What we are seeing here is “sour grapes” from Johansson and a smart business person with Dwayne Johnson.
In another comment I made I pointed out that according to BoxOfficeMojo (from IMDB) as of a couple days ago “Black Widow” has done pretty darn good worldwide (about $325 million). Not mega-huge, but considering folks are not returning to theaters in droves everywhere, not bad.
Being that Johnson’s production company was part of Jungle Cruise movie they are probably already getting a cut of the steaming service, and Johnson is listed as an exec producer on the new “Behind the Attraction” series on Disney+. So yes, he would be in “lock-step” with Disney because he is smart and has already done numerous projects with them in various capacities. This is someone who clearly has a long-term business goal with Disney and is doing it right. Just look at all the fun promotions he has done at Disneyland for the movie, YouTube videos for Disney and so on.
Johansson was also an executive producer for Black Widow. I don’t know if she has a crew like DJ, since she is new to this role, but it makes sense that she filed a lawsuit. In my opinion if you’re greedy and need the money then sure but I agree on DJ’s perspective to just let the movie gain a much attraction as possible.
Come on some of you people. It’s a total breach of contract. It doesn’t matter whether the contract says anything about streaming or not. And who really knows that anyway did you see it? The point is it’s unfaithful to the terms of the contract. You can’t in good faith make a deal with somebody like that and change it in a way like that. It’s really common sense to shoot your damn head. Order if they were like oh what will give you 5% extra if you just do theater only and not streaming. But all these numbers and negotiation are based off of projections of it not being streamed at the same time. It makes a huge difference. No I know Disney feels like and every production company really that they have to change the model a little bit and that’s fine. But you have to compensate people or redo their contracts. It’s like if you were an NBA basketball player and they negotiated a thing with you we’re not going to pay you anything but we’ll give you 5% of the arena tshirt sales. And the season opens they say well we’re moving all merchandise sales to online only. So your contract was only for in the arena. It’s the same thing.
Actually, I read an article the other day that said in her contract Disney was supposed to wait a certain amount of time before releasing the movie to stream. However, they went ahead with the streaming release same day as the theatrical release so Disney did in fact breach their contract with her! But who care, she’s a girl and is throwing a “tantrum” right!!?! I hope she wins!!!
The fact that when living in a digital age, we’re even before covid a lot of things are going to streaming, she signed a contractor the only stipulation was that they she gets a percentage of box office profits, means that she gets a percentage of box office profits regardless what happens at release. The fact that she was naive enough to say hey I live in a digital age but I’m not going to even make sure there’s any kind of claws in my contract to make sure I get paid for streaming is her own damn fault. Furthermore Black widow didn’t come out until after a year of covid, it was still in production when all the theaters are closing down and several other things had gone to streaming for initial release including other Disney movies, but she apparently felt no need to make sure that she was going to be paid and go back and talk to them to renegotiate prior to the movie coming out having seen what all was going on with other digital releases that should have triggered something in her brain to discuss it before release. Once the movie was released in her contract was completely valid in black and white signed by her to accept box office release percentages she’s got what she gets and that’s all she gets.
At this point that can be just a very expensive learning experience to next time make sure to read the contract and make sure it’s going to ensure you get paid before the work is completed and released.
It actually isn’t the same, mate. Not based on your example, anyway. The film still got a theatrical release; wasn’t just slapped onto D+ solely. Honestly, no part of that equates, when you really think about it. The whole central deal of the “versus” is based on personal convenience of the consumer. Even if t-shirt sales were offered alongside an online purchase option, realistically, more of that merch would be purchased on location, unless it is somehow significant, which, being the very first game of the season, no one is really THAT invested that they would go through the trouble of going online to buy a t-shirt from a season opener that they didn’t even go to. So, yeah, not the same. Now, had you said something along the lines of ticket sales, or really anything that would actually translate in anything close to a 1:1 fashion, then you could’ve saved us both the trouble of me having to type this out.
She signed a bad deal. There’s no good faith in a “contract” word for word is meticulously crafted into the context of the text. If it was THAT alarming did nobody on her team notice? In her 10 years of working with Disney? She signed a bad deal and thought she was RDJ.
Ok and what about the fact that she waited 3+ months since the announcement of the movie being streamed to sue for breach of contract. She knew it was going to streaming and then only sued after it was released not when she learned it would be streaming.
If your boss cut your salary in half after you did the work… would you be upset? That’s essentially what happened with Johansson. They expected a Billion worldwide pre covid. So I get her being upset when the compensation was planned on expectations if a certain box office.
Disney honestly needs to give her a bump based on actual vs projected and move on.
Only a handful of movies have made a billion dollars. There is no way they were expecting that much for a movie that didn’t involve a superhero. I paid the $30 on Disney plus and I wish I could get a refund.
If they had a legal contract and a deal is a deal Disney ought to pay up otherwise what good is a contract with them.
Actors getting no money for streaming services. My contract with them said exclusive theatrical release …. Theatrical release and streaming services at the same time is not exclusive.
It’s supposed to be a discrepancy of something like 50 million dollars….
If the executive producer of a film company loses 50 million dollars on their first film …. How long is that executive producer going to keep her job?
It’s called business folks.. Scarlett is just doing business.
The issue is Johansson’s pay for black widow is tied to box office revenue and that is why there was a box office only release in the contract to protect her percentage of box office sales from the contract. Disney obviously didn’t meet the contract and not doing so caused financial damages. It would be like the real estate developer telling the contractor you get 20% of all sales for the homes we are building then saying we are going to rent out 40% of the homes (when the contractor gets no cut of the rental income) because it will generate more revenue for us even though our contract was to build and sell the homes. Even if it isn’t explicit all homes must be sold the change in contact where Disney is acting in bad faith by knowingly causing a loss of income to Johansson by reducing the box office sales. They needed to resolve the contract by offering a cut of streaming sales too. Dwayne Johnson has done so much Disney the future business relationship is worth more than any losses. There is no future business with Johansson in the works, this was her last Marvel movie.
First and foremost this being the 21st century, streaming services have been around since well before covid in a lot of studios we’re talking about the option of releasing directly to streaming before covid even pushed the matter, it is part of the world we live in… that being said, if she was really concerned about any profits off the streaming side of things she should have actually read her contract prior to signing it and made sure there was a claws in there to cover her in just such a situation. Now in the case of Black widow, by the time that movie had been released several other movies have been released during covid specifically to streaming as premier access in light of theater shutdowns and closures. The first thing she should have done when some of those other movies were released if she was that concerned about it is go through the contract and approach Disney with the contract before the movie was released while they were finishing production say hey what’s my assurances that I’m going to be paid if this happens with this movie. The fact that she was too naive to do any of that means that at the time of release her contract was valid her contract only covers box office profits she only gets paid for box office profits it’s too late to piss and moan and stomp your feet because of your delayed stupidity.
Meanwhile, all of you opinion here is completely invalidated because, and stay with me, Johansson has a contract that Disney breached. Doesn’t matter how much she made, bringing that up just shows you are okay with the mistreatment of female stars.
All you people saying she’s greedy for filing the suit. You need to put the shoe on the other foot. If it was Johansson that broke her contract, she’d have fines to pay up the butt and other negative reprocussions behind the scenes you know damn well Disney would enforce and cash in on. And if they’re allowed to just breach contracts at anytime, everyone would suffer. The contracts are signed and agreed upon by both parties. And are expected to be upheld for the benefit of both sides. If Disney wanted to go digital, then they should have done it right without breaching a contract they agreed to. How would you like it if you signed a lease for something and the bank/owners decided to change said lease without your approval.
Yes she had a clause in her contract to not stream added 2 years ago. In case y’all haven’t noticed we’ve had a pandemic take over our lives . Disney did give her more compensation for streaming. I’m sure Disney did break her contract but I’m sure they didn’t make as much money as they were suppose to either. Long story short both are in the wrong in my opinion
SJ had a contract. Disney broke that contract. They could have followed Warner Brothers’ model and worked with their talent to revise their contracts when it appeared that streaming would be the local course of action. They did not. That is honestly all that matters in this scenario.
What contract did Disney break? I wasn’t aware part of her contact was that Disney had to release the movie in theaters only. She got paid the amount from theater sales. What is the breach of contract? How is Disney required to follow what other studios did? SJ is full of BS. She claims Disney released both at the same time just so they wouldn’t have to pay her. I think she is so full of herself she’s delusional.
If you look at literally anything that’s been said about the whole thing, you would know that in 2019 Disney added a clause in her contract that stated it would be a theatrical release only.
I looked on deadline. Com I couldn’t find the clause you’re referring to agreed in the contract. From what I read it seems marvel promises her a theatrical release. SJ lawyers goes on to state what all the parties involved understood a theatrical release to mean. The contract with Disney does not spell out that Disney’s guarantees a theatrical release only. I hate the super rich and huge corporations more than anyone, especially Disney but it really seems like her lawsuit has no merit as Disney’s lawyer’s state. I will be extremely shocked if she wins this. I’m not debating what’s morally right or wrong just how a court is going to handle the lawsuit.
If you’re actually not aware of this contract, why do you think you should have an opinion on it? Maybe read the articles regarding the lawsuit a little more carefully.
The allegations in the lawsuit say exactly that, that the terms as they were understood at the time meant the standard exclusive theatrical window. For all the money potentially at stake, the case is going to turn on a lot of very expensive lawyers arguing some pretty minute semantics.
The contract stated exclusive theatrical release… her pay was based upon percentage of profit at box office. They violated the contract. It is not delusional… you just apparently have a problem with a female pushing her weight to get the pay that was agreed upon like many male actors have before her.
Do you know if it said “theatrical release” or “exclusive theatrical release?” This might be arguing about semantics, but in contracts, it’s important. SJ has said exclusive theatrical release, but did they just put “theatrical release” in the contract and just ate assuming everyone is going to go with an exclusive meaning? It’s in the theaters, so it has a theatrical release. If you don’t have the contact in front of you, you don’t know.
You’re ridiculous lmao the contract she has with Disney says that it will on release in theaters and she would get a percentage of theatre money . But then they decided to also release it on their streaming platform which made even more money . They didn’t give her a piece of that because there’s nowhere in the contract that says she gets any money for streaming . But it also says it won’t be streamed sooooo… that’s a breach of contract. DJ is doing the same exact thing n yet he is smart n she is whining ? Its not about the money . She doesn’t need the money, it’s the principle. DJ doesn’t need the money . It’s just a clear breach . You can’t say hey we’re only releasing at the theatre n you’ll get a cut and then release it at the theatre and online and only try to give profits from the theatre . Disney is the 1 that is greedy . They make/made literally billions dollars off their movies and still try to take people money . Its sad
It’s because disney gets all the profit of the streaming service meaning they only have to pay her based off of box office revenues that’s not right dosneknows they wouldn’t have made as much money if they only released in theaters so the released to streaming service and the should have included SJ in the profit of that as well. So it’s not BS it’s disney being thiefs more or less
U have to remember BW was supposed to be released BEFORE the pandemic so that is why she didn’t have that clause in there. Bottom line…the mouse did her dirty.
Yes but in the 21st century even before covid, studios were talking about theatrical release on streaming services such as Netflix or Disney starting their own for that purpose as the way of the future, before covid actually pushed them into making it a reality, streaming services have been around for years a prudent person would have made sure that clause was in there with or without the pandemic.
They were all kinds of chats going around when Disney plus was coming out that eventually Disney would be able to release their new releases direct to the public without the theaters when they were starting that program, and at that time covid was never even thought of so the fact that this movie was supposed to come out pre-covid means literally nothing in the grand scheme of things, she didn’t cover her own ass when it came to making sure she was going to get paid, a contract is a contract to deal as a deal as long as Disney’s honoring what IS written in the contract she hasn’t got a leg to stand on she signed it away.
This has nothing to do with sour grapes. This is a simple contract issue. Disney is trying to renege on their contract with Johanssen because of the pandemic & it’s not ok. Disney had every ability to include a clause that would cover them in the case of something like a natural disaster or pandemic- they did not- so they must honor their deal. Period.
Contract is based upon percentage of box office. Home streaming does not count for box office. It’s Disney screwing over its actors, knowingly, with an excuse of “but COVID”. Both movies sucked. But Disney absolutely, 100% knew what they were doing, which was acting in bad faith.
