DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Letter M on July 08, 2021, 08:35:08 PM
-
Since the dedicated MCU thread doesn't allow recent spoilers, I figured I'd make a dedicated Black Widow thread. I *do* want to be able to discuss spoilers, but I may wait a day or two.
As for my (hopefully mostly) non-spoiler thoughts - this was a somewhat OK film for me. The action set-pieces were good, even if a bit uninspired as points, but the film had a some heart and great acting moments. The breakout stars are easily Florence Pugh as Yelena Belova, and David Habour as Alexei Shostoakov. I wasn't really super impressed, wowed, intrigued, or super-emotionally invested throughout most of the film, but like I said, there were some good moments throughout, as well as some good ole MCU-humor.
For me, it feels like this film was made so that Marvel Studios could say they made a Black Widow film, but it rung a bit hollow for me. Maybe I'll enjoy it more on a second viewing, but on this first one, it's definitely in the mid-to-lower end of MCU films. I don't want to say I was thoroughly disappointed, but there were parts that were a bit of a let-down for me, especially considering this was supposed to be the MCU's triumphant return to the cinemas. Hopefully Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings fares a bit better, though I'm sure it will given how fresh it looks from trailers alone.
-Marc.
-
How was “the jiggle factor”?
-
How was “the jiggle factor”?
All I'll say is that this film was definitely NOT directed by Joss Whedon.
-Marc.
-
For me, it feels like this film was made so that Marvel Studios could say they made a Black Widow film, but it rung a bit hollow for me.
Honestly, that's about what I've been expecting. But I'm okay with that. I don't think I'll be let down by being let down, if you know what I mean. And even if the MCU from here on out ends up being a big let down, they gave us 23 films (plus extra stuff) of an overall incredible story. The MCU has already exceeded expectations.
I'm curious about two things, but I'm not going to stick around for the answers because you should be able to spoil away, and I don't want to be spoiled:
1. Since it is set in phase 3 chronologically, is there anything that makes it truly a "phase 4" film besides the fact that it is released after Endgame/FFH?
2. Anything juicy in mid-credits or end-credits that sets up where we are going next? I was expecting maybe something that maybe did a little tribute to the character, since she is gone now. But I guess there is no need for that since her episode in the Marvel Legends series on D+.
NOW GET TO SPOILING SOME STUFF!
See ya in a couple of days.
-
1. Since it is set in phase 3 chronologically, is there anything that makes it truly a "phase 4" film besides the fact that it is released after Endgame/FFH?
There is, and it's mostly shown in the lone post-credits scene of the film.
2. Anything juicy in mid-credits or end-credits that sets up where we are going next? I was expecting maybe something that maybe did a little tribute to the character, since she is gone now. But I guess there is no need for that since her episode in the Marvel Legends series on D+.
Same as my previous answer, there is a "juicy" post-credits scene that will surprise and satisfy. And speaking of Disney+, I hope you've kept up with the shows so far! That'll make more sense later...
-Marc.
-
How was “the jiggle factor”?
All I'll say is that this film was definitely NOT directed by Joss Whedon.
-Marc.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
-
How was “the jiggle factor”?
There are loads of ass shots in this movie
Low tier Marvel for me. Like a lot of the lesser ones it's letdown by a poor villian and a bog standard climax (not helped by confusing editting). It also felt more like an origin movie for Yelena rather than a send off for Natasha.
6/10.
-
How was “the jiggle factor”?
All I'll say is that this film was definitely NOT directed by Joss Whedon.
-Marc.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
I have no idea what that means. So how WAS the "jiggle factor"?
-
Did they finally explain what the fuck happened in Budapest?
-
Did they finally explain what the fuck happened in Budapest?
Yes
-
Is it sad that my favorite moment of the whole film was probably the post-credits scene?! It's easily one of the best scenes of the whole film, and the cameo is a fun call-back to that character's appearance in TFATWS. Can't wait to see more of Yelena Belova in the Hawkeye series this fall, too! She was probably the best new character of the film. If it wasn't for her and Alexei, this film would have been SUPER dull, but they kind of saved it.
-Marc.
-
Is it sad that my favorite moment of the whole film was probably the post-credits scene?! It's easily one of the best scenes of the whole film, and the cameo is a fun call-back to that character's appearance in TFATWS. Can't wait to see more of Yelena Belova in the Hawkeye series this fall, too! She was probably the best new character of the film. If it wasn't for her and Alexei, this film would have been SUPER dull, but they kind of saved it.
-Marc.
Agreed for the most part. I don't like how they portrayed Alexi as a bumbling oaf after the prison break. I thought the chemistry between ScarJo and Florence was excellent. The storyline was quite cliche, like the Jason Bourne storyline had sex with the Civil War storyline - and the offspring was female. Not bad, but not great. Decent action sequences, but too many 'bumps' that should've killed or maimed mortal humans that they ended up surviving and/or walking away from unscathed. If a movie is going to be (mostly) grounded in reality, I think people walking away from a helicopter crash landing is a bit much to swallow. I wish they would've explained how Nat escaped Ross' custody.
And yeah... lots of butt shots (which I even mentioned to jingle.son partway thru the movie). And double yeah.... post credits scene was most excellent.
Also, it's a bit of a throwaway moment, but jingle.son and I decided that Ross' "2nd triple by-pass" is setting him up for some kind of illness, and ultimately to introduce Red Hulk.
7.5/10 I'll see if that changes after I re-watch with jingle.daughter.
-
I enjoyed it. much better than I thought it was going to be. knew who Taskmaster was before the reveal though. they kept mentioning the daughter, so you knew she had to show up later
-
I enjoyed it. much better than I thought it was going to be. knew who Taskmaster was before the reveal though. they kept mentioning the daughter, so you knew she had to show up later
Yeah, that was a painfully obvious setup.
-
I enjoyed it and thought it was a solid 7/10 or so. Biggest issue for me going into it was not finding Black Widow to be an interesting character enough to carry her own movie (she is fine as a support though) and to some extent she kinda wasn't. It felt more like Marvel/Disney rewarding Scarlett with her own movie as a thanks for long service rather than them doing it because this was a crucial story that needed to be told in the MCU to expand it.
Funny enough, I was skeptical of the 'family' element after the trailer but that stuff ended up being the best in the movie for me. Florence Pugh as Yelena was definitely the standout and hopefully we see more of her in the future, but David Harbour as the 'dad' and Rachel Weisz as the 'mom' provided some nice chemistry. The action setpieces were pretty much what you expect and you get your hand to hand combat scenes mixed in with CGI explosions.
Overall it felt like a solid 'middle of the pack' Marvel movie that doesn't get close to challenge the best ones, but it's also not quite as rough as the weakest ones. Without getting too spoilery I will say there is a post-credits scene that does give some hint toward what might come.
-
I agree with most of the reviews here. Upper middle of the pack. 7ish/10.
I really like that they are sticking with a good storytelling route because the action in this film was pretty samey and predictable. If this had been a “blow me up” non-stop movie like many action films are, this would have been terrible. But at several moments (not just one or two) they slowed things down and allowed their characters to develop. With the exception of the villain, which I thought was odd. I LOVED the way Natasha played him at the end, and I adored the “Thank you for your cooperation” payoff. But whatsisname (Mr. “so underdeveloped I forgot”) just seemed like a stand in baddie. But since the focus was on developing Black Widow’s back story, I didn’t mind as much.
Since ScarJo had a production credit, I disagree with the view that Marvel was just throwing her a bone. ScarJo comes across as a very down to earth person IRL, and I think it’s possible that she wanted the *story* to be about more than just a self-centered fluff piece. The film succeeded in doing what it was trying to do. Giving some background and fleshing out Natasha’s character while still opening the way for new characters to go in a new direction. And as such, it better serves the overall MCU story arc.
