Hawkeye and he would have delayed it so Scarlett hits her $800 m + .The way the story is being spread he is still complaining that they should still be waitng until she hits her target and everything else would have to wait.His ire was posted yesterday and that has led to calls for everthing to be held back again .Scarlett wanted the release of BW  to be put on hold again she said so yesterday and he was agreeing with her .

Again it is not his money that will be about $1.5 b + when his hold off then  stretches into next year

And yes I would be sayng that  if he was holding back all releases for another year for 2 actors who are gone from the MCU

 

And Disney tried to negotiate all this last year but Scarlett wanted her payoff and they held back again

 

https://observer.com/2020/12/marvel-disney-plus-movies-actor-salaries-box-office-avengers/

 

If we wait for BW to hit a billion how long to we have to wait and is also TV shows they have to mess around with with this hold on,hold on deal of Feige's even though he is casting shows/movies that are sometime never

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Humbugged

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

It doesnt work though .Feige expected Florence to show up the film Hawkeye and he would have delayed it so Scarlett hits her $800 m + .The way the story is being spread he is still complaining that they should still be waitng until she hits her target and everything else would have to wait.His ire was posted yesterday and that has led to calls for everthing to be held back again .Scarlett wanted the release of BW  to be put on hold again she said so yesterday and he was agreeing with her .

What doesn’t work? It also possible that Florence appreciates that Fiege is siding with the Marvel stars. Besides that, Hawkeye isn’t releasing until November. There is no reason that delaying BW a few months would have delayed Hawkeye. Even if it did delay Hawkeye I don’t understand how that would have impacted Pugh at all. She got paid when she filmed. She’s not a big enough name yet that she gets a portion of the profits. 

Fiege hasn’t said anything. It’s all been reports from sources and it hasn’t led to calls that everything be held back now. It’s literally not possible. That ship has sailed. Yes they are saying that the release should have been delayed again months ago or that Disney should have been re-negotiated with SJ. Saying that they want to hold everything indefinitely until the movies hits 800m+ isn’t accurate. She wanted them to honor the spirit of the contract or renegotiate with her. Apparently Fiege agreed with her.

I think her case is weak legally and completely undermined by the circumstances surrounding COVID but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have some good points on how it was handled. 

[Sakura12]

57 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

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.

 

I know they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to avoid lawsuits like this one. 

I don't think the star sells the movie as much as they used too. A bunch of A-List stars have had flop after flop. Even pre-pandamic people are a little more choosey about which movies they will pay to see in theaters. So BW box office success was no guarantee. I don't know if SJ thought her movie was going to be like Captain Marvel or Black Panther. I don't think Black Widow was going to be a billion dollar movie. 

I guess Shang Chi will be the real test to see if theater only makes a difference for the MCU movies. Since it hasn't really made much of a difference for other movies released that way. So far it's been everyone comfortable enough to go to theaters sees the movies the week they come out and everyone else seems to wait until they can stream it. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sakura12 said:

I guess Shang Chi will be the real test to see if theater only makes a difference for the MCU movies. Since it hasn't really made much of a difference for other movies released that way. So far it's been everyone comfortable enough to go to theaters sees the movies the week they come out and everyone else seems to wait until they can stream it. 

Shang-Chi has so much hype in Asian communities that I really don’t think it being a hit will be an indicator if theater only makes a difference. There is a strong chance it will bring out people who wouldn’t go to see anything else in the theaters. 

[Humbugged]

6 minutes ago, Dani said:

What doesn’t work? It also possible that Florence appreciates that Fiege is siding with the Marvel stars. Besides that, Hawkeye isn’t releasing until November. There is no reason that delaying BW a few months would have delayed Hawkeye. Even if it did delay Hawkeye I don’t understand how that would have impacted Pugh at all. She got paid when she filmed. She’s not a big enough name yet that she gets a portion of the profits. 

Fiege hasn’t said anything. It’s all been reports from sources and it hasn’t led to calls that everything be held back now. It’s literally not possible. That ship has sailed. Yes they are saying that the release should have been delayed again months ago or that Disney should have been re-negotiated with SJ. Saying that they want to hold everything indefinitely until the movies hits 800m+ isn’t accurate. She wanted them to honor the spirit of the contract or renegotiate with her. Apparently Fiege agreed with her.

I think her case is weak legally and completely undermined by the circumstances surrounding COVID but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have some good points on how it was handled. 

They tried to re-negotiate but she was having none of it .And the movie was held back 4 times so they waited as long as they could Scarlett wanted them to keep putting it off and we have no idea what is coming up in the other tv shows/movie end-credits over the next year so it might screw everthing up holding off and with the next 2 showsthere might be more Valentina with the two shows that come next (and Scarlett wanted it pushed back again ) .And one again she is no position to expect Disney to postpone anything else and neither is Feige as it is not his money he is spending .And they would then have to moved the other films back as well to fit in with his hold on stuff moving BW would have meant the rest of the schedule had to be moved .And Scarlett was paid as well she is just not collecting how much backend she think she entitled too. She is demanding $50 m that where the $800m number is from as it stands she wants a 15% cut not the 6/7 that she should get

 

 

 

[Ambrosefolly]

40 minutes ago, Sakura12 said:

I don't think the star sells the movie as much as they used too. A bunch of A-List stars have had flop after flop. Even pre-pandamic people are a little more choosey about which movies they will pay to see in theaters. So BW box office success was no guarantee. I don't know if SJ thought her movie was going to be like Captain Marvel or Black Panther. I don't think Black Widow was going to be a billion dollar movie. 

Stars don't sell the movies like they used to, but the audience does become very attached to whoever is inhabiting the role, especially if it was for ten years. With everyone else suffering, small businesses be closed down left and right, I don't feel that sorry for some that can take her current salary and never work again, but I do think that SJo has validity to her claim. However I don't that the movie would have netted her 50 million +.

[Slovenly Muse]

On 7/13/2021 at 3:01 AM, Grimnar said:

In one comment I read, was said that they kind of glossed over Nat's regrets. Natasha sacrificed Dreykov's daughter as collateral damage which kind of cheapened that Taskmaster had legitimte reason to go after Nat but it end that she was controled.

Yeah, this was one of my biggest complaints about the film. Once Taskmaster was revealed to be Dreykov's daughter (what's her character's name, by the way? Was she given one, or did I just not catch it?), it was really disappointing that there was no real payoff for that. The death of Dreykov's daugher (calling her DD since I don't know her proper name) was a huge millstone around Natasha's neck. Deliberately killing that girl to get the father affected her greatly, and she clearly never managed to leave it behind her (with good reason). So it was disappointing that she didn't get to really confront DD (only physically fight Taskmaster) and own up and come to some sort of closure about what her actions cost DD. Furthermore, DD's story was simply not told at all. She absolutely had legitimate reasons to want Natasha dead. It wasn't until the very end when she was freed from the mind control that I realized she actually WAS mind controlled. Her story is even more traumatic and horrible than Natasha and Yelena's: She was caught in an explosion when she was just a child because the supposed "good guys" wanted her father dead and didn't care that she was in the way. Then, she grew up (enduring what I'm sure was a long and painful recovery) only to find herself enslaved to her own father through mind control, forced to try to kill the very person she blamed for her condition in the first place, but with no agency or personhood to exact vengeance, because her father wanted to use her as nothing more than a tool and didn't love her as his daughter anymore. She could have been a central plot of the movie! But this story was not told or explored AT ALL. Not only was it a waste of a villain, it was a waste of a truly interesting character. Ignoring her story seemed like a lazy way to let Natasha off the hook by confirming that Dreykov was the one who REALLY used and exploited girls for his missions, including his own daughter, so really Natasha wasn't the problem and we shouldn't think any more about it.