Sour grapes or not, the fact is Disney has been breaking it’s contracts. Johansson is right to hold them accountable and unless other actors do the same, Hollywood execs will just keep breaking the law and steamrolling anyone who opposes them.
DJ is an industry heavyweight at this point and isn’t even remotely just an ‘actor’ anymore. He’s his own industry and makes money acting, producing, promoting, etc. Anytime he appears he’s got 3 revenue streams running ?. He’s essentially one tiny step down from the entire Disney empire. I love seeing his business moves as much as his movies. Good for him!
I think regardless how it was released, either theater or streaming, then each vehicle counts. Disney has been doing its best to under cut the actors, pretty petty and cheap for a 120 bil corporation in my opinion.
Sounds very sexist and patriarchal. They both got done by Disney, they just got done differently. Scarlett should have read the fine print but Disney never plays a game they can’t win. With the Eock, he has a large fandom and has has a longer resume as he has been around for decades as the people’s champion so his presence in a suit seems more justified and credible, but give Scarlett a break.
You made a case against her and then FOR her. Johnson is producing. So if the movie is online or not, he gets paid AND is his 1st project with disney. Johanson is likely on her last. It’s 100% not sour grapes if you’re getting paid through profit from 700 million vs 350
I think it’s really interesting to note how the woman in your comment is sour and retaliating, but the man is deserving of the lawsuit he may be planning. Look up Johansson’s actual creds, and maybe learn something while you’re at it.
Pull you head outtake where the sun don’t shine and learn how not to be a sexist pig.
I would like to thank disney and all the others who are thinking of those like me and my family. We have two high risk individuals in our immediate family and yes we are all vaccinated. Even with vaccination we chose not to go to the movies because of the delta variant. Without disney and others we would be cut off from seeing new movies. I love Scarlett but what is it the money we are not rich but what does she need 50, 60, 70,etc. I just dont want to get my little girl sick who adores Scarlett and has asthma and will beg to see the movie. Disney makes this not a issue. Thanks Disney
Well as long as you abs your family are happy. That’s all that matters. Scarlett Johansson had a family too but she’s making millions so that doesn’t matter. Humans are all awesome!
So don’t bite the hand that feeds, even if that hand is taking the food out of one’s mouth? I wonder if you’d be so pro mega rich corporation if said Corp was trying to take away your livelihood.
While I’m not against the current business model and it’s something that’s here to stay, pandemic or not, it’s something that these actors are just going to have to include in their contracts going forward. I can appreciate that these actors go into the movies to be seen in cinemas rather than tiny computer screens or cell phones, and these movies are absolutely better if seen in a cinema than distracted by the outside world on home devices, but whilst there’s still so much uncertainty with new variants this is something to deal with for now.
And I saw ‘Jungle Cruise’ yesterday at my local cinema and absolutely loved it, gave me ‘The Mummy’ with Brendan Fraser vibes which isn’t a bad movie to be compared to. Emily Blunt was delightful as ever and I loved Jack Whitehall, yes he’s a straight man, but I don’t care, he played the role well (I’m a gay man and I don’t care who plays gay roles so long as they do them well, that’s what acting is, many gay actors play straight characters, so long as the look and intent is right is really doesn’t matter).
Right but that’s the point. SJ claims she put “Exclusive Theatrical Release” into the contract specifically out of concerns of the theatrical release window being shortened due to Disney plus. Disney plus hadn’t launched yet.
I’m guessing either someone missed the contract addition at Disney or else they said We don’t care we will defend in court. They clearly feel they can win the PR fight which honestly may be more important.
…..and people wonder why VFX companies are working so hard to perfect human CGI. Actors are greedy…..I mean let’s be real, 20mil for a few months of pretending….at least professional athletes get physically beat up for that kind of money. I say just perfect the human CGI and pay a voice Actor a tenth of that. And on the legal aspect, if I had to bet, I’d say there’s a clause in the disney contract that protects them. They have more lawyers than the devil.
The problem is not with the duel release business model. The problem is that Disney and the actors negotiated pay based on the box office profits and then Disney decided (after negotiations were done) to add the Disney Plus release. The actors’ pay is greatly affected when people don’t have to go to the theater, they can just watch from home. Disney should include all the premiere access profits when counting the success of the films as it pertains to the actor pay. It is like if you made a deal with someone to sell their product and they would pay you based on sales and then they immediately opened a store and sold the same product for less. It would obviously hurt your sales and be unfair.
Disney already has a history of breaking contracts and abusing the people that work for them. Most people just take it because they want more work or don’t want to get blacklisted by Disney in the industry. Anyone trying to stand up against the massive corporation is practically a hero. Disney can’t continue to walk all over everyone and expected continued goodwill from the public.
I’m fairly certain these contracts were negotiated long before the world wide pandemic started.
Disney changed things based on what was going on in the world at the time. You can’t assume anything about what they did. No one besides Disney execs know the truth so people should stop playing know it all and making false accusations against them.
What about Mark Ruffalo? He’s been skipped over a few times and still doesn’t have a solo movie and his character is way more popular than BW she got 20M not $20 she seen other studios paying actors and actresses money and then tried it herself it didn’t work she’s mad go to DCEU if Marvel ain’t treating you right but assuming that theater release only would make bank right after a global pandemic your bugging
This has been reported as well. Universal still owns the distribution rights to the Hulk. A Hulk movie will never be made as long as that’s the case. Now there is speculation that the right returned in 2020 but Disney nor Universal has confirmed this.
One must feel so terribly mortified for both parties, why, with a pandemic raging around the world, people being bulldozed into their mass graves, and these two parties quibbling over money, poor souls, both must be down to their last $50million or so, maybe we should take a whip around and send it to them, my kids have offered to empty their money boxes for them. GET A GRIP ON REALITY YOU GREEDY BASTARDS.
Personally as a disabled person I welcome Disney plus and their model, I’m under no illusions that they are doing this to try and get every last penny possible but going to the cinema just isn’t an option for me, I have to wait until it’s either on dvd/Blu-ray/Amazon .. which sucks, being that I live on In the 21st century with lighting fast internet, everyone I know is talking about and laughing about the latest movie and I’m there on the corner of the conversation like “heh..yeah, sounds amazing can’t wait to see it” and then it goes awkwardly quiet, but this levels the playing field, I can watch all the latest Disney on day one!.
…I hope more companies move to this model, I remember universal wanted to do it also and AMC threw a big hissy fit and forced them down, nobody ever thinks about us disabled people.. we’re an after thought and at best a marketing stunt.
I totally get it. I would be for having all movies released the same day as theares so everyone gets a choice to see movies where they want, but as long as it doesn’t hurt the theatres. I have General Anxiety Disorder and one of the only few places I can find some relaxation is at the theatre. I love the theatre because for me there are less distractions (yes, it sucks when people talk or on their phones, but I learn to live with it). It is the one place I can shut my brain off for two our and enjoy it. I do understand that there are people who feel better watching at home and I hope they can figure out a way to have both…an option for those like you and like me.
I work construction. Have my own business. Have 1 employee. I say how much I want before doing a job. The customer agrees to pay me that amount. I finish the job. I get paid. That simple. They can do the same. Yes, it’ll take a little guess work on their part, but by now, film makers and all those people in the credits should be able to figure if a movie will do well or suck when it’s finished. Then the actors/actresses can finish the job, get paid and move on without giving a darn where the movie plays.
A resolution to this conflict seems obvious- just have Disney treat revenue from Premium Access the same as theatrical revenue, then pay the actors accordingly. Simple!
This is actually not a simple solution, as the share per purchase would need to be negotiated, given that the viewership per purchase would be slightly higher than the 1:1 ratio of ticket sales to viewers.
Anyone angry at ScarJo about suing just doesn’t understand, this isn’t about sour grapes by a rich jerk, it’s not about her ego wanting to only be on the silver screen and it’s not about her wanting to deny you the convenience of watching at home if you’re one of the millions who did.
It’s about the fact that a deal was in place between the talent and the publisher for a revenue share for the release of the movie, and the publisher reneged on the deal, directly reducing the talent’s compensation and keeping more of it for themselves. Disney created this problem when they decided to dual release in theaters and online but failed to negotiate an amended contract with the talent prior to the release. Thus, a lawsuit.
Right now everything is being litigated in the public forum. Everyone seems to have an opinion, but no one outside of Disney and ScarJo (and her reps) have seen the contract. There’s probably a force majeure clause that will become the disputed portion of the lawsuit with Disney stating the global pandemic nullified portions of the contract whereas ScarJo’s team will say it doesn’t. Either way, both parties are looking bad for certain segments of the fandom. Chapek needs to get his PR department in order though…the Disney team’s comments didn’t come off very well.
Or it can just be “theatrical release” vs “exclusive theatrical release.”
They might have just put “theatrical release” in the contract and assume it to be exclusive as that’s how it was in the old pre-streaming days. Times changed but some lawyers may have not caught up with the times. This will change moving forward though. But without the actual contract, we cannot tell for sure. We could argue spirit of the wording, but that’s going to be a judge deciding it if it doesn’t get settled first.
Actually they have gone on record to say that she will get money from the premier access. She just had to wait until the premier access fir the film is finished. All this is about is the notion that if you forced people to only see it in the cinema it would have done better (when in fact it would have been more likely to have done worse)
Exactly! As rich as the company Disney is they still try and make an extra buck when they can. And this goes for everything Disney. Because in the end it’s the company shareholders that look at bottom lines and if they feel they are on the smaller end of ANY profits then it’s an issue. Whatever is in that 8.5×11 paged signed contract is enforceable. Only they know as of now what’s on it. Disney may have found a loophole but I doubt Scarlet would try & take them on if it was solely about money. She might go public & talk about how they short changed her with a crappy contract but not redefining the terms of her contract. That in itself would be Hollywood suicide & still might be since Disney has a long arm. It’s not the 1st time we’ve heard about stories of Disney being sneaky, controlling & greedy. Either way no matter the opinions & what side they lay on the truth will come out.
Not to mention, Scarlett made 20 million off of one film. It took maybe 8 months to make. So what if they added Disney plus. They know the delta variant is here and are trying to make sure those who don’t want to risk it can stay in and enjoy it. Disney does own the damn thing. Like she could of been like ok so what is my income from this in total going to be since you added it to stream. I’m fairly certain Disney would of found middle ground with her. I mean movies are for the fans right? I mean given people are broke more now than ever and still are going to cinemas, maybe Scarlet j can appreciate that fact. I mean she made more in months than many of us would make combined in a lifetime.
It’s extremely doubtful that her first line of recourse was a very public lawsuit. This is what happens when the corporation refuses to negotiate with you.
Disney is in the wrong. They broke a contract. If we were talking someone making $20,000 a year vs a corporation who broke their contract and basically stole their compensation, there would be no question of who was in the wrong. But because it is an actress who makes a more than decent wage suddenly the fact that she’s unhappy with Disney cheating her out of her negotiated contract and compensation makes her unreasonable and greedy. It’s ridiculous.
There was nothing in her contact that said they movie was too be released in theaters ONLY.
SJ claims Disney promised her it would be a theatrical release.
Disney claims they honored the contract.
From the information available her lawsuit has no merit. She’s bitter, feels like she missed out and is trying to try it into sexism. There was a world wide pandemic. She needs to grow up and stop listening to lawyers, agents and managers who are just trying to line their own pockets.
I think that when Disney told her it would be a theatrical release and at the time of the contract being agreed upon if
No other option existed to be an alternative to a theatrical release then that automatically limits the movies release to theatrical only no matter if exclusive or any other limiting word was in front of theatrical release or not. It would be understood that if the only means to show the movie was a theatrical release hen it’s limited to that one option as no other means exist or are expected to exist that could undermine that understanding. In this case, the only way Disney could fairly use another means is to have it stated specifically in the contract as such.
We don’t know if they broke contract. Contracts are complicated documents that tend to contain things that can be interpreted differently. None of us have any idea how ScarJo’s representation are interpreting things vs how Disney is reading into the contract. Most major contracts contain a Force Majeure clause that usually state that the contract or portions of the contract can be considered null and unenforceable due to unforseen circumstances such as acts of nature, etc. ScarJo’s lawyers will probably argue that the pandemic was waning and that the contract was fully enforceable (provided there actually was language stating the movie would be released “exclusively” in theaters vs language just stating that it would be released in theaters would no mention of exlusivity). Disney could interpret that the pandemic triggered Force Majeure and that in essence the contract for “exclusive” release was nullified. But in good faith, they extended ScarJo’s participation to the premier access revenue. Again….who knows. We’re all just guessing at this point. For any of us to jump on one train or the other is just fandom rearing it’s ugly head.