-
But whatsisname (Mr. “so underdeveloped I forgot”) just seemed like a stand in baddie.
Vankov? Varkov? Yank-off? Whack-off? yeah, I forget his name too. Oh, wait (seriously, I'm just remembering as I type this), Drakov. And I only remember because that's what Loki refers to her as when he's in the Heli-carrier cell. "Drakov's daughter".
I did like that the focus was on telling / developing Natasha's story. Tied up some loose ends now that the character is no more. Though, I do see the possibility of a cameo in Hawkeye (ie, flashback to Budapesht)
-
It’s a flawed movie that I really really enjoyed.
The villain is INCREDIBLY weak and I’m really disappointed that THATS the version of TaskMaster we’re going to get. Such a cool character reduced down to nothing. And yes, everyone should’ve died like 5 times each but survived without a scratch.
Despite those flaws, I loved it. The character work was great, the humor was spot on, especially mocking the super hero pose. And as much as I didn’t like TaskMaster, I did appreciate her doing the scissor kick spin thing on Nat for the first time.
If/when I do a big rewatch, I’ll be excited to get to this one. Definitely a middle of the pack movie, but only because so many others are just so good.
-
Disney just noted that Black Widow made $60,000,000 via PremierAccess from Disney+ subscribers. That's 2,000,000 households that purchased the movie at home.
I'll be waiting until it comes out for free on Disney+, but it's cool for them to release that info, which I'm sure will get bundled into the weekend tallies from theaters.
-
It’s a flawed movie that I really really enjoyed.
The villain is INCREDIBLY weak and I’m really disappointed that THATS the version of TaskMaster we’re going to get. Such a cool character reduced down to nothing. And yes, everyone should’ve died like 5 times each but survived without a scratch.
Despite those flaws, I loved it. The character work was great, the humor was spot on, especially mocking the super hero pose. And as much as I didn’t like TaskMaster, I did appreciate her doing the scissor kick spin thing on Nat for the first time.
If/when I do a big rewatch, I’ll be excited to get to this one. Definitely a middle of the pack movie, but only because so many others are just so good.
That's the third time I heard reference to the "super hero pose". Is that when the hero lands, and puts their fist down (almost like an NFL lineman) and looks up all menacingly?
-
Since ScarJo had a production credit, I disagree with the view that Marvel was just throwing her a bone. ScarJo comes across as a very down to earth person IRL, and I think it’s possible that she wanted the *story* to be about more than just a self-centered fluff piece. The film succeeded in doing what it was trying to do. Giving some background and fleshing out Natasha’s character while still opening the way for new characters to go in a new direction. And as such, it better serves the overall MCU story arc.
I agree with your points on Scarlett but to me it still felt a bit like a sort of reward for her loyal service through 10 years of MCU movies where her character appears in multiple movies but never had her own. I also can't help but shake the feeling that this movie really should have been a Phase 1 or early Phase 2 movie and not the.. 21st or 22nd (I lost count) movie of the universe. I did enjoy it quite a bit but it still felt a bit like having the appetizer after the meal in that sense.
-
Movie wasn't bad at all. 7/10 sounds about right. Didn't really cared for some of the action scenes but my main issue with the movie is that it should have been released after Civil War, and before Infinity War. But it helped that I saw Civil War yesterday before going to the movies today.
-
It’s a flawed movie that I really really enjoyed.
The villain is INCREDIBLY weak and I’m really disappointed that THATS the version of TaskMaster we’re going to get. Such a cool character reduced down to nothing. And yes, everyone should’ve died like 5 times each but survived without a scratch.
Despite those flaws, I loved it. The character work was great, the humor was spot on, especially mocking the super hero pose. And as much as I didn’t like TaskMaster, I did appreciate her doing the scissor kick spin thing on Nat for the first time.
If/when I do a big rewatch, I’ll be excited to get to this one. Definitely a middle of the pack movie, but only because so many others are just so good.
That's the third time I heard reference to the "super hero pose". Is that when the hero lands, and puts their fist down (almost like an NFL lineman) and looks up all menacingly?
Yes, but in Natasha’s case, it includes one leg extended all the way out to one side, and then a “hair flip” after landing that way.
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/4c1595d3d7ab7d77dd108aedfac42ad4/c198e335a6f46056-86/s540x810/f3ea89136a3fc3eade4eca66bbbc59cc0a6df97b.gifv)
-
Just finished, waiting for the credits to end. What a fucking blast, good to be back in the imax theater seeing the MCU again. Not sure how this will age, but it was a damn fun ride.
-
I think they are using this movie to shows us what's to come, I think we´ll see more of the Red Guardian, of course, we´ll see more of Yelena, but also more of Task Master, and the black widows around the globe.
-
Yeah. Was fine. Not at the top of the pile but there were lots of things I liked:
Scarlett had lots of acting to do.
The angles on misogyny were pushed into Marvel form really well, I thought.
Yelena.
I felt no real tension or emotion except that I really like the character and am really sad to see her go. The last shot of her is her walking away, wiggling in tight trousers (again). I read an interview with the director who was saying that she knowingly stayed away from too much ass. She said there was a scene she wanted to keep in with Scarlett getting out of bed that she loved but test audiences just said was too obviously hot. :lol Rachel Weisz' character wasn't remotely compelling.
All in all. Great to have Marvel movies back.
-
Saw it on Saturday with the family. It was GREAT to be back in a theater, to have popcorn, and the whole 9 yards. Only slight downside on that is that the theater was less than half full. I'm guessing that was a result of (1) overall numbers being a bit down due to some still being reluctant to gather in enclosed spaces, (2) theater numbers for this film being a bit down due to it simultaneously going live on D+ for streaming, and (3) we went to an older theater on the other side of town, which is a LOT less popular than the newer, more hip theater that is closer to us, but is $4 cheaper per person (with a family of 5, it adds up). We thought briefly about just streaming it instead of going out. But opportunities to go out together have been much more limited, and we were all just really excited about seeing something on a huge screen with amazing sound, the popcorn, etc. So streaming it was only a brief, fleeting thought. And I have to say, scenes like the falling ship/skydiving sequence made the big screen SO worth it.
I went into the film with relatively low expectations. I expected to like the movie, and not love it. My expectations were met. It was a solid, fun MCU film. It was little more than that, but that is perfectly fine. I didn't feel like there was much hype about this film, and I think that was a good thing. I mean, there was some natural hype about it being a long-overdue film with the first major MCU female character. And some natural hype about it being the first MCU film since the lockdown, and the first phase 4 film. But that hype wasn't overblown, and it wasn't really about the substance of the movie.
It wasn't a strong story in terms of something that needed to be told, or was overly compelling, or majorly moved the ball downfield for the MCU. It was, more or less, a story to fill in some blanks and give some further closure to a beloved character. And that worked for me. It didn't really try to be more than that, and I didn't need it to be more than that. To me, the family stuff worked well. The international spy thriller stuff worked well. As pointed out by others, the action was sometimes over the top to the point that it crossed the line. But that's fine.
I didn't see the Taskmaster reveal. It made sense, and was simultaneously satisfying and slightly disappointing. Obviously, they could have done much more with that character. But then again, it's okay. Not every character needs to be extensively built up.
The one plot point that I had an issue with was the ending. After the battle ends, Natasha is standing there apparently about to let her self be taken by Ross, and then we get a cut to "2 weeks later" where she is free and about to go bust the other Avengers out of the Raft. No explanation. I'm totally cool with it setting up the prison break that puts them in hiding until Infinity War/Ant Man and Wasp. But how did she go from about to be captured to being out and ready to bust them out? I'm not one who feels like everything needs to be explained, and I feel like I am often defending storytellers for not explaining every little plot point. But to me, this is a pretty major one that just got dropped, and it feels like a glaring omission to me. Anyone else?
