Disney+

[Coach]

Really unfortunate. Would have been very easy to just pay her a fair deal on the first place and avoid the whole mess. They must have known this would happen.

Glad to see Feige siding with Johansson.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I don't know. If it's between a corporation and an artist I typically side with the latter based upon numerous principles.

She's not an artist. She's an actor. The music and movie industries are not comparable. Without knowing the details of the contract it's impossible to speculate who's right so I'm not going to pick sides seeing there's not a little guy in this story that I can associate with.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

She's not an artist. She's an actor. The music and movie industries are not comparable. Without knowing the details of the contract it's impossible to speculate who's right so I'm not going to pick sides seeing there's not a little guy in this story that I can associate with.

Johansson is an artist. An actor is an artist. She’s worked her way through a very difficult industry to the very top of it, so yeah she’s paid well. She’s earned it no different than a sports star or top end musician. Shes one of a handful of women that have enough visibility and power in her industry to make a fuss against being taken advantage of. Just because people are paid well doesn’t mean they deserve to get screwed.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

She's not an artist. She's an actor. The music and movie industries are not comparable. Without knowing the details of the contract it's impossible to speculate who's right so I'm not going to pick sides seeing there's not a little guy in this story that I can associate with.

She is but IMO that is not irrelevant. Clearly the agreement was for Disney to pay her a % of revenues. They then changed their approach to earning revenue on the movie which materially reduced her payout. That sure doesn't feel right.

Let's say I agree to pay you a commission of 6% on the cash sale price of my house. In the final sale agreement, the buyer agrees to pay me in something other than cash and I go to you and say sorry, you were only going to get 6% of "cash". Two parties operating in good faith would look to agree to the spirit of the original agreement.

I really don't care how rich everyone is other than the outcome of this sure doesn't keep me up at night.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

She is but IMO that is not irrelevant. Clearly the agreement was for Disney to pay her a % of revenues. They then changed their approach to earning revenue on the movie which materially reduced her payout. That sure doesn't feel right.

Let's say I agree to pay you a commission of 6% on the cash sale price of my house. In the final sale agreement, the buyer agrees to pay me in something other than cash and I go to you and say sorry, you were only going to get 6% of "cash". Two parties operating in good faith would look to agree to the spirit of the original agreement.

I really don't care how rich everyone is other than the outcome of this sure doesn't keep me up at night.

I think it depends what the contract says. If she was specifically only getting a % of theatrical revenues not streaming revenues, and then there was a giant pandemic that reduced theater revenues and increased streaming revenues then that sucks for her but doesn't seem actionable to me. Lots of other people, myself included, have lost significant income from the pandemic.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think it depends what the contract says. If she was specifically only getting a % of theatrical revenues not streaming revenues, and then there was a giant pandemic that reduced theater revenues and increased streaming revenues then that sucks for her but doesn't seem actionable to me. Lots of other people, myself included, have lost significant income from the pandemic.

If you worked for a company who said they couldn't pay you because there's a pandemic, even though they were still getting paid by their clients... would you accept that?

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think it depends what the contract says. If she was specifically only getting a % of theatrical revenues not streaming revenues, and then there was a giant pandemic that reduced theater revenues and increased streaming revenues then that sucks for her but doesn't seem actionable to me. Lots of other people, myself included, have lost significant income from the pandemic.

From what i've read about the contract, it basically said that is was going to be a 100% theatrical release, and if that changed then they would re-negotiate.

She's alleging when that did in fact change, she got crickets from Disney.

[Roof-Daddy]

Seeing ads pop up now for 'Black Widow' that have Rachel Weisz as the focus instead of Scarlett lol

How petty.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Coach

Johansson is an artist. An actor is an artist. She’s worked her way through a very difficult industry to the very top of it, so yeah she’s paid well. She’s earned it no different than a sports star or top end musician. Shes one of a handful of women that have enough visibility and power in her industry to make a fuss against being taken advantage of. Just because people are paid well doesn’t mean they deserve to get screwed.

Without reading the contract with a lawyer by your side how can you conclude she's getting screwed? Like I said I'm not taking sides. I just feel it's impossible to come to any conclusion with how little we know. If the courts rule in her favor good for her. If the courts rule in Disney's favor good for them.

[Matata]

I hear lots of doom and gloom around Disney because of poor film, Disney+ and park performance, but their stock is 15% higher than pre-covid. Seems like they should have the money to pay her, but I have no idea how they are making money these days.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Without reading the contract with a lawyer by your side how can you conclude she's getting screwed? Like I said I'm not taking sides. I just feel it's impossible to come to any conclusion with how little we know. If the courts rule in her favor good for her. If the courts rule in Disney's favor good for them.

You’re right, I’m siding with her basically sight unseen assuming the corporation that is Disney is trying to do all it can to pay its employee as little as possible, especially on a movie that likely earned way less than originally projected due to the circumstances. But she still deserves her share of whatever came in. I’m assuming since she’s making a fuss, she doesn’t believe she got that share. I see no reason for her to sue them unless she really was not paid any of the streaming revenue. They’ve mutually made a lot of money together, one would have to get pretty forked to take it this far IMO.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think it depends what the contract says. If she was specifically only getting a % of theatrical revenues not streaming revenues, and then there was a giant pandemic that reduced theater revenues and increased streaming revenues then that sucks for her but doesn't seem actionable to me. Lots of other people, myself included, have lost significant income from the pandemic.

From what the original story described, Johansson was promised a % of theatrical profits when Black Widow was supposed to be only in theaters. Disney then changed course and put the movie on + Premier because of covid, but didn't amend her contract to include those profits. It would be like your employer cutting employee wages because of covid, and then giving a bonus to upper management. It reeks

[SuperMatt18]

I do think the Disney+ doom and gloom is a bit overboard.

Sure they aren't growing as fast as analysts predicted, but they are at 104M in their first 16 months, which is ridiculous growth.

And yeah it seems like there is a pretty simple solution to the Scar Jo / Disney lawsuit, the contract should be amended so she gets a % of the theatrical and disney+ premiere money. Under the circumstances that would be the fair outcome here.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

If you worked for a company who said they couldn't pay you because there's a pandemic, even though they were still getting paid by their clients... would you accept that?

That isn't what the dispute is about. She got her fixed fee and her % of the theatrical gross.

A better analogy is a commission salesperson who gets lower commissions when sales are down. Even if sales are down because of a pandemic I'd expect lower commissions. Some of those jobs have a fixed/minimum condition, and presumably she got her fixed compensation.

The dispute is whether Disney had the right to release it on Disney+ or not. If the contract said they had to do a theatrical release then they probably owe her money. If it just said she didn't get a cut of streaming then they probably don't. I haven't seen the contract.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think the Disney+ doom and gloom is a bit overboard.

Sure they aren't growing as fast as analysts predicted, but they are at 104M in their first 16 months, which is ridiculous growth.

And yeah it seems like there is a pretty simple solution to the Scar Jo / Disney lawsuit, the contract should be amended so she gets a % of the theatrical and disney+ premiere money. Under the circumstances that would be the fair outcome here.

Manufactured Doom and Gloom by Disney themselves.

Its all smoke and mirrors. Complete bull####.

Like when Oil and Gas companies start cutting jobs and wages because their profit margins "only" grew 50% from the previous year and their executives bonuses were "only" 10s of millions.
Typical corporate spin.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL how so? If she wins is she going to distribute money to everyone else involved? This is nothing but rich folks arguing about their slice of the big pie. I couldn't care less which side wins.

Shes helping because shes a big name, and going after the biggest company, it's bringing attention to it and potentially setting a standard.

Warners was smart they just paid everyone off when they announced the same day theatre and streaming plan for this year.

It's an issue that's going to be a huge factor in the next few years with so many movies now going streaming, or lower theater windows, every studio is down to 45-60 days, and so many actors having box office revenue sharing in their deals

Plus all of the guilds and unions are happy shes doing this, because some of the big ones have their CBAs up in a few years and the studios have always been very cheap when it comes to paying for anything related to streaming, especially residuals

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

Shes helping because shes a big name, and going after the biggest company, it's bringing attention to it and potentially setting a standard.

Warners was smart they just paid everyone off when they announced the same day theatre and streaming plan for this year.

It's an issue that's going to be a huge factor in the next few years with so many movies now going streaming, or lower theater windows, every studio is down to 45-60 days, and so many actors having box office revenue sharing in their deals

Plus all of the guilds and unions are happy shes doing this, because some of the big ones have their CBAs up in a few years and the studios have always been very cheap when it comes to paying for anything related to streaming, especially residuals

Yes Disney is a big corporation but she makes more than almost everyone working at Disney. The guilds don't represent regular folk while Disney employs thousands of regular folks so I don't understand why I should side with an actors union when even the lowest paid are making 6 figure salaries. If you all want to side with a person that earned $20 million to film a movie that thinks she's due $50 million then that's fine with me but I just don't find either side worth my time. At the end of the day the courts will decide based on the language in the contract and I'm totally fine with whatever their decision may be. It's not like I'm a Disney fan as IMO Disney+ isn't worth the money.

[Coach]

You know that not everyone in an actors union is a famous star making millions right? It’s the same union that performers who have guest spots, or one of commercials, or whatever. The Johnny Dramas of the world are in the same union as the Scarlett Johanssons.

[Mr.Coffee]

This is a bad look on Disney. What a bunch of clowns. Own 75% of the planet, refuse a couple million you agreed to but can slip your way out of paying. Classy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Coach

You know that not everyone in an actors union is a famous star making millions right? It’s the same union that performers who have guest spots, or one of commercials, or whatever. The Johnny Dramas of the world are in the same union as the Scarlett Johanssons.

It's a comfortable living for most.