You give Disney FAR to much credit! Don’t ever kid yourself to believe they care if the fans get to see the movie, they care about the bottom line! How much can we(Disney) make, who cares about actors, producers, contracts, or fans! Just give Disney their money!
Everyone needs to boycot disney they think it’s ok to screw someone then trow the. Away when they fight back is wrong an needs to be stopped now before it gets out of hand
Exactly. I wonder if there what communication was made prior to filing. Business models had to shift quickly in the past year and it’s extremely difficult to feel any sort of sympathy after seeing that $20 mill check. It feels like a “read the room” moment.
Disney is just another example of a big name company out for the people and as soon as they get a chance, they stab whomever they need to in the back and rip people off to make another billion.
I look at this the same as when any other millionaire/billionaire guffaws over being screwed by a small fraction of money…. When it’s more than any of us will make in a lifetime.
No one needs that much money anyway. She’s no different from Bezos in that regard.
I think it’s weird that people are defending a greedy millionaire that is prioritizing her profit over the encouragement of safe viewing.
You’re one of those people who somehow look at others who make a lot of money and try to justify that it’s somehow ok for them to be screwed over because it’s more money than you make and that they have plenty of money so why should they have an issue with it… they make what they make because they have the talent and skills that they honed for years to get them where they are now. They didn’t luck into their situations and being jealous of what they make because you don’t have their abilities is really stupid.. or do we assume that you’d be ok by being unfairly screwed out of a large sum of money since you already have a bunch of money still? I think not.
I like the model. There is no way I am going to the theatre right now. Plus it is good for families. So hard to get kids to be still in the theatre. It is up to the actor to negotiate to protect their interest. If I were an actor I would not ask for theatre release only at a time like this. They are still getting exposure, even if they do not make as much money.
This is a typical Disney move in that the corporation doesn’t just want a piece of the pie. It doesn’t even want a few pieces of the pie. No folks! Disney want the whole damn pie! This is a typical edge our bets so we’ll take it all. They are unmining and technically undervaluing The Theater Industry not to mention the Actors. But they also want to edge their bets so they release the movie on Disney Plus. And before we have anybody say, but Covid. No Covid is not an excuse. Covid isn’t an unexpired ticket for companies to do what they want, when they want. But hey! Good ol Capitalism.
This is no different than a company such as Walmart shorting one of their cashier’s or stockers check for no other reason than because they can.
Yes she got paid a lot, she didn’t however get paid what she was contractually owed.
Disney made 65.39 billion dollars in 2020 during a pandemic while so many people lost their jobs including their own employees. The bottom line is they are a dirty company and I for one applaud a mere actor calling them out and airing their crooked ass ways.
In all due respect, Disney owns all of this And they can do what they want. The movie was released in theater after a very long delay . For a while they were considering only releasing it on Disney+ so she should be happy if got released in theater at all.
You do all know that if SJ was a man, more than half of these comments wouldn’t exists. A breach of contract is a breach of contract, no matter how much money you are perceived to already have or gain from that contract. And Disney bringing up that amount was dirty. Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth, debatable, but she has every right to sue them
You do all know that if SJ was a man, more than half of these comments wouldn’t exists. A breach of contract is a breach of contract, no matter how much money you are perceived to already have or gain from that contract. And Disney bringing up that amount was dirty. Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth, debatable, but she has every right to sue them.
I read in a deadline article that although Johansson’s suit claims she was promised an exclusive release, the wording may have been less clear in the actual agreement. It may have said something along the lines of a full theatrical release, which refers to the number of screens and time in theaters, but probably didn’t specifically dictate it couldn’t also be released simultaneously on streaming, partly because it wasn’t expected they would change to this model pre-Covid. The deadline article said it was unclear of the wording, while this article stated it as fact… might want to be extra sure your know this, as that’s a big assumption according to other sources.
Quote from the lawsuit that was from contract.
”
Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the
role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical
motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For
the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines
to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical
release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).
”
Copy of text on is deadline . com.
Her lawyer claim this implies exclusive theatrical release based on past precedent. Courts will decide, but I am not sure she will win this one.
Worse for her, she may not be high on list to cast at the biggest media company anymore. Also, will her character be included in future films if they make more? Many other characters are more popular it seems.
Good grief, too many people hear are looking into this the completely wrong way. If it is just a covid thing then pay her premier time. I don’t care if she made a billion dollars on the film and still sued them, you must realize that a contract is a Contract. If you break the contract you will get sued, what do you think Disney would have done if she broke it. Besides Disney throwing out her salary like that was just rude and BS. Too many people are idiots they see how much Disney paid someone and now they are on Disney side even though if they were wrong. Just shows alot of people are idiots and quit being jealous cause you aint got any money. In all reality there is not enough evidence supporting either side for the public and you all are making a bunch of accusations. Look at all the media’s sheep
I find putting food on the table difficult. 1 million would be great for me. Instead of casting actors offer jobs to ordinary people. In the age of pandemic with people out of work this is strange to say the least.
I love the hybrid model. Cheaper than thing the five of us to the cinema. Something we would not do for cost and public health reasons. Loved watching this at the weekend.
IMHO, these two actors are not stupid. They have experienced people behind them looking out for their best interest and know how to advise as such. You’d think Johanssen and Johnson graduated with MBAs? Think again!
The problem with social media is that it allows everyone including people with intelligence with the subject matter and people without the understanding of the subject matter. And here’s another subject that there’s a lot of people who have no understanding of the specific issues. So I’m reading a lot of goofy replies… 90% of them…
Disney made my parents drive 30 miles home because my hair touched my collar. Haha. His daughter speaks the truth about Disney. How about people with less money getting passed bye in line with people with more $ ? Average cost at a visit and stay is 5 to 7 grand? Far cry from the 120.00 for the family. On the other hand I cant cry for somebody who got payed up front 20 million dollars. That’s pathetic. And do are the folks who stand on line while people pass them up.
To my way of thinking, it’s a bit selfish but my situation is different. I am from a family that was catastrophically affected by covid. I have 2 senior citizens in my home that can no longer afford to be out among crowds of people. In case some.of you haven’t noticed there’s STILL a pandemic going on. And even mask mandates going back into effect. I pay for HBO Max and my reason is that, they stream new movies, same day as theaters. My parents were able to watch many new movies with us. I haven’t heard of any of those celebrities complaining yet…none! I get that she’s upset because of the contract but what about the fans, the seniors and the little kids and all those in between who love Marvel and can’t go to a movie because of their immune systems. It’s sad that the answer is always money first, people second. By the way , where I live we have a drive inn that we love and it’s a great way to avoid indoor theaters and we.also went and PAID to see Black Widow..
This has nothing to do with the accessibility of streaming vs theatre for new movies. This is about if someone was aware that their movie would be streamable for a fee and if their contract stated they get a portion of the money made via streaming.
Its astounding the amount egocentric bias displayed by some of these comments. Whether SJ should get a cut of Disney+ streaming BW has nothing do with disabled people, elderly people, or the pandemic so no one should be basing their opinion of the situation on those things. I’m not trying to be rude, comments like that are just missing the point.
Bottom line for me is actors get paid a portion of ticket sales, if their movie is also being released via streaming (especially for an additional fee on top of subscription fee) during opening week or whatever then they should get a portion of the money people are paying to see it.
In my opinion she isn’t being greedy she is simply asking for what she is due. I think what Disney is doing would be similar to your job deciding one year not to give you your Christmas bonus bc you worked so much overtime that week that it equaled what your bonus would’ve been. Then when you questioned it they say well it’s a pandemic things change and then told all the other lesser payed employees how much you made that week with overtime to try and publicly shame you and justify why you don’t need more money despite that being how things always were.
SJ is going after what she believes she is owed and Disney is…well pulling a Disney.
That’s just my opinion and I can guarantee it will have no effect on this case, the house of mouse, or SJ. Nor will it effect me so that’s about as far as I care.
Also some of y’all should check your misogyny, it’s disappointing.
To my way of thinking, it’s a bit selfish but my situation is different. I am from a family that was catastrophically affected by covid. I have 2 senior citizens in my home that can no longer afford to be out among crowds of people. In case some.of you haven’t noticed there’s STILL a pandemic going on. And even mask mandates going back into effect. I pay for HBO Max and my reason is that, they stream new movies, same day as theaters. My parents were able to watch many new movies with us. I haven’t heard of any of those celebrities complaining yet…none! I get that she’s upset because of the contract but what about the fans, the seniors and the little kids and all those in between who love Marvel and can’t go to a movie because of their immune systems. It’s sad that the answer is always money first, people second. By the way , where I live we have a drive inn that we love and it’s a great way to avoid indoor theaters and we.also went and PAID to see Black Widow..
All I know is if I pay $29.99 for a Disney Movie I expect that movie to be mine forever. Not as long as I continue to remain a Disney+ subscriber. If they want to sell their movies that way. I will no longer be paying for either.
Disney reported streaming revenues related to the Premiere Access as part of the B.O. report. Any well-written backend deal SHOULD have been written to base her compensation on Disney’s financial reports. If it wasn’t, then that’s on her and her lawyers. Everyone in the industry recognized that the Pandemic closures of many markets were going to force accommodations by the bean-counters. All this story does is hurt her PR. It makes her look really greedy.
It’s a pity DJ doesn’t understand he is killing a massive portion of his own industry off. An astronomical number of everyday people are employed by the theater industry. To destroy it over impatience and ACTUAL greed is akin to the malls becoming Amazon distro hubs.
Cheering Johanson on, I hope Disney+ folds
I do like the Disney+ option but I do agree it should be available after a number of days so that the box office premier gives correct numbers for opening week. It should also be dependent on the contractual agreements signed. And yes the agreement was signed before the pandemic, but again it was the contract and theater’s are open so the contract should have been honored as signed, or an appropriate renegotiation should have been reached before release. But that is my humble opinion, and what do I know about Hollywood deals.
Johansson has made 20 million already. She wants us to pay more for a movie ticket so she can maximize her income. Yeah f**& her. And f#@& all these overpaid cry babies. How about using unknown actors from now on, I don’t think anyone would care.
So the actors and actresses need to take a paycut because of the pandemic… what is the CEO of disneys income? Sid he reduce hos income to assist others in the pandemic. No he sure did not… and i dont wana hear about tax fee donations ether….
I honestly could not care less, either way. All I see are a flock of birds squawking. Yeah, yeah, “principle”, yada yada. Yeah, yeah, yeah, “contract” blahhhhh.
You know what I see actually happening here, on a broad scale? People are finally waking up from the mindless idol worship. It’s slow-going, but still progress. Cancel culture, stuff like all of this, the “me, too” thing, and old, “powerful” celebrities getting outed for the monsters they are. Keep waking up, people.
We’ve been trying something new. We don’t know if this’ll actually work, or even when this message may reach you, but please, wake up. We’re all waiting for you.
They absolutely have a right to sue and should. This is their salary. I dont care however many millions times they are richer than I am. This is what was negotiated and just because Disney had a loophole for a once in lifetime pandemic does not mean they can change it forever. I am rooting for these actors.
It doesn’t matter if she made 20 M or 2 M, Disney’s actions while possibly legal as they are executed in a grey area that is new, do undermine the fairness and the good faith they had previously put forth when contracting with SJ, and this initial good faith action by Disney would have been something that also brought SJ to the table to finalize the deal. Disney is no dummy when it realized that it could escape a huge amount of lost profit by having to pay SJ an additional amount of money by utilizing its streaming service to enrich themselves while at the same time escaping paying her fairly due to a technicality. They feel that they can stand behind the literal language of their contract with her and win, while there are already instances of the same thing happening with other companies who actually did renegotiate with their talent to address this specific issue. If companies are allowed to contract with you for your services at a certain point iof compensation, but then actively create or find the means to still benefit from your services and escape the compensation you were contracted to receive, then agreements between everyone would become so overly mired in contract language that every industry would grind to a halt as no one would be able to trust anyone else.
Well actors will have to just ask for x percentage of all theatrical, at home streaming, android, iphone, old box tv with rabbit ears, I dont care if its released out your butt, I want whatever percentage agreed upon done.