Overall, I liked it. It will probably end up ranked mid/low on the total MCU film rankings with some of the solo films like Ant Man or Thor. Good films, and ones that didn't try to do too much, and succeeded. From an MCU plot standpoint, this film was completely unnecessary. But I get why they did it, and they did a good job with it. So this is yet another "win" for Marvel.
-
I disagree that it was completely unnecessary in overall contribution to the MCU. It would've been the initial setup to Dark Avengers / Thunderbolts, but further ties other shows/characters together.
-
I also don’t think every MCU film needs to lead directly into the other movie. Sometimes it’s nice to just tell a story. Granted this was a deeply flawed story, but I’ll judge the movie on its own merits and not on whether or not it served as a step ladder to another movie. Though I understand being more focused on a larger storyline. I just would hate for the movies to be seen as tools to get to another Endgame rather than simply being enjoyable movies on their own.
-
215M USD on its first week, IMPRESSIVE
-
I hear ya on that gap in the ending Bosk... It was literally like 'ok I'll get caught so you all can escape' to 'haha let's go break out the avengers'. I guess we're just to assume that Ross and the hundred troops with him were easy fodder for her. I agree with most of your assessment, and will only rate it higher because she is a favorite MCU character of mine, and the flick made a nice transition for her ongoing redemption arc.
-
I watched the below video after seeing the movie, and it really made me appreciate Nat's journey a lot more. There's a lot of stuff that I've just forgotten over the years.
https://youtu.be/gftu8UpLBRA
-
I watched the below video after seeing the movie, and it really made me appreciate Nat's journey a lot more. There's a lot of stuff that I've just forgotten over the years.
https://youtu.be/gftu8UpLBRA
Nice video, thanks for sharing :tup
-
I watched the below video after seeing the movie, and it really made me appreciate Nat's journey a lot more. There's a lot of stuff that I've just forgotten over the years.
https://youtu.be/gftu8UpLBRA
Nice video, thanks for sharing :tup
Yeah, that was an extremely worthwhile 18 minutes!
-
Outstanding video, thanks for sharing.
-
Not sure why I was slow to make this connection, but I just noticed that the jacket Yelena gives Natasha in the movie, is the same jacket Natasha wears all throughout Infinity War :o I had to look it up to confirm.
(https://media.comicbook.com/2021/06/bw-vest-1272404.jpeg?auto=webp&width=1200&height=680&crop=1200:680,smart)
-
I also did not notice that. Nice detail!
-
Of course she kept it, it has lots of pockets.
-
Ha! Great spot. Cool.
-
Two additions thoughts.
- That cover of Teen Spirit at the start is awful.
- The villains plot is basically the same as Blofeld's in 'On her Majesty's secret service'
-
Two additions thoughts.
- That cover of Teen Spirit at the start is awful.
I agree. I don't get why they pick those songs, I know there was the Come Together cover in Justice League as well. I don't mind covers in general but when you take these songs that are so iconic and you go the cover route, it almost always falls flat IMO.
-
Two additions thoughts.
- That cover of Teen Spirit at the start is awful.
I didn't mind it, actually
- The villains plot is basically the same as Blofeld's in 'On her Majesty's secret service'
It was also pretty damned close to Striker/Wolverine as well. I was so reminded of the scene from x2 where Striker casually walks out on Wolverine, knowing he had a formidable opponent to hold him off while he escapes. Drakov's arc was such a mish-mash of cliched villains throughout cinema history, it easily makes him the worst villain in the MCU - yes, worse than Malekith.
-
Saw it last night. Pretty much the same thoughts as everyone else. It was great being back in the theater. Honestly I would have gone months ago if there had been something worth seeing, but there wasn't. Lots of criticisms, but it was fun and ultimately that's all that really matters.
-
You guys are high. The Teen Spirit cover completely kicked ass and made me want to actually buy a soundtrack for the first time in 15 years.
-
You guys are high. The Teen Spirit cover completely kicked ass and made me want to actually buy a soundtrack for the first time in 15 years.
I liked it too. Though I won't be buying the soundtrack.
-
You guys are high. The Teen Spirit cover completely kicked ass and made me want to actually buy a soundtrack for the first time in 15 years.
I liked it until the chorus kicked in. Not sure why but it took me out when it did. Just felt a bit too distracting.
-
I actually liked the cover (which is telling since I don't like the original). My issue with it is that it felt like it went 1 minute too long.
-
It’s a flawed movie that I really really enjoyed.
The villain is INCREDIBLY weak and I’m really disappointed that THATS the version of TaskMaster we’re going to get. Such a cool character reduced down to nothing. And yes, everyone should’ve died like 5 times each but survived without a scratch.
Despite those flaws, I loved it. The character work was great, the humor was spot on, especially mocking the super hero pose. And as much as I didn’t like TaskMaster, I did appreciate her doing the scissor kick spin thing on Nat for the first time.
If/when I do a big rewatch, I’ll be excited to get to this one. Definitely a middle of the pack movie, but only because so many others are just so good.
Of all the posts in this thread so far, this is closest to my opinion. Not a perfect movie but still great with plenty to love about it, and around mid-table in the MCU, maybe very slightly higher.
The main difference between our opinions is that I'm generally more positive than you about the plot and the villain, Dreykov. Not that he was especially great on his own, but I saw him and the main plot around him as more of an allegory for powerful men who control women (I mean, with Ray Winstone in the role he even kind of looked a bit like Harvey Weinstein). As with the film in general, it wasn't done perfectly but I still thought it was done quite well and gave the story a broader and more interesting perspective (to me, anyway).
-
That's a really good point I didn't really notice.
It doesn't make HIM a more interesting villain, but it makes the whole situation more interesting. Wish they explored that a bit more, but then I guess they'd risk half the country saying Marvel is too woke and preachy or what not.
-
It’s a flawed movie that I really really enjoyed.
The villain is INCREDIBLY weak and I’m really disappointed that THATS the version of TaskMaster we’re going to get. Such a cool character reduced down to nothing. And yes, everyone should’ve died like 5 times each but survived without a scratch.
Despite those flaws, I loved it. The character work was great, the humor was spot on, especially mocking the super hero pose. And as much as I didn’t like TaskMaster, I did appreciate her doing the scissor kick spin thing on Nat for the first time.
If/when I do a big rewatch, I’ll be excited to get to this one. Definitely a middle of the pack movie, but only because so many others are just so good.
Of all the posts in this thread so far, this is closest to my opinion. Not a perfect movie but still great with plenty to love about it, and around mid-table in the MCU, maybe very slightly higher.
The main difference between our opinions is that I'm generally more positive than you about the plot and the villain, Dreykov. Not that he was especially great on his own, but I saw him and the main plot around him as more of an allegory for powerful men who control women (I mean, with Ray Winstone in the role he even kind of looked a bit like Harvey Weinstein). As with the film in general, it wasn't done perfectly but I still thought it was done quite well and gave the story a broader and more interesting perspective (to me, anyway).
I totally picked up on the Harvey Weinstein vibe as well, wonder if that was done on purpose, since so little in the MCU is accidental.
-
Wish they explored that a bit more, but then I guess they'd risk half the country saying Marvel is too woke and preachy or what not.
Sadly that's been happening since Captain Marvel.
-
That's a really good point I didn't really notice.
It doesn't make HIM a more interesting villain, but it makes the whole situation more interesting. Wish they explored that a bit more, but then I guess they'd risk half the country saying Marvel is too woke and preachy or what not.
