Kevin Feige reportedly “angry and embarrassed” about Disney’s handling of ScarJo
The MCU producer was reportedly against the Disney Plus release of Black Widow from the start
Film News Kevin Feige
There’s probably no film producer on the planet with more power and influence than Kevin Feige. As the mastermind behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Feige has become one of the industry’s sole movie producers—not a writer, not a director, but a producer—with brand name appeal, a potency he’s mostly used to…keep making the Disney-owned Marvel movies that he pretty clearly enjoys making. (Also, the billions of box-office dollars he also, presumably, enjoys making.) Among other things, the last decade has gifted Feige with a pristine reputation for the handling of talent; certainly, it’s not easy to imagine a roster with this many big-name stars surviving for 10-plus years without ever fielding any drama blow-ups worse than negotiating who has to stand next to Jeremy Renner at the photoshoots.
That streak ended yesterday, though, when MCU star Scarlett Johansson launched a lawsuit against Disney, claiming that the company’s decision to simultaneously release Black Widow in theaters and on its Disney+ subscription service was a breach of agreements made with her, and allegedly cost her some $50 million in potential box office bonuses. And while Disney was quick to fire back with a weirdly shame-based response—suggesting that the big mean actor was bullying the tiny little global business syndicate by calling Johansson’s suit “sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic”—Feige hasn’t as yet weighed in on the conflict between his bosses and one of his high-profile stars.
Publicly, at least: At least one source is reporting that Feige is really, really not happy about how this whole situation has gone down. This is per What I’m Hearing…, the regular industry newsletter from former The Hollywood Reporter editor Matt Belloni, which claims that Feige is “angry and embarrassed” over Disney’s handling of the ScarJo situation. Although Belloni doesn’t cite names in his write-up, he states that Feige was against the hybrid release schedule for Black Widow from the jump. And then, Belloni writes, “When the shit hit the fan, the movie started tanking, and Johansson’s team threatened litigation, [Feige] wanted Disney to make this right with her.” Which, again: One of the keys to Feige’s massive success over the last few years has been the cultivation of the actors who sell these movies, and while Johansson probably wouldn’t be launching this lawsuit in the first place if she still had MCU projects on her plate, that friction can’t be pleasant, or look good to other potential stars.
Belloni also offers up some interesting analysis, drawn from Johansson’s lawsuit, about why this is happening now. I.e., that the use of tentpole movies to draw consumers to Disney+ benefited the company—which saw its stock price jump after releasing figures on Black Widow’s streaming performance—but not the performers. (Black Widow’s “Premium Access” payments on Disney+ were reportedly lumped into the totals used to determine Johansson’s bonuses, but her claim remains that the decision to place it on streaming inherently devalued its potential for performance.) That is, if a movie tanks, numbers-wise, but still draws in a lot of new subscribers, Disney wins—but performers, whose deals are all built around ticket sales, don’t, a break with the previous system that helped the MCU thrive.
And, look: No one’s expecting Kevin Feige to walk over any of this. Belloni—who also reports on some murmurings that Emma Stone is “weighing her options” in a similar way in regards to the treatment of Cruella (although that weighing will probably depend in part on how Johansson’s case fares)—notes that Feige is a “company man.” But also: Both he and Disney are well aware of the strength of his brand and reputation as the man who made the biggest hits in movie history happen. 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.
264 Comments
Black Widow tanked?I mean, I haven’t watched it because Dottie Underwood is so obviously the BW that the movie should have been about, but still I don’t think it ‘tanked’.
They keep repeating it “tanked” so much, but I really don’t think it did at all. It definitely broke even and then made more than the budget. Also I would hope they didn’t expect it to make at least a billion. It’s a prequel about a character we know who is dead now, probably really dead. BW deserved her own movie and SJ is probably in the right here and deserves more $, but this was only ever bringing in middling amounts of money.
Keep in mind that marketing budgets are not included in official movie budgets, and are usually just as large. So when you it seems like a movie just barely ‘broke even’ its likely that its not even close.
I have my doubts the marketing budget for Black Widow was that high for this. A lot of the regular push and appearances and what not just didn’t seem to occur at all. I doubt they had even had a premier party thing. The red carpet for just the premier looks … uneventful.
A couple things:1- The studio only gets about half of the box office in the US, and even less over seas. (The rest goes to the movie theatres themselves.) So in terms of actual box office, Disney has maybe earned a little over 100 million. And it sounds like they made a similar amount on Disney+. So they’ve maybe just covered the production budget.2- Marketing. I promise you the marketing budget on this was huge. The premier parties, meet and greets and chat show appearances are not the expensive parts of a marketing campaign. Creating the content (posters, trailers, print ads, branded tie ins, etc.) and then paying for the space to run those ads are the expensive parts. And since this movie was pushed back at the last minute by more than a year, they essentially had to run two separate ad campaigns. The marketing budget was substantial.So, no Disney has not directly earned back what they’ve spent. What they have done though, is gotten a whole bunch of new subscribers to Disney+, many of whom are going to continue paying for the service every month for some time to come. That’s how they’re hoping to recoup costs, despite the pandemic.
Kevin Smith has talked about how trash the movie industry is when it comes to marketing. He has said they usually spend the same amount as the production budget if not more on marketing. So yeah if BW cost $200m to make they probably spent $200m on marketing (the first time around) so at minimum before it was pushed back they need to make at least $400m to “break even”
they were already 100+m in the hole in marketing the film last year
Even without clicking the little thumbnail, her camel toe is WAY too obvious!
I don’t get how a sparse red carpet proves that there wasn’t a big marketing budget for this. Looking at the Wiki section on the movie’s marketing, they started it back in 2020, paused it, then started it in full force again in 2021. They had tie-ins with 30 brands and a ton of commercials leading up to the release. Seems like normal marketing spend to me. If anything, I’d guess they spent more than normal due to having to pause the 2020 campaign.
Yes. The general rule of thumb is you have to make 3 times your budget to start to see a profit with these “blockbusters”.
Hey.
Hey you.
*You* keep in mind that “official movie budgets” aren’t even *a fucking thing that exists.*
And you’ve got things to say.
You’ve got insight and education for everyone.
Cool, let’s play:
Whose marketing budget was it, Black Widow’s, or Disney+’s?
(Clunk)
Not just as large, but around 50%. Couple that with theaters taking 50% of ticket sales and a movie has to triple its budget.
That might be why Disney is taking a surprisingly hard line.It maybe that that extra money for ScarJo would put BW in the red and they don’t want a Marvel movie showing a loss.
They don’t want to actually take a loss. But studios LOVE when a movie shows a loss.That’s basically what this is about. Disney is taking in substantially less money in direct sales for the movie, which will likely show as a loss on their financial reports (meaning they can pay Scar Jo and anyone else with performance bonuses less and, more importantly, get a big fat tax write off). But the subscribers the movie brought to Disney+ will continue paying monthly fees for the foreseeable future. If Disney can write the movie down as a loss while leveraging it to create a relatively stable monthly income stream, that would be the ideal situation for them.
It looks like it’s not going to crack $200M domestic, which is very low for this kind of movie with its massive budget & marketing.
It set the record for opening weekend revenue during the pandemic. Thing is that ticket sales dropped off fast and Disney stopped reporting the streaming sales numbers. It’s still on pace to be one of the top box office earners since the pandemic started. But that’s lead a lot of people to brand it a failure. Almost all of whom are blaming the simultaneous streaming release, and almost all of them have a history of opposing that idea and holding the industry line that streaming is bad in general. That’s why I’m looking at this suit a little side eyed. They seem to have framed it on grounds that the streaming release reduced the box office. Not that she isn’t getting a piece of the streaming release. Disney’s response is catty. But they have a point. There is still a pandemic going on. Black Widow released as concerns about vaccination rates and Covid Delta started to bubble over in the US. And the drop offs at the box office coincide with renewed restrictions, mask mandates/recommendations. Internationally there were already shut downs and re-closed boarders and shit in a lot of Europe. The straight up mess in Japan around the Olympics. There aren’t a lot of counter examples of movies released during the pandemic that made any sort of money at all. And the only major one to *not* have some sort of streaming release was Fast and the Furious 9. Which came out earlier, while things were less pandemicy. And Black Widow might still catch up to it. Without streaming revenue reported, we actually wouldn’t know.
Y’all gotta remember that studios only get 60% of domestic revenue and 40% of OS revenue (and like 25% of revenue from China).A movie “only” making its budget at the box office is actually a massive flop. Hell, Blade Runner 2049 made $259 million at the global box office on a $150 million budget. Huge hit right? Nope, it ended up losing $80 million. Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/blade-runner-2049-losses-could-hit-80-million-producer-alcon-1055855/
It’s got the highest drop in the first week for an MCU movie, which, even taking COVID and D+ into account, is probably not preferable to Johansson and her people. It relatively tanks for an MCU movie, which says more about their success than BW’s own performance, really.
Hasn’t every movie had a huge drop from their opening weekend?
Yes, but my point was BW had the biggest drop for the MCU so far. Which, again, is to be expected given the circumstances, but I could see why Scarlett would be unhappy especially if they didn’t renegotiate her deal before making the dual release decision.
This mentality has been around for some time. If someone puts out an album, movie, TV show, whatever and it makes $100,000,000.00; and then the next one makes $99,000,000.00, everyone is screaming “it tanked!”, “what happened to them?”, “it’s all over for…”.
Please keep noticing this shit.
Like that pre-ordained failure Waterworld that might *still* have a stunt show at Universal Studios Somewhere.
And which doesn’t pay *dick* in royalties son!
WOOT HOLLYWOOD ACCOUNTING STEAL THE PLANET YEAH!
“If those celebrity cunts try to complain, we’ll just pit the lower class slobs against them! Ha ha! Easy as *fuck* son! Gimme a 90’s era gay parody to to dangle at these anywhere-from-trailer-park-up-to-8-figure-millionaire-scum, they love that bullshit or they hate it loud enough that it’s the same in exposure points.”
Welcome to reality…….See in reality, the movie tanked period FACT….It was filmed in 2019with a 200 million dollar budget was supposed to release in 2020 and got delayed multiple times….Nobody really cared in 2020, but with a delay to mid 2021 Disney had already lost money on it just sitting until then…..Its barely made 300 million worldwide and is clearly dropping because again nobody cares, they know what happens to the character…Welcome to reality, where more than just how much it makes actually plays into how well a movies does
Besides it being the worst reviewed, worst MCU film….Its hilarious when a normal human with no powers can be in a car that flips 35 times on fire violently crashing and the main human character can cartwheel out without a scratch. But Tony Stark in a billion dollar suit gets in a fight and inside a suit and is still injured….
Even if it didn’t “tank”* there is a still a pretty good quantifiable amount of money that is being kept out of plenty of people’s pockets, not just Scarjo. I actually think Disney and the rest of the studios would’ve been happy to see theaters die and take the full revenue from streaming…thank goodness for stonks!
*I really don’t want to get into the jargon of what now counts as a flop or success, just like in the video game industry where a game will sell as much as a box office opening success, but still be considered a failure because there wasn’t enough dlc to sell or some crap.
Well here’s the big thing studios and stars need to think about. She fighting for this backend money that was negotiated basically she takes a bit of a pay cut to make way more from the box office (RDJ did this with his MCU movies). What stars need to do is from here on out negotiate deals that include streaming debuts, and studios need to worry about stars not taking the back end deals to keep the film budget down but instead take their full rate. If they stop taking the backend deals the stars no longer have a vested interest in making sure the film is the biggest hit ever. They get paid, they come in a do their job and then go home.
I don’t think plus will ever gross a billion bucks for a movie at those home viewing prices
It probably underperformed but it’ll break even.I think they’re more embarrassed it cost $200m to make and has had multiple marketing pushes (which is probably somewhat high given MCU) only to make Ant-Man levels of money.
I think tanked is hyperbole, at least given the situation with COVID and it’s not like other movies are doing better, but for a franchise that’s been churning out billion dollar box office returns with its recent outings, it’s not making the money it was expected to.You know.In 2019.
That’s what I’m getting out of this.Did it tank compared to, say, most of the other Marvel movies released pre-COVID?Yes. Because they were released pre-COVID when going to a movie theater didn’t generally present a choice between “do I want to risk getting COVID or not” – when the theaters aren’t shut down completely.It’s kind of a loaded term. It implies a universal standard of failure springing from fairly unique circumstances.
The movie did as well as a film is going to do in 2020-part 2.
When it is all said and done, the film will likely break even after production costs, marketing, theater split, etc. Moving forward, I expect to see even the tent pole films having smaller budgets. We’re unlikely to see $750M-$1B box office numbers for at least a year or two.
I mean, right now, it’s on par domestically with A Quiet Place Part II (and only beating it by around $30m internationally, also amazing considering you’re talking about an MCU film vs. a horror sequel), which is astounding since it’s a horrow movie sequel with a budget 1/4 to 1/5 the size of Black Widow’s.
It’s simple to me: Black Widow tanked because of a few reasons.
1. Disney/Marvel overestimated the popularity of the character.
2. Disney/Marvel overspent on production.
3. ScarJo isn’t a big box office draw.
I’ll explain.
1. Black Widow was never the lead in any of the movies she was in. She wasn’t an incredibly popular comic character, wasn’t in any of the video games that preceded Iron Man (things like Marvel vs. Capcom, Marvel Super Heroes, and the like), and really hadn’t been featured in much media. She doesn’t have visibly cool “powers” (she’s a good martial artists in a realm of superheroes and gods), her “look” isn’t particularly evocative, and she’s only interesting insomuch as she plays off of other people. This isn’t the fault of ScarJo, but she was saddled with a middling character, both in the films, and in the comics.
2. Disney spent way too much on a movie where none of the characters warrant those production amounts. All of them are fighters/brawlers, but don’t possess anything that necessitates the wholesale destruction of cities and buildings. Yet we got a film with a budget on par with the 1st Avengers film, Iron Man 3, and both Guardians films. Put it this way, it cost $30m less to make Winter Soldier for a much more recognizable character, and a character with a similar fighting style (so no magic, lasers, Mjolnir, time-warping, space-faring).
Lastly, ScarJo just doesn’t draw big bucks. Aside from Lucy (which is her highest grossing leading-role film, but only cleared $130m in the US), her highest grosses are in films where she’s playing characters from already-established franchises: the MCU films, Jungle Book (she voiced Kaa) and Ghost in the Shell. If anything, when you consider the character she played (Black Widow), and how relatively ineffectual the character is/was in most of the MCU films, she was rather overpaid, considering that she was the 2nd highest paid in the MCU films she was in, 2nd only to RDJ. In fact, I’m almost certain she was paid more than Chris Evans was in Winter Soldier, and again, who went to see Winter Soldier because they wanted to see Black Widow?
That’s not to take away anything from ScarJo as an actress, since I think she’s fantastic. But I don’t think that Black Widow, even in a perfect circumstance where Covid-19 never happened and it had a full release in theaters, would’ve been a gangbusters movie. You had a middling character, who was dead in the main timeline, in a prequel/interquel story that didn’t necessarily connect/mesh with the rest of the timeline in an interesting way, who didn’t have anything particular fresh or flash by way of attributes/powers, and a mute villain whose power (while cool) doesn’t translate well visually. It was always going to be on the level of an Ant-Man, but when you consider that Ant-Man’s reported budget was $70m less than Black Widow’s, it’s clear to see why Disney might have wanted to forego an exclusive theater release where the box office might’ve been slightly higher, but now they have to split revenue with the theater companies.
F9 did over $600M, and that was with lukewarm reception at best. Of course, a month or so ago is night and day compared to right now thanks to selfish pricks who don’t want to wear masks.
Or get vaccinated!
A few weeks ago: “Black Widow did YUGE business on Disney+!!!!”ScarJo sues for her cut: “Oh, you mean that little chick flick that underperformed?”
Dottie Underwood is so obviously the BW that the movie should have been aboutWhy’d you have to go and reopen that wound you big meany?
It had the best opening weekend of any film since March 2020, & it cleared production expenses, but it dropped heavily in its 2nd week—almost certainly because of both (a) people not going to theaters multiple times during a pandemic, so most people who were gonna see it in a theater did so right away to dodge spoilers, & (b) a lot of people staying home to see it on D+ for either health or money reasons—so it didn’t make back the marketing expenses.“Tanked” or “bombed” are the wrong words. “Underperformed” is much more accurate to the situation.
I’ll accept “underperform” the exaggerated words being used everywhere seems stupid. Especially for this year. It’s just not going to get back to regular international box office revenue for a little bit. Things are still weird and people are apprehensive.
Didn’t Fast & Furious 9 made quite a lot of money at the box office just a month earlier? I’d figure Disney probably regretted the D+ release somewhat, since they put a stop to it with Jungle Cruise.
It “tanked” in the sense that the theatre box-office dropped fast and it will make most of its money via streaming. It tanked in the pre-pandemic sense, for the same reason every other big movie has since March 2020. The legal question is whether Disney owes Johansson for shifting their focus to streaming, or whether they can claim force majeure. No-one who hasn’t seen the contracts knows the answer.
Well, according to gogiggs (he’s up there), the fact that I don’t care about Black Widow or the MCU-DC-Disney-whatever-verse means that it is not a success in any way and no one at all cares about it.
with that word in it, half the country wont even bother to check it out.
It “tanked” in that it didn’t make as much as a MCU movie usually does, but only if you ignore the entire Covid situation, where its box office is more or less inline with other releases this year like F9 and Quiet Place 2. But saying it “tanked” is a more scandalous thing to say to draw people in.
I believe when they say it tanked, they mean it started out with strong box office the first weekend and then had a record breaking, precipitous decline the second weekend, arguably showing that releasing on digital cannabilized the in-person box office (especially because it makes high quality piracy way easier)
God, that Dottie Underwood performance was amazing, wasn’t it?
It sure sounded like they were bragging about the revenue from D+ and the theater box office receipts, so I don’t know the definition of “tanked”. It’s not going to make a $billion, which seems to be the yardstick these days.But hey, they could have released this a year ago as intended and it absolutely would have tanked. Both sides should just move on.
I don’t get any of this. Didn’t she know it was being shifted to digital release like the other handful of movies before it? she had a contract, and I assume the big D met its end of it. Sorry your agent sucks? Ya character is dead anyway, maybe she’s realizing the golden goose is dead and the last egg was just smaller than the others. What big projects are in her pipeline?
good to see he’s reacting like a caring person and not some corporate dipshit who I kinda expected to go “no comment” on this and pretend it’s not happening. She was a major part of a movie franchise that put fucking BILLIONS of dollars in Disney’s hilariously over-stuffed coffers; she is not under contract any more; pay her the $50 million and walk away. (also, note to Disney: there is NO press release you can put out that’s not going to make you look like a selfish bunch of twats with good lawyers, unless you really want to go scorched earth and complain that she’s a mouthy broad or something like that.)
Seriously. They buy themselves $50M in good PR if they just shut up and paid.
Is he though? This is all rumors that he is pissed and not a public statement.
maybe that’s exactly what he wants? something he can plausibly deny when the suits at Disney come calling?
For all intents and purposes, Feige takes care of his actors.
Feige takes care of his actors . . .
either your signature or your brains will be on this contract . . .
Hey, I will say that Jeremy Renner was very good in that episode of Angel he did (Somnambulist).
I almost feel bad for Jeremy Renner. He’s in the biggest franchise in movie history, but no one seems to give a shit about him. He’s playing the guy who’s gimmick is “guy with high tech bow and arrow.” And, he’s not only playing the least popular Hawkeye (Kate Bishop has overtaken Clint Barton in that department), but he’s also playing the least popular archer superhero (Green Arrow has become more popular than Hawkeye just by being on TV). On the other hand, he’s seems very full of himself. I mean, he seriously thought people liked him so much that they’d want to download an entire app dedicated to him.
The Disney+ tv series have been of high quality and very good to their stars thus far, and Hawkeye is next up later this year. He may come out of it smelling like roses. Or it’s the last nail in the coffin, but either way he’s getting his shot.
The Marvel TV shows have been bad.
There’s also the abuse allegations by his ex-wife, which, yeah, even if they remain unproven or are withdrawn, the exchanges between them have still demonstrated his character to be left wanting.
Let’s tar and feather anyone who divorces.
You could have cut Hawkeye from every single MCU movie and not missed a damn thing. Renner’s career has been a series of “the other guy” roles since he broke out in “Hurt Locker.” He’s ALSO in “Mission Impossible”, but, like the 3rd or 4th lead. He’s the ersatz Bourne who took over for one film and until Damon came back. Etc.The actor feels as disposable as his roles at this point. He’s just kind of…there.
Uhm…
Please explain how anything from the middle act of Avengers could have happened plot-wise without Hawkeye
LawrenceQ tends not to know what he’s talking about.
On the plus side, if he ever turns it around and becomes massively popular, the term “Rennerssance” is right there.
Remember that Jeremy Renner is the only MCU star who had his own app.
Word. Arrival is one of my favorite films, and I tend to forget he’s in it. He’s just so bland and irrelevant.
The fact that they cast him in the first place kinda made it clear they weren’t planning to do much with the character. It’s funny seeing BW basically replacing Hawkeye in term of prominence. In the comics Clint was one of the premier Avengers, and at times Cap’s lancer or right hand man. Nat filled that position in the MCU, while MCU Clint is treated as much as an afterthought as BW in the comics pre-MCU.
I one hundred percent would have paid money to download a Jeremy Renner app but I understand I’m in the minority.
Meh.I kind of dislike everyone involved here.I had to write letters back and forth for months to get the amount of welfare money that I need, since they kept making increasingly bizarre requests for documents (German bureaucracy is the definition of kafkaesque).
(I’m not “lazy”, by the way, I have bipolar and a crippling anxiety disorder. I am incapacitated.)
I mean, if you’re gonna sue anyone for 50 mill, Disney is certainly more than deserving of it.But also… ScarJo is rich as fuck already (net worth: $165 million). The fact that she INSISTS to get ALL the millions she was promised… blargh. I hate it. I hate it so much. Is it justified? Who’s to say. But I don’t need to pick a side to know all of this makes me sick.
Theoretically, she may be filing suit so she can use her influence to fight for equal pay for female actors. (I’m just speculating, I may be wrong about whether this is really related to that, or whether that’s a factor in her decision.)
It’s possible. And I don’t want to paint her as a villain or anything. But even so, the stakes assume the shape of millions of dollars.Argh.
She isn’t the only actor who could get in on this. Emma Stone is reportedly lawyering up.
So that’s what she’s up to. It certainly isn’t making movies.
This is 100% a move for the future/others, and Scarlet may be the figurehead here but it’s almost certainly powered by her agent(s). The agents want their clients to make more money so they make more money.It’s similar to the 2007 writer’s strike over streaming where the networks didn’t want to pay for royalties of streaming re-runs (paraphrasing). Sure someone like Chuck Lorre doesn’t need the cash but a staff writer on a few episodes might.
So your read on the situation is, “well, this is probably just some of those boys over at the talent agency. You know how the show Entourage goes.”
The bitch wants *her fucking money.*
She didn’t invent that she deserves that money. It’s her fucking money they’re trying to lift and blow on Disney+ subscriptions.
Cool insider perspective though, bro.
This has basically nothing to do with equal pay.
In a way, it does. There have been many cases where a woman was paid less than her male costars, and the argument against them was usually that they didn’t deserve as much money anyway because they didn’t have the same box-office clout. Now you have a case of a woman who is distinctly a box-office draw being refused a contract renegotiation when the studio decides to eliminate much of the “box-office” portion of her compensation.Pay her for her work!
I completely agree that she should be paid every cent she is owed and should be supported in fighting for every last penny.I disagree that she is ‘distinctly a box-office draw’. I have never watched or not watched anything because she was involved.
I mean, she is the world’s highest-grossing actress at over $14 billion in receipts. That tends to imply “box-office draw.”
No, it really doesn’t. Being a person who was in really successful movies isn’t the same as being a “box-office draw”. People were going to see the Iron Man 2, Winter Soldier and all four Avengers movies with or without her. The box office numbers of those movies wouldn’t have changed by a dollar if she had been replaced by Emma Stone or Jennifer Lawrence.I don’t think there even is such a thing as a “box-office draw” these days. I mean, I’ll go see pretty much anything put out by Edgar Wright or Zhang Yimou, but I can’t think of an actor I’ll just automatically go see, not even Gong Li or Jason Statham or Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Although, if Edgar Wright makes a movie starring Gong Li, Jason Statham and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, you probably shouldn’t be between me and the theater
Your tastes are not universal, dude
You really need a glass belly button so you can see what the rest of us are up to while you’ve got your head up your ass. According to you, gogiggs, Edgar Wright or Zhang Yimou are “box-office draws” because you, gogiggs, go see anything they do. I submit, that there are A LOT more people who go see Scarlett Johansson in anything she’s in, because she’s in it, and she’s hott, and that makes her a honest-to-higher-power “Box Office Draw”. That Under The Skin thing may as well have been titled “Big Titty Blond Shows Her Vag” And people lined up for it.
Under the Skin didn’t even break 3 million in domestic box office. Baby Driver made over 100 million in the US and over 200 million worldwide. And it wasn’t even that good.But, sure, Scarlett Johansson is a bigger draw than Edgar Wright.
Just imagine what he could do with Scarlett’s vag!
Boy, gogiggs — your White Male resentment over a successful woman suing to get what she’s owed it absolutely…Trumpian in its pissy, petty hatred. Do you sit at the keyboard naked except for wearing a MAGA Cap as type one-handed? Because that’s just what you sound like….
The very first thing I posted was “I completely agree that she should be paid every cent she is owed and should be supported in fighting for every last penny.”How you went from that to concluding that I resented a successful woman suggests a truly staggering lack of reading comprehension.
In your own words, Sparky…
But, sure, Scarlett Johansson is a bigger draw than Edgar Wright.
Actually, taken objectively? They’re about even as a box-office draw — both have had surprising successes and Can’t Miss movies that have faceplanted, both are serious geek culture types, and both have been screwed over by Der Maus Haus.
You realize this is an utterly meaningless comparison, right?Edgar Wright has made only a handful of films. One of them was modestly successful. So what? He also made a bomb, too.
Almost zero directors are actually “box office draws.”
Wright is definitely not one of them.
And almost zero actors are “box office draws” and Scarlett Johansson isn’t one of them.Seriously, who is? Maybe Denzel Washington and maybe Dwayne Johnson. If you don’t think Edgar Wright is a box-office draw, you explain to me how Baby Driver did over 200 million world-wide. Was it the blazing star-power of Ansel Elgort and Lily Adams. Or was it the accumulated affection movie fans had for Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim and The World’s End?I would argue that there are more directors than actors who are currently box-office draws: Scorsese, Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Tarantino, Wright, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson…
For what it’s worth, I don’t follow movie stars and I recognize her name. That suggests she does have some pull.
Ive seen movies just because she was in them. Just because you don’t care about something doesn’t mean no one else does
Hey, since you don’t go see movies with her specifically because she’s in them must mean no one else does either!
Welp nobody can fault the logic of that argument.
And therefore, no one else did either. Because everyone is exactly on your particular wavelength.
That’s a very good point. How famous she is should have nothing to do with how her contract is honored.
Actually, it kind of does, LaurenceQ — if the first Marvel movie to be released in the dying days of Pandemic Season starred, say, Robert Downey, Jr.? You can bet that they would’ve been furiously negotiating with his management to get them, and him, to sign off on day-and-date.Johansson was treated, relatively speaking, like crap by Disney/Marvel; they came out with action figures for all the guys long before they came out with one for her, even in movies where she was the co-star like Captain America: Winter Soldier she was treated as a supporting cast member, and they kept dragging their feet on a Black Widow movie for nearly a decade while she was still an active part of the MCU — and only went ahead after her character died.
You can gripe that she gets paid more than you do all you want — you know what? So does very guy in the MCU, and most of them get paid a lot more than she does….
Who the fuck cares about equal pay for millionaires lol
“You can gripe that she gets paid more than you do all you want — you
know what? So does very guy in the MCU, and most of them get paid a lot more than she does….”Um, yeah, I never fucking did anything remotely like that.
ya right. she’s not that altruistic. no one is.
Yeah, also, narcissists always find very creative ways to justify their narcissism as for a greater good…
LMFAO there is no universe where she is doing it as some “fight for equal pay” LMFAO…..She wasn’t going to get 70 million dollars because its the lowest rated, worst MCU film……She hilariously thinks she’s gonna get the other 50 million on a movie that didn’t even make it to 500 million
A rich asshole clock is still right twice a day.
Scarjo is owed money along with everyone else who was depending on those box office sales.
She’s just the loudest voice, but this doesn’t start or end with her.
She joins a very old, very long list of people Disney has fucked over the years, and her high profile is a plus in this ongoing opposition to the fuckery by the House of the Mouse.
The conversation that Feige has to get through to the execs is that no matter what he accomplishes, what they put out, what they produce…this issue is not going away ANYTIME soon.
The movie’s are iconic because of the stars, they clearly want to make another Endgame (likely Secret Wars) in time, but they can’t get there unless they handle this problem that they goddamn knew was going to happen.
Do you mean the recent really depressing multiverse end or the goofy original one? I can’t see them doing either version of SW. Now, Secret Invasion may happen, although, so far, the Skrulls seem sympathetic.
Mickey’s dick must REALLY smell bad.
I actually have a rich asshole clock. On the hour, a chime plays and a little model of Elon Musk pops out and tells me COVID is a hoax.
And if there willing to screw over the big stars of the movie, you better believe they’re going to screw over the little people behind the scenes.
Yes, she has millions. But, Disney has BILLIONS!!!! They can easily pay her her fair share, which is very fair since she’s been a big player in the MCU since 2010. I’m sure a lot of people went to see those movies because of her, just like how people go to see athletes play sports and not the billionaire owners who sit on their butts in the luxury box seats. They just aren’t. They’re trying to fuck her over like old Walt did to his animators back in the day. She’s not entirely sympathetic in this situation. But, she’s more in the right than The Mouse.
No doubt about that. Disney is among the worst ulcers that capitalism has ever produced. That’s what makes this situation so weird for me. Like, I’m pretty sure she’s in the right, whatever that means.But like I said, the whole idea of this makes me sick, no matter if she’s right or wrong. It involves such entirely different problems than the ones I’m facing, or anyone I know is facing. It’s insane. It seems so unnecessary. All of it.
You need to stop comparing yourself to others. Instead of asking why they get to have millions of dollars, ask what could make you happier. The world is unfair, and can suck, but if you focus on that, you’ll only see what sucks, which you have no control of.
Ok, we got it. You’re incapacitated and grumpy about something that has nothing at all to do with you.
Not to wind you up even more, since you got letters to write, but did you know that mega-rich (mostly white) people don’t pay taxes?
And it’s perfectly legal!
Or that politicians get away with crimes up to and including murder?
Unfortunately for you, I am quite aware of all that, so you don’t get to teach me something new today. Bummer!
NO ONE here would presume to teach you anything. You drop “kafkaesque” into your sentences. You are obviously the pinnacle of intellectual, philosophical and spiritual achievement. All hail The Old Man!
I would never claim to be any of that. We read Kafka at school where I’m from, so I guess I wasn’t aware that using that word was anything unusual. I promise you, I’m not trying to impress anybody in the AV Club comment section with my big words.
But you know, if it makes you feel any better, I do kinda regret this post (and the whole thread). My feelings behind it were genuine, but I do see how it can come across as fairly myopic. I certainly did not think it all the way through, I will admit that.You are still pretty rude, though.
Must read: The Disney Version: The Life, Times, Art and Commerce of Walt Disney by Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel. Published in 1968 just two years after Walt’s passing, this unauthorized biography struck some as speaking ill of the dead. Yet it was way ahead of its time for calling out ol’ Walt’s insidiously pervasive brand – in every sense – of Capitalism as the first seriously objective assessment of both the rightly lauded early animation innovations and definitively dominating corporate conglomerate that has calculatedly expanded exponentially beyond the founder’s wildest dreams:“All its parts – movies, television, book and song publishing, merchandising, Disneyland – interlock and are mutually reciprocating. And all of them are aimed at the most vulnerable portion of the adult’s psyche – his feelings for his children. If you have a child, you cannot escape a Disney character or story even if you loathe it.… In essence, Disney’s machine was designed to shatter the two most valuable things about childhood – its secrets and its silences – thus forcing everyone to share the same formative dreams.… As capitalism, it is a work of genius; as culture, it is mostly a horror.”
I have to wonder, with her “unfair” share of $20 million, what the “fair” share for all the other thousands of people that worked on the movie was. I really don’t think the comparison works between animators and a multi-million dollar movie star for which $20 million isn’t enough money.
I don’t know whether she’s wrong or right. She may very well have a point. I just think it’s out there to act as if she’s some poor victim stripped of her living expenses.
It’s pretty weird to find fault with someone trying to uphold an agreement on legally binding document.
I don’t care how much money someone has, if they’re getting screwed over for money that should be theirs, then I hope they get it. Other than that, eat the rich.
This. She negotiated the deal and did the work, she deserves the earnings as much as any other laborer down the chain from star to P.A. Maybe she doesn’t need it. Maybe she’d be awesome if she gave it all away. But you deserve the pay you negotiated for the work you did whether it’s $10 mowing a lawn or $100,000,000 for throwing a ball around.(And yes, maybe it would be nice if teachers earned what movie stars do. But that’s a cultural problem, not a movie star problem.)
Well, if they hired teachers based on the same criteria that they cast movies (or hired at a Hooters) . . .
well, that’s a whole other can of whoop-ass, isn’t it?
In this situation, she’s labor. Extremely well paid, but still labor. I’ll side with her the same way I do millionaire athletes vs. their billionaire robber baron owners.
lol shes not labor
No one expects you, especially given your exceedingly frustrating and unfortunate situation, to shed one single fucking tear over uber-rich celebs and the billion dollar corporations that employ them. Don’t waste your time thinking about it.
I DON’T MAKE AS MUCH AS HER SO SHE’S A JERK FOR WANTING WHAT SHE’S OWED
Exactly, Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope.It’s the same mindset that gets trucker-cap wearing meatheads to vote for Trump.
This. If Disney cheated her than they cheated her; but it’s hard to feel strongly about rich people arguing over more money than anyone has ever earned.
Well, she’s not suing so that you will feel strongly about her. She’s suing because she was cheated. Has nothing to do with other people’s feelings. It’s not about you, it’s not about us.
It’s a lot bigger of a conversation than this though. You need someone like Scarlett, who has the ability to afford legal counsel and has clout, to go after Disney so they don’t keep fucking over other creatives.
If it helps: This kind of contract screw-over has been affecting writers and regular industry union jobs too. The Writers Guild has been fighting this battle for a long time. If ScarJo doesn’t settle, this might help people who aren’t multi-millionaires to get what they’re owed.
Same. People are making this very black and white like it’s a straightforward labor vs management (or screwer vs screwee) situation, but…Covid? If this had all happened in 2019 it would be case closed, but what exactly did she want? That the movie sit in the can another year? Or worse, that it release only in theaters so people had to choose to skip it entirely or risk their lives (I know for damn sure choice I would have made)? Is she “owed’ money? Sure, to the extent half of the people I know who were put out of work by the events of the past 17 months are owed.But she’s ludicrous if she’s arguing a theater-only release would have made her MORE money, now, in 2021. Hell, the Disney+ cost was more than many people pay for actual movie tickets! And a four year old movie being released in 2022 or, the way things are going, 2023, or never, probably wouldn’t have brought in the cash, either. It’s bad luck, but, you know, join the club.
While I think Johansson is entitled to sue for what she earns, you have my sympathy for having to fight for disability payments. A truly just society would be looking after you and others with incapacities.
A contract is a contract. Period. If they breached the contract, she is owed. Period. If they would do it to her, they’ll do it to anyone. Including folks who don’t have the means to easily fight back.
ScarJo is rich as fuck already (net worth: $165 million). The fact that she INSISTS to get ALL the millions she was promised… blargh. I hate it.I’m sorry, but this is just absurd. Following the same logic, she should work for free from now on? At what point a star becomes rich enough that they should stop asking to get paid? And to the benefit of whom? Corporations? So that corporations might keep all the profit for themselves? Are you for real?
Actually, at a billion dollars, you should stop being paid for anything. You can do it if you want, but only for free.
at a billion dollars, you should stop being paid for anything.Well, Scarlett’s net worth is 165 millions, so she still has a long way to go. Might need a second lifetime.
Oh yeah. I wasn’t referring to her. That was a more general statement. I just believe eventually you should be taxed at 100%. Do what you want to do for the love of it, not for money. Nobody can actually spend a billion dollars in a lifetime.
I don’t know at what point, but acting as if $20 million is working “for free” isn’t a good comparison at all. In one movie she’s made more than someone needs to live for a lifetime, and that’s still not enough. Is she in the right? She very well may be, but it’s not asking her to work “for free.”
Alot of these struggles between A level stars and producers are struggles between millionaires and centi-millionaires/billionaires. The millionaire is still clearly the little guy here.
I don’t care at all if someone who has more money than I ever will gets another fifty million. I do care very much about holding our out-of-control megacorps to account every single time they overstep or fail to live up to their responsibilities and obligations. I want expensive lawsuits and overwhelmingly negative publicity to be the first thing on their minds the next time they are weighing their options regarding whether or not to honor their contracts or dealing with employees.
Because if they can fuck over their most bankable stars with no consequences, they won’t think twice about doing it to the key grip or the Orlando teenager in the Goofy costume.
Rich assholes have the privilege of suing their employers where many of the rest of do not. Don’t be angry at the privilege, be angry that you do not have that providence.
Yup, no one to root for here. Greedy rich fucks all around.
It’s her production company suing. So, if you read the documents and if people felt like reporting not just for clicks she is suing on behalf of herself and her employees who mostly happen to be women. This case will all set precedent for situations like this dealing with streaming and how companies deal with women stars going forward. It’s not about the money.
She has a contract, and expects it to be followed. Simple as that.
Yup, no misunderstanding about that on my part.
I think if you did a job and then weren’t paid what you were promised for it, you’d probably think that was unfair and be pretty pissed about it. The fact that the job in this case was for a lot of money shouldn’t change your perception of that.
Same-ish for me. But it doesn’t sicken me so much as amuse me. I’m not a fan of Scar Jo, and I don’t particularly care for the Disney corporate machine, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. Whoever loses, I’ll be happy.
It’s less about greed and more about getting this juggernaut of a megacorporation to either honour its contracts or negotiate new ones, instead of just screwing performers out of the compensation they were supposed to get. ScarJo’s net worth doesn’t change the principle of the situation, but it does change her fight. She’s been vocal about how when she was starting off, she was just T&A in Iron Man 2, and wasn’t in much of a position to protest. Now she’s a huge star with a lot more experience and money, which means she now has the capability and drive to stand up to corporate bullshit. She’s fought for her character to be more than just a sex object, and now she’s fighting for fair treatment when it comes to contracts and compensation.
But also… ScarJo is rich as fuck already (net worth: $165 million). The fact that she INSISTS to get ALL the millions she was promised… blargh. I hate it. I hate it so much. Is it justified? Who’s to say. But I don’t need to pick a side to know all of this makes me sick.
My response to this has been: If Disney is willing to fuck over an A-list actor who has the public platform to call them out and the money to take to court, how do you think they’re treating employees on the lower rungs of the ladder?
This is about a spoiled Hollywood actor throwing a tantrum because she didn’t get a few extra millions, this is about a megacorporation breaking a contract with their employee and ignoring that person when they tried to renegotiate the contract.
fuck that, this is a lot bigger than the money. they have definitely fucked over a lot of creatives with covid contracts, and to say that Scarlett isn’t anymore entitled to claim what is hers is bullshit.
You hate that she wants what was promised?Well, I hate that you get welfare. How’s that, dickhead?
It’s not so much that I am on ScarJo’s side, so much as I’m happy that someone has enough juice to hit back at Disney. They clearly think they are above the law, as the recent case regarding author royalties has shown. If they get a public punch in the nose, they may think twice next time. Even if they keep trying to cheat their creatives, this could set a legal precedent that smaller artists can use to fight back in the future.
Maybe that was how I felt to start with. But after that at once crass, arrogant and simpering, woe-is-us statement by Disney, in which they quite blatantly attached a sort of non-caring blasé attitude about COVID-19 to Johansson (which presumably like most people she in fact cares very much about) makes me want her to receive all the dollars owed, plus hefty compensation.
She is a millionaire; but what about the actors who aren’t? Actors who don’t even qualify as “financially secure”, who could most certainly not afford to sue Disney/Netflix/HBO/Amazon/what-have-you (much less come out on top), and who these companies would not even blink at the chance of screwing out of money? Not to mention writers, directors and others involved in the making of shows and movies. Making art is a very financially precarious career, most of the people whose work we love don’t get paid the big bucks. Not everyone is Jack Nicholson or Kevin Feige, or, say, the cast of Friends, who got 1M per episode after a certain point.
She’s setting an extremely important precedent, and using her platform and privilege for smthg that will benefit others beyond herself. That’s probably the only way to use one’s privilege correctly. Good for her.
I mean, i understand where you are coming from but ScarJo is still labor and Disney is still capital in this situation. Ill favor ScarJo in this legal fight because of that.
It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario where it’s wrong to fight for what you’re contractually owed unless the cost of litigation is higher than what you’re owed. It doesn’t matter how much money you already have, you don’t just give people a break when they screw you.
Okay, cool.
You already got your welfare money, so your last employer has no reason to mail you your last check.
Your employer does not need that money, but by your own estimations, you no longer deserve it.
Alternative: If ya wanna get into the nitty-gritty of how Hollywood deals are made with millions of dollars on the line, you might reasonably decide to make better decisions based on things you actually know about.
There was an article in Variety like 2 days before this suit was filed. Know what it was about?
It was a two-hander between Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt, where one of the things she talks about specifically is how *he* helped *her* navigate the new contractual realities of going day and date to Disney+
Dwayne The Rock Johnson and his production company made sure he *and* his co-stars were getting their fucking paper properly.
Same as your fuckin’ welfare.
*Exactly the fuckin’ same as your welfare. *
How you think Scarlett feels reading some shit like that? Same fuckin’ company, yo. The company that just tried to tell *everyone* that Scarlett asking for her last goddamn paycheck is insensitive to Covid and greedy for a $20 Millionaire.
You were entitled to that welfare paper, and these people are entitled to the paper they get for being the action/adventure/romantic/fucking avatars of an entire fucking planetary population.
I *loathe* the attitude you’ve deployed in the direction of this situation you clearly don’t give one fuck about.
I’ll save disliking you for someone who actually knows you.
Downey used his new Iron Man clout to fight on behalf of the rest of the down-list Avengers cast. Johannsenn is probably doing much the same. She certainly knows she’s rich and doesn’t need more money (unlike 98% of all other actors), even though Disney should be forced to pay her what they contracted to do. But what she’s doing could help others who might still be waiting tables or working carpentry.
Yup. You’re right. And I can only repeat myself, I actually regret this post. It was meant as an expression of emotion, but ultimately it muddied the waters of any reasonable discussion.And obviously, I didn’t think it through. I stand by my feelings, but not by the judgement that I passed, which was premature.
‘Zokay. My guess is I’m about as different from SJ philosophically or religiously as a man might get (though if she’s reading and would like to say thank you for the support by paying off the rest of my 61-year-old self’s mortgage, I would hug her bigly). But I think contracts, covenants, and what-not are an important part of society working together. Especially when a woman is involved.
… just like you had to write letters to get what was owed you, Johannson is suing to get what is owed to her. It’s all relative.
“The fact that she INSISTS to get ALL the millions she was promised” A deal’s a deal. The people who own the money should not get to say, “Fuck what we agreed to; you should be happy with what we give you”
To me, it’s even worse than that. My assumption was that Scarlett Johannson was cut out of the streaming profits, so every viewer that watched at home rather than go out to the theater was money out of her pocket and into Disney’s. Hearing now that Disney lumped streaming totals into her numbers for bonuses makes this look to me like even more sour grapes. This will probably settle, so we won’t likely get details on the contract itself or the numbers.
First and most important, what you had to go through truly sucks.But what she’s doing is as much for everyone else who is not in her position now. Her case is simply the most high-profile in a string of cases against Disney using their good household name to short-change creators. She’s been working since she was 10 years old and whether or not Hollywood pay scales are ridiculous, she’s earned her place within the current system.
If absolutely nothing else, there was a contract. They breached that contract (based on what we’ve heard so far). It’s basic contract law and if they attempt to pull some sort of Act of God clause out and say they only did it because of COVID, then I hope they get smacked down for it.
FWIW, I think it’s greatly respectable of you to feel conscious enough to justify withdrawing from welfare. I think it’s a good indicator that this social norm of treating welfare as if it’s meritocratic should go away- you are doing what’s best for your health, the system should be there for you and any person that needs to focus on their well-being, or caring for a dependent. I have family in the same camp as you- working as an LPN through Covid, on a rotating shift schedule, has been throwing them through manic episodes, and they deserve to take a step back and have the system support them. I think welfare should be greatly expanded personally, but even currently you are owed this. 🙂
I’m sure he’s very embarrassed and very angry.I’m also sure we’ll never hear him talk about it again.
Feige also didn’t like how Disney handled the James Gunn firing. I wonder if he burned through too much of his clout getting Gunn back?
I doubt it. Endgames performance means he has clout to spare for a long time. And the Disney+ shows being successful are helping keep it. Pretty much all of the next couple years of MCU movies would have to underperform for him to lose any real power at the company
Given the overwhelmingly positive public reaction to Gunn’s rehiring, it probably gave Feige more clout.
Disney didn’t even like the way Disney handled the James Gunn thing. They knew about his nasty old tweets before they hired him for GotG 1. I have no doubt their firing of him was totally for PR purposes, and was always understood by all parties to be done reluctantly and temporarily.
I don’t think James Gunn thought it was temporary. I have no reason to believe he made up what he’s said about how he handled it.
If ScarJo thought this was going to make a huge box office if not for streaming, she’s kidding herself. Covid ain’t over, and it’s cutting ticket sales for this summer’s blockbusters in half at least. I’m all for her getting special consideration since the release plans changed, but I doubt a theater-only release was ever going to net her an extra $50 million. If Disney is smart, they’ll settle this generously and move on.
Oh, it would’ve made a huge box office. And incited dozens of spreader events.
No it wouldn’t have (the box office, that is).
It would’ve been on the level of Ant-Man at worst, Dr. Strange at best, but with a significantly higher budget compared to Ant-Man (to the tune of about $70-100m).
Black Widow isn’t that interesting of a character, the story isn’t particularly interesting or relevant, it’s visually uninteresting, and the villain sucks in a myriad of ways (combining a mute villain with an intellectually interesting but visually boring “power” is a recipe for disaster).
Disney overspent on the movie, but they had to make it since Black Widow was the only one of the original phase 1 heroes (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America), who hadn’t gotten a solo movie, and considering how much they’ve paid ScarJo for being a secondary character (2nd only to RDJ in her earnings for the movies), this was a “thank you” movie. It’s telling that they were willing to potential break their contract with her and risk a hefty lawsuit and causing ill-will amongst fans and people in the organization, solely to make more money (and cut out the theaters and their cut) by putting it on Disney+.
If they truly thought a solo theater release would’ve resulted in Captain Marvel or Black Panther levels of box office, they would’ve done so. They knew the movie was going to be a dog (relative to their 3 latest releases, which all cleared a $1bn worldwide), hence why they were eager to do this in spite of the legal (and their associated financial) risks.
Yes, which is why her management’s suing now, Anthony Pirtle. This should have been negotiated by Disney and her people at least six months ago, not left for the film to underperform so Disney can go “Sorry, you didn’t earn enough in theaters to get any sort of bonus! And streaming? We don’t have to show you those numbers….”
They accounted for the streaming numbers. I’m not saying whether they did so fairly, but unless what I read was incorrect, they did.
To argue her side of it, it’s more a problem they didn’t renegotiate at all.
God, Disney just had to give her a bigger cut of the streaming money, they damn well know they’re in the wrong with blaming it on covid.
Honestly, I’m pretty solidly with Disney here.There is a pandemic going on. Delta variant is raging and people are dying. Releasing on streaming so that people aren’t forced to cram into crowded theaters and get infected is the right move. The only thing to make it right for the stars is to also provide revenue sharing. Which apparently Disney did, by giving her a cut of the Premium Access sales.Does it suck that her movie came out during a pandemic? Definitely. Is that Disney’s fault? Not really.
Disney probably made the right decision to switch to a multi-platform release, but that doesn’t mean they were right to deny Johansson her cut.
COVID isn’t Disney’s fault, but the decision to change tactic at the last minute in a way that screws over their employee is. Especially given the hypocrisy of using COVID as an excuse when they were fighting to keep their parks open during the pandemic, and given that they were reportedly going to cut her in anyway and then just… didn’t. Disney’s been screwing over writers this way for a long time (and not just the big guns, but the ones for whom this is literally a make-the-rent job), and from what I understand they’ve been pulling this kind of fuckery on regular-Joe employees too. On a personal level I’m no fan of Johansson, but I think she’s in the right here and the case has implications that could help a lot of other people.
it was hardly the last minute, disney delayed the movie release an entire year before doing this, which is big considering that momentum is critically important for the MCU
A buddy boom op o’ mine has worked many a Disney gig (and for many other companies as well) and he says Disney is easily the worst by a mile. Penny pinching to the extreme on all fronts and generally shit heels. None of this surprises me and I’m in anyone’s camp who has a grouse with the mouse. Their fuckery around the $$ owed to writers of previous SW books is another example of this.
People keep bring up how Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins got paid out when Wonder Woman went to streaming, while ignoring that the profit participants on all of the 24 other movies WB will release day and date did not get that deal. If anything this just shows what studios value, sequels. They knew the needed to keep Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins happy because they want to release Wonder Woman 3 some day. I’m absolutely sure that ScarJo not being in the Marvel movies after Black Widow was a contributing factor for them to not renegotiate their contract regarding profit participation when they movie to Disney +. She’s done with these movies, so really they don’t think they need her
What cut would that be? That extra 50 million on top of the 20 million she was paid also relied on how much money the movie made. Its pretty much done making money making it the lowest reviewed, lowest performing MCU film…..After the film which was filmed in 2019 was delayed for a year and a half and, smart people still aren’t comfortable going to the movies and being in a room full of people……Clearly she was going to get Disney+ money but it sure as hell wasn’t going to be 50 million and its not sad that she’s getting less than 70 million for making a movie.
I’m getting a lot of greys (who I can’t ungrey or even reply to, thanks kinja) completely missing the point.They keep trying to make it about whether Johansson personally actually earned that $50M (without factoring in the fact that legal teams routinely overestimate damages because it’s a near certainty that it will be massively reduced both at and post-judgement).They keep ignoring the part where Disney breached the contract, ghosted on attempts to renegotiate, then breached their contract in a manner that they then used to drive up their stock price.Why do so many people leap to the defence of a multibillion dollar corporation that is breaching contracts for profit? Has Walt returned from the ashes to give out free handjobs or something?
Nobody is “forced” to go to the theater. If you don’t want to go, you can wait. And the disease is only “raging” among morons who refused to get vaccinated. Contracting covid while vaccinated is comparatively rare, and the ones who do contract it typically have mild to no symptoms.The amazing thing about this hysteria is that there have been no outbreaks linked to theaters, and it’s generally low risk with the precautions that theaters are taking. There have been plenty of outbreaks linked to restaurants and stores, but I never hear any complaining about them being open. Unless you think everyone should be quarantined in their rooms for the next 5+ years until any risk is eliminated, then it’s hypocritical to single out theaters.Also, even if you disregard everything I say, Disney could have easily delayed the movie until it was “safe.” But I have noticed for the studios and most of the people supporting them, this isn’t about covid at all. Studios want to use these big movies as loss leaders to funnel people to their streaming services that they see as their future, and the people supporting them want to watch/pirate the movies in their homes and are happy to see theaters die. Covid is just the excuse to make those positions appear morally superior.
You are correct that nobody is forced to go to the theater. And that people can simply choose not to go. Which they did.That’s the point here. The movie did well ($300 mil worldwide) but not quite as well as she was hoping for. She places the blame for this on streaming, but it’s fairly clear that the much more likely culprit is just people not wanting to risk their lives for a fun popcorn movie.
The point is they agreed to open solely in the theaters and then broadcast later on TV. And they didn’t. If I promise to pay a paving contractor $5,000 for replacing my drive. And then I don’t. He will sue me. It’s the same idea only he’s probably not a millionaire and I’m definitely not a billionaire.
That doesn’t matter. They made a deal with her that she’d get a box office percentage before COVID hit. When it became apparent that they weren’t going to be able to hold up on that deal, they should have renegotiated her contract. They didn’t because they knew with the original deal that they wouldn’t have to pay her as much. And, Disney loves to take as much money as they can while giving less to their employees; this has been happening all the way back to when Walt was alive. I don’t understand how anyone can take the side of the megacorporation hellbent on controlling all of entertainment that has a history of screwing over its employees. Well, there is one way I understand: they’re a Disney exec who benefits from their monopolizing, exploitative ways.
Well, it’s fairly simple when you remember the consumers.You know, the people who actually benefit from being able to watch a new marvel movie, after over a year delay, as an escape from the generally shitty world. Without risking their lives in the process.The whole theatrical exclusivity thing always kinda sucked. But we (consumers) understood that was a sacrifice to maintain traditional compensation for the creators. But when there is a damn pandemic that is killing people, that shifts from simply sucking to a much more shitty thing. And the sacrifice feels much more anti-consumer.Maybe I’m wrong and all she wants is a cut of the Premium Access revenue that Disney isn’t providing. I dont think so though, since she’s claiming damagesof $50 million and the Premium Access revenue is apparently $60 million. So if that was her model of damages, she’d be claiming that Disney basically owes her 83% of the streaming revenue. Which is unlikely. Instead, my reading of the argument is that if the movie was in theaters exclusively, the box office would have been higher. Which relies on, again, forcing consumers to risk a pandemic.Disney has done some real shitty things, for sure. But we need to be able to look at the specific case at hand and ask ourselves whether the world is better off if people can watch movies at home, at least during the current pandemic. Or if they should be forced to cram into theaters to watch movies despite the very real risk of serious illness.
We don’t know if Scarlett Johansson is a heartless monster who wants people to risk their lives so that she can make money. I’m gonna give her the benefit of the doubt and say no since she wanted to renegotiate her contract, which, to me, says that she didn’t expect people to go see “Black Widow” in theaters and wanted a new deal so that she could get a share of the streaming revenue. And, Disney doesn’t have the high moral ground since they reopened Disney World just a few months after the Pandemic closed everything down.
Yeah, you’re wrong — Johansson didn’t want people to risk their lives (as you allege) just so she’d benefit.
She did, OTOH, want Disney to sit down with her people in good faith and renegotiate her contract given the current realities — which they did not.
If you want to talk about anti-consumer, how about Disney’s money grab in extending copyright terms? If you think that it’s “anti-consumer” to monetize one’s work by restricting access to it, then the entire copyright system is “anti-consumer”. The world would be a better place if people could watch movies at home *for free*, at least it would be better in the short run, but then how would content creators be incentivized? Before the pandemic, SJ and Disney agreed that the best way to determine the market value of her work would be to have a theatrical release. After the pandemic, Disney decided that that was not the best way, but apparently decided to discard that method for one that worked entirely in their favor. If they had negotiated with SJ in good faith to estimate how much she would get with a theatrical release, and give that much to her while not having a theatrical-only release, you would have a point. But as it stands, it looks like they’re using the pandemic as an excuse.
crazy world? crazy world.
The movie did piss poor…On top of the middling reviews making it the lowest scoring MCU film. 300 million isn’t crap for a movie that sat for over a year and a half. It was supposed to come out in 2020 and got delayed several times.
And the disease is only “raging” among morons who refused to get vaccinated.So fuck everyone who desperately wants to get vaccinated but still can’t, right?Asshole.
“Among” was perhaps the wrong term. “Because of” would’ve been more accurate.
The people you describe, who want to get vaccinated but still can’t, tend to take other precautionary measures seriously. The people Olsen describe tend not to.
In the US at least the main problem now is people who don’t wish to get vaccinated, we’ve had the doses available to mostly everyone who is eligible for a couple months now. Obviously that’s not true for much of the world, of course, but people who are willing to take a vaccine should be able to find one now if they live here.Though I also probably would not assume that Delta or some future variant will be fully covered by our current vaccines even if everyone was vaccinated, though, I probably wouldn’t be going to a theater particularly soon.
The Delta variant is so highly contagious that vaxxed people are also more easily getting it and shedding it (albeit without taking the brunt of the worst effects—so definitely still get vaxxed and wear a mask, morons). Calling anyone’s hesitancy at being in an enclosed public space FOR HOURS (even post-vaccine) hysteria just makes you sound like a dismissive covidiot.
Well … -About 74% of 469 COVID-19 cases associated with large gatherings held in Barnstable County, Mass., from July 3 to 17 were among fully vaccinated people, according to data released Friday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Even if you probably get a mild case, some people don’t want to risk getting sick just to see a movie. Screw Disney and all SJ probably deserves some more money, but don’t pretend this new strain is nothing.https://www.axios.com/cdc-delta-variant-vaccinated-people-covid-485a2f39-8fa0-4c20-91f1-208f63d695cd.html
469 cases constitute 0.00134% of the total US cases to date. Why are you cherry-picking such a tiny amount? If everyone in the theater is fully vaccinated, the moviegoers have a better chance of getting in a car accident driving there and back than of getting COVID from the trip. Delta isn’t nothing, but for the vaccinated, there are plenty of bigger things.
It’s not about Covid. Her contract explicitly said theatrical release only, and Disney didn’t do that. So they needed to renegotiate, and they didn’t. They need take hit for breaking that contract, one way or another.
Correction: She and her lawyers claim the contract said that. Disney disputes this. Hence the lawsuit.
Corporations do bad and evil shit all the time, especially Disney. However, it’s a bit silly and presumptuous to assume that 1. Disney and their lawyers would either purposefully or mistakenly cost themselves millions in a lawsuit over a contractural item (theatrical exclusivity) that could be easily reviewed in a few minutes by a junior attorney (or an intern), and 2. ScarJo and her attorneys are incapable of being incorrect in their reading or understanding of the contract, or that they wouldn’t go to bat for their client even if they’re wrong.
I’m sure ScarJo is smart, as are her lawyers, but attorneys, agents, and the talent make mistakes when reading over and understanding/interpreting contracts all the time. It’s odd that you and so many other people are stating, without any sort of equivocation, that the contract explicitly stated an exclusive theatrical release, when none of us have seen, you know, the contract. It’s only been claimed that the contract said that, precisely by the side (ScarJo) where it would benefit them.
the crux of the argument seems to boil down to the contract just said “wide theatrical release” and her team says that implies “exclusive” theatrical release (and big box office bonuses). Disney sez they gave it a wide theatrical release, the contract doesn’t state exclusive, and they can put out their own product however they want. So if this does go to court, there’ll be a whole lotta wrangling over what this contract means exclusive to what, etc.(Frankly, they should have just paid her out better like WB did to avoid this whole mess)
This is the really important point that Scarjo is trying to make here. If you change the terms of my contract, for whatever reason, you must renegotiate my compensation. Disney’s failure to do this is wrong.Does she need the money? No. But a deal’s a deal.
Sure. But don’t use that as a fucking excuse to cheat your actors out of the money you owe them.
You did not read the complaint at all, did you?
This has nothing to do with the pandemic Stop siding with lex Luthor! Warner brothers paid out gal gadot’s and Jenkins’ contracts in full for Wonder Woman when they decided to throw it up on hbomax… Disney completely ignored Scarlett and her team’s communications for weeks stating she was willing to negotiate and do the same once it was decided that black widow was going to go up on streaming as well… Disney not only broke her contract but flat out refused to work things out…these are the same people who tried to open their theme parks fully unmasked two months after the lockdown in 2020 Disney needs to calm down
Then Disney can try to renegotiate her contract, but they can’t ignore it simple because of Covid.
Your turning this into a moral situation and it’s absolutely not. The pandemic is no one’s fault. Not Disney, not ScarJo, no one. If you signed a contract that says you will release a film exclusively in theaters, then you have to release the film exclusively in theaters. It doesn’t matter if circumstances changed and the deal doesn’t look good for you anymore; a contract is a contract.Once the pandemic started, Disney could:only release the film in select theatersdelay the release until the pandemic is over, or
renegotiate the contract to allow the dual releaseThat’s it.
The pandemic didn’t mean they weren’t bound to the contract they agreed to. The right thing would have been to go back to her people and say “hey, we want to put this on Disney+” and hand her a big sack of cash. Her contract, which isn’t included in the PDF out there of the suit itself, purportedly based her backend off box office returns, not streaming. In general, actors get SAG-AFTRA residuals from streaming. In this case, 3.6% of the distributor’s gross receipts, according to my five minutes of research.By comparison, RDJ made $20M plus 8% of box office for Endgame. She was gunning, though, for a Chris Evans/Chris Hemsworth kind of payday. Hemsworth got paid $15 million a movie for Ragnarok, IW and Endgame. And she was also an EP on the film, which probably entitles her to more.
You do know Disney’s trying their best to keep their parks widely open, right?
To be honest…It is Disney’s fault. Civil War was released in 2016. They could have done Black Widow in 2017. They could have done it in late 2018 after Infinity War. Heck, they could have done it in 2019 after Endgame-it’s not like there were any movies released after Far From Home. a Christmas 2019 release of Black Widow to cap off Phase 3 of the MCU would have easily raked in a billion in box office tickets. Instead, they chose to bet on 10 months between Far From Home and Black Widow, and it blew up in their face. Doing so would have actually allowed them to release all the Disney Plus shows during 2020 when everyone was sitting at home and looking for something entertaining to watch, likely to immense subscription and purchase revenue. I know hindsight is 20/20, but Disney is unusual for the ability to release films with extraordinary efficiency. There is no reason they couldn’t have finished it by the end of 2019 and had it in theaters.
One of the things the MCU had going for it, almost from the beginning, was that the cast genuinely seem to like each other. Other than a few names here and there that didn’t fit (Howard, Rourke, Norton), they hang out with each other, banter, follow each other on social medias, get matching tattoos, etc… Getting into a pointless fight with one of them isn’t bold as much as it is stupid. There’s no doubt Disney has the money to pay her, and a significant chunk of that money comes from movies Johansson starred in. There’s also no doubt that the actors will side with her, and now you have Feige pissed as well. This isn’t a good look when your entire business model is centered on hiring top-tier talent on multiple-movies contract.
ScarJo didn’t join the MCU until Iron Man 2. We already had Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, so it’s hard to say the business model is necessarily hiring top-tier talent, since of the talent they had by the time of the release of The Incredibly Hulk, two of the main actors were already gone (Howard and Norton). RDJ wasn’t a superstar when he got signed, neither was Norton (although he is/was a damn good actor), and neither were the actors in the next two solo films (Hemsworth and Evans, and unknown an semi-comedy actor).
That’s not to say they were bad actors, but they didn’t get a legit superstar until ScarJo and later movies, after the MCU had already proven itself as a huge money-making enterprise. For what it’s worth, DC did the same thing, since the only superstar solo actor they got was Ben Affleck, and look how that turned out.
The MCU is at a place now where, financially, they can afford any actor who will say yes to the contractural demands (namely multiple movies and shooting schedules). This also means that lower-tier actors will gladly bite at the chance to join because the potential paydays will have them set for life. When looking at some of the characters they can introduce now that they have the X-Men and Fantastic Four back in the fold, they don’t need to go after the biggest names to fill these roles, or offer them incredibly lucrative contracts like they once did. With the strength of the characters, they can pull in a big box office (because, let’s be real, people are gonna want to see characters like Wolverine, Dr. Doom, Magneto, and Storm regardless of the actor portraying them) on the character’s alone.
ScarJo didn’t join the MCU until Iron Man 2. We already had Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, so it’s hard to say the business model is necessarily hiring top-tier talent, since of the talent they had by the time of the release of The Incredibly Hulk,
two of the main actors were already gone (Howard and Norton). RDJ
wasn’t a superstar when he got signed, neither was Norton (although he
is/was a damn good actor), and neither were the actors in the next two
solo films (Hemsworth and Evans, and unknown an semi-comedy actor).
I would have qualified Downey and Norton as top-tier talent at the time of their signing even if they weren’t huge stars, and Marvel struck gold with the less proven actors they hired (Evans, Hemsworth, Hiddleston, etc…)
My point is, Marvel needs to not only hire the right actors for their parts but also to convince them to stick for multiple movies, so they can have sequels and crossovers. Being shitty to one of your longest-employed actor is not a good look.
Their talent was top-tier, no doubt, but neither was consider an A-list, box office draw actor at the time (compared to people like DiCaprio, Smith, Bale, Denzel, and Cruise). In fact, Marvel took a risk with RDJ because of his prior substance abuse issues and the fact he wasn’t a big name star, but this also provided them a financial out. If the movie did well, they got RDJ on the cheap. If it did poorly, they didn’t invest that much in his salary so they could let him go. They certainly didn’t expect Iron Man to become a cultural phenomenon, and I’m sure they put more faith in The Incredible Hulk, if not for anything other than it’s a more recognizable character to the majority of the populace.
All of that notwithstanding, I think the bargaining and negotiating power lies very much with Disney over the actors. The fact is that these movies are going to get made. Disney is not going to let an actor become bigger than the movie or the MCU as a whole (see the quick and easy dismissals of Howard and Norton for example, and that was early-on before the series reached anywhere near its peak). They realize that getting a big part in an MCU film is a dream for so many actors, they can afford to be both choosy and play hardball. As much as we might think that actors stick together and don’t like when studios screw one of them over (which is what SAG-AFTRA is for), ScarJo is as removed from some of these up-and-coming actors as we are from them, so while they might dislike how Disney is handling this, when offered a life-changing opportunity (and the money that potential comes with it), they understand that ScarJo will be A-Ok regardless of how the lawsuit turns out.
People in Hollywood still continue to work with studios who sheltered accused rapists and murderers, and people still pal around with verified racists, homophobes, and rapists. At the end of the day, millions of dollars are millions of dollars, fame is fame, and you might dislike Disney for how they treated ScarJo, but unless he’s willing to finance your future and make you a star, it’s an easy career decision to say yes to the Mouse when it comes calling over any moral or ethical compunctions you have, or any sort of loyalty or commiseration you have with ScarJo.
Their talent was top-tier, no doubt, but neither was consider an A-list,
box office draw actor at the time
I agree, and I did say “top-tier talent”, not “A-lister”.
Disney is not going to let an actor become bigger than the movie or the
MCU as a whole (see the quick and easy dismissals of Howard and Norton
for example […]Just a quick note: that wasn’t Disney. Howard was officially dismissed in 2008, and Norton, in 2010. Disney bought Marvel in 2009. Howard was already fired and it’s publicly known that Feige didn’t like working with Norton on The Incredible Hulk (2008) and is the one who fired him.To be clear, I’m not saying Disney won’t be able to find anyone for their movies, I’m saying that for the actors who are on the fence about being in their films – and some actors did say ‘no’ – this bad PR will not help. All of this for money they can easily afford to pay.
You’re right. I was using Disney as a catch-all even though Marvel hadn’t been bought by then.
The bad PR doesn’t help, but I think this is less about the direct money and more about maintaining the legal status quo where, accounting-wise, they can count streaming revenues as “home video” revenues, and thus keep 80% of those revenues for themselves, leaving only 20% for people who have points on the revenues/profits (like actors and producers).
Bill Nye sued them a few years ago for exactly that reason (Disney used an accounting standard from the era before streaming and thus only allotted 10% of those streaming revenues from his show to him and his producers, when he felt it should’ve been a 50/50 split). A judge, earlier this year, sided with Disney and has allowed that accounting procedure to continue, even though 75-80% of the industry no longer follows it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t mind a legal fight, since their lawyers — assuming the contract doesn’t have a theatrical exclusivity clause in it — can point to the decision in that prior case and leave an uphill battle for ScarJo’s team to argue against it. If they settle, that might give the proverbial green light to other actors and producers who feel that they were shortchanged by various streaming releases (and even if those lawsuits are losers, Disney still has to pay their lawyers for the time spent working on the cases). However, a decisive victory for Disney could very well scare off any lawsuits that aren’t supported by incontrovertible evidence of malfeasance on the part of Disney.
Disney, I truly believe, is playing a much longer game than the majority of people are giving them credit for. You settle with one actor and now the rest think they’re owed more money. You beat that actor in court and everyone else now stays in line. It’s a cold and calculating way to look at it, but I think it’s more of the reality than people are understanding.
“(Black Widow’s “Premium Access” payments on Disney+ were reportedly lumped into the totals used to determine Johansson’s bonuses, but her claim remains that the decision to place it on streaming inherently devalued its potential for performance.)“If that’s the case I find Johansson’s position a little shakier, or at least think it’s going to be more than a bit harder to prove the case.
Exactly.
Unless the contract stipulated that the theatrical release would be the exclusive release for a set period of time, Disney was under no obligation to renegotiate the contract for the financial benefit of ScarJo.
Trust me, if Disney (namely their lawyers) felt they had a legal obligation to renegotiate the contract (or, at the very least, that renegotiating the contract would be in their best interest), they would’ve responded to overtures by ScarJo’s attorneys and had that meeting ASAP.
Hell, I remember reading stories concerning athletic contracts with bonus stipulations where the GM or the owner will purposefully tell the coach to do, or not do, something to prevent having to pay out the bonus. For example, let’s say you get a $1m bonus if you play in all 16 games in a NFL season, or you get $2m if you complete 40 TD passes (and you’re at 39), so the owner has the coach sit you out the last game, preventing you from reaching those 16 games AND those 40 TDs, saving them $3m. You can be sidelined for almost any reason, and it’s the legal responsibility of the accuser to provide evidence that they were sidelined or not started specifically to prevent the bonuses from being reached, and it’s an uphill battle to prove that. It’s an absolutely rotten thing to do morally and ethically, but it’s not necessarily illegal.
If she had a contract that explicitly said “theatrical release only”, then I think her case would be quite easy to prove.
Her claim was that her contract specifically said the movie would have an exclusive theatrical release and that Disney didn’t talk to her or her people about changes to the deal. So not sure how this hurts her case at all if those things are true.
I think this is a good position for Feige to take, but to really have weight he’ll need to make it publicly. I realise there is considerable risk for him there, but I think he’s powerful enough to take it.
I had to laugh when Disney responded to ScarJo the same way social media influencers do – “You’re getting paid in exposure!”
ScarJo is in a promising local band?
So her suit claims that Disney has red in its ledger?
As the news cycle continues on this I wonder why we all even care. A millionaire is mad that a megacorp didn’t pay her enough money. I think ScarJo has a case but I’m not sure why we need more then one new news story on this. Especially this one that seems to be mostly “Someone heard from someone else that someone is mad about this”.
I think it mostly amounts to “My pro-worker stance scales all the way up” for some people.
Which is incredibly stupid and self-defeating. Millionaire problems don’t trickle down. But it’s the kind of bad instincts liberals have that make them go all #gurlboss for women who drop bombs on poor brown people, for instance.
Breach of contract problems are sure as hell trickle down, it’s just that the regular people can’t survive the corporation slow-walking the lawsuit for merits of the case to even matter..
Regular working people, famous for having contract disputes over bonuses tied to streaming revenue. Yas multi-millionaire queen of the people, thank you for your public service.
Correct.
If she wins, it’ll set precedent that will protect less-prominent actors.
no it won’t
Nah it will just make sure Disney lawyers have bette contact loop holes for pandemics in the future
This allows MCU stans to keep seeing Feige as some kind of great artist rather than a businessman.
Because this story isn’t “a millionaire is mad that a megacorp didn’t pay her enough money,” this story is actually “a millionaire is mad that a megacorp violated its end of the contract and refused to renegotiate or compensate them at all.” Don’t lose sight of the situation because the afflicted party is a rich celebrity: this is about Disney once again stiffing talent out of money they’re owed. Except instead of some oft-overlooked writers or animators, this time it’s a major actress. ScarJo actually has enough clout to fight back. Whether she succeeds will affect all those non-rich, non-celebrity Disney employees, too.
I’m convinced that Disney announced her fee in that horrendous statement specifically to make people go “look at all the money she made! Why should I feel sorry about her not making more?!” and conveniently forget that breaking a contract is still breaking a contract.
You think Disney cheated ScarJo out of what she was owed, but pays every penny that everyone else employed by them deserves?ScarJo has the ability to fight back because of her wealth. In a just world, Disney couldn’t pull something like this on any of their workers, but we don’t live in that world. Maybe if a case like this hurts their bottom line enough, it will force them to make changes that could help people less wealthy, too.As for this specific story: it’s a “creatives” vs “CEOs” kind of story. Some VP for something with a corner office saw a chance to improve the figures by screwing ScarJo out of some of her residuals, and took it, and that “money matters more than anything” attitude directly threatens the next stage of the MCU, which Feige obviously cares about. It’s also stupid from a “money matters” perspective, of course, and I’m sure Feige is upset about that, too.
A millionaire is mad that a megacorp didn’t renegotiate a contract, and instead made a unilateral decision. And if they didn’t renegotiate with the first-billed actor, you think they renegotiated with everyone that had one line? No, but the difference is that she has money to burn on the lawsuit whereas the bit players have to have to take their half-a-shit-sandwich and go home.
Nobody is coming out clean on this.Johansson was arguing: That streak ended yesterday, though, when MCU star Scarlett Johansson launched a lawsuit against Disney, claiming that the company’s decision to simultaneously release Black Widow in theaters and on its Disney+ subscription service was a breach of agreements made with her, and allegedly cost her some $50 million in potential box office bonuses. Which is a curious statement to make when the movie apparently only made $60 million on Disney+ for its first week. Does she really expect Disney to hand over potentially HALF of the D+ revenue. And does anyone really think if Black Widow hadn’t been on D+ waves more people would have gone to the theaters? Me and mine would have waited for it to be a rental. Anyone who wanted to see it in the theaters and felt it was safe went. Because seeing films like it on the big screen is just more desirable.If it wasn’t on D+ it wouldn’t have had a noticeable uptick in its box office. But it would have been much more pirated.(That said, they should have offered her a taste of the D+ money. But, really, the film is probably close to losing money as it is.)
Did Black Widow “tank” though? I know it opened big, but didn’t maintain the huge momentum by the second week, but I always assumed that it was still considered a big hit (especially post covid).
“Tank” feels synonymous to box office bomb (i.e., Last Action Hero), but I feel like it’ll still make a nice profit at the box office. Either way, it seems clear that Disney is in the wrong here.
It didn’t she just does not her a cut of the Disney streaming money on the d+ platform which is messed up…it willEnd up making Thor dark world ant man money
are you drunk?
I don’t feel for ScarJo (she’s far richer than I will ever be), but since she is the only one in a position to punch Mickey where it counts, I’m all for this lawsuit. Disney deserves it.
“payments on Disney+ were reportedly lumped into the totals used to determine Johansson’s bonuses”“but performers, whose deals are all built around ticket sales, don’t,”——Huh, that sounds like total opposites tbh, she got paid but she didn’t???
—-It’s one thing about how they treated her contract, but “against plus” release the fuck what? You actually want to keep this in theatres at this point in time? Some people can’t go dude and dudette, you really think this would have done better for weeks? The drop was happening regardless. You’re no captain Marvel in 2018 (or whatever) I think all party’s are kind rich people throwing fucking hissy fits at this point. How about your public and fans? NAH, IT MY MILLION BUCKS, NO IT’S MINE. Pathetic
So…is no one going to point out to them that all the movies in question (Black Widow, Cruella, Wonder Woman 1984) were empirically poorly assembled movies anyway? In other words, NONE of these were going to be doing CRAZY amounts of profit, no matter where/when they were released.
I mean, there was obvious potential in each (yes – even Cruella), but the end results (be it because of weird editing choices, poor writing, or poor direction) in each case were incredibly *meh* movies, regardless.
Widow was mostly good, WW84 was mostly bad, & I refuse to see Cruella on general principle.
I reckon Wonder Woman 84 would have been huge in the non-pandemic timeline, not because it was good (it wasn’t IMO) but because the first was pretty beloved.
I am already exhausted by this.
I’m surprised she’s not cleaning anti-Asian discrimination.I hope both sides lose
Feige isn’t Ike Perlmutter. He likes his talent and wants to keep them happy, whether he works with them again or not. His bosses fucked up and he knows it.
But is happy to fuck Florence over after bringing her in early to film Hawkeye
Kevin Feige reportedly “angry and embarrassed” . . . rest of internet looks up “who is this person who looks like Woody Harrelson smashed into Prince William?”
Just more proof that the creative side of Disney and the business side of Disney are two separate things that aren’t in sync with each other. Whoever makes decisions for their tv animation division also has issues with cutting well-performing shows short for no visible reason (and then having said shows almost vanish entirely).
Disney has really been getting some galaxy brained execs, who decide that it’s a good business move to, every once and a whiel, piss off the guy who runs the one arm of their movie business that consistently gives them $500m-$1b hits not once a year, but multiple times a year, for a decade.First Iger is like “ahh! Nazis are mad on Twitter, fire James Gunn now!” and now Chapek refuses to pay ScarJo what she’s owed, for again, a decade of work. Just phenomenal business acumen.
FTR, I would always want to stand next to Jeremy Renner at the photoshoots.
It is amazing to see how people rally around and defend Marvel at all costs. People really believe Kevin Feige had no power here and he’s sad about this? Bullshit. He doesn’t have Disney power, but this thought that “oh he tried and he’s so good to the stars.”I bet he didn’t lose any money over this.
FOH.
I get it – I have little doubt that same-day streaming release, whether it’s for no additional cost like HBO Max or for a premium like Disney+, undermines box office to some extent and it’s completely reasonable for someone whose paycheck is determined at least in part on box office returns to be furious about that. At the same time though, negotiating for a chunk of the gross is always a risk where you’re betting on yourself, and anyone who did that for a movie that got released during the pandemic lost the bet. Had Disney released Black Widow exclusively in theaters I am highly, highly skeptical that more than 15-20% of the people who paid for it on Disney+ would have gone to see it in theaters instead.
Interesting to bring up Cruella, a movie I enjoyed considerably more than Black Widow. I think it was better made, better written, and on the whole better acted (with the exception of Florence Pugh, who to me right now can do no wrong.) That, and having “The Two Emmas” chewing scenery at each other was (chef’s kiss) nothing less than delicious.
Guillotines4All