But the thing that actually bothered me the most about the movie is actually a fairly minor point: the accents. It was so weird to establish that these characters learned flawless English to blend in seamlessly to an American community, and then have them speaking in heavily-accented (even broken) English later on. Learning a language involves practicing pronunciation just as much as vocabulary and grammar, and they obviously mastered it. Having three of the four former-spies talking like... well, like comic book Russian villains, instead of capable international agents who could speak English as comfortably as Russian was distracting. I get that the production didn't want to have them actually speak Russian and subtitle it (hard on the actors and the younger audience members), and wanted to emphasize that they were of Russian nationality, but it really distracted and annoyed me, especially David Harbour's broken English. Of course, I am a language teacher myself, so I will admit to being especially biased.

As for the controversy around ScarJo's lawsuit, I really hope she's successful and opens some doors for other actors with fewer resources to fight back against Disney and the other major production companies too. As a culture, we often talk about the insane salaries that actors receive for movies (same as athletes), but we don't often talk about the amount of money that a film (or game) will generate over time, as it is released on screens around the world, and on streaming, and eventually licensed for TV, etc., and who actually sees that income. When you consider the amount of money the movie will make, you realize that the actors, who have done the hardest work and provided the largest draw, are only getting peanuts compared to what the execs will rake in. Those people saying "she's rich enough already, does she really need to do this?" are totally missing the point that if SHE'S not getting that money, it's going to someone else who I guarantee is even richer and has done less work for it. Plus, if they're trying to short the headliner, you just know they're doing it to everyone else too. Good on her for fighting for the cut she deserves, and setting precedent for others to do the same.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

They tried to re-negotiate but she was having none of it .

Do you have the source of this? I was just going off of the filing and, as far as I know, Disney’s response didn’t say they had attempted to re-negotiated with her. 

43 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

And the movie was held back 4 times so they waited as long as they could Scarlett wanted them to keep putting it off and we have no idea what is coming up in the other tv shows/movie end-credits over the next year so it might screw everthing up holding off and with the next 2 showsthere might be more Valentina with the two shows that come next (and Scarlett wanted it pushed back again ) .

We don’t know what is coming up but Fiege certainly does. If he thought the movie could be delayed for a few months without impacting the MCU it probably could. Her claim specifically mentions that Free Guy and Shang Chi are set to open exclusively in August and September and the Chapek has said that that things should be recovered to make returning to the traditional release more financially viable. She is arguing that it is only month difference. I do think this is one of the weaker parts of her claim but she does make a good point that the cut off that BW had to release when it did rather than waiting a month is suspect. 

43 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

And one again she is no position to expect Disney to postpone anything else and neither is Feige as it is not his money he is spending .

Of course she’s not but Fiege absolutely is. He’s the architect of a franchise that has made Disney billions. It’s also not Chapek’s money that is being spent but he makes decisions for Disney and Fiege makes decisions for Marvel Studios. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Guest

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Sakura12 said:

know they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to avoid lawsuits like this one. 

I think they probably did it more to avoid bad publicity than lawsuits but, yeah your point still stands, publicity or lawsuits they got ahead of it.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Humbugged said:

She is demanding $50 m that where the $800m number is from as it stands she wants a 15% cut not the 6/7 that she should get

 

Actually she’s not asking for $50M. The lawsuit doesn’t mention any financial numbers at all. The $50M number being thrown around is comes from two insiders who were briefed on her contract. They said that the Disney+ decision could have cost her upwards of $50M. I think that those numbers are off but she is not demanding that amount. 

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Dani said:

We don’t know what is coming up but Fiege certainly does. If he thought the movie could be delayed for a few months without impacting the MCU it probably could. Her claim specifically mentions that Free Guy and Shang Chi are set to open exclusively in August and September and the Chapek has said that that things should be recovered to make returning to the traditional release more financially viable. She is arguing that it is only month difference. I do think this is one of the weaker parts of her claim but she does make a good point that the cut off that BW had to release when it did rather than waiting a month is suspect. 

I have to admit I don't get theit argument. In the US we're rushing headlong into a 4th and probably 5th wave. I'm already seeing mask mandates coming back not sure about lockdowns. I'm not lawyer but, I think there's a fair argument to be made (by Disney) that no one knows what the future will bring.

I guess we'll find out what happens when those movies release. I personally don't have any desire to go to the movies. When I do go back I'm sure it will be a mid-week matinee where I can avoid crowds.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Morrigan2575

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I have to admit I don't get the arguemenr. In the US we're rushing headlong into a 4th and probably 5th wave. I'm already seeing mask mandates coming back not sure about lockdowns. I'm not lawyer but, I think there's a fair argument to be made (by Disney) that no one knows what the future will bring.

I agree which is why I think the current COVID situation really undermines her argument as far as the actual damages. However the argument being made is that Disney deliberately screwed her out of money to prop up Disney+ which brought big bonuses to Chapek and Iger. That when the decision was made to release Black Widow in July they were saying that the box office would be fine in August but they still chose to sacrifice Black Widows box office totals and by extension her paycheck. 

I don’t think she has a particularly strong legal argument but still does present a compelling case that the way Disney handled it was extremely shady and they intentionally hurt her bottom line.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Guest

[Humbugged]

6 minutes ago, Dani said:

Do you have the source of this? I was just going off of the filing and, as far as I know, Disney’s response didn’t say they had attempted to re-negotiated with her. 

We don’t know what is coming up but Fiege certainly does. If he thought the movie could be delayed for a few months without impacting the MCU it probably could. Her claim specifically mentions that Free Guy and Shang Chi are set to open exclusively in August and September and the Chapek has said that that things should be recovered to make returning to the traditional release more financially viable. She is arguing that it is only month difference. I do think this is one of the weaker parts of her claim but she does make a good point that the cut off that BW had to release when it did rather than waiting a month is suspect. 

Of course she’s not but Fiege absolutely is. He’s the architect of a franchise that has made Disney billions. It’s also not Chapek’s money that is being spent but he makes decisions for Disney and Fiege makes decisions for Marvel Studios. 

 

7 minutes ago, Dani said:

Do you have the source of this? I was just going off of the filing and, as far as I know, Disney’s response didn’t say they had attempted to re-negotiated with her. 

We don’t know what is coming up but Fiege certainly does. If he thought the movie could be delayed for a few months without impacting the MCU it probably could. Her claim specifically mentions that Free Guy and Shang Chi are set to open exclusively in August and September and the Chapek has said that that things should be recovered to make returning to the traditional release more financially viable. She is arguing that it is only month difference. I do think this is one of the weaker parts of her claim but she does make a good point that the cut off that BW had to release when it did rather than waiting a month is suspect. 