Yeah absolutely. Some people complained that Captain Marvel was too on the nose with its feminism themes (I didn't feel that way but I can see the argument), but this was a little more subtle, maybe intentionally I guess.
Either way I think it works pretty well, and makes some of the plot points quite interesting that on their own could have been cliche or bland, like the fact that even the seemingly powerful women such as Melina are also under his control and struggle to break away from it.
-
The exaggerated action set pieces and Black Widow not taking any damage is definitely the weakest part of the film. I really miss the good old days when every superhero movie didn't have to end with a giant 'take over the world' or 'save the world' type plot. This film would have been a lot better for me if it was just the 'family' taking down a crime syndicate but instead we have this giant bad guy base, tons of explosions and things are just taken too the extreme. And again, Black Widow not taking any damage just takes away any emotional stakes for me. Yeah I know she can't die because this takes place in between movies, but to show her hurt and wounded would still add more to the movie than having her with no scratches at the end.
-
That's a really good point I didn't really notice.
It doesn't make HIM a more interesting villain, but it makes the whole situation more interesting. Wish they explored that a bit more, but then I guess they'd risk half the country saying Marvel is too woke and preachy or what not.
Which clearly doesn't bother Marvel even a little bit, so it's not that.
-
Saw it tonight, at the cinema. It was loud.
I know they mentioned Budapest, but I still don't understand what happened. Barton something something something.
-
Saw it tonight, at the cinema. It was loud.
I know they mentioned Budapest, but I still don't understand what happened. Barton something something something.
The short version is that Barton worked with Romanoff on a mission to assassinate Dreykov, her last mission to to prove she was defecting to SHIELD and giving up her Red Room/Widow life to become an agent.
After the assassination attempt, they were on the run, from her safe house (where Yelena was staying, mentioning the arrow holes in the walls), to a subway air vent, where they hid for several days playing tic-tac-toe and hangman.
-Marc.
-
Ah, thank you! I heard the first part but had trouble putting it together with the second part. So that would be the mission where she shot Dreykov's daughter, and didn't manage to kill Dreykov himself, right?
-
Saw it tonight, at the cinema. It was loud.
I know they mentioned Budapest, but I still don't understand what happened. Barton something something something.
It was loud, wasn’t it? I wasn’t sure if it was actually super loud or if I just hadn’t been to a theater in so long but it was quite unpleasant at times.
-
Probably just me getting old, and possibly you too.
-
Ah, thank you! I heard the first part but had trouble putting it together with the second part. So that would be the mission where she shot Dreykov's daughter, and didn't manage to kill Dreykov himself, right?
Not so much shot, but exploded a building that Antonia Dreykov had entered. I think Natasha was under the assumption that she arrived to the building where her father would be, and so she used her as collateral damage to take out Dreykov. While not explicitly shown in the film, we are to assume that Dreykov wasn't there and let his daughter get blown up to make Natasha believe she had killed him, while also giving her that red in her ledger that Loki alludes to in the Avengers ("Dreykov's daughter...").
During that Budapest flashback scene, she is also talking to Clint on radio, confirming to go ahead with the assassination via explosion.
-Marc.
-
Saw it today, and loved it. Natasha/Scarlett is awesome and she deserved this. I know that no amount of violence is enough these days, but she got hurt plenty. Bruises all over, a broken nose, stabbed and bleeding, etc. All these movies have normal humans surviving impossible circumstances so nothing new there.
The emotional scenes were done well and delivered the goods. And yeah I choked up when I saw the grave stone.
-
I loved the driving action scenes. They are more impressive than the cgi action. They balance that so well.
-
I loved the driving action scenes. They are more impressive than the cgi action. They balance that so well.
You don't think there's a shit-ton of CGI in those scenes?? :lol
-
There's a mix dude. The cars are real. Come on man.
-
There's a mix dude. The cars are real. Come on man.
I'd bet at least 1/2 (maybe all) of what that car/tank rammed through was CGI.
-
There's a mix dude. The cars are real. Come on man.
I'd bet at least 1/2 (maybe all) of what that car/tank rammed through was CGI.
Has an old school action feel like The Winter Soldier did in the car chase scenes.
-
I don't mean to sound negative on the movie as I still enjoyed it but having seen Mission Impossible Fallout from a few years ago which has a car/bike chase not too different from the one in Black Widow, it was like night and day in terms of quality. But it's probably unfair because Tom Cruise goes the extra mile and the amount of practical stunts is almost unbelievable when you stack it up to almost any other blockbuster where 90% of the work was done by guys in front of their computers. I'm sure there's a lot of people who love their CGI explosions but personally I would take a more realistic car crash where they actually crash a car, over a car being exploded, flipped and rolling down a subway which looks super fake.
-
Tom Cruise action scenes are second to none. Tge man is nuts doing a ton of his own stunts
My favorite car chase scene is from the movie, "Ronin" if you've never seen it.
-
Regarding that Teen Spirit cover, I can’t stand it because almost every episode of every “drama” series my wife watches ends with some pathetically lame hack droning their way through the same-sounding crap in a desperate attempt to add pathos. SO FREAKIN OVERDONE.
-
Saw it today, and loved it. Natasha/Scarlett is awesome and she deserved this. I know that no amount of violence is enough these days, but she got hurt plenty. Bruises all over, a broken nose, stabbed and bleeding, etc. All these movies have normal humans surviving impossible circumstances so nothing new there.
The emotional scenes were done well and delivered the goods. And yeah I choked up when I saw the grave stone.
My thoughts exactly
-
I thought it was fun. Certainly not upper echelon MCU, but fine for what it is.
I didn't like the change for Taskmaster.
-
I thought it was fun. Certainly not upper echelon MCU, but fine for what it is.
I didn't like the change for Taskmaster.
Of all the changes / twists they’ve done for characters (Mandarin, Ancient One, Sharon as examples), this was the most disappointing.
-
Saw it too, I'm basically in line with everyone else - yeah, cool and fun, but it's not gonna be groundbreaking or particularly memorable.
One thing about the pheromones issue - does that bad guy stink so much and never washes, or they are naturally all around in a closed room and they can be sensed anyway? legit question :lol because, I mean, if the problem is that you're near your enemy enough to smell him, just walk away to the furthest corner of the room where you can't sense his pheromones (rather than breaking your nose).
-
Yeah that was a strange 'power'. Personally I just think Ray Winston stinks in real life (curry, fags, cheap whiskey, hi karate aftershave) and they just wrote that into the script.
-
Yeah that was a strange 'power'. Personally I just think Ray Winston stinks in real life (curry, fags, cheap whiskey, hi karate aftershave) and they just wrote that into the script.
Wtf :rollin :rollin
-
Well, it seems we´ll hear more of Black Widow in the future:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22600396/scarlett-johansson-suing-disney-black-widow-release
-
Ouch.
I can see her point, that her salary was negotiated based on a piece of the box office, which is less because of the simultaneous release on streaming platforms. But the article seems to point out a few things that will weaken the suit.
Marvel Entertainment, which is owned by Disney, ensured a "wide theatrical release" of the film. The suit says it’s "well understood" that the agreement meant an exclusive release that would not include streaming.
Okay, so which is it? Did the contract guarantee a "wide theatrical release" or an "exclusive" release? It doesn't matter what is "well understood"; what matters is what's in black and white in the contract.
The lawsuit alleges that Disney had two primary motivations for the hybrid release. First, it argues, Disney wanted to boost subscriber numbers for its streaming service and inflate its stock value. Second, the suit states, "Disney wanted to substantially devalue Ms. Johansson’s agreement and thereby enrich itself."
The second part is what will be hard to prove, if not impossible. No one could have forseen the pandemic, and I thought releasing it simultaneously in theaters and online was a decent compromise. Yes, it cuts into her take-home. But how do you prove that Disney did this with the expressed intention of "devaluing" her?
