Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
I can't believe anyone could be on Disney's side.
I guess one can argue the language in the contract and that the lawyers should have had more coverage for this type of scenario - But when the entire way a business distributes it's product and revenue strategy changes it is almost impossible to have written into the contract.
This is a profit share agreement - That one side is trying to get out of using a technicality when they still made the profit.
Imagine if there was no pandemic and theaters just realized they could make more $$ streaming then in theaters and put everything straight to theaters. Non of the actors should get their share of the profit?
Legally they may have a foot to stand on, but ethically and the spirit of the contract they are clearly in the wrong
I would love nothing better then every other actor to boycott Disney. But we all know $$ talks and the prospect of being in a big Disney film will always win out
|
I'm not on anybody's side.
The fact of the matter is, both parties got screwed by a matter of Global Circumstance that fundamentally shifted the operation of their industry.
It is a 'Profit Share Agreement.' I'd bet Disney had been banking on more profits, but then massive delays happened because people started getting sick.
You want to share in the Profits? You have to share in the losses too. If there is a loss of Profit, then you get less. Thats how 'Profit Share Agreements' work. Sure, Disney changed the distribution method. Because they were essentially forced to beyond their control. It was this or nothing.
I'm sure Disney expected that film to earn more money, it didnt. They get less money, ScarJo gets less money.
I'd love to imagine that there was no Pandemic. But there was. And it changed the entire film distribution industry. Unless Disney or ScarJo invented COVID its neither of their faults, its just an unfortunate circumstance.
Legally right but ethically wrong? I'd love if we could believe that Disney would care. And I'm sure they'd claim that if they started caring now they'd set a bad precedent, but really, they probably just dont care.
The Film Industry is a very 'Monkey and Organ Grinder' relationship. If the Organ Grinder doesnt get paid, guess what happens to the Monkey?
Overall, I can see it both ways. I'd tend to lean to ScarJo's side (sorry I hate calling her that but her name is so long to spell) because I figure Disney can afford it, but Disney didnt really 'screw' her. They both got screwed.