Of course she’s not but Fiege absolutely is. He’s the architect of a franchise that has made Disney billions. It’s also not Chapek’s money that is being spent but he makes decisions for Disney and Fiege makes decisions for Marvel Studios. 

https://observer.com/2020/12/marvel-disney-plus-movies-actor-salaries-box-office-avengers/

 

I already posted in up thread

 

--------------------------------------

 

Scarlett did not mention '1 month ' she said they should hold off all together until the world was in a safer place to show it  .And Marvel are not going to release 2 films at once so Shang Chi and the rest of the schedule under her fantasy plan would have to all be moved and that might be there inital plan but it might not work out like that

 

--------------------------------------

 

As far as Feige goes Marvel one of twenty properties that Disney own ,he does not control Disney + no way would he have any say over what they show that is down to Disney as Marvel they give the channel stuff to show ,and he has no control of backloading stuff with Disney money because he feels like it .It is corporation ,they have shareholders and Chapek is his boss like he is Kennedy's boss

 

 

[angora]

40 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I have to admit I don't get the arguemenr. In the US we're rushing headlong into a 4th and probably 5th wave. I'm already seeing mask mandates coming back not sure about lockdowns. I'm not lawyer but, I think there's a fair argument to be made (by Disney) that no one knows what the future will bring.

I guess we'll find out what happens when those movies release. I personally don't have any desire to go to the movies. When I do go back I'm sure it will be a mid-week matinee where I can avoid crowds.

Definitely. I did see BW in theaters (a late showing on a week night when there were only two other people there,) but I'm already worrying about what case numbers will look like in September for Shang-Chi. Everything is so day-to-day right now, and we're far from having any reliable timeline on when the pandemic will be "over" (although there are some people bizarrely talking about it in the past tense.)

[Guest]

NVM. Just going around in circles. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Guest

[Grimnar]

8 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

Yeah, this was one of my biggest complaints about the film. Once Taskmaster was revealed to be Dreykov's daughter (what's her character's name, by the way? Was she given one, or did I just not catch it?), it was really disappointing that there was no real payoff for that. The death of Dreykov's daugher (calling her DD since I don't know her proper name) was a huge millstone around Natasha's neck. Deliberately killing that girl to get the father affected her greatly, and she clearly never managed to leave it behind her (with good reason). So it was disappointing that she didn't get to really confront DD (only physically fight Taskmaster) and own up and come to some sort of closure about what her actions cost DD. Furthermore, DD's story was simply not told at all. She absolutely had legitimate reasons to want Natasha dead. It wasn't until the very end when she was freed from the mind control that I realized she actually WAS mind controlled. Her story is even more traumatic and horrible than Natasha and Yelena's: She was caught in an explosion when she was just a child because the supposed "good guys" wanted her father dead and didn't care that she was in the way. Then, she grew up (enduring what I'm sure was a long and painful recovery) only to find herself enslaved to her own father through mind control, forced to try to kill the very person she blamed for her condition in the first place, but with no agency or personhood to exact vengeance, because her father wanted to use her as nothing more than a tool and didn't love her as his daughter anymore. She could have been a central plot of the movie! But this story was not told or explored AT ALL. Not only was it a waste of a villain, it was a waste of a truly interesting character. Ignoring her story seemed like a lazy way to let Natasha off the hook by confirming that Dreykov was the one who REALLY used and exploited girls for his missions, including his own daughter, so really Natasha wasn't the problem and we shouldn't think any more about it.

But the thing that actually bothered me the most about the movie is actually a fairly minor point: the accents. It was so weird to establish that these characters learned flawless English to blend in seamlessly to an American community, and then have them speaking in heavily-accented (even broken) English later on. Learning a language involves practicing pronunciation just as much as vocabulary and grammar, and they obviously mastered it. Having three of the four former-spies talking like... well, like comic book Russian villains, instead of capable international agents who could speak English as comfortably as Russian was distracting. I get that the production didn't want to have them actually speak Russian and subtitle it (hard on the actors and the younger audience members), and wanted to emphasize that they were of Russian nationality, but it really distracted and annoyed me, especially David Harbour's broken English. Of course, I am a language teacher myself, so I will admit to being especially biased.

As for the controversy around ScarJo's lawsuit, I really hope she's successful and opens some doors for other actors with fewer resources to fight back against Disney and the other major production companies too. As a culture, we often talk about the insane salaries that actors receive for movies (same as athletes), but we don't often talk about the amount of money that a film (or game) will generate over time, as it is released on screens around the world, and on streaming, and eventually licensed for TV, etc., and who actually sees that income. When you consider the amount of money the movie will make, you realize that the actors, who have done the hardest work and provided the largest draw, are only getting peanuts compared to what the execs will rake in. Those people saying "she's rich enough already, does she really need to do this?" are totally missing the point that if SHE'S not getting that money, it's going to someone else who I guarantee is even richer and has done less work for it. Plus, if they're trying to short the headliner, you just know they're doing it to everyone else too. Good on her for fighting for the cut she deserves, and setting precedent for others to do the same.

Yes, Dreykov's daughter was missed oportunity and Dreykov was also underwhelming so that's reason why I consider BW weakest MCU movie regarding villains/antagonists, especially that Taskmaster's scenes were almost all in trailers or promo clips. Even Ross wasn't much used in the movie as I was expecting.

Agree regarding accents, they fall on the stereotype that foreigners are speaking with (heavy) accent just to show that they are foreigners. What was more baffling for me was that Alexei from first 20 minutes is same person as Alexei in the rest of the movie. One was capable to act as undercover agent for 3 years and other was buffon who served as muscle in the team(and we didn't see much action from him in movie).

Regarding lawsuit as opportunity to fight for "smaller" actors. Aren't % from box office offered usually to really big A-list actors or proven main actors in franchise? I.e. I can't imagine that Richard Madden would be offered upfront money plus % from BO for his first Marvel movie. Same for Paul Rudd and first Ant-man.

[Hiyo]

 

[tv echo]

Women In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit
By Anthony D'Alessandro   July 30, 2021
https://deadline.com/2021/07/scarlett-johansson-black-disney-lawsuit-times-up-women-in-film-response-1234806937/ 

Quote

Seriously, Disney, you’re not lookin’ so good.

In the wake of the $319.8 billion entertainment media conglom calling Scarlett Johansson’s breach of contract Black Widow suit a “callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic” and outing her base salary of $20M on the Marvel Cinematic Universe film exclaiming that the Disney+ with Premier Access will compensate her well enough, Women in Film, ReFrame and Time’s Up have weighed in, calling the Mouse House out.

“While we take no position on the business issues in the litigation between Scarlett Johansson and The Walt Disney Company, we stand firmly against Disney’s recent statement which attempts to characterize Johansson as insensitive or selfish for defending her contractual business rights,” said the orgs in a joint statement this afternoon.

“This gendered character attack has no place in a business dispute and contributes to an environment in which women and girls are perceived as less able than men to protect their own interests without facing ad hominem criticism,” the statement continued.
*  *  *
The two-time Oscar nominee’s agent CAA co-chairman Bryan Lourd blasted Disney today for shaming her publicly and “deliberately” moving “the revenue stream and profits” of Black Widow “to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.”