There are a lot of transactional attorneys in the comments here. Oh, wait, I skimmed the comments and clearly none of you are attorneys who handle these types of transactions.
A few points:
1) A force majeure provision wouldn’t apply here because (this is the simple explanation) the pandemic didn’t result in Disney’s inability to perform it’s obligations under the contract. Disney could have waited to release the film only in theaters, as SJ’s filings allege was required under the terms of the contract, until the pandemic had receded. Disney (based on my professional experience with these types of contacts) wasn’t required to perform in a specific time period (Disney would want to maintain flexibility in timing release). Thus, an intervening event outside of Disney’s control merely delaying when Disney performed would not trigger this provision. This is settled law in this jurisdiction (and every jurisdiction I’m aware of professionally).
2) When interpreting undefined terms in a contract, generally the term will be construed according to the term’s customary usage in the industry at the time the contract was executed. I do not believe the full contract has been released, and none of us can know if full theatrical release is defined within the contact. If it is not defined, arguing that it means released only in theaters is a much more reasonable interpretation versus it meaning released both in theaters and online on the first day. Full theatrical release did not have the latter meaning within the industry, at the time this contract was executed.
3. Every person taking Disney’s side should do some research on Disney’s history. Disney is famous for being extremely litigious and using litigation to outright steal the rights of others who don’t have the resources to fight their lawsuits (almost everyone). Disney is not a good actor. Just knowing it’s Disney makes it much more likely that SJ’s arguments have merit.
Finally, one last point that has nothing to do with the law. Every person commenting about how SJ is being selfish for wanting more money or for her not wanting you to be able to watch it at home. Stop. First, SJ, like any of us, has every right to demand she be paid what the contract stipulated. Second, why should Disney get more money and SJ less as a direct result of Disney’s alleged bad faith act that allegedly violated the terms of the contract? Someone is still getting more money, it’s just now Disney instead of SJ, a giant corporate entity. Why is that more desirable to you? Finally, nothing I’ve read suggests that SJ didn’t want it being streamed online at all, it only suggests she wanted to be fully compensated versus taking a cut in exchange for it. That is her right, and again, the one who profited from it was Disney, the alleged bad actor.
The problem with this is that she was anticipating a certain number PRE-Covid. Then the virus hit, so even if they abided by the contract and released it only in the theaters, her pay would have been smaller than originally believed to have been because people would not be coming out in the same numbers as they would have before Covid. But, they released it online at.the same time, which made the numbers from even further. It would hurt, regardless of the income bracket you belong to. Assuming that her contract says what she says it does(because none if us actually KNOW), then Disney owes her some loot. Period. That’s why they HAVE contracts! If both parties aren’t protected, what’s the point? I hope she’s right, and that Disney has to pay up. That company has been corrupt for a REALLY long time.
I love how in all of this people are accusing Scarlet of being greedy and not the multi billion dollar company to that is Disney….like she’s taking on a small mom and pop company from Cleveland. Poor Disney…I hope their neighbours rally round and bring them soup
I think that it should be what is in her contract are contract are his contract or whoever is doing business with Disney because they are marrbecause the American Jews that running Disney they’re going to take money from anybody so they can put it in their pockets to make millions of dollars in their paycheck I mean look how much the people who run Disney make and what do they do they ever pick up a piece of trash at Disney I mean do they ever go clean the bathrooms no they play golf and have meetings. They also keep up in the price at Disney it’s me and they got it to wear a full person family middle class cannot afford to go to Disney they have to take out a loan and it takes 4 to 5 years to pay back to spend a week at Disney to see the 4 parks.
It all depends on what type of contract these actors had with disney before the pandemic hit. You look at how warner bros. Handle the situation. It was a big mess for a while with the hybrid strategy but they went to the people that it was affecting and renegociated their contract to make sure they get the same amount they were promise in the beginning. Disney didn’t do that and that’s why scarlett and now it seem like emma stone might sue as well. Because disney was greedy and didn’t try to redo their deal when they decided to do a hybrid release. The fact is, Disney is getting 100% of the profit as far as streaming goes. Unless they have it written in their contract, the production company isn’t getting one dollar from the streaming gross so scarlett isn’t seeing anything from the money disney is making with blavk widow on Disney plus so i get why she would want a piece of that pie. Dwayne johnson might have negociate a better deal for his movie and that why he’s not going after them the way others are doing.
What’s the best way to pirate a new movie? Why off TV naturally. Otherwise you get crappy video cam copy from theatre bootlegging freaks. So if actors contract state’s they get % of theatre ticket sales then they are being beat out of $$$. So yes sue the bastards for TV releases.
I applaud anyone who makes a decision to protect themselves from bullies who change contacts to suit their gains and interests alone. Obviosuly, enough pie to go around.
This is clearly an example of the biblical teaching, “THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL” When you put your love of money over your life of people…or your love of truth and fairness… you are a lost soul and someone needs to champion you against such evil.. even if it is only yourself. If you are the author of the original opinion, I hope you will read this and be edified. P.S. you go, Scarlett!!!
Hard to believe Disney hasn’t already thought this out before hand. Maybe SJ’s team is depending on some sort of public backlash?
They will probably settle out of court but considering a big chunk of her career for the last decade has been thanks in part to the Marvel/Disney train, she’s got balls that’s for sure. Guess she’ll either retire early, or start a revolution lol
I haven’t seen her contract but Disney’s been doing movies released in theaters and on Disney+ since the pandemic hit, she should’ve had a feeling her movie would be doing the same too. Not everyone feels comfortable yet to go to the theaters to see a movie no matter how good it looks. I have Disney+ but I can guarantee you that I’m not going to pay $30 on top of my subscription price to see a movie from them when I can just wait a couple of months to see it free on Disney+ with my subscription. I think the way Disney is releasing their movies now is great because it allows people to stay in their comfort zone for the moment and still see the movies they want from them
I never understand why people want to look at the actors as greedy for one in their cut, but not the studio is greedy for not wanting to pay them.
Johansen was an original avenger who had to wait over a decade to get our own solo movie.
The movies doing well but when you look at how much is making, compared to its other marvel counterparts it’s lagging far behind. That cuts into her pockets. Especially since this maybe her last big budget marvel movie, this was likely to be the biggest payday of her career.
Not to mention Disney Lewis the contract. Marvel had alerted them so what was going on beforehand.
So they knew it was a breach of contract and made no attempt to renegotiate or set things right.
As a retired attorney, I find these comments rather amusing. Contract law is pretty cut and dried. If the parties are of an equal bargaining position, then usually the agreement is determined solely based upon the language used in the contract. Unless one party can prove fraud or undue duress. If a party alleges their interpretation of particular contractual language differs from the other party, such as “theatrical release”, then the complaining party’s lawyer must prove the existence of a collateral agreement defining that term, or the defending party must prove the term is commonly used in a specific manner contractually. Any other claimed ambiguity derives from attorney malfeasance.
What the parties understamding of Theatrical release or exclusive theatrical release will be based on whether the contract was signed before COVID or after.
Before COVID most of not all these big marvel movies were not released in theaters at the same time they were released for streaming. If the contract was signed before covid SJ has stronger argument as to intent.
You’re all right in the sense it’s a Breach. You also have to know she knew it was going to be released on Disney+ before. We all did. We all have Disney+ where it states when these movies will be released. Yet a lawsuit didn’t come up til AFTER it was released? Already knowing? It’s because she makes even more money off a lawsuit than if it was just in theaters guys. Wake up it’s Hollywood people. If you don’t know how to make money that’s why you’re not there. A lawsuit, A theatre release, and a streaming release. She makes more than 5% promised with a lawsuit. That’s why the contract was “Broken” She’s an actor guys. And you fell for it ☺️?
Disney will win because they have a loophole technically releases on Disney+ are included with the subscription. They didn’t release it onto Disney+ without extra money so technically it was still a release that was within the clause.
There is enough proof of wrongdoing in the fact that, although Disney released the film in theaters, they accuse if of not caring about covid victims because she objected to simultaneous TV release.
Boohoo I only made a few million for making a movie… I’m gonna die! Get a real life.. I only made 45 grand for working 6 days a week 52 weeks last year doing hard labor. Blood sweat and tears vs makeup chairs and hair styles every day.. Get real! So they streamed your movie… More people will see it streaming than theaters anyway? Businesses are closing down again as I type. People aren’t going to theaters. Greedy isnt a good Look on the super rich!
She should be lucky that POS was released at all. It was pretty much the female winter soldier. But with less acting skill, poor writing and story, no character development and a big man hating undertone.
I just LOOOOVE these armchair legal opinions. Or there are A LOT of Disney employees on here. I HAVE read the contract. Ms. Johansson DOES have a valid claim. If she WAS exec prod, she shelled out more $$$ than she’ll recoup until dvd sales because she gets a % of the “back end”. More than likely Disney will settle out of court so they don’t have to admit breach of contract, because then no one would do business with them again.
And why are y’all getting your knickers in a twist, exactly? It’s not like it’s YOUR money. If you’re feeling bad for The House of Mouse, don’t. Mackey couldn’t run out of money even if every employee was paid $1K every day! LMAO!
Comments for Dwayne Johnson Speaks Out On If He Plans to Sue Disney For ‘Jungle Cruise’ Release Plan
KenG
What we are seeing here is “sour grapes” from Johansson and a smart business person with Dwayne Johnson.
In another comment I made I pointed out that according to BoxOfficeMojo (from IMDB) as of a couple days ago “Black Widow” has done pretty darn good worldwide (about $325 million). Not mega-huge, but considering folks are not returning to theaters in droves everywhere, not bad.
Being that Johnson’s production company was part of Jungle Cruise movie they are probably already getting a cut of the steaming service, and Johnson is listed as an exec producer on the new “Behind the Attraction” series on Disney+. So yes, he would be in “lock-step” with Disney because he is smart and has already done numerous projects with them in various capacities. This is someone who clearly has a long-term business goal with Disney and is doing it right. Just look at all the fun promotions he has done at Disneyland for the movie, YouTube videos for Disney and so on.
Alex
Johansson was also an executive producer for Black Widow. I don’t know if she has a crew like DJ, since she is new to this role, but it makes sense that she filed a lawsuit. In my opinion if you’re greedy and need the money then sure but I agree on DJ’s perspective to just let the movie gain a much attraction as possible.
Jefe
Come on some of you people. It’s a total breach of contract. It doesn’t matter whether the contract says anything about streaming or not. And who really knows that anyway did you see it? The point is it’s unfaithful to the terms of the contract. You can’t in good faith make a deal with somebody like that and change it in a way like that. It’s really common sense to shoot your damn head. Order if they were like oh what will give you 5% extra if you just do theater only and not streaming. But all these numbers and negotiation are based off of projections of it not being streamed at the same time. It makes a huge difference. No I know Disney feels like and every production company really that they have to change the model a little bit and that’s fine. But you have to compensate people or redo their contracts. It’s like if you were an NBA basketball player and they negotiated a thing with you we’re not going to pay you anything but we’ll give you 5% of the arena tshirt sales. And the season opens they say well we’re moving all merchandise sales to online only. So your contract was only for in the arena. It’s the same thing.
Bobabooey
Sorry, reread her contract she has NO leg to stand on.
KC
They’ve never released the contract to the public.
Stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
Jx
How could you have possibly have read her contract? Stop regurgitating what the Disney reps have said. That contract isn’t public. Grow up.
Bryan j dawson
Wrong. She had a clause added to her contact 2 years ago that they wouldn’t release on Disney+ they better the contract. Plain and simple.
Nicole
Actually, I read an article the other day that said in her contract Disney was supposed to wait a certain amount of time before releasing the movie to stream. However, they went ahead with the streaming release same day as the theatrical release so Disney did in fact breach their contract with her! But who care, she’s a girl and is throwing a “tantrum” right!!?! I hope she wins!!!
Jamie Beiter Beiter
Nailed it Jefe
DTP
Disney put the film out on wide release in 4000 screens, the public said no. She has never had a solo film in her past open that big.
She got paid $20million in advance of her participation. I would guess she owes Disney a refund
Derek
Actually Disney owes her nothing.