-
Would a force majeure clause cancel that out? I think it could be argued that a pandemic is one. (I of course know precisely dick about contract law and am more than anxious to hear from the lawyers)
-
Would a force majeure clause cancel that out? I think it could be argued that a pandemic is one. (I of course know precisely dick about contract law and am more than anxious to hear from the lawyers)
That was my immediate thought. But if it's potentially costing her $50M, it's worth throwing this out there. Let's ignore the fact that many countries still didn't (and don't) have theaters open at the beginning of the month.
@ Bob... I think the claim is that it was contracted that the exclusive and theatrical release were in combination with one another - exclusively a theatrical release. And as far as black and white in the contract, Disney lawyers will be well paid to say that D+ constitutes a "theatrical release". Depends on whose literal definition of "theatrical" is going to be used.
-
Thing is, it wasn't just added to vanilla Disney+, it was a premium thing you had to pay for (and in the UK at least, if your household only had one or two people watching it, like I did, it actually cost more than it would have done to watch in theaters).
So, on one hand yes of course it was completely reasonable for Disney to release it on premium streaming as well as in theaters, because of the pandemic. But on the other hand, Disney should absolutely treat that income as equivalent to box office income for the purpose of her salary. I doubt they would have been required to do so in terms of contract law, but frankly it's just common sense and basic decency. If they're not paying her anything from that pot, then while she may not have a strong legal case, I would be 100% on her side morally.
-
I justified it because I would see every Marvel movie in I-MAX or in a drive in and it cost just as much for 2 people.
-
Okay, so which is it? Did the contract guarantee a "wide theatrical release" or an "exclusive" release? It doesn't matter what is "well understood"; what matters is what's in black and white in the contract.
Yes and no. "[W]hat's in black and white in the contract" is the starting point, but it's rarely all there is to it. When you have terminology that has a "well understood" meaning in a particular industry in which both parties are sophisticated players, it very much DOES matter what is and isn't "well understood." Whether she can prove that it was, in fact, "well understood" is a different matter entirely.
The lawsuit alleges that Disney had two primary motivations for the hybrid release. First, it argues, Disney wanted to boost subscriber numbers for its streaming service and inflate its stock value. Second, the suit states, "Disney wanted to substantially devalue Ms. Johansson’s agreement and thereby enrich itself."
The second part is what will be hard to prove, if not impossible. No one could have forseen the pandemic, and I thought releasing it simultaneously in theaters and online was a decent compromise. Yes, it cuts into her take-home. But how do you prove that Disney did this with the expressed intention of "devaluing" her?
I haven't seen the complaint, so I don't know what causes of action were alleged, but in a breach of contract suit, the party's motivations for breaching aren't relevant. Assuming no other causes of action that might make the motivations relevant, these allegations are nothing more than press release fodder.
Would a force majeure clause cancel that out? I think it could be argued that a pandemic is one. (I of course know precisely dick about contract law and am more than anxious to hear from the lawyers)
Force majeure is a concept that almost no one cared about prior to 2020, but it's been the legal term of the year for the past year and a half. The answer to your question as it relates to this suit is maybe. It depends on what the FM clause (if there was one) says. That being said, it might not apply because there was arguably no force majeure event at the time this movie was released.
Thing is, it wasn't just added to vanilla Disney+, it was a premium thing you had to pay for (and in the UK at least, if your household only had one or two people watching it, like I did, it actually cost more than it would have done to watch in theaters).
So, on one hand yes of course it was completely reasonable for Disney to release it on premium streaming as well as in theaters, because of the pandemic. But on the other hand, Disney should absolutely treat that income as equivalent to box office income for the purpose of her salary. I doubt they would have been required to do so in terms of contract law, but frankly it's just common sense and basic decency. If they're not paying her anything from that pot, then while she may not have a strong legal case, I would be 100% on her side morally.
Studios and record companies have been (for decades) intractably resistant to paying royalties for media revenue other than those things expressly identified in the contract (for example, I'm pretty sure a LOT of artists are getting squat for streaming revenue for 5-10+ year old material). I could be wrong, but I think one of Johansson's allegations is that her contract did not provide for royalties based on this sort of streaming revenue (because it wasn't a thing in late 2018 or early 2019 when the contract was made). This isn't about "common decency" or anything like that, and that won't come into play at all.
-
But this is the type of stuff the FM clause is written for, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, pandemic, etc, right?
(I actually learned about the clause from the original Battlefield Earth novel, not the crappy movie, it played a big part in o e of the climactic moments)
-
But this is the type of stuff the FM clause is written for, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, pandemic, etc, right?
(I actually learned about the clause from the original Battlefield Earth novel, not the crappy movie, it played a big part in o e of the climactic moments)
Sort of. The idea is that, if an "act of god" prevents one party from performing, then that party is not in breach for failing to perform. While a pandemic is a classic "act of god" (i.e., a force majeure event), it is arguable, that the pandemic did not prevent Disney from performing. For example, my company had booked a location for a summer 2020 company party that we canceled, citing the force majeure language in the contract.
If what I'm reading (mostly on Wiki) is right, production on BW wrapped in October 2019, and post-production was done about six months later. The theatrical release was delayed for the pandemic, and the movie was released theatrically on July 9, 2021. There was nothing at that time preventing an exclusive theatrical release or mandating a simultaneous release via streaming.
-
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. We'll no matter, it's safe to say there'll be no resurrection of the ScarJo Widow now.
-
Maybe, maybe not. These suits are not always taken personally like we assume. Ozzy and Tony sued each other over the Sabbath name and ended up putting out an album together and doing at least one tour AFTER that suit. I'm in a case in California with an entity, and have entered into TWO subsequent contracts with them for further work. Everyone assumes that "suing someone" is akin to fucking them over, and it's just not (always) that way.
EDIT: And actually, depending how it plays out, I can see "two more pictures" or whatever, being part of a settlement.
-
What I'm unclear on is whether or not D+ Premier Access revenues for the film are counted as part of her % of revenue deal. If it is, then she can go fuck a duck, and is totally tone deaf to sue Disney for her own personal lost revenue of a % of Disney's own (hypothetical) missed revenues between what was earned in theaters plus D+ Premier access vs theaters alone. Frankly, because of what I posted earlier, the latter probably would have been LESS total revenue earned by the film.
If she's NOT getting a % of the D+ Premier Access revenues, then I think she has a legitimate beef. Whether it's a legitimate case is a different question.
-
From everything I've seen she didn't get a percentage of the D+ (that totally sounds dirty but I'm leaving it). Granted most of the sources I'm seeing are heavy on team ScarJo.
I'd love to see the writers as they try to work through the mental gymnastics of how to write her back into the MCU for two more flicks :lol
-
From everything I've seen she didn't get a percentage of the D+ (that totally sounds dirty but I'm leaving it). Granted most of the sources I'm seeing are heavy on team ScarJo.
So then yeah... that's shifty on Disney's part. Logical from the sense of the right thing to do given world conditions, but shifty as a means of getting out of having to pay her millions.
-
From everything I've seen she didn't get a percentage of the D+ (that totally sounds dirty but I'm leaving it). Granted most of the sources I'm seeing are heavy on team ScarJo.
So then yeah... that's shifty on Disney's part. Logical from the sense of the right thing to do given world conditions, but shifty as a means of getting out of having to pay her millions.
Also how much revenue was lost through easier pirating due to the D+ release? I'd gather it was substantial.
-
From everything I've seen she didn't get a percentage of the D+ (that totally sounds dirty but I'm leaving it). Granted most of the sources I'm seeing are heavy on team ScarJo.