Similar reporting from A.V. Club, EW and The Hollywood Reporter. And from the A.V. Club article:

Quote

And, honestly, that Disney response does remain both somewhat baffling and shockingly personal, calling the star’s suit “Especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Fun tip: These statements become much funnier, if still also sort of weird and disingenuous, if you imagine them all being read in a Mickey Mouse voice.) One gets the sense that the company was, somewhat ham-fistedly, trying to leverage Johansson’s sometimes spotty reputation over the last few years in an attempt to manage the optics of the situation, going so far as to state that the actor has already received $20 million for Black Widow, and isn’t that enough millions for one person to have? (Which is a pretty rich assertion, coming as it does from the all-consuming money maw of Disney.)

Johansson’s side issued their own counter-statement to that effect yesterday, accusing Disney of trying to “weaponize her success” by revealing her pay for the spy thriller. In a statement from agent Bryan Lourd, the Johansson camp claimed, “The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of,” and called the statement a “direct attack on [Johansson’s] character.”

'Sons of Anarchy' Creator Rips Disney Over Scarlett Johansson's 'Black Widow' Lawsuit
By BREANNA BELL - August 1, 2021
https://popculture.com/movies/news/sons-of-anarchy-creator-rips-disney-over-scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit/

Quote

Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter stands with Scarlett Johansson amid her current lawsuit with Disney over the release of Black Widow in theaters and on the streaming platform Disney+. Sutter updated his followers with his feelings on the matter via Twitter saying "Sad thing about the Disney-ScarJo beef isn’t that TWDC manipulated loopholes to feed their bottom line and rape an artist," he wrote. "That’s industry standard. It was their Goebbels-esque manipulation of her valid outrage to villainize her. That’s how Walt thanked her for years of service."

After some of his followers pointed out some confusion over the use of Disney's creator's name, given that he's been dead for some years. "'Walt' being a metaphor for the stock holding white guys who pull the strings. Although… Disney was very much into cryogenics," he added in a follow-up tweet.

Several Disney Actors Reportedly Considering Lawsuits After Black Widow
BY JEFF NELSON    JULY 31, 2021
https://screenrant.com/black-widow-disney-lawsuit-actors-rumors-updates/ 

Quote

A shockwave went through Hollywood when Warner Bros. announced that they would be releasing their entire 2021 slate of films to HBO Max on the same date as their theatrical release. Some actors and directors openly spoke out against this decision and voiced their frustrations. However, Warner Bros. re-worked the contracts to compromise with talent based on back-end potential being impacted. The studio ended up paying over $250 million in deals with actors including Will Smith (King Richard), Denzel Washington (The Little Things) and Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman 1984). However, Disney hasn't made the same effort to provide such an opportunity to its talent. Other Disney titles to be released with the same theatrical and Disney+ Premier Access treatment include Mulan, Raya and the Last Dragon, Cruella, and Jungle Cruise.

While this instance of Johansson suing Disney may not turn out in her favor, it will draw more attention to this issue moving forward. It isn't every day that one of the biggest stars in Hollywood sues one of the largest film studios in the world. The problem with a company like Disney owning so much of the lifecycle of a movie, including its distribution, has been seen previously with vertical integration when Hollywood studios owned their own theaters. Instead of owning a physical theater location, studios now own virtual theaters in the form of streaming platforms. If more actors involved with Disney decide to pursue legal action against the media giant, there's a possibility that it could change the way things are handled in Hollywood. ...

ETA: Even if the word "exclusive" does not appear in SJ's contract, it may still not be a slam dunk for Disney. From what I understand of contract law, if there is any ambiguity regarding a key term in the contract, then the parties may be allowed to introduce other evidence (outside the contract) to show the parties' intent at the time the contract was negotiated and signed. So if a key provision in SJ's contract is deemed ambiguous, SJ would be able to introduce additional evidence to support her case, like testimony or records regarding the parties' contract negotiations, and/or industry standards and practices at the time. (See this Variety article: "If the case gets that far, much will depend on whether Johansson’s contract is 'ambiguous' — that is, whether it could be read more than one way. If the contract is clear, then so-called 'extrinsic' evidence — such as what industry figures generally understand certain terms to mean — would not become a factor.")

Edited August 1, 2021 by tv echo

[Grimnar]

35 minutes ago, tv echo said:

Women In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit
By Anthony D'Alessandro   July 30, 2021
https://deadline.com/2021/07/scarlett-johansson-black-disney-lawsuit-times-up-women-in-film-response-1234806937/ 

Similar reporting from A.V. Club, EW and The Hollywood Reporter:
https://www.avclub.com/groups-denounce-disneys-scarlett-johansson-response-as-1847401012 
https://ew.com/movies/women-in-film-reframe-times-up-slam-disney-scarlett-johansson-black-widow-lawsuit/ 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-times-up-1234991071/

 

Are people really trying now to play sexism card?

[raven]

1 hour ago, tv echo said:

And, honestly, that Disney response does remain both somewhat baffling and shockingly personal, calling the star’s suit “Especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Fun tip: These statements become much funnier, if still also sort of weird and disingenuous, if you imagine them all being read in a Mickey Mouse voice.) One gets the sense that the company was, somewhat ham-fistedly, trying to leverage Johansson’s sometimes spotty reputation over the last few years in an attempt to manage the optics of the situation, going so far as to state that the actor has already received $20 million for Black Widow, and isn’t that enough millions for one person to have? (Which is a pretty rich assertion, coming as it does from the all-consuming money maw of Disney.)

Thank you, AV Club (bold by me - yes, exactly).  This pretty much sums up how I feel about this.  It is a contract dispute and for Disney to pull the COVID card is ridiculous.  Poor Disney!  They made less billions than they thought they would!  If this were Chris Evans or RDJ, it would never have gotten this far.   It is always, always about the money - this is Disney's real concern:

Quote

.However, Warner Bros. re-worked the contracts to compromise with talent based on back-end potential being impacted. The studio ended up paying over $250 million in deals with actors including Will Smith (King Richard), Denzel Washington (The Little Things) and Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman 1984). However, Disney hasn't made the same effort to provide such an opportunity to its talent.

It's about the dollars, now and forever, amen.  Disney doesn't give a shit about COVID or anything else but their bottom line.

I don't usually care about millionaires arguing with billionaires and probably would not have paid attention to this at all except for Disney crying COVID.  I can't roll my eyes hard enough.  I'm sure their P&L and balance sheet is just fine.   This is a PR battle and they are are concerned about how it will impact their financial obligations for their releases going forward.

What a crock from Disney.

The movie?  Saw it in the theater, very much enjoyed it - nice sendoff for Natasha, SJ did a good job, David Harbour and Florence Pugh were standouts, Rachel Weisz needed more to do.

I actually don't think having a big bad was the point and I don't read comics so all of this Taskmaster disappointment doesn't affect me, though I figured right away it was the daughter.  It was more about Natasha coming to terms with her past and finding a way to go forward after Civil War and I think it accomplished that.   It's not as stand alone friendly as TWS but I think it works well overall. 

The sister relationship was my favorite part and I was very glad the movie didn't have them as enemies.

[Chyromaniac]

I figured out the daughter reveal (her name is Antonia, for whoever was asking) about halfway through, when I realized we hadn’t seen Olga Kurylenko yet.  I wasn’t aware that she was in it until the opening credits- so in that case I kind of wish they’d not done them, despite them being good overall.

I think with the box office (in relation to the lawsuit or otherwise), we need to consider not just that BW had premier access on Disney+, but also the fact that it’s going to be available to all subscribers in just a few months.  Previously, it was a long time before a movie would be available at home - even longer if you didn’t want to buy/rent it.  Now, it’s only what- 3 months between when a movie comes out, and when it’s “free” on streaming.  I think there must be people who might have gone to see black widow in a theater, but are just going to wait until it gets unlocked on D+.  That’s basically what I did with Raya- there were a couple of times that I thought about going, but I figured I’d rather just sit it out.  I wasn’t super interested in Cruella anyway, but it’s the same deal- if I do see it, I have no problem waiting.

For BW, I was there opening weekend, as I assume most of the diehards were.  Same, I suspect with the premiere access viewers.  However I feel like it’s the casual viewers- the people who go to a movie in later weeks if there’s decent buzz- that aren’t showing up.  And I don’t know if they will, as long as there’s the easy choice to just wait it out.  I guess we’ll see with the next few theater exclusive movies, to see if the casual viewers will return.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

12 hours ago, raven said:

It's about the dollars, now and forever, amen.  Disney doesn't give a shit about COVID or anything else but their bottom line.

And we've seen them do this before, after a fashion, when they fired James Gunn and then walked it back and rehired him when there was such a kerfuffle. Maybe they do have principles, but they only last as long as it doesn't affect the amount of zeros at the end of the fiscal quarter. Because someone here is not telling the truth, and them launching a fairly personal attack against SJ makes me think it's them.

[kiddo82]

No one has asked the most important question regarding this lawsuit.  What does Stephen Dorff think about it?

[tv echo]

Inside Disney: How the Bob Iger-Bob Chapek Rift Led to the ScarJo Blunder
by SHARON WAXMAN | August 2, 2021
https://www.thewrap.com/inside-disney-bob-iger-bob-chapek-rift-scarjo-blunder/ 

Quote

Insiders tell TheWrap that Iger is “mortified” that Johansson ended up suing the studio
*  *  *
It’s an open secret in Hollywood that Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger and CEO Bob Chapek have been estranged for months, dating back to the very start of last year’s pandemic. Now the consequences of that estrangement are becoming clear.

My sources tell me that Iger and Chapek don’t interact often. This is evident given the embarrassing lawsuit Scarlett Johansson filed last Thursday, in which she claimed Disney violated her contract for box-office-based profit participation on "Black Widow." The lawsuit was filed after the film was first released on Disney+. And worse, there was that insane foot-in-mouth response to the lawsuit in which a spokesperson for a company that laid off 32,000 workers last year officially castigated Johansson for “callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” And then revealed her $20 million based salary. (Excuse me? )

I talked with a half-dozen executives familiar with Disney and its culture. It seems that Iger either intentionally allowed Chapek to shoot himself in the foot with Johansson’s team by failing to step in and negotiate an alternative to a lawsuit, or that he is so disconnected from his successor that he was not in the loop to step in as he usually would. 
*  *  *
“What do you expect?” asked a former Disney executive who called it an “irksome” rookie error. “Chapek and Iger are not spending time and comparing notes and working to mutual success, which is kind of what you look for in a succession plan. Talent is important. You should proactively say: ‘Let’s figure this out.’” 
*  *  *
“This signals that everything fell apart,” the first Disney insider said. “There are checks and balances in place to prevent things descending into lawsuits and insults… You have to blow by all the different restraint systems designed to keep everyone working together and playing nice. Scarlett’s team didn’t just go to the courthouse and sue."

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

What Does the Black Widow Lawsuit Mean for COVID-Era Movies?
By Chris Lee    August 3, 2021
https://www.vulture.com/2021/08/what-does-the-black-widow-lawsuit-mean-for-covid-era-movies.html 

Quote

According to industry insiders, Johansson’s lawsuit can be understood as a “public flailing”: an exceedingly rare instance of a top-level star negotiation spilling into the hard light of public view — even with the risk of disastrous optics on both sides — as well as a testament to the actress’s industry clout at a transitional moment when the MCU has switched its focus from film to Disney+ streaming series like Loki and WandaVision. But the complaint also reflects a rescaling of studio ambitions during the streaming wars when executives at various Hollywood backlot empires — but most notably Warner Bros. and Disney — appear more concerned with drawing new subscribers to their platforms than in maintaining long-term talent relationships.

Without exception, though, top entertainment lawyers, managers, and corporate strategists contacted by Vulture expressed shock that Johansson would attempt to take on Hollywood’s most powerful studio. “Disney has endless money,” a top entertainment-industry attorney says. “So the overriding issue you run into is, Who has the financial wherewithal to sue? Clearly she does. Even if it means never being in business with Disney again.”
*  *  *
In her complaint, Johansson’s lawyer John Berlinski accuses studio executives of prioritizing the growth of Disney+’s subscriber base over adherence to the actress’s contract (which stipulates an exclusive theatrical release for Black Widow in 1,500 theaters for between 90 and 120 days). The suit goes on to note that former and current Disney CEOs Robert Iger and Bob Chepak reaped enormous stock grants tied to the platform’s financial performance. There is, of course, still ample room for lawyers to parse whether wide theatrical release means exclusive theatrical release. But the suit substantiates its breach-of-contract claim with a 2019 email from Marvel Studios’ chief counsel David Galluzzi to Johansson’s lawyer Kevin Yorn that details the studio’s specific intention to distribute Black Widow as it did Captain Marvel, which grossed $1.1 billion worldwide over its only-in-theaters run. (Emphasis added per Johansson’s complaint):

Quote

Further [to] our conversation today, it is 100% our plan to do a typical wide release of Black Widow. We have very high expectations for the film and are very excited to do for Black Widow what we’ve just done with Captain Marvel.

We totally understand Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.

Disney is hardly the only major studio that seems to be making up new COVID-era compensation packages for its creative partners as it goes along. Last winter, Warner Bros. infuriated much of Hollywood by announcing it would release the entirety of its 2021 film slate via a “hybrid model” on HBO Max concurrent with each film’s theatrical release. Then the studio began quietly ironing out a series of splashy deals to pay performers and filmmakers something close to what they would have made in box-office bonuses if their movies had been traditionally released. Under those new terms, Wonder Woman 1984’s star and director Gal Gadot and Patti Jenkins reportedly walked off with more than $10 million each. And Denzel Washington is said to have earned around $20 million in lieu of back-end bonuses tied to his role in the underperforming thriller The Little Things.

“Warner Bros. has this whole formula now,” adds a manager who represents several top-tier actors, “and they’ve largely gotten away with it.”

According to an insider with knowledge of Disney’s C-suite (who agreed to speak on background), Chapek and Disney’s chairman of media and entertainment distribution Kareem Daniel are fixated on the bottom line. Which means increasing the number of Disney+ subscribers even if that means the “way talent is taken care of” must suffer. The studio’s priorities: business first, creativity and those who supply it a distant second.

Disney is playing a bigger game in its box office battle with Scarlett Johansson
By Mark Ritson  5 Aug 2021
https://www.marketingweek.com/mark-ritson-disney-battle-scarlett-johansson/ 

Quote

The real reason Disney streamed Black Widow, short-changed Scarlett and undermined the global cinema distribution model is that it wants proximity. And, after a century of existing too far from the cinemagoing audience to achieve it, this post-Covid moment is a gleaming once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to snatch it away forever.

Like every company up the supply chain, Disney realises that selling through indirect distributors – whether that be cinema chains or DVD companies or Apple – renders it too far from the consumer. Direct proximity to consumers confers beautiful empirical gifts. Specifically, it allows a company to identify who is buying its product. It allows that same company to see what else is also being bought by the consumer. And, finally, it allows it to capture when and how that product is consumed.

That data is useful on its own. But once it can be agglomerated together into a constant stream of insight, it transforms a company’s marketing capabilities completely. All Disney knows about the $300m it has made from box office sales for Black Widow is that it is worth $300m. No who. No when. No what. No how. But the $100m it has made from streaming the movie through Disney+ has enabled it to see the who, the when, the how and the what else. Proximity provides this.
*  *  *
On top of this data, customer proximity then bestows its second gift. If you sell direct to the consumer you can now adjust and experiment the manner in which you market your products. Perhaps you want to run pricing experiments. Or offer it in two different formats – with or without 3D – to different regions or countries. Maybe you want to bundle the next big Marvel releases together. You can essentially do whatever you want with and to your consumers, and then immediately measure and assess its impact.

And then comes the third prerogative afforded by customer proximity – you can use this combination of direct experimentation and the subsequent data it generates to learn, improve, grow, learn, improve, grow. Forever. You stop making and distributing movies in a slightly random, artistic fashion, and become efficient and ever more effective and successful instead.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Disney Lawyer Daniel Petrocelli Calls ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit an ‘Orchestrated PR Campaign’
By Cynthia Littleton   August 5, 2021
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-black-widow-1235036466/ 

Quote

Longtime Disney attorney Daniel Petrocelli told Variety that the demands in Johansson’s litigation are far out of the bounds of the actor’s contract with the studio. He characterized it as an attempt to force Disney to write a check that backfired.

“It is obvious that this is a highly orchestrated PR campaign to achieve an outcome that is not obtainable in the lawsuit,” Petrocelli said. “No amount of public pressure can change or obscure the explicit contractual commitments. The written contract is clear as a bell.”
*  *  *
Petrocelli, a partner at O’Melveny, told Variety the contract calls for the sides to go to arbitration for disputes rather than open court. But even that point may be in some dispute because Johansson’s contract is with Marvel Studios but the lawsuit was filed against Disney on the legal thesis that Disney’s corporate priorities to support its new streaming platforms were imposed on Marvel.
*  *  *
Johansson’s legal team has asserted that Disney was unresponsive in its efforts to address the dispute in the months leading up to the film’s July 9 premiere, which was twice delayed by pandemic conditions. Disney has strongly asserted that Johansson’s team gave them no warning that the explosive filing was coming on July 29. Sources close to Johansson’s team dispute that vehemently, saying there was ample warning to the point of alerting Disney executives that a complaint had already been drafted.

SAG-AFTRA President: Disney Using “Gender-Shaming and Bullying” Tactics Over Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit
BY KATIE KILKENNY    AUGUST 6, 2021
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sag-aftra-president-slams-disney-tactics-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-1234994218/ 

Quote

SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris has some words for Disney about its handling of Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow lawsuit.

“Disney should be ashamed of themselves for resorting to tired tactics of gender-shaming and bullying,” the leader of the performers’ union said in a statement released on Friday. “Actors must be compensated for their work according to their contracts. Scarlett Johansson is shining a white-hot spotlight on the improper shifts in compensation that companies are attempting to slip by talent as distribution models change.”

She added, “Nobody in any field of work should fall victim to surprise reductions in expected compensation. It is unreasonable and unjust. Disney and other content companies are doing very well and can certainly live up to their obligations to compensate the performers whose art and artistry are responsible for the corporation’s profits.”
*  *  *
Like several women’s equity-focused organizations, including Time’s Up, ReFrame and Women and Film, which flagged Disney’s initial response to Johansson’s lawsuit as a “gendered character attack,” Carteris homed in on the “gendered tone” of the company’s comments. “Additionally, we are deeply concerned by the gendered tone of Disney’s criticism of Ms. Johansson. Women are not ‘callous’ when they stand up and fight for fair pay – they are leaders and champions for economic justice,” said Carteris. “Women have been victimized by pay inequity for decades, and they have been further victimized by comments like those in Disney’s press statements. These sorts of attacks have no place in our society and SAG-AFTRA will continue to defend our members from all forms of bias.”

And Carteris is just the latest major industry advocate for talent rising to Johansson’s defense as studios continue to alter their initial theatrical plans for film releases amid the pandemic. One week earlier, CAA co-chair and Johansson’s agent Bryan Lourd made a rare public statement arguing that the family-friendly enteratinment behemoth had “shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic.”

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by tv echo

[Bruinsfan]

Re: that last, Disney made it sound as if the money promised to Johansson for the original release plan were instead being used to keep people from being evicted after pandemic layoffs and business closings, not to bolster the company's profit margins. I'm pretty sure Scarlett getting paid doesn't put families out on the streets or send elderly patients to the ICU.

[tv echo]

James Gunn commented on Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow lawsuit...

James Gunn on ‘The Suicide Squad’s’ Politics, Getting ‘Fired’ by Disney and Why He Doesn’t Care About Streaming
By Adam B. Vary    August 7, 2021
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/james-gunn-the-suicide-squad-spoilers-1235036736/ 

Quote

Disney, by the way, re-hired Gunn to make “Guardians Vol. 3” less than a year after firing him, following a public campaign by the franchise’s stars to have him reinstated. That will be Gunn’s next feature, which is set to premiere in May 2023. It also may be why Gunn, typically unafraid to speak his mind, chose his words far more carefully when asked by Variety to comment on Scarlett Johansson’s headline–generating lawsuit against Disney.

“I haven’t really been fully up on it,” Gunn said. “I’ve only met Scarlett in passing. I think she’s a great person. And I really think she’s, uh, you know — I trust Scarlett.”

(Warning: the rest of this article contains major spoilers for The Suicide Squad movie.)

Edited August 8, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

What Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow lawsuit means for the future of the movie business
By Tyler Aquilina      August 07, 2021 
https://ew.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit-analysis/ 

Quote

"Johansson's lawsuit represents everything that's going on in the business right now as it shifts to streaming," says Matt Belloni, a founding partner of the new outlet Puck News, author of a newsletter on the entertainment industry, and former editorial director of The Hollywood Reporter. "The battle lines are being drawn over how stars are going to be paid in that new economy, and this is the biggest flashpoint for that."

"All [the lawsuit] is going to do is slam the door in terms of box office points," adds Jeff Bock, a senior box office analyst at Exhibitor Relations. "It's going to be one final payout for Disney, and they're going to say, 'Never again.' I don't think there's much conversation beyond that, honestly."

... With key talent poised to revolt over a strategy that would potentially siphon away their movies' box office dollars, Warner Bros. moved quickly to smooth things over, reportedly paying millions to the likes of Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins to quash any public dispute.
*  *  *
"The complaint suggests that there were efforts on Scarlett's side to reach some kind of resolution, but those efforts were not reciprocated. And that's surprising," says Jeff Finkelstein, a partner at the entertainment law film Del Shaw Moonves Tanaka Finkelstein & Lezcano. "After they made Scarlett's deal, Disney did go on to make deals that contemplated the possibility of [movies] streaming on their own service, and paying bonuses that were otherwise based on box office. Assuming this is the case, it's strange that they would not have gone back to Scarlett's representatives and tried to work something out in good faith."
*  *  *
"What the studios care about right now is not necessarily maximizing revenue, it's maximizing subscribers to the streaming service," Belloni says. "When Wall Street looks at your subscription numbers, they want to see growth. So they're not thinking about this in a typical way; they're thinking about it in a growth way."
*  *  *
"I think that Disney+ cannibalized the box office in likely a significant way, especially with repeat viewing," Belloni says. "The Marvel movies often have legs, as they say, because people go back and see them over and over. And that's not happening [with Black Widow]. I also think an underrated aspect of this is piracy; it was very heavily pirated because it was available at home. And I think long-term, it's damaging because it's conditioning people to expect this stuff at home."
*  *  *
Adds Belloni, "There is a school of thought that says all these companies are driving each other off a cliff by spending what they're spending to attract subscribers. But the greater narrative here is that in five years, there are going to be four or five companies that dominate streaming, and then everyone else will be shut out of this game. So right now, all of these companies are fighting to be in that group of survivors."

Not that this means movie theaters are "suddenly going to die off like Tower Records did," as Bock puts it. But it does mean the brave new world of Hollywood giants could look an awful lot like the old one. Finkelstein foresees a world — within the next five years, he says — in which actors, writers, and directors are locked into massive deals with a single company and work exclusively with that company, which controls the entire process of production and distribution end-to-end. Sound familiar?

"The old contract players arrangement that existed in the early days of film industry, funnily enough, I think is something that we're actually going to return to," Finkelstein says. "And we may be so far along that continuum that we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by tv echo

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, tv echo said:

What Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow lawsuit means for the future of the movie business
By Tyler Aquilina      August 07, 2021 
https://ew.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-black-widow-disney-lawsuit-analysis/ 

 

Interesting so it sounds like things won't change that much. Stars who were big enough to ask for box office revenue points will now ask for on demand streaming revenue points. Between the studios not wanting to lose money (so if you want an on demand percentage you get less box office percentage) and same day on demand reducing the number of people going to theatres, actors who get this kind of thing probably won't see any kind of big payday increase. And anyone who tries to get a cut of non-pay per view streaming will probably get nothing because the books will be cooked just as bad as in situations where someone asks for a percent of profit 

[Fool to cry]

It now seems Black Widow premiered at the right moment when everything started opening up again due to the dropping cases and the vaccine but before the Delta variant caused the most recent surge.

[tv echo]

Disney's Response to Scarlett Johansson's 'Black Widow' Lawsuit Is an Example of the 1 Thing No Company Should Ever Do
BY JASON ATEN   August 9, 2021
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/disneys-response-to-scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-is-an-example-of-1-thing-no-company-should-ever-do.html 

Quote

Look, reasonable people can disagree over how much money is enough for a filmmaker or movie star. It might be easy to think that everyone involved is just being greedy, so it really doesn't matter. Disney certainly seems to want us to think that Johansson is greedy and motivated only by her own selfish interests. 

Maybe that's true, but honestly, that's really not what this is about. 

Looking at this from the outside, the thing that strikes me the most isn't just that Disney didn't keep its word--which appears to be the case. What really strikes me is how poorly Disney seems to grasp how bad this is for its reputation. Sure, the lawsuit is bad, but the company's response is far worse. Here's why:

More than any other company on earth, Disney has carefully built a reputation as a "magical place." That's the narrative that serves as the foundation for everything it does. Movies, theme parks, television, toys--all of it rests on Disney's masterful storytelling. Sure, it's a business, but more than that, it's the home of beloved stories we all grew up with. 

That's the reason Disney+ is so successful in the first place--it's where you can go to watch movies you've loved your entire life, and find a constant stream of new takes on those stories. In this case, however, Disney's response makes the company seem cold-hearted, callous, and vindictive. It peels back the curtain and reveals a much uglier story.

The way you keep your promises to the people who work for you says a lot about whether you'll keep the promises you make to your customers. By lashing out at Johansson, and using the pandemic in an attempt to shame her, Disney has essentially broken its promise not only to her, but also to all of us. That's something no company should ever do. 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

This is interesting, since I believe Black Widow will be available to all Disney+ subscribers (without additional fee) on Oct. 6....

Edited August 12, 2021 by tv echo

[BaggythePanther]

On 8/11/2021 at 9:12 AM, tv echo said:

Disney's Response to Scarlett Johansson's 'Black Widow' Lawsuit Is an Example of the 1 Thing No Company Should Ever Do
BY JASON ATEN   August 9, 2021
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/disneys-response-to-scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-is-an-example-of-1-thing-no-company-should-ever-do.html

Even though Disney’s response isn’t a good look, how much will it really affect them in the long run? I don’t think anyone is going to cancel Disney+ or boycott Shang Chi because of this whole thing.

[tv echo]

Disney Chief Bob Chapek Defends Hybrid ‘Black Widow’ Release Amid Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit
BY PAMELA MCCLINTOCK    AUGUST 12, 2021
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-defends-hybrid-release-scarlett-johansson-1234996920/ 

Quote

Citing the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Chapek on Thursday defended his company’s decision to release certain films — including Black Widow — simultaneously in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access.

He further revealed that the company has “entered into hundreds of talent arrangements” that have “by and large gone very smoothly.”

“These films were conceived during a time when…we certainly didn’t know about COVID,” Chapek told Wall Street analysts. “Just like what we’ve done many times before, we’ve found ways to fairly compensate our talent so that, no matter what, everyone feels satisfied.”

One person, however, who doesn’t feel satisfied is Black Widow star Scarlett Johansson. Chapek didn’t mention the movie, or Johansson, by name.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Black Widow's Female Story Intensified Kevin Feige's Resistance to Disney+ Debut
By Richard Nebens    September 04, 2021
https://thedirect.com/article/black-widow-kevin-feige-female-story-disney-plus-release 

Quote

The Wall Street Journal reported that Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige heavily resisted the strategy to release Black Widow on Disney+ and in theaters simultaneously. This was due to the release idea conflicting with Feige's idea of the necessary tiers of the varying MCU's projects, which is meant to bring TV shows that compliment the big-screen movies.

Additionally, Feige wasn't a fan of having one of the MCU's few female-led movies relegated to the streaming service immediately upon its debut.
*  *  *
Kevin Feige has remained adamant for more than a year on the MCU's movies deserving to be seen on the big screen to give fans the full experience they've come to know and love. With Black Widow being the first new film to debut within Phase 4, he seemed particularly set on making sure this film got the same treatment as its near-two-dozen predecessors .

Scarlett Johansson's solo movie was her first after supporting roles in multiple MCU outings. The film also introduced a powerful new player in Florence Pugh's Yelena Belova , which seems to further indicate Marvel Studios' intent to put female heroes into a more prominent role going forward.

While the lawsuit against Disney has taken center stage after Black Widow 's release , Feige's plans look to be unchanged in terms of putting Marvel stars in the spotlight the right way.

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Benedict Cumberbatch's coments on the Black Widow lawsuit...

Benedict Cumberbatch Gets Mean
BY REBECCA KEEGAN     SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/benedict-cumberbatch-the-power-of-the-dog-movie-doctor-strange-spider-man-no-way-home-1235008551/ 

Quote

As the Doctor Strange sequel nears release, Cumberbatch has watched the legal battle between Scarlett Johansson and Disney over Black Widow‘s simultaneous release on Disney+ and in theaters. In July, Johansson filed a lawsuit alleging the media giant breached her contract with the hybrid rollout, which deprived her of salary that was to be based largely on box office. Disney responded with an eyebrow-raising statement calling Johansson’s suit “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,” stating that she had already made $20 million. “It’s sad what’s going on between the lawyers,” Cumberbatch says. “Just the verbiage and the accusations of, ‘Put it in a global pandemic context.’ The whole thing’s just a bit of a mess. We’re trying to understand what the revenue streams should be for artists that contribute to the billion-dollar business that is Disney. And it has to be contractualized. How does an artist’s normal compensation with box office bonuses, how does it work? It’s a new paradigm, and it’s a very complex one. No one saw this coming, and no one should use hindsight to say, ‘Well, it should have been done.’ That was the first of these films that was going to get a cinematic release during the pandemic and got stalled and stalled and stalled. It’s very new territory.”

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Edited September 10, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Edited September 16, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Disney CEO Defends Studio Amid Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit: “Our Talent Is Our Most Important Asset”
By Anthony D'Alessandro    September 21, 2021
https://deadline.com/2021/09/disney-ceo-defends-studio-post-black-widow-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-our-talent-is-our-most-important-asset-1234841531/ 

[tv echo]

Black Widow out on Disney+ on Oct. 6, and The Making of Black Widow out on Disney+ on Oct. 20...

What's Coming to Disney+ in October 2021 (US)
Roger Palmer   Sep 23 2021
https://whatsondisneyplus.com/whats-coming-to-disney-in-october-2021-us/ 

Quote

Wednesday 6th October

Black Widow
In Black Widow, Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow confronts the darker parts of her ledger when a dangerous conspiracy with ties to her past arises. Pursued by a force that will stop at nothing to bring her down, Natasha must deal with her history as a spy and the broken relationships left in her wake long before she became an Avenger. Scarlett Johansson reprises her role as Natasha/Black Widow, Florence Pugh stars as Yelena, David Harbour portrays Alexei/The Red Guardian, and Rachel Weisz is Melina.
*  *  *
Wednesday 20th October
...
Marvel Studios Assembled: The Making of Black Widow
Behind the scenes of the action-packed spy thriller “Black Widow,” Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow confronts the darker parts of her ledger when a dangerous conspiracy with ties to her past arises. Pursued by a force that will stop at nothing to bring her down, Natasha must deal with her history as a spy and the broken relationships left in her wake long before she became an Avenger.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by tv echo

[AngieBee1]

They've settled out of court.

“I am happy to have resolved our differences with Disney,” said Johansson in a statement released Thursday. ” I’m incredibly proud of the work we’ve done together over the years and have greatly enjoyed my creative relationship with the team. I look forward to continuing our collaboration in years to come.

Neither side gave any indication of how much money was involved in the settlement, but the deal ran to the tens of millions, a source close to the matter tells me.

 https://deadline.com/2021/09/disney-black-widow-lawsuit-scarlett-johansson-rsettlement-1234847437/

*I'm very curious as to what grounds Disney decided to settle. I'm no lover of the House of Mouse but if the contract states she gets a cut of the theatrical take and she did, then I don't see what grounds her side has. Of course, without seeing the full terms of the agreement, one can't say what she was truly entitled.   Any argument that Johansson lost out on millions due to the dual release is mere speculation because no one can predict how much a film took in. Just because Shang-Chi is nearly overtaking Black Widow without a dual model release doesn't mean that BW would have done just as well. Especially considering everyone knew what Natasha's fate. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by AngieBee1

[Kel Varnsen]

15 minutes ago, AngieBee1 said:

I'm very curious as to what grounds Disney decided to settle. I'm no lover of the House of Mouse but if the contract states she gets a cut of the theatrical take and she did, then I don't see what grounds her side has.

I imagine they settled because the risk of going to court and setting some kind of precedent would be much worse. Although my understanding was the contract said that any disputes were supposed to go to arbitration, so I am surprised they didn't push for that 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Although my understanding was the contract said that any disputes were supposed to go to arbitration, so I am surprised they didn't push for that 

They had filed for it to be forced into arbitration.

Scarlett was arguing that the arbitration clause didn’t apply because Disney had interfered and forced Marvel to breach the contract. 

48 minutes ago, AngieBee1 said:

*I'm very curious as to what grounds Disney decided to settle. I'm no lover of the House of Mouse but if the contract states she gets a cut of the theatrical take and she did, then I don't see what grounds her side has. Of course, without seeing the full terms of the agreement, one can't say what she was truly entitled.   Any argument that Johansson lost out on millions due to the dual release is mere speculation because no one can predict how much a film took in. Just because Shang-Chi is nearly overtaking Black Widow without a dual model release doesn't mean that BW would have done just as well. Especially considering everyone knew what Natasha's fate. 

Disney really had very little to gain by fighting even if they were likely to win. The lawsuit had already affected their contracts with other actors. 

[Avabelle]

I watched The Winter Soldier last night - I really liked the chemistry between black widow and captain America. I know they stayed close friends but I wouldn’t have been against them exploring it more.

[tv echo]

It was in the best interests of both Disney and SJ to settle this lawsuit quickly. Even if Disney eventually won, it was taking a bad PR hit. Instead of being "the happiest place on Earth," it was coming off as "the greediest place on Earth." Disney was also alienating top actors and directors who they might've wanted to get for future films (in comparison to Warner Bros, who appeared to have handled the same situation better). Some interesting tidbits from other media reports...

Disney and Scarlett Johansson Settle Suit Over ‘Black Widow’ Contract
By Joe Flint and Erich Schwartzel   Sept. 30, 2021
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-scarlett-johansson-work-out-agreement-over-black-widow-contract-11633050183 

Quote

Disney’s initial response to the suit was driven in part by an allegation that Messrs. Chapek and Iger were motivated to put the movie on Disney+ because they receive bonuses based in part on the success of the streaming service, a person close to the pair had said.

Scarlett Johansson, Disney Settle Explosive ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit
KIM MASTERS, TATIANA SIEGEL   SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johansson-disney-settle-black-widow-lawsuit-1235022598/ 

Quote

While Disney has faced criticism for its handling of talent deals during the pandemic, WarnerMedia took a different approach by proactively doling out as much as $200 million to pay a long list of stars whose Warner Bros. films were simultaneously opening in theaters and on its HBO Max streaming service, including Patty Jenkins, Gal Gadot and Will Smith.

Scarlett Johansson and Disney Settle ‘Black Widow’ Pay Lawsuit
By Gene Maddaus   Sep 30, 2021
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit-settled-1235078355/ 

Quote

Warner Bros., which released its entire 2021 slate with the same hybrid model, paid out handsome sums to compensate its stars for lost backend revenue.

 

ETA: The Disney+ twitter account makes no mention of this settlement.

Edited October 2, 2021 by tv echo

[AimingforYoko]

Sounds like Scarlett Johansson got pretty close to what she was asking.

[tv echo]

Edited October 2, 2021 by tv echo

[tv echo]

Promo for Black Widow being on Disney+ this Wednesday for all subscribers...

Back | Marvel Studios’ Black Widow
Marvel Entertainment   Oct 4, 2021

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by tv echo