The fact that when living in a digital age, we’re even before covid a lot of things are going to streaming, she signed a contractor the only stipulation was that they she gets a percentage of box office profits, means that she gets a percentage of box office profits regardless what happens at release. The fact that she was naive enough to say hey I live in a digital age but I’m not going to even make sure there’s any kind of claws in my contract to make sure I get paid for streaming is her own damn fault. Furthermore Black widow didn’t come out until after a year of covid, it was still in production when all the theaters are closing down and several other things had gone to streaming for initial release including other Disney movies, but she apparently felt no need to make sure that she was going to be paid and go back and talk to them to renegotiate prior to the movie coming out having seen what all was going on with other digital releases that should have triggered something in her brain to discuss it before release. Once the movie was released in her contract was completely valid in black and white signed by her to accept box office release percentages she’s got what she gets and that’s all she gets.
At this point that can be just a very expensive learning experience to next time make sure to read the contract and make sure it’s going to ensure you get paid before the work is completed and released.
Markus
It actually isn’t the same, mate. Not based on your example, anyway. The film still got a theatrical release; wasn’t just slapped onto D+ solely. Honestly, no part of that equates, when you really think about it. The whole central deal of the “versus” is based on personal convenience of the consumer. Even if t-shirt sales were offered alongside an online purchase option, realistically, more of that merch would be purchased on location, unless it is somehow significant, which, being the very first game of the season, no one is really THAT invested that they would go through the trouble of going online to buy a t-shirt from a season opener that they didn’t even go to. So, yeah, not the same. Now, had you said something along the lines of ticket sales, or really anything that would actually translate in anything close to a 1:1 fashion, then you could’ve saved us both the trouble of me having to type this out.
I’m not mad…I’m just disappointed.
Hugh
So you’ve seen the contract then?
Tj
She signed a bad deal. There’s no good faith in a “contract” word for word is meticulously crafted into the context of the text. If it was THAT alarming did nobody on her team notice? In her 10 years of working with Disney? She signed a bad deal and thought she was RDJ.
Jordon Patrick Mears
Ok and what about the fact that she waited 3+ months since the announcement of the movie being streamed to sue for breach of contract. She knew it was going to streaming and then only sued after it was released not when she learned it would be streaming.
Michael Smith
If your boss cut your salary in half after you did the work… would you be upset? That’s essentially what happened with Johansson. They expected a Billion worldwide pre covid. So I get her being upset when the compensation was planned on expectations if a certain box office.
Disney honestly needs to give her a bump based on actual vs projected and move on.
Chuck
Only a handful of movies have made a billion dollars. There is no way they were expecting that much for a movie that didn’t involve a superhero. I paid the $30 on Disney plus and I wish I could get a refund.
Kiki
Dwayne shouldn’t have toasted homosexuality. And so sad the innuendo
Terry
@Kiki- what does that have to do with anything in this article? Take your homophobia elsewhere…
Catherine
Why shouldn’t she sue? What is it to all these people commenting? This is her last Marvel movie. Why not make as much as she is due or can?
Clay Harris
If they had a legal contract and a deal is a deal Disney ought to pay up otherwise what good is a contract with them.
Actors getting no money for streaming services. My contract with them said exclusive theatrical release …. Theatrical release and streaming services at the same time is not exclusive.
It’s supposed to be a discrepancy of something like 50 million dollars….
If the executive producer of a film company loses 50 million dollars on their first film …. How long is that executive producer going to keep her job?
It’s called business folks.. Scarlett is just doing business.
John P Reed
The issue is Johansson’s pay for black widow is tied to box office revenue and that is why there was a box office only release in the contract to protect her percentage of box office sales from the contract. Disney obviously didn’t meet the contract and not doing so caused financial damages. It would be like the real estate developer telling the contractor you get 20% of all sales for the homes we are building then saying we are going to rent out 40% of the homes (when the contractor gets no cut of the rental income) because it will generate more revenue for us even though our contract was to build and sell the homes. Even if it isn’t explicit all homes must be sold the change in contact where Disney is acting in bad faith by knowingly causing a loss of income to Johansson by reducing the box office sales. They needed to resolve the contract by offering a cut of streaming sales too. Dwayne Johnson has done so much Disney the future business relationship is worth more than any losses. There is no future business with Johansson in the works, this was her last Marvel movie.
Derek
First and foremost this being the 21st century, streaming services have been around since well before covid in a lot of studios we’re talking about the option of releasing directly to streaming before covid even pushed the matter, it is part of the world we live in… that being said, if she was really concerned about any profits off the streaming side of things she should have actually read her contract prior to signing it and made sure there was a claws in there to cover her in just such a situation. Now in the case of Black widow, by the time that movie had been released several other movies have been released during covid specifically to streaming as premier access in light of theater shutdowns and closures. The first thing she should have done when some of those other movies were released if she was that concerned about it is go through the contract and approach Disney with the contract before the movie was released while they were finishing production say hey what’s my assurances that I’m going to be paid if this happens with this movie. The fact that she was too naive to do any of that means that at the time of release her contract was valid her contract only covers box office profits she only gets paid for box office profits it’s too late to piss and moan and stomp your feet because of your delayed stupidity.
IVXX
Meanwhile, all of you opinion here is completely invalidated because, and stay with me, Johansson has a contract that Disney breached. Doesn’t matter how much she made, bringing that up just shows you are okay with the mistreatment of female stars.
Wow.
All you people saying she’s greedy for filing the suit. You need to put the shoe on the other foot. If it was Johansson that broke her contract, she’d have fines to pay up the butt and other negative reprocussions behind the scenes you know damn well Disney would enforce and cash in on. And if they’re allowed to just breach contracts at anytime, everyone would suffer. The contracts are signed and agreed upon by both parties. And are expected to be upheld for the benefit of both sides. If Disney wanted to go digital, then they should have done it right without breaching a contract they agreed to. How would you like it if you signed a lease for something and the bank/owners decided to change said lease without your approval.
Gmo
Yes she had a clause in her contract to not stream added 2 years ago. In case y’all haven’t noticed we’ve had a pandemic take over our lives . Disney did give her more compensation for streaming. I’m sure Disney did break her contract but I’m sure they didn’t make as much money as they were suppose to either. Long story short both are in the wrong in my opinion
Amelia
SJ had a contract. Disney broke that contract. They could have followed Warner Brothers’ model and worked with their talent to revise their contracts when it appeared that streaming would be the local course of action. They did not. That is honestly all that matters in this scenario.
Peter
What contract did Disney break? I wasn’t aware part of her contact was that Disney had to release the movie in theaters only. She got paid the amount from theater sales. What is the breach of contract? How is Disney required to follow what other studios did? SJ is full of BS. She claims Disney released both at the same time just so they wouldn’t have to pay her. I think she is so full of herself she’s delusional.
Kay McGregor
If you look at literally anything that’s been said about the whole thing, you would know that in 2019 Disney added a clause in her contract that stated it would be a theatrical release only.
Peter
I looked on deadline. Com I couldn’t find the clause you’re referring to agreed in the contract. From what I read it seems marvel promises her a theatrical release. SJ lawyers goes on to state what all the parties involved understood a theatrical release to mean. The contract with Disney does not spell out that Disney’s guarantees a theatrical release only. I hate the super rich and huge corporations more than anyone, especially Disney but it really seems like her lawsuit has no merit as Disney’s lawyer’s state. I will be extremely shocked if she wins this. I’m not debating what’s morally right or wrong just how a court is going to handle the lawsuit.
Dm
If you’re actually not aware of this contract, why do you think you should have an opinion on it? Maybe read the articles regarding the lawsuit a little more carefully.
Mark
The allegations in the lawsuit say exactly that, that the terms as they were understood at the time meant the standard exclusive theatrical window. For all the money potentially at stake, the case is going to turn on a lot of very expensive lawyers arguing some pretty minute semantics.
Benjamin Borndahl
The contract stated exclusive theatrical release… her pay was based upon percentage of profit at box office. They violated the contract. It is not delusional… you just apparently have a problem with a female pushing her weight to get the pay that was agreed upon like many male actors have before her.
jonesBob
Do you know if it said “theatrical release” or “exclusive theatrical release?” This might be arguing about semantics, but in contracts, it’s important. SJ has said exclusive theatrical release, but did they just put “theatrical release” in the contract and just ate assuming everyone is going to go with an exclusive meaning? It’s in the theaters, so it has a theatrical release. If you don’t have the contact in front of you, you don’t know.
Skysky
You’re ridiculous lmao the contract she has with Disney says that it will on release in theaters and she would get a percentage of theatre money . But then they decided to also release it on their streaming platform which made even more money . They didn’t give her a piece of that because there’s nowhere in the contract that says she gets any money for streaming . But it also says it won’t be streamed sooooo… that’s a breach of contract. DJ is doing the same exact thing n yet he is smart n she is whining ? Its not about the money . She doesn’t need the money, it’s the principle. DJ doesn’t need the money . It’s just a clear breach . You can’t say hey we’re only releasing at the theatre n you’ll get a cut and then release it at the theatre and online and only try to give profits from the theatre . Disney is the 1 that is greedy . They make/made literally billions dollars off their movies and still try to take people money . Its sad
Nathan Haviland
It’s because disney gets all the profit of the streaming service meaning they only have to pay her based off of box office revenues that’s not right dosneknows they wouldn’t have made as much money if they only released in theaters so the released to streaming service and the should have included SJ in the profit of that as well. So it’s not BS it’s disney being thiefs more or less
Ken
You clearly didn’t actually read the article. It directly mentions that her contract required a theater-only initial release…
Sebastian Petit
I wasn’t aware you had oversight on Scarlett’s contracts! Silly me ?
Debra Flowers
U have to remember BW was supposed to be released BEFORE the pandemic so that is why she didn’t have that clause in there. Bottom line…the mouse did her dirty.
The Mouse
And I didn’t even clean up after!
Markus
I’m ded haha
Derek
Yes but in the 21st century even before covid, studios were talking about theatrical release on streaming services such as Netflix or Disney starting their own for that purpose as the way of the future, before covid actually pushed them into making it a reality, streaming services have been around for years a prudent person would have made sure that clause was in there with or without the pandemic.
They were all kinds of chats going around when Disney plus was coming out that eventually Disney would be able to release their new releases direct to the public without the theaters when they were starting that program, and at that time covid was never even thought of so the fact that this movie was supposed to come out pre-covid means literally nothing in the grand scheme of things, she didn’t cover her own ass when it came to making sure she was going to get paid, a contract is a contract to deal as a deal as long as Disney’s honoring what IS written in the contract she hasn’t got a leg to stand on she signed it away.
ken
SMART man.
he will continue to have a job, unlike that Johansson, she will no longer have a job with Disney.
Michael Smith
Given BW’s fate in Endgame not sure that’s an issue.
Aiofe
This has nothing to do with sour grapes. This is a simple contract issue. Disney is trying to renege on their contract with Johanssen because of the pandemic & it’s not ok. Disney had every ability to include a clause that would cover them in the case of something like a natural disaster or pandemic- they did not- so they must honor their deal. Period.
Howie K
You know nothing about contract law obviously.
Grant
Contract is based upon percentage of box office. Home streaming does not count for box office. It’s Disney screwing over its actors, knowingly, with an excuse of “but COVID”. Both movies sucked. But Disney absolutely, 100% knew what they were doing, which was acting in bad faith.
Luke SkyWalkRwalker
Sour grapes or not, the fact is Disney has been breaking it’s contracts. Johansson is right to hold them accountable and unless other actors do the same, Hollywood execs will just keep breaking the law and steamrolling anyone who opposes them.
Michael
DJ is an industry heavyweight at this point and isn’t even remotely just an ‘actor’ anymore. He’s his own industry and makes money acting, producing, promoting, etc. Anytime he appears he’s got 3 revenue streams running ?. He’s essentially one tiny step down from the entire Disney empire. I love seeing his business moves as much as his movies. Good for him!
Hav
Its ok for a dude to but not a chick. Misogynistic much?
Chris Jackson
Isn’t breach of contract against the law even in the rare case some d bag on the internet says it’s sour grapes?
Cj
They’re trying to screw Johansen over just like Comedy Central tried Dave Chappelle and the only reason Johnson’s not worried about it is going to see
Diedre Eggleston
Saw this movie and it was really good! A lot of action and Dwayne Johnson was great! I recommend you to see this movie!
Rachel
I think regardless how it was released, either theater or streaming, then each vehicle counts. Disney has been doing its best to under cut the actors, pretty petty and cheap for a 120 bil corporation in my opinion.
HER
Sounds very sexist and patriarchal. They both got done by Disney, they just got done differently. Scarlett should have read the fine print but Disney never plays a game they can’t win. With the Eock, he has a large fandom and has has a longer resume as he has been around for decades as the people’s champion so his presence in a suit seems more justified and credible, but give Scarlett a break.
Boondocks
Did you see her contract? No. So your sour grapes comment is silly
Bobby
You made a case against her and then FOR her. Johnson is producing. So if the movie is online or not, he gets paid AND is his 1st project with disney. Johanson is likely on her last. It’s 100% not sour grapes if you’re getting paid through profit from 700 million vs 350
Ryan Wiggins
Will someone please post the contract word for word so that we have something to actually debate
Kat
I think it’s really interesting to note how the woman in your comment is sour and retaliating, but the man is deserving of the lawsuit he may be planning. Look up Johansson’s actual creds, and maybe learn something while you’re at it.
Pull you head outtake where the sun don’t shine and learn how not to be a sexist pig.
Les B.
I would like to thank disney and all the others who are thinking of those like me and my family. We have two high risk individuals in our immediate family and yes we are all vaccinated. Even with vaccination we chose not to go to the movies because of the delta variant. Without disney and others we would be cut off from seeing new movies. I love Scarlett but what is it the money we are not rich but what does she need 50, 60, 70,etc. I just dont want to get my little girl sick who adores Scarlett and has asthma and will beg to see the movie. Disney makes this not a issue. Thanks Disney
Tracie M Ford
Well as long as you abs your family are happy. That’s all that matters. Scarlett Johansson had a family too but she’s making millions so that doesn’t matter. Humans are all awesome!
Megan Mosch
You sound like you work for Disney. Do u? Is that u Mickey?
Tracie M Ford
So don’t bite the hand that feeds, even if that hand is taking the food out of one’s mouth? I wonder if you’d be so pro mega rich corporation if said Corp was trying to take away your livelihood.
Thomas
While I’m not against the current business model and it’s something that’s here to stay, pandemic or not, it’s something that these actors are just going to have to include in their contracts going forward. I can appreciate that these actors go into the movies to be seen in cinemas rather than tiny computer screens or cell phones, and these movies are absolutely better if seen in a cinema than distracted by the outside world on home devices, but whilst there’s still so much uncertainty with new variants this is something to deal with for now.
And I saw ‘Jungle Cruise’ yesterday at my local cinema and absolutely loved it, gave me ‘The Mummy’ with Brendan Fraser vibes which isn’t a bad movie to be compared to. Emily Blunt was delightful as ever and I loved Jack Whitehall, yes he’s a straight man, but I don’t care, he played the role well (I’m a gay man and I don’t care who plays gay roles so long as they do them well, that’s what acting is, many gay actors play straight characters, so long as the look and intent is right is really doesn’t matter).
Rty
Fair got
Michael Smith
Right but that’s the point. SJ claims she put “Exclusive Theatrical Release” into the contract specifically out of concerns of the theatrical release window being shortened due to Disney plus. Disney plus hadn’t launched yet.
I’m guessing either someone missed the contract addition at Disney or else they said We don’t care we will defend in court. They clearly feel they can win the PR fight which honestly may be more important.
My bet is they settle eventually.
Michael Wooten
…..and people wonder why VFX companies are working so hard to perfect human CGI. Actors are greedy…..I mean let’s be real, 20mil for a few months of pretending….at least professional athletes get physically beat up for that kind of money. I say just perfect the human CGI and pay a voice Actor a tenth of that. And on the legal aspect, if I had to bet, I’d say there’s a clause in the disney contract that protects them. They have more lawyers than the devil.
Nikitazkya
The problem is not with the duel release business model. The problem is that Disney and the actors negotiated pay based on the box office profits and then Disney decided (after negotiations were done) to add the Disney Plus release. The actors’ pay is greatly affected when people don’t have to go to the theater, they can just watch from home. Disney should include all the premiere access profits when counting the success of the films as it pertains to the actor pay. It is like if you made a deal with someone to sell their product and they would pay you based on sales and then they immediately opened a store and sold the same product for less. It would obviously hurt your sales and be unfair.
Ron
Why dosen’t Disney go back to doing Animation films that way you don’t have to deal with these egomaniac actors
Graham
Who do you think provides the voicework for animated films?
Hint: it’s actors. And they have negotiated contracts for animated films too.
Peter
Voice actors don’t get paid anything close to what actors make.
Adam
Disney already has a history of breaking contracts and abusing the people that work for them. Most people just take it because they want more work or don’t want to get blacklisted by Disney in the industry. Anyone trying to stand up against the massive corporation is practically a hero. Disney can’t continue to walk all over everyone and expected continued goodwill from the public.
Peter
I’m fairly certain these contracts were negotiated long before the world wide pandemic started.
Disney changed things based on what was going on in the world at the time. You can’t assume anything about what they did. No one besides Disney execs know the truth so people should stop playing know it all and making false accusations against them.
Donny
What about Mark Ruffalo? He’s been skipped over a few times and still doesn’t have a solo movie and his character is way more popular than BW she got 20M not $20 she seen other studios paying actors and actresses money and then tried it herself it didn’t work she’s mad go to DCEU if Marvel ain’t treating you right but assuming that theater release only would make bank right after a global pandemic your bugging
Daniel Lawrence
This has been reported as well. Universal still owns the distribution rights to the Hulk. A Hulk movie will never be made as long as that’s the case. Now there is speculation that the right returned in 2020 but Disney nor Universal has confirmed this.
Jeff
*dual
TRUDY Ann ALEXANDER
One must feel so terribly mortified for both parties, why, with a pandemic raging around the world, people being bulldozed into their mass graves, and these two parties quibbling over money, poor souls, both must be down to their last $50million or so, maybe we should take a whip around and send it to them, my kids have offered to empty their money boxes for them. GET A GRIP ON REALITY YOU GREEDY BASTARDS.
Sarah
Personally as a disabled person I welcome Disney plus and their model, I’m under no illusions that they are doing this to try and get every last penny possible but going to the cinema just isn’t an option for me, I have to wait until it’s either on dvd/Blu-ray/Amazon .. which sucks, being that I live on In the 21st century with lighting fast internet, everyone I know is talking about and laughing about the latest movie and I’m there on the corner of the conversation like “heh..yeah, sounds amazing can’t wait to see it” and then it goes awkwardly quiet, but this levels the playing field, I can watch all the latest Disney on day one!.
…I hope more companies move to this model, I remember universal wanted to do it also and AMC threw a big hissy fit and forced them down, nobody ever thinks about us disabled people.. we’re an after thought and at best a marketing stunt.
JS
I totally get it. I would be for having all movies released the same day as theares so everyone gets a choice to see movies where they want, but as long as it doesn’t hurt the theatres. I have General Anxiety Disorder and one of the only few places I can find some relaxation is at the theatre. I love the theatre because for me there are less distractions (yes, it sucks when people talk or on their phones, but I learn to live with it). It is the one place I can shut my brain off for two our and enjoy it. I do understand that there are people who feel better watching at home and I hope they can figure out a way to have both…an option for those like you and like me.
Jeff
I work construction. Have my own business. Have 1 employee. I say how much I want before doing a job. The customer agrees to pay me that amount. I finish the job. I get paid. That simple. They can do the same. Yes, it’ll take a little guess work on their part, but by now, film makers and all those people in the credits should be able to figure if a movie will do well or suck when it’s finished. Then the actors/actresses can finish the job, get paid and move on without giving a darn where the movie plays.
Jocelyn
Get ab Amazon firestick, YouTube how to jail break it and u can watch anything u want at home for free.
Matthew Brewster
A resolution to this conflict seems obvious- just have Disney treat revenue from Premium Access the same as theatrical revenue, then pay the actors accordingly. Simple!
Mickey Clark
This is actually not a simple solution, as the share per purchase would need to be negotiated, given that the viewership per purchase would be slightly higher than the 1:1 ratio of ticket sales to viewers.
Anyone angry at ScarJo about suing just doesn’t understand, this isn’t about sour grapes by a rich jerk, it’s not about her ego wanting to only be on the silver screen and it’s not about her wanting to deny you the convenience of watching at home if you’re one of the millions who did.
It’s about the fact that a deal was in place between the talent and the publisher for a revenue share for the release of the movie, and the publisher reneged on the deal, directly reducing the talent’s compensation and keeping more of it for themselves. Disney created this problem when they decided to dual release in theaters and online but failed to negotiate an amended contract with the talent prior to the release. Thus, a lawsuit.
Sam
Right now everything is being litigated in the public forum. Everyone seems to have an opinion, but no one outside of Disney and ScarJo (and her reps) have seen the contract. There’s probably a force majeure clause that will become the disputed portion of the lawsuit with Disney stating the global pandemic nullified portions of the contract whereas ScarJo’s team will say it doesn’t. Either way, both parties are looking bad for certain segments of the fandom. Chapek needs to get his PR department in order though…the Disney team’s comments didn’t come off very well.
Bob Jones
Or it can just be “theatrical release” vs “exclusive theatrical release.”
They might have just put “theatrical release” in the contract and assume it to be exclusive as that’s how it was in the old pre-streaming days. Times changed but some lawyers may have not caught up with the times. This will change moving forward though. But without the actual contract, we cannot tell for sure. We could argue spirit of the wording, but that’s going to be a judge deciding it if it doesn’t get settled first.
Mr Daryl-Rhys Taylor
Actually they have gone on record to say that she will get money from the premier access. She just had to wait until the premier access fir the film is finished. All this is about is the notion that if you forced people to only see it in the cinema it would have done better (when in fact it would have been more likely to have done worse)
Darlene
Exactly! As rich as the company Disney is they still try and make an extra buck when they can. And this goes for everything Disney. Because in the end it’s the company shareholders that look at bottom lines and if they feel they are on the smaller end of ANY profits then it’s an issue. Whatever is in that 8.5×11 paged signed contract is enforceable. Only they know as of now what’s on it. Disney may have found a loophole but I doubt Scarlet would try & take them on if it was solely about money. She might go public & talk about how they short changed her with a crappy contract but not redefining the terms of her contract. That in itself would be Hollywood suicide & still might be since Disney has a long arm. It’s not the 1st time we’ve heard about stories of Disney being sneaky, controlling & greedy. Either way no matter the opinions & what side they lay on the truth will come out.
Eddie
Not to mention, Scarlett made 20 million off of one film. It took maybe 8 months to make. So what if they added Disney plus. They know the delta variant is here and are trying to make sure those who don’t want to risk it can stay in and enjoy it. Disney does own the damn thing. Like she could of been like ok so what is my income from this in total going to be since you added it to stream. I’m fairly certain Disney would of found middle ground with her. I mean movies are for the fans right? I mean given people are broke more now than ever and still are going to cinemas, maybe Scarlet j can appreciate that fact. I mean she made more in months than many of us would make combined in a lifetime.
Amelia
It’s extremely doubtful that her first line of recourse was a very public lawsuit. This is what happens when the corporation refuses to negotiate with you.
Disney is in the wrong. They broke a contract. If we were talking someone making $20,000 a year vs a corporation who broke their contract and basically stole their compensation, there would be no question of who was in the wrong. But because it is an actress who makes a more than decent wage suddenly the fact that she’s unhappy with Disney cheating her out of her negotiated contract and compensation makes her unreasonable and greedy. It’s ridiculous.
Peter
There was nothing in her contact that said they movie was too be released in theaters ONLY.
SJ claims Disney promised her it would be a theatrical release.
Disney claims they honored the contract.
From the information available her lawsuit has no merit. She’s bitter, feels like she missed out and is trying to try it into sexism. There was a world wide pandemic. She needs to grow up and stop listening to lawyers, agents and managers who are just trying to line their own pockets.
Kristopher R. Hickman
I think that when Disney told her it would be a theatrical release and at the time of the contract being agreed upon if
No other option existed to be an alternative to a theatrical release then that automatically limits the movies release to theatrical only no matter if exclusive or any other limiting word was in front of theatrical release or not. It would be understood that if the only means to show the movie was a theatrical release hen it’s limited to that one option as no other means exist or are expected to exist that could undermine that understanding. In this case, the only way Disney could fairly use another means is to have it stated specifically in the contract as such.
Sam
We don’t know if they broke contract. Contracts are complicated documents that tend to contain things that can be interpreted differently. None of us have any idea how ScarJo’s representation are interpreting things vs how Disney is reading into the contract. Most major contracts contain a Force Majeure clause that usually state that the contract or portions of the contract can be considered null and unenforceable due to unforseen circumstances such as acts of nature, etc. ScarJo’s lawyers will probably argue that the pandemic was waning and that the contract was fully enforceable (provided there actually was language stating the movie would be released “exclusively” in theaters vs language just stating that it would be released in theaters would no mention of exlusivity). Disney could interpret that the pandemic triggered Force Majeure and that in essence the contract for “exclusive” release was nullified. But in good faith, they extended ScarJo’s participation to the premier access revenue. Again….who knows. We’re all just guessing at this point. For any of us to jump on one train or the other is just fandom rearing it’s ugly head.
AJ
A voice of reason. This is the best comment I’ve read so far.
StareClips
The original contract said that it would also be released via streaming. She also gets a cut of the streaming revenues.
Lol2021
Cat
You give Disney FAR to much credit! Don’t ever kid yourself to believe they care if the fans get to see the movie, they care about the bottom line! How much can we(Disney) make, who cares about actors, producers, contracts, or fans! Just give Disney their money!
William G Eekhof
Everyone needs to boycot disney they think it’s ok to screw someone then trow the. Away when they fight back is wrong an needs to be stopped now before it gets out of hand
Peter
If this is your reason for wanting to boycott Disney, you really should do some research about Walt Disney.
NENolan
My thoughts exactly!
Sara
Exactly. I wonder if there what communication was made prior to filing. Business models had to shift quickly in the past year and it’s extremely difficult to feel any sort of sympathy after seeing that $20 mill check. It feels like a “read the room” moment.
Chris
Disney is just another example of a big name company out for the people and as soon as they get a chance, they stab whomever they need to in the back and rip people off to make another billion.
Dirpbiwro
I look at this the same as when any other millionaire/billionaire guffaws over being screwed by a small fraction of money…. When it’s more than any of us will make in a lifetime.
No one needs that much money anyway. She’s no different from Bezos in that regard.
I think it’s weird that people are defending a greedy millionaire that is prioritizing her profit over the encouragement of safe viewing.
Kristopher R. Hickman
You’re one of those people who somehow look at others who make a lot of money and try to justify that it’s somehow ok for them to be screwed over because it’s more money than you make and that they have plenty of money so why should they have an issue with it… they make what they make because they have the talent and skills that they honed for years to get them where they are now. They didn’t luck into their situations and being jealous of what they make because you don’t have their abilities is really stupid.. or do we assume that you’d be ok by being unfairly screwed out of a large sum of money since you already have a bunch of money still? I think not.
Maddie
I like the model. There is no way I am going to the theatre right now. Plus it is good for families. So hard to get kids to be still in the theatre. It is up to the actor to negotiate to protect their interest. If I were an actor I would not ask for theatre release only at a time like this. They are still getting exposure, even if they do not make as much money.
Traci Frost
This is a typical Disney move in that the corporation doesn’t just want a piece of the pie. It doesn’t even want a few pieces of the pie. No folks! Disney want the whole damn pie! This is a typical edge our bets so we’ll take it all. They are unmining and technically undervaluing The Theater Industry not to mention the Actors. But they also want to edge their bets so they release the movie on Disney Plus. And before we have anybody say, but Covid. No Covid is not an excuse. Covid isn’t an unexpired ticket for companies to do what they want, when they want. But hey! Good ol Capitalism.
Tim
I don’t think some of you understand.
This is no different than a company such as Walmart shorting one of their cashier’s or stockers check for no other reason than because they can.
Yes she got paid a lot, she didn’t however get paid what she was contractually owed.
Disney made 65.39 billion dollars in 2020 during a pandemic while so many people lost their jobs including their own employees. The bottom line is they are a dirty company and I for one applaud a mere actor calling them out and airing their crooked ass ways.
Sherri Hawkins
In all due respect, Disney owns all of this And they can do what they want. The movie was released in theater after a very long delay . For a while they were considering only releasing it on Disney+ so she should be happy if got released in theater at all.
Jennifer
You do all know that if SJ was a man, more than half of these comments wouldn’t exists. A breach of contract is a breach of contract, no matter how much money you are perceived to already have or gain from that contract. And Disney bringing up that amount was dirty. Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth, debatable, but she has every right to sue them
Jennifer
You do all know that if SJ was a man, more than half of these comments wouldn’t exists. A breach of contract is a breach of contract, no matter how much money you are perceived to already have or gain from that contract. And Disney bringing up that amount was dirty. Is it looking a gift horse in the mouth, debatable, but she has every right to sue them.
Elizabeth
Black Widow stunk regardless of where it was released. She made it clear that men weren’t needed. I don’t support that.
Curtis
I read in a deadline article that although Johansson’s suit claims she was promised an exclusive release, the wording may have been less clear in the actual agreement. It may have said something along the lines of a full theatrical release, which refers to the number of screens and time in theaters, but probably didn’t specifically dictate it couldn’t also be released simultaneously on streaming, partly because it wasn’t expected they would change to this model pre-Covid. The deadline article said it was unclear of the wording, while this article stated it as fact… might want to be extra sure your know this, as that’s a big assumption according to other sources.
trudy
SJ is out to lunch. Mouse wins. Always.
Info and mho
Quote from the lawsuit that was from contract.
”
Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the
role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical
motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For
the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines
to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical
release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens).
”
Copy of text on is deadline . com.
Her lawyer claim this implies exclusive theatrical release based on past precedent. Courts will decide, but I am not sure she will win this one.
Worse for her, she may not be high on list to cast at the biggest media company anymore. Also, will her character be included in future films if they make more? Many other characters are more popular it seems.
Andy
Good grief, too many people hear are looking into this the completely wrong way. If it is just a covid thing then pay her premier time. I don’t care if she made a billion dollars on the film and still sued them, you must realize that a contract is a Contract. If you break the contract you will get sued, what do you think Disney would have done if she broke it. Besides Disney throwing out her salary like that was just rude and BS. Too many people are idiots they see how much Disney paid someone and now they are on Disney side even though if they were wrong. Just shows alot of people are idiots and quit being jealous cause you aint got any money. In all reality there is not enough evidence supporting either side for the public and you all are making a bunch of accusations. Look at all the media’s sheep
AJ
I find putting food on the table difficult. 1 million would be great for me. Instead of casting actors offer jobs to ordinary people. In the age of pandemic with people out of work this is strange to say the least.
Hapa
At least they are getting theater releases mulan didn’t even get a theater release
Anthony
What Disney did was wrong. I had no idea she was supposed to get profit sharing on the back end.
Dlh
I love the hybrid model. Cheaper than thing the five of us to the cinema. Something we would not do for cost and public health reasons. Loved watching this at the weekend.
EastIcon
IMHO, these two actors are not stupid. They have experienced people behind them looking out for their best interest and know how to advise as such. You’d think Johanssen and Johnson graduated with MBAs? Think again!
skeptical
I didn’t know that so many people had read the contract, and were so versed on contract law. ITM has got some really savvy guests!
TheRealDjango
The problem with social media is that it allows everyone including people with intelligence with the subject matter and people without the understanding of the subject matter. And here’s another subject that there’s a lot of people who have no understanding of the specific issues. So I’m reading a lot of goofy replies… 90% of them…
Michael Sollace
Disney made my parents drive 30 miles home because my hair touched my collar. Haha. His daughter speaks the truth about Disney. How about people with less money getting passed bye in line with people with more $ ? Average cost at a visit and stay is 5 to 7 grand? Far cry from the 120.00 for the family. On the other hand I cant cry for somebody who got payed up front 20 million dollars. That’s pathetic. And do are the folks who stand on line while people pass them up.
Scarlett
Boohoo! I wish I was so filthy rich that my 20 mil paycheck plus % of 300+mil bo take isn’t enough.
Kay Scott
I see SJs point though I have to say it is hard to feel too sorry for Disney or a rich Hollywood actress. They both suffer from u adulterated greed.
JoDel Flores
To my way of thinking, it’s a bit selfish but my situation is different. I am from a family that was catastrophically affected by covid. I have 2 senior citizens in my home that can no longer afford to be out among crowds of people. In case some.of you haven’t noticed there’s STILL a pandemic going on. And even mask mandates going back into effect. I pay for HBO Max and my reason is that, they stream new movies, same day as theaters. My parents were able to watch many new movies with us. I haven’t heard of any of those celebrities complaining yet…none! I get that she’s upset because of the contract but what about the fans, the seniors and the little kids and all those in between who love Marvel and can’t go to a movie because of their immune systems. It’s sad that the answer is always money first, people second. By the way , where I live we have a drive inn that we love and it’s a great way to avoid indoor theaters and we.also went and PAID to see Black Widow..
Ashmo
This has nothing to do with the accessibility of streaming vs theatre for new movies. This is about if someone was aware that their movie would be streamable for a fee and if their contract stated they get a portion of the money made via streaming.
Its astounding the amount egocentric bias displayed by some of these comments. Whether SJ should get a cut of Disney+ streaming BW has nothing do with disabled people, elderly people, or the pandemic so no one should be basing their opinion of the situation on those things. I’m not trying to be rude, comments like that are just missing the point.
Bottom line for me is actors get paid a portion of ticket sales, if their movie is also being released via streaming (especially for an additional fee on top of subscription fee) during opening week or whatever then they should get a portion of the money people are paying to see it.
In my opinion she isn’t being greedy she is simply asking for what she is due. I think what Disney is doing would be similar to your job deciding one year not to give you your Christmas bonus bc you worked so much overtime that week that it equaled what your bonus would’ve been. Then when you questioned it they say well it’s a pandemic things change and then told all the other lesser payed employees how much you made that week with overtime to try and publicly shame you and justify why you don’t need more money despite that being how things always were.
SJ is going after what she believes she is owed and Disney is…well pulling a Disney.
That’s just my opinion and I can guarantee it will have no effect on this case, the house of mouse, or SJ. Nor will it effect me so that’s about as far as I care.
Also some of y’all should check your misogyny, it’s disappointing.
Jo
To my way of thinking, it’s a bit selfish but my situation is different. I am from a family that was catastrophically affected by covid. I have 2 senior citizens in my home that can no longer afford to be out among crowds of people. In case some.of you haven’t noticed there’s STILL a pandemic going on. And even mask mandates going back into effect. I pay for HBO Max and my reason is that, they stream new movies, same day as theaters. My parents were able to watch many new movies with us. I haven’t heard of any of those celebrities complaining yet…none! I get that she’s upset because of the contract but what about the fans, the seniors and the little kids and all those in between who love Marvel and can’t go to a movie because of their immune systems. It’s sad that the answer is always money first, people second. By the way , where I live we have a drive inn that we love and it’s a great way to avoid indoor theaters and we.also went and PAID to see Black Widow..
Geoff Oliver
All I know is if I pay $29.99 for a Disney Movie I expect that movie to be mine forever. Not as long as I continue to remain a Disney+ subscriber. If they want to sell their movies that way. I will no longer be paying for either.
Peter Brown
Disney reported streaming revenues related to the Premiere Access as part of the B.O. report. Any well-written backend deal SHOULD have been written to base her compensation on Disney’s financial reports. If it wasn’t, then that’s on her and her lawyers. Everyone in the industry recognized that the Pandemic closures of many markets were going to force accommodations by the bean-counters. All this story does is hurt her PR. It makes her look really greedy.
Glen
It’s a pity DJ doesn’t understand he is killing a massive portion of his own industry off. An astronomical number of everyday people are employed by the theater industry. To destroy it over impatience and ACTUAL greed is akin to the malls becoming Amazon distro hubs.
Cheering Johanson on, I hope Disney+ folds
Alvin
The Rock is smart…he’s playing the long game with Disney. He is looking at making 10s or even hundreds million off of Disney not a few millions.
J R Turner
I do like the Disney+ option but I do agree it should be available after a number of days so that the box office premier gives correct numbers for opening week. It should also be dependent on the contractual agreements signed. And yes the agreement was signed before the pandemic, but again it was the contract and theater’s are open so the contract should have been honored as signed, or an appropriate renegotiation should have been reached before release. But that is my humble opinion, and what do I know about Hollywood deals.
Phil Davis
Johansson has made 20 million already. She wants us to pay more for a movie ticket so she can maximize her income. Yeah f**& her. And f#@& all these overpaid cry babies. How about using unknown actors from now on, I don’t think anyone would care.
Skippy664
So the actors and actresses need to take a paycut because of the pandemic… what is the CEO of disneys income? Sid he reduce hos income to assist others in the pandemic. No he sure did not… and i dont wana hear about tax fee donations ether….
JC
I honestly could not care less, either way. All I see are a flock of birds squawking. Yeah, yeah, “principle”, yada yada. Yeah, yeah, yeah, “contract” blahhhhh.
You know what I see actually happening here, on a broad scale? People are finally waking up from the mindless idol worship. It’s slow-going, but still progress. Cancel culture, stuff like all of this, the “me, too” thing, and old, “powerful” celebrities getting outed for the monsters they are. Keep waking up, people.
We’ve been trying something new. We don’t know if this’ll actually work, or even when this message may reach you, but please, wake up. We’re all waiting for you.
Emily
They absolutely have a right to sue and should. This is their salary. I dont care however many millions times they are richer than I am. This is what was negotiated and just because Disney had a loophole for a once in lifetime pandemic does not mean they can change it forever. I am rooting for these actors.
Kristopher R. Hickman
It doesn’t matter if she made 20 M or 2 M, Disney’s actions while possibly legal as they are executed in a grey area that is new, do undermine the fairness and the good faith they had previously put forth when contracting with SJ, and this initial good faith action by Disney would have been something that also brought SJ to the table to finalize the deal. Disney is no dummy when it realized that it could escape a huge amount of lost profit by having to pay SJ an additional amount of money by utilizing its streaming service to enrich themselves while at the same time escaping paying her fairly due to a technicality. They feel that they can stand behind the literal language of their contract with her and win, while there are already instances of the same thing happening with other companies who actually did renegotiate with their talent to address this specific issue. If companies are allowed to contract with you for your services at a certain point iof compensation, but then actively create or find the means to still benefit from your services and escape the compensation you were contracted to receive, then agreements between everyone would become so overly mired in contract language that every industry would grind to a halt as no one would be able to trust anyone else.
Michael Lee Key
Booo and shame won’t watch these or those with her, so sad
Data
Well actors will have to just ask for x percentage of all theatrical, at home streaming, android, iphone, old box tv with rabbit ears, I dont care if its released out your butt, I want whatever percentage agreed upon done.
SVS
There are a lot of transactional attorneys in the comments here. Oh, wait, I skimmed the comments and clearly none of you are attorneys who handle these types of transactions.
A few points:
1) A force majeure provision wouldn’t apply here because (this is the simple explanation) the pandemic didn’t result in Disney’s inability to perform it’s obligations under the contract. Disney could have waited to release the film only in theaters, as SJ’s filings allege was required under the terms of the contract, until the pandemic had receded. Disney (based on my professional experience with these types of contacts) wasn’t required to perform in a specific time period (Disney would want to maintain flexibility in timing release). Thus, an intervening event outside of Disney’s control merely delaying when Disney performed would not trigger this provision. This is settled law in this jurisdiction (and every jurisdiction I’m aware of professionally).
2) When interpreting undefined terms in a contract, generally the term will be construed according to the term’s customary usage in the industry at the time the contract was executed. I do not believe the full contract has been released, and none of us can know if full theatrical release is defined within the contact. If it is not defined, arguing that it means released only in theaters is a much more reasonable interpretation versus it meaning released both in theaters and online on the first day. Full theatrical release did not have the latter meaning within the industry, at the time this contract was executed.
3. Every person taking Disney’s side should do some research on Disney’s history. Disney is famous for being extremely litigious and using litigation to outright steal the rights of others who don’t have the resources to fight their lawsuits (almost everyone). Disney is not a good actor. Just knowing it’s Disney makes it much more likely that SJ’s arguments have merit.
Finally, one last point that has nothing to do with the law. Every person commenting about how SJ is being selfish for wanting more money or for her not wanting you to be able to watch it at home. Stop. First, SJ, like any of us, has every right to demand she be paid what the contract stipulated. Second, why should Disney get more money and SJ less as a direct result of Disney’s alleged bad faith act that allegedly violated the terms of the contract? Someone is still getting more money, it’s just now Disney instead of SJ, a giant corporate entity. Why is that more desirable to you? Finally, nothing I’ve read suggests that SJ didn’t want it being streamed online at all, it only suggests she wanted to be fully compensated versus taking a cut in exchange for it. That is her right, and again, the one who profited from it was Disney, the alleged bad actor.
Jason Allen
The problem with this is that she was anticipating a certain number PRE-Covid. Then the virus hit, so even if they abided by the contract and released it only in the theaters, her pay would have been smaller than originally believed to have been because people would not be coming out in the same numbers as they would have before Covid. But, they released it online at.the same time, which made the numbers from even further. It would hurt, regardless of the income bracket you belong to. Assuming that her contract says what she says it does(because none if us actually KNOW), then Disney owes her some loot. Period. That’s why they HAVE contracts! If both parties aren’t protected, what’s the point? I hope she’s right, and that Disney has to pay up. That company has been corrupt for a REALLY long time.
Simon Hopper
I love how in all of this people are accusing Scarlet of being greedy and not the multi billion dollar company to that is Disney….like she’s taking on a small mom and pop company from Cleveland. Poor Disney…I hope their neighbours rally round and bring them soup
Taunya / Thomas McCombs
I think that it should be what is in her contract are contract are his contract or whoever is doing business with Disney because they are marrbecause the American Jews that running Disney they’re going to take money from anybody so they can put it in their pockets to make millions of dollars in their paycheck I mean look how much the people who run Disney make and what do they do they ever pick up a piece of trash at Disney I mean do they ever go clean the bathrooms no they play golf and have meetings. They also keep up in the price at Disney it’s me and they got it to wear a full person family middle class cannot afford to go to Disney they have to take out a loan and it takes 4 to 5 years to pay back to spend a week at Disney to see the 4 parks.
Goofy
She has the character range of William shartner she got paid what she got paid! Once bitten twice shy, a wise ass kickin’ group once said.
Rupert Fry
They’re movies with people we don’t know in them…why does anyone care…
Martin
It all depends on what type of contract these actors had with disney before the pandemic hit. You look at how warner bros. Handle the situation. It was a big mess for a while with the hybrid strategy but they went to the people that it was affecting and renegociated their contract to make sure they get the same amount they were promise in the beginning. Disney didn’t do that and that’s why scarlett and now it seem like emma stone might sue as well. Because disney was greedy and didn’t try to redo their deal when they decided to do a hybrid release. The fact is, Disney is getting 100% of the profit as far as streaming goes. Unless they have it written in their contract, the production company isn’t getting one dollar from the streaming gross so scarlett isn’t seeing anything from the money disney is making with blavk widow on Disney plus so i get why she would want a piece of that pie. Dwayne johnson might have negociate a better deal for his movie and that why he’s not going after them the way others are doing.
Eddie Brock
Wonder WomanII 1984
AND Black Widow sucked really bad. Hands down. 2 awful movies.
I payed $29.99 to watch BW. Wasn’t worth 29¢.
Waldo
What’s the best way to pirate a new movie? Why off TV naturally. Otherwise you get crappy video cam copy from theatre bootlegging freaks. So if actors contract state’s they get % of theatre ticket sales then they are being beat out of $$$. So yes sue the bastards for TV releases.
D
Lol reading all of the incels saying she is in the wrong might be the funniest part of my day
Evangeline
I applaud anyone who makes a decision to protect themselves from bullies who change contacts to suit their gains and interests alone. Obviosuly, enough pie to go around.
This is clearly an example of the biblical teaching, “THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL” When you put your love of money over your life of people…or your love of truth and fairness… you are a lost soul and someone needs to champion you against such evil.. even if it is only yourself. If you are the author of the original opinion, I hope you will read this and be edified. P.S. you go, Scarlett!!!
KNV
Just shut up and take your money ?♀️
Galaxy Cruiser
Hard to believe Disney hasn’t already thought this out before hand. Maybe SJ’s team is depending on some sort of public backlash?
They will probably settle out of court but considering a big chunk of her career for the last decade has been thanks in part to the Marvel/Disney train, she’s got balls that’s for sure. Guess she’ll either retire early, or start a revolution lol
Ash
I haven’t seen her contract but Disney’s been doing movies released in theaters and on Disney+ since the pandemic hit, she should’ve had a feeling her movie would be doing the same too. Not everyone feels comfortable yet to go to the theaters to see a movie no matter how good it looks. I have Disney+ but I can guarantee you that I’m not going to pay $30 on top of my subscription price to see a movie from them when I can just wait a couple of months to see it free on Disney+ with my subscription. I think the way Disney is releasing their movies now is great because it allows people to stay in their comfort zone for the moment and still see the movies they want from them
chevis reed
I never understand why people want to look at the actors as greedy for one in their cut, but not the studio is greedy for not wanting to pay them.
Johansen was an original avenger who had to wait over a decade to get our own solo movie.
The movies doing well but when you look at how much is making, compared to its other marvel counterparts it’s lagging far behind. That cuts into her pockets. Especially since this maybe her last big budget marvel movie, this was likely to be the biggest payday of her career.
Not to mention Disney Lewis the contract. Marvel had alerted them so what was going on beforehand.
So they knew it was a breach of contract and made no attempt to renegotiate or set things right.
Anita Wylie
As a retired attorney, I find these comments rather amusing. Contract law is pretty cut and dried. If the parties are of an equal bargaining position, then usually the agreement is determined solely based upon the language used in the contract. Unless one party can prove fraud or undue duress. If a party alleges their interpretation of particular contractual language differs from the other party, such as “theatrical release”, then the complaining party’s lawyer must prove the existence of a collateral agreement defining that term, or the defending party must prove the term is commonly used in a specific manner contractually. Any other claimed ambiguity derives from attorney malfeasance.
Harold
What the parties understamding of Theatrical release or exclusive theatrical release will be based on whether the contract was signed before COVID or after.
Before COVID most of not all these big marvel movies were not released in theaters at the same time they were released for streaming. If the contract was signed before covid SJ has stronger argument as to intent.
Queen
You’re all right in the sense it’s a Breach. You also have to know she knew it was going to be released on Disney+ before. We all did. We all have Disney+ where it states when these movies will be released. Yet a lawsuit didn’t come up til AFTER it was released? Already knowing? It’s because she makes even more money off a lawsuit than if it was just in theaters guys. Wake up it’s Hollywood people. If you don’t know how to make money that’s why you’re not there. A lawsuit, A theatre release, and a streaming release. She makes more than 5% promised with a lawsuit. That’s why the contract was “Broken” She’s an actor guys. And you fell for it ☺️?
BonerPatrol
Disney will win because they have a loophole technically releases on Disney+ are included with the subscription. They didn’t release it onto Disney+ without extra money so technically it was still a release that was within the clause.
Mike
There is enough proof of wrongdoing in the fact that, although Disney released the film in theaters, they accuse if of not caring about covid victims because she objected to simultaneous TV release.
Ryan H
As someone who suffers from social anxiety I appreciate having the choice to watch newly released films at home.
D. Wood
Boohoo I only made a few million for making a movie… I’m gonna die! Get a real life.. I only made 45 grand for working 6 days a week 52 weeks last year doing hard labor. Blood sweat and tears vs makeup chairs and hair styles every day.. Get real! So they streamed your movie… More people will see it streaming than theaters anyway? Businesses are closing down again as I type. People aren’t going to theaters. Greedy isnt a good Look on the super rich!
David knape
She should be lucky that POS was released at all. It was pretty much the female winter soldier. But with less acting skill, poor writing and story, no character development and a big man hating undertone.
Tracie M Ford
I just LOOOOVE these armchair legal opinions. Or there are A LOT of Disney employees on here. I HAVE read the contract. Ms. Johansson DOES have a valid claim. If she WAS exec prod, she shelled out more $$$ than she’ll recoup until dvd sales because she gets a % of the “back end”. More than likely Disney will settle out of court so they don’t have to admit breach of contract, because then no one would do business with them again.
And why are y’all getting your knickers in a twist, exactly? It’s not like it’s YOUR money. If you’re feeling bad for The House of Mouse, don’t. Mackey couldn’t run out of money even if every employee was paid $1K every day! LMAO!
Pmmhof
Why aren’t these people also during HBO Max. They are also streaming these movies.
Comments are closed.