So then yeah... that's shifty on Disney's part. Logical from the sense of the right thing to do given world conditions, but shifty as a means of getting out of having to pay her millions.
Also how much revenue was lost through easier pirating due to the D+ release? I'd gather it was substantial.
Fo sho
-
Just throwing this out there... why is it shifty? She's represented. She's got lawyers, accountants, agents, managers. She's not a nobody; she's got clout. Disney has ZERO obligation to give her something she didn't ask for or fight for. And if she ultimately signed the deal without that, she's of sound mind and body, and that's that.
I watch "Good Girls", with Christina Hendricks, and it was just cancelled because Manny Montana wouldn't take a pay cut. You know, THAT Manny Montana. :)
-
Seems Kevin Feige is on team ScarJo, and is "angry and embarrassed" at how the mouse is treating her. Wonder if Favreau has piped in yet?
-
The second part is what will be hard to prove, if not impossible. No one could have forseen the pandemic, and I thought releasing it simultaneously in theaters and online was a decent compromise. Yes, it cuts into her take-home. But how do you prove that Disney did this with the expressed intention of "devaluing" her?
Ah, but apparently the idea that the movie might be release through streaming was discussed well before the pandemic:
Even before the pandemic, Ms. Johansson was concerned that “Black Widow” could end up on Disney+ as part of its wide release. In 2019, Ms. Johansson’s representatives reached out to Marvel seeking assurance that “Black Widow” would have a theatrical-only release, according to the complaint. In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278)
-
Just throwing this out there... why is it shifty? She's represented. She's got lawyers, accountants, agents, managers. She's not a nobody; she's got clout. Disney has ZERO obligation to give her something she didn't ask for or fight for. And if she ultimately signed the deal without that, she's of sound mind and body, and that's that.
My assumption on their decision to release it on D+ Premier Access is because they were doing the 'socially responsible' thing. If there's another reason why it was released on D+ Premier Access, I'm willing to hear it. IMO, this is shifty because in doing the socially "right" thing to give an avenue to their audience that doesn't put them in densely packed indoor spaces - it appears to violate the contract with Johansen and also (conveniently) reduces their financial obligation to her.
However, if the above is your stance, then Disney *is* (was) obligated to give her what was contractually agreed to - namely exclusive theatrical release, no?
-
Ah, but apparently the idea that the movie might be release through streaming was discussed well before the pandemic:
Even before the pandemic, Ms. Johansson was concerned that “Black Widow” could end up on Disney+ as part of its wide release. In 2019, Ms. Johansson’s representatives reached out to Marvel seeking assurance that “Black Widow” would have a theatrical-only release, according to the complaint. In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278)
This probably hurts her case a bit. If this was something she/her reps considered before making the contract, then the theatrical exclusivity language should have been included in the contract.
My best guess is that the two sides will do a bit of preliminary punching at each other and eventually settle in a mediation.
-
What I'm unclear on is whether or not D+ Premier Access revenues for the film are counted as part of her % of revenue deal. If it is, then she can go fuck a duck, and is totally tone deaf to sue Disney for her own personal lost revenue of a % of Disney's own (hypothetical) missed revenues between what was earned in theaters plus D+ Premier access vs theaters alone. Frankly, because of what I posted earlier, the latter probably would have been LESS total revenue earned by the film.
If she's NOT getting a % of the D+ Premier Access revenues, then I think she has a legitimate beef. Whether it's a legitimate case is a different question.
100% agree with all this.
And in terms of the bolded part, yeah I paid my Ł20 to watch it alone, whereas if it was only in theaters, right now I almost certainly would not have gone, and even if I had I'd only have spent Ł8-10. But more likely I would have simply waited until it came onto vanilla D+ in 6-9 months as part of my existing subscription.
-
I also have to wonder if Disney releasing it on digital only 1 month (August 10th) after theatrical has anything to do with it? It's also going on physical disc media just 9.5 weeks after theatrical (September 14th), which has to be one of the quickest turnarounds for a large tent pole film.
Also read earlier today that Emma Stone (Cruella) and Emily Blunt (Jungle Cruise) are considering their options with regards to their recent Disney films' performances.
-Marc.
-
What I'm unclear on is whether or not D+ Premier Access revenues for the film are counted as part of her % of revenue deal. If it is, then she can go fuck a duck, and is totally tone deaf to sue Disney for her own personal lost revenue of a % of Disney's own (hypothetical) missed revenues between what was earned in theaters plus D+ Premier access vs theaters alone. Frankly, because of what I posted earlier, the latter probably would have been LESS total revenue earned by the film.
If she's NOT getting a % of the D+ Premier Access revenues, then I think she has a legitimate beef. Whether it's a legitimate case is a different question.
100% agree with all this.
And in terms of the bolded part, yeah I paid my Ł20 to watch it alone, whereas if it was only in theaters, right now I almost certainly would not have gone, and even if I had I'd only have spent Ł8-10. But more likely I would have simply waited until it came onto vanilla D+ in 6-9 months as part of my existing subscription.
Not sure I'm following - you *did* pay 20 to watch it solo on D+Premier, but would *not* have paid 10 to go to the theater on your own?? Am I to assume that is a pandemic statement, and not a financial one (ie, if not for the pandemic, you *would* have gone to the theater?) For all of those situations where Disney got *more* money out of a single consumer because D+Premier > single theater ticket, there's situations where (if not for the pandemic) they got less. For the jingle.family, they got $30 out of us, for 3 of us to watch it. If not for the pandemic, they would've got upwards of $50 out of us to see it in the theater. I have to assume that there are far more instances of groups of people watching at home vs one person watching it at home, and as such releasing on D+Premier because of the pandemic cost them money. Here in Canada, we would not have been able to see it on release weekend (theaters were still closed), but could, and likely would now (jingle.son and I are going to see Suicide Squad in theaters on Thursday). So the decision to release on D+Premier represents less revenue to Disney, and less revenue for ScarJo.
Her contract would have been signed WELL before the pandemic, and I assume well before any thoughts of a D+ Premier Access service as a significant revenue source, so it's understandable how considerations for that would not have worked it's way into the contract.
-
What I'm unclear on is whether or not D+ Premier Access revenues for the film are counted as part of her % of revenue deal. If it is, then she can go fuck a duck, and is totally tone deaf to sue Disney for her own personal lost revenue of a % of Disney's own (hypothetical) missed revenues between what was earned in theaters plus D+ Premier access vs theaters alone. Frankly, because of what I posted earlier, the latter probably would have been LESS total revenue earned by the film.
If she's NOT getting a % of the D+ Premier Access revenues, then I think she has a legitimate beef. Whether it's a legitimate case is a different question.
100% agree with all this.
And in terms of the bolded part, yeah I paid my Ł20 to watch it alone, whereas if it was only in theaters, right now I almost certainly would not have gone, and even if I had I'd only have spent Ł8-10. But more likely I would have simply waited until it came onto vanilla D+ in 6-9 months as part of my existing subscription.
Not sure I'm following - you *did* pay 20 to watch it solo on D+Premier, but would *not* have paid 10 to go to the theater on your own?? Am I to assume that is a pandemic statement, and not a financial one (ie, if not for the pandemic, you *would* have gone to the theater?)
Yes, exactly. And it's not just about whether cinemas are open or closed - I and many others are not really in a position right now to be going out to places like that. If they'd held on a bit longer, maybe another 2-3 months, I'd probably have felt differently, but with the timing of the release, home viewing was my only option really.
For all of those situations where Disney got *more* money out of a single consumer because D+Premier > single theater ticket, there's situations where (if not for the pandemic) they got less. For the jingle.family, they got $30 out of us, for 3 of us to watch it. If not for the pandemic, they would've got upwards of $50 out of us to see it in the theater. I have to assume that there are far more instances of groups of people watching at home vs one person watching it at home, and as such releasing on D+Premier because of the pandemic cost them money. Here in Canada, we would not have been able to see it on release weekend (theaters were still closed), but could, and likely would now (jingle.son and I are going to see Suicide Squad in theaters on Thursday). So the decision to release on D+Premier represents less revenue to Disney, and less revenue for ScarJo.
Yes of course, but "if not for the pandemic" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. I completely agree that had there been no pandemic, the film would have made considerably more in total and done so all at the box office as normal. But there is a pandemic. Even where cinemas are open, lots of people (especially those not double-vaxxed, which I wasn't when the film released) aren't rushing to go to theaters. So, given the fact of the pandemic, I think it's likely the movie would have made less in total had it been in theaters only (which is what I thought you were saying, and I was agreeing with?).
-
Her contract would have been signed WELL before the pandemic, and I assume well before any thoughts of a D+ Premier Access service as a significant revenue source, so it's understandable how considerations for that would not have worked it's way into the contract.
But they said they discussed it. I don't think this is a completely accurate statement. We're talking 2019, not 1979. Disney+ launched in November of 2019, so we're not contemplating nuclear fission-level technology.
Yes of course, but "if not for the pandemic" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. I completely agree that had there been no pandemic, the film would have made considerably more in total and done so all at the box office as normal. But there is a pandemic. Even where cinemas are open, lots of people (especially those not double-vaxxed, which I wasn't when the film released) aren't rushing to go to theaters. So, given the fact of the pandemic, I think it's likely the movie would have made less in total had it been in theaters only (which is what I thought you were saying, and I was agreeing with?).
I don't think we should be too cavalier with our assumptions and we shouldn't just isolate one variable. Sure, some might have seen this in a theater rather than Disney+, but some may not and there may have been OTHER movies released in competition, cutting into the proceeds. I don't think it's linear "no pandemic, higher theater box office for that particular film". I wasn't going either way, frankly, and with the pandemic, I'm MORE likely to watch it on Disney+ than not, so FOR ME, Scarjo isn't losing a dollar. Same for my kid.
-
No matter the outcome between the case between rich actress and ultra powerful rich corporate conglomerate, the meme game has been fire the last day or so...
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/226606120_4403774943003520_32148439594178670_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=ncA0enYiuTsAX-PjIMA&tn=lOpW6_whiRLu3wZd&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=2872b24c3d5e243ed05e4dbec58db4d0&oe=612B3953)
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/226643525_10161792031937837_7379322102670051418_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=A7vG-APDvuwAX-jM4a_&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=aadd10adeec2590c0449b693b1534eae&oe=6109B4C3)
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/223663103_4405923236122024_4283956271988338516_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=8SYI6T57iSEAX81kkFg&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5e38602b38b4a17fe1a2f45445c5bbeb&oe=612A5A8F)
-
So, given the fact of the pandemic, I think it's likely the movie would have made less in total had it been in theaters only (which is what I thought you were saying, and I was agreeing with?).
Yes, I think we're in agreement. Theaters only as a July release... definitely less money. September or October release... who knows.
In early 2019 (likely when the contract was signed ... if not earlier), there was no notion of D+ Premier Access or a global pandemic. So, the expected outcomes (for both Disney and Scarlett) for an exclusive theatrical release were in sync. The pandemic and Disney changed the game, and Disney still took steps to do what they felt would maximize their revenues, while Scarlett got hooped (on the assumption she isn't getting a cut of Premier Access revenue). IMO, this lawsuit is her taking steps to do what she feels maximizes her revenues. Fair play in my opinion.
-
Has it been confirmed that she didn't get a cut of the D+ revenue?
-
Has it been confirmed that she didn't get a cut of the D+ revenue?
I thought Disney's statement on the matter made it sound like she did (they basically said she made more money because of the D+ release), but I don't think that's been confirmed anywhere.
I think the obvious solution is for them to include the D+ revenue in her cut. Beyond that, I'm not sure much else is reasonable for her to demand. If they had skipped the D+ release and stuck with just theaters, the film almost certainly would have made less money than it did. Maybe her beef is that they should have delayed release longer until things settle down more?
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
Because that is what some of these positions sound like, and that is NOT how the world works. I don't know for certain, and this is not legal advice or analysis (because I have not read the agreements) but my gut says this is a slam dunk win for Disney (though I've said before and I stand by this, this never sees a court room and is settled "amicably" with terms that are not released).
-
I have no idea what the statute of limitations on something like this would be, but I'm surprised she didn't wait a little longer before filing her suit. I mean, why not let the movie ride the wave as far as it can go, make as much revenue as it can make, and then sue for your chunk of a (presumably) bigger pie?
Either way, I dug the film, and I'm bummed that this suit basically serves as the final nail in the Scarlett/MCU coffin.
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
No, I'm not. Fuck man, where did you read that in my post? I'm saying is reasonable for Scarlett to take steps to maximize her revenue. Disney did for themselves (and I have no problem with it - so long as it isn't a blatant contract violation), so why shouldn't she (again, assuming that Premier Access revenue is not part of her cut)?
[/quote]
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
Because that is what some of these positions sound like, and that is NOT how the world works. I don't know for certain, and this is not legal advice or analysis (because I have not read the agreements) but my gut says this is a slam dunk win for Disney (though I've said before and I stand by this, this never sees a court room and is settled "amicably" with terms that are not released).
I'll simp for Scarlett over the Mouse every fucking day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I do agree that this shit will never see a courtroom though. Could you just imagine the jury selection process?
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
Because that is what some of these positions sound like, and that is NOT how the world works. I don't know for certain, and this is not legal advice or analysis (because I have not read the agreements) but my gut says this is a slam dunk win for Disney (though I've said before and I stand by this, this never sees a court room and is settled "amicably" with terms that are not released).
I'll simp for Scarlett over the Mouse every fucking day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I do agree that this shit will never see a courtroom though. Could you just imagine the jury selection process?
Ooooohhhh pick me, pick me
(https://external-preview.redd.it/o_URJLbzJyKC_slCQjXKWFUpp1yFNE8P3PsF4swIKCk.jpg?auto=webp&s=22209aeed6535e20b89466e02121f64972064875)
-
There would by 12, Dr. Phillip Barbay like people as jurors.
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
No, I'm not. Fuck man, where did you read that in my post? I'm saying is reasonable for Scarlett to take steps to maximize her revenue. Disney did for themselves (and I have no problem with it - so long as it isn't a blatant contract violation), so why shouldn't she (again, assuming that Premier Access revenue is not part of her cut)?
[/quote]
I wasn't singling anyone out; and if I was going to it wouldn't be you. It just seems that some of the language being used here just assumes this is a hard working actor who is getting fucked by Corporate America, and "the right thing to do" and "obvious solution" is just give her cash. Why isn't the "obvious solution" to get better negotiators? If the movie bombed (yeah, right!) would she have to give back her salary?
These are not like credit card applications where you take the terms and suck it, Trebek, or you don't get the credit card. She has teams of lawyers, managers and agents looking out for her best interest. And the notion of "streaming" isn't "going to Mars" technology. The premise of post-theater revenue is not new.
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
No, I'm not. Fuck man, where did you read that in my post? I'm saying is reasonable for Scarlett to take steps to maximize her revenue. Disney did for themselves (and I have no problem with it - so long as it isn't a blatant contract violation), so why shouldn't she (again, assuming that Premier Access revenue is not part of her cut)?
I wasn't singling anyone out; and if I was going to it wouldn't be you. It just seems that some of the language being used here just assumes this is a hard working actor who is getting fucked by Corporate America, and "the right thing to do" and "obvious solution" is just give her cash. Why isn't the "obvious solution" to get better negotiators? If the movie bombed (yeah, right!) would she have to give back her salary?
These are not like credit card applications where you take the terms and suck it, Trebek, or you don't get the credit card. She has teams of lawyers, managers and agents looking out for her best interest. And the notion of "streaming" isn't "going to Mars" technology. The premise of post-theater revenue is not new.
Yeah, but simultaneous release in both theaters and streaming was not something that was likely when negotiating this contract. At the time, her interests and Disney's were aligned: The more money this makes that more both parties are rewarded. Disney introduced a new variable (simultaneous release) after the fact.
And note that, while studios have to split the box office with theaters, Disney gets to keep all the revenue from D+ (less expenses, of course). $60 Million on D+ on opening weekend earns them about as much as $120 Million in additional box office receipts.
-
So we're just assuming that Disney has an OBLIGATION to make decisions that maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson? And we're just assuming that decisions that DON'T maximize revenue for Scarlett Johansson are automatically decisions that are intended to fuck over Scarlett Johansson?
No, I'm not. Fuck man, where did you read that in my post? I'm saying is reasonable for Scarlett to take steps to maximize her revenue. Disney did for themselves (and I have no problem with it - so long as it isn't a blatant contract violation), so why shouldn't she (again, assuming that Premier Access revenue is not part of her cut)?
I wasn't singling anyone out; and if I was going to it wouldn't be you. It just seems that some of the language being used here just assumes this is a hard working actor who is getting fucked by Corporate America, and "the right thing to do" and "obvious solution" is just give her cash. Why isn't the "obvious solution" to get better negotiators? If the movie bombed (yeah, right!) would she have to give back her salary?
These are not like credit card applications where you take the terms and suck it, Trebek, or you don't get the credit card. She has teams of lawyers, managers and agents looking out for her best interest. And the notion of "streaming" isn't "going to Mars" technology. The premise of post-theater revenue is not new.
Yeah, but simultaneous release in both theaters and streaming was not something that was likely when negotiating this contract. At the time, her interests and Disney's were aligned: The more money this makes that more both parties are rewarded. Disney introduced a new variable (simultaneous release) after the fact.
And note that, while studios have to split the box office with theaters, Disney gets to keep all the revenue from D+ (less expenses, of course). $60 Million on D+ on opening weekend earns them about as much as $120 Million in additional box office receipts.
I don't know what anyone "knew" any more than anyone else did, but Disney+ was released in November of 2019. It HAD to be in development for at least a year before. I'm finding "new variable" to be a little bit of an over-statement. But agents, managers and lawyers are paid what they are PRECISELY because they see what others don't coming down the pike. Lawyers in particular are paid what they are paid to anticipate people doing things in their best interest to the detriment of their clients. I'm really struggling to understand how a well-seasoned actor and producer, and her entire business team, can claim "we didn't see this coming".
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right; if Team ScarJo can prove that, more power to them. You'll not get any disagreement from me. The decision is in the hands of the court (where "do the right thing" is not a standard that will come into play, at least not in any moral or ethical manner). I'm just fascinated that the posts that put Disney as the bad guy versus Team ScarJo as innocent victim are sometihng like Infinity to 1 (or 0 if you don't count mine).
-
She got screwed. One of the original Avengers but last by far to get a solo movie, would have been great to see how BW did vs Captain Marvel as a female-led film, or the other solo films for that matter. Could have been good cred for her. But now we’ll never know. Pisses me off.
-
Has it been confirmed that she didn't get a cut of the D+ revenue?
From the articles I read, her contract had bonuses that were tied to box office performance. By adding the release to Disney+ premium, she is arguing that she never had a chance to obtain those bonuses because the box office receipts were limited, since it was available for streaming the same day.
-
I frankly think Black Widow would have been on the low end of MCU movie grosses in normal times. I personally wasn't super interested in her getting a solo film. I never found her character to be particularly compelling. I can't be alone there. When it was announced, my reaction was "why?" not "awesome, she really deserves this!".
I saw the movie because I see everything MCU and because I really wanted to get back to the theater, not because this particular movie drew me in for any reason. If it had been a fantastic movie, it could have edged up to the middle of the pack of MCU films in box office receipts, but I think it was always a long shot of it cracking $1 billion or even $800 million in my eyes. In the situation it was released in, not offering it on D+ would have maybe increased the box office by $5-10 million... maybe... There are still tons of people not interested or able to see it in the theater.
I'm with Stadler in that I don't think this is a slam dunk, Disney is wrong situation. I think they'll privately settle this out of the public eye and she'll get her cut of the D+ revenue. Not know the exact wording of the contract, it's really hard to know who's in the right here.
-
Count me in on the crowd that thinks that the solo movie was long overdue and should have been the flagship female lead MCU movie rather than Captain Marvel.
-
Count me in on the crowd that thinks that the solo movie was long overdue and should have been the flagship female lead MCU movie rather than Captain Marvel.
Yes, and considering how bland Larson’s “performance” was, they obviously made a mistake.
-
Count me in on the crowd that thinks that the solo movie was long overdue and should have been the flagship female lead MCU movie rather than Captain Marvel.
Yes, and considering how bland Larson’s “performance” was, they obviously made a mistake.
Well, for my part, I wouldn’t go quite that far.
I did enjoy the movie, although I consider it a decent mid-tier movie. Black Widow, IMO was definitely a better film.
Might make a good poll actually.
-
Count me in on the crowd that thinks that the solo movie was long overdue and should have been the flagship female lead MCU movie rather than Captain Marvel.
Yes, and considering how bland Larson’s “performance” was, they obviously made a mistake.
Plus, they really forced Larson upon us, whereas with Widow, they cultivated her over 6 movies. We had a vested interest in her, we just were told that Marvel was going to be the bomb, were advertised this immense force coming to the MCU, and power aside, she just didn't quite live up to it. (the character, not the actress...though I did think her performance wasn't awesome, I got what they were trying to do with her, and she did it aptly)
-
Can I just say that while I somewhat agree with Brie not quite nailing the part…
I love the “get back up” scene. I mean, I REALLY love that scene. I thought there was a lot of power to that scene. That was the one moment I truly felt for that character. Being told all your life that you can’t do something, and then, one day, you just decide that you’re done with everyone’s bull crap. It’s a bit sad that most of my feelings for the character of Carol Danvers had to do more with the storytelling than with Brie Larson’s performance as an actress…but at least I honestly had a profound emotional moment for that character.
-
I don't know what anyone "knew" any more than anyone else did, but Disney+ was released in November of 2019. It HAD to be in development for at least a year before. I'm finding "new variable" to be a little bit of an over-statement. But agents, managers and lawyers are paid what they are PRECISELY because they see what others don't coming down the pike. Lawyers in particular are paid what they are paid to anticipate people doing things in their best interest to the detriment of their clients. I'm really struggling to understand how a well-seasoned actor and producer, and her entire business team, can claim "we didn't see this coming".
Bill... just to be sure because I think there's a disconnect here. D+ (subscription for access to tons of content) and D+ Premier Access (specific flat fee for access to a specific title) are 2 different things. Yes, everyone did/could/should have seen D+ on the horizon. And no one could have foreseen Disney releasing a major summer blockbuster first as a stream at home for a price. It's not like they just added it to the D+ inventory.
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
But if they contractually agreed to an *exclusive* theatrical release, it would seem to me that they in breach of contract for releasing it on a platform other that theaters - especially one that gives THEM the bulk of the revenues and none to ScarJo.
-
Can I just say that while I somewhat agree with Brie not quite nailing the part…
I love the “get back up” scene. I mean, I REