Scarlett Johansson working on a “top secret” project with Kevin Feige, doesn’t regret suing Disney
It looks like the lawsuit didn't hurt her relationship with Marvel Studios
Aux News Scarlett Johansson
Scarlett Johansson was honored with an American Cinematheque Award on Thursday night, and many outlets on the red carpet took the opportunity to ask the actor about suing Disney earlier this year. Despite some of the backlash she received for the decision, Johansson still firmly stands by it.
“I feel very fortunate that I was able to stand up for what was right,” she told USA Today. “In the end, I’m really thankful that no one else will ever have to deal with that, and so that feels good to me… It feels like some progress.”
She also spoke about the suit with The Hollywood Reporter, saying, “It was a very surreal time because, of course, the film had come out and was hugely successful and that was a big celebration. I had a baby and that was obviously a life-changing, amazing, celebratory thing.”
Johansson added, “In a way, that sort of buoyed me through the very uncertain, stressful time. I feel mostly very fortunate that nobody will have to go through what I went through and that it’s made, I think, a positive impact in the industry and hopefully for artists and creatives’ lives and livelihood.”
In the lawsuit, Johansson claimed that Disney broke their contract with her by simultaneously streaming Black Widow on Disney+ and releasing it in theaters, causing the actor to lose out on millions from box office bonuses. (She reportedly got $40 million in a settlement.)
However, things between Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige and the actor seem to be resolved. While giving a speech praising Johansson’s talents, he revealed that they’re currently working on a “top secret Marvel Studios project,” as reported by Deadline.
Feige says the upcoming project has nothing to do with her Marvel character, Black Widow. He didn’t reveal much—given how it’s a secret—but he did say that, whatever it is, Johansson will also produce it.
84 Comments
It was embarrassing to watch sites like this cover that lawsuit. Anyone with half a brain realized that once the check was cut, all would be forgiven.
Disney wasn’t going to put up with the bad PR. They’ve also got Elizabeth Olsen, Brie Larson, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Angela Bassett, Angelina Jolie, Kathryn Hahn and other actresses who various levels of fuck-you money. They aren’t going to risk those relationships. No idea what her project could be if it has nothing to do with the Black Widow character.
I mean, there was a moment where Disney was very antagonistic about it, more than companies usually get with these things.
It was good that this bs Disney tried to pull with a top star was publicized hither and yon, especially when they tried to Covid shame her. It helped her case and it alerted the whole world and their sister to the fact that, if Disney was going to treat a top actor this way, they’d certainly have no qualms about screwing a minor actor with no artistic or box office clout.
So that means it shouldn’t be covered?
No, but context matters
Normally, I’d agree. Suing over profit in Hollywood is nothing new and normally it isn’t taken personally. Peter Jackson being an obvious recent example where ridiculous amounts of money were involved. I was taken aback in this case though when Disney came out all guns blazing in their public statements. Normally it’s, “we don’t discuss ongoing litigation,” not, “look at this greedy bitch and… and… COVID something, something too!” I did figure some bridges were burned this time.I’m sure it helps that Marvel Studios, while owned by Disney, is still basically a stand-alone division. The emails in her lawsuit showed that Marvel Studios was completely open to renegotiating her contract in the event that Black Widow was going to go to same day streaming. Her claim was that Disney stepped in and wouldn’t let them. Then you have reports that Fiege was furious with Disney over the whole affair and how it was handled. Her beef was never with Marvel Studios to begin with so I guess that makes sense.Also, I’d assume whatever this project is, it was in the works prior to the lawsuit. I would expect part of the settlement including changes to that contract to insure streaming profit sharing was agreed to and locked in.
Exactly. It’s not like in Hollywood you go to the studio you were working for and say “I think you should have paid me more for this”. If you feel they breached contract then a lawsuit is the path to resolution. The fact that people felt the need to take sides between rich Hollywood actress or mega wealthy Hollywood studio was, as always, kinda weird. It’s not like either outcome help any of us peasants.
“It’s not a Black Widow sequel”[One year later]“It’s not Black Widow sequel, but it expands on that story.”[One week before premiere]“It’s a Black Widow sequel.”
Yeah, I mean what other possible project could she be working on for Marvel? (It would’ve been easy for Tony to bring back whoever he felt like with his snap right? Was he even aware she’d died though? Anyways…)
An alternate universe Black Widow movie. Not technically a sequel.
Note how they said it had nothing to do with her character Black Widow. It could very well have everything to do with Florence Pugh’s Black Widow. Or one of the other Black Widow projects.
With Marvel going all-in on What If? and multiverse stuff, it’s totally possible.But also: she’s been involved with the MCU since nearly the beginning. Her experience working within that framework and all of its contstraints makes her a good candidate for a behind-the-camera talent. Maybe she’ll direct something.
Her experience working within that framework and all of its contstraints makes her a good candidate for a behind-the-camera talent. Maybe she’ll direct something.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. She’s already had success as a producer and is the type of actor (like DeNiro, Dwayne Johnson or Ryan Reynolds) that is also a serious business person. My immediate assumption was that the focus of her work with Feige is behind the camera — even if it involves a franchise that may be vehicle for her as a star.
That or probably something involving whatever the next Avenger thing is.
IMAX: SpidersA new BBC documentary narrated by Scarlett Johansson and co-produced by Kevin Feige and Sir David Attenborough
NGL, I would buy a ticket for that, but then I’m a sucker for nature documentaries in IMAX.
A new BBC documentary narrated by Scarlett Johansson and co-produced by Kevin Feige and Sir David AttenboroughSpecial guest narrator: Tom Holland.Too bad agent Romanoff died, a Spidey/ Black Widow crossover would have been a very enticing project. On the other hand, Peter is partially responsible for opening up the multiverse, so anything is possible.
To be fair, the Soul Gem houses a pocket dimension called Soulworld.Adam Warlock, Pip, and Nebula were able to escape Soulworld in the comics by reincarnating into the bodies of recently dead humans.
That’s true, maybe she will tie in to Adam Warlock’s storyline.
The MCU would really do best not to pull on strange threads to un-kill characters, no matter how bad their deaths were. Giving Natasha and Tony an adventure in the ghost dimensions would at least be less ruinous. The Warriors Three can come along too if they want; Helheim literally has nobody running it at the moment.
I hear they have a mode of transportation unique to the galaxy in which inhabitants dance to provide locomotion to the vehicle.
Why is everyone assuming its Marvel when we know Kevin is working on Star Wars
Avengers 4: Ghost World 2
Enid and Rebecca move into the Avengers complex and roll their eyes at stuff
I would pay all the money for a Marvel movie starring Enid and Rebecca.
“It’s not a Black Widow sequel”[One year later]“It’s not Black Widow sequel, but it expands on that story.”[One week before premiere]“It’s a Black Widow sequel.”Maybe really it’s going to be Wrath of Khan!
It’s a Black Widow prequel…
Perhaps they’re letting her direct something.
Things are resolved because they all just see suing over getting what they are owed as part of business.
It’s the new modern superhero, White Divorcee.
Black Widow 2: Home Alone 7
The Electric Boogaloo?
TBF, Skyfall was Home Alone 7.
She was already in Home Alone 3 so that could get confusing.
She should replace her husband on Update and co-anchor with Sarah Sherman.
You must be either having a good week or a really bad one, because you’ve been on fire lately.
“In the end, I’m really thankful that no one else will ever have to deal with that, and so that feels good to me… It feels like some progress.”
Yeah, it’s great knowing that Disney learned its lesson here and will no longer try any underhanded tactics to deprive any of its creatives or labor forces the money they’ll be owed on any future projects.
Precedent setting and public knowledge. Good for any future female actors that might have to sue Disney trying to screw them over in regards to money.
Good for female movie stars maybe. I’m not sure that even Elizabeth Olsen could pull this same move if the situation somehow repeated itself for Doctor Strange 2, not without it possibly affecting her continued role in the MCU. And I don’t think it will do Iman Vellani, the new Ms Marvel, or Hailee Steinfeld any good at all when they transition to movies and find themselves in similar circumstances. Really the true fallout is that they won’t try this particular move again, but it’s no guarantee they won’t find something else.
It’s a net positive for labor, but still a very small thing at scale.
I believe she’s only referring to “this particular move,” as you say, i.e. streaming same day as theatrical release without amending the contract to take that into account. Every actor and agent is now going to take that possibility into account when negotiating a contract to begin with. Yeah, obviously Johansson has the means and cache that many actors don’t, so their deal likely wouldn’t end up as lucrative regard potential profit sharing, but that’s the norm. At least it would be worked out beforehand so the actor knows what they are agreeing to.Olsen could’ve pulled the same move. It’s not uncommon in Hollywood to sue over a contract dispute, settle, and continue working together. It generally only happens when both parties are making a lot of money off of each other and want that to continue happening. In this case, I was surprised by Disney’s scathing public responses. I thought that might’ve burned that bridge. Marvel Studios is basically a self-run division though and her lawsuit made clear she blamed Disney for the fiasco not Marvel Studios. The emails from Marvel’s lawyers were clear that they would renegotiate her contract if Disney decided to to same day stream. Her claim was that Disney stepped in and wouldn’t allow that to happen. So it’s not surprising she holds no animus towards Marvel Studios itself, and I’m sure her contract for this current project is ironclad.
It’s not like they have a century of such practices.
I honestly didn’t buy people who said it would be the end of SJ working with Disney. This shit is business.
Based on the reports, her issue was not with Feige, but with Disney itself, and apparently Feige was pissed at Disney for it getting to the point where she sued. So I could easily see her still being willing to work with Feige.
Every news report I read said that Feige was angry at the Disney brass, b/c he was under the impression they had cleared the streaming issues with SJ beforehand, and it turned out they hadn’t done anything. So, Disney not only undermined SJ, they sand-bagged Feige in the back of the head too.
Seems to be the case.
The actual MCU itself underneath Feige appears remarkably harmonious given the scale and finances involved. It takes some doing for so many huge movie stars with matching egos to work so closely together for so long without falling out. One or two recastings, one or two rumours, but that’s about all.
Feige has to take a lot of credit for that.
I have a feeling that the James Gunn firing wasn’t Feige but probably Alan Horn and that Feige had a lot to do with rehiring.
Yeah, agreed. That’s why I found the header somewhat confusing: she should never regret fighting against a breach of contract, so why even suggest that?
Yeah this happens a lot- sometimes it’ll temporarily hurt a relationship between talent and the studio but in the long term the studio almost always says “We’d like to continue letting X person make us money.”
“I feel mostly very fortunate that nobody will have to go through what I went through”
Does she think that thanks to her, no woman in Hollywood is ever going to have a dispute over money again?
Precedent setting and public knowledge. Good for any future female actors that might have to sue Disney trying to screw them over in regards to money.
what?
It means they really like her and “Lalalalala, I’m not listening!”
I thought that was Sally Field?
Precedent setting and public knowledge. Good for any future female actors that might have to sue Disney trying to screw them over in regards to money.
She also thinks she can be every woman.
The mental condition is referred to as Johansson’s Burden.
I thought that was Oprah?
Or Chaka Khan?
No, it’s Johansson auditioning to play Whitney Houston.
IIIIIIII’m every woman it’s all ScarJo!
“She also thinks she can be every woman.”
But can it all be in her?
So she thinks she’s Whitney Houston?(Sigh) Last one to the joke again.
Judging by her track record….Yes. Yes she does.
I hear she’s playing Madame Mao in a drama set during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
It’s possible that they are going to do more full CGI Marvel films, and will play a different character. She wouldn’t be precluded from just playing a different character in live-action (ahem Gemma Chan) but, for example, if you tell me that Carrie Coon can’t be elsewhere in the MCU because she was completely unrecognizable as CGI Proxima Midnight then I shall weep. But I think the smart money is on that this is BS and it’s Black Widow…it’ll be nameless Black Widow in the spirit realm, totally unrelated lol
Not MCU, but Chris Evans did play Johnny Storm before Cap.
no one else will ever have to deal with that This, exactly, is why she shouldn’t regret suing Disney, and I would think it’s one of the main reasons she did. She sure doesn’t need the money, but the situation needed to be addressed, and definitely should have been addressed by someone in her situation.
She probably could’ve done without calling that time in her life stressful and uncertain, especially the latter. I can buy that it was probably stressful, at least.
While, yes, monetarily she’s set for life, that doesn’t alleviate stress or uncertainty. The uncertainty she was referring to was how the whole thing would turn out and how it could affect her career. I mean, she was taking on the Mouse. She certainly couldn’t be certain of the outcome.
Whatever else you say about Johansson – and yes, there are things to say – I think she takes her profession seriously, not just for herself but for everyone else making a living as an actor. She fought for a principle and absolutely should not regret it.
It’s a “what if” historical fiction piece. She’s playing Rosa Parks, Anna May Wong, and Indira Gandhi. A real passion project.
They’re probably going to cast her as Lady Deathstrike or some shit.
Ah, this joke has been made already! Yours is better
“I don’t like her because she thinks she can play a wide range of characters”
So the new Gwen Stacey?
However, things between Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige and the actor seem to be resolved.
The article linked clearly says that Feige had problems with Disney, not Johansson.My theory is that, even during the conflict, there were a lot of people at Disney who agreed with her, and when public opinion went on her side, the people responsible for this mess were pushed aside and calmer heads took care of fixing the problem. Which is why Johansson can collaborate with Marvel as if nothing had happened; the conflict was never with them.
Since we’re rewarding people for bad behavior, when does Rittenhouse get his D+ series?
Turns out she was casted as Kamala Khan
Maybe she’s going to direct.
Taking Lea Thompson’s part in the Howard the Duck remake?
It took months… months, to figure out the “feather erection” effect in that scene. The behind the scene accounts of that clusterfuck of a movie are a great though. It’s a masterclass in how to make every wrong decision.
That movie took something pure and good like being turned on by Lea Thompson and made it feel wrong. There can be no greater crime.
Maybe the yet to be announced Fantastic Four or as one of the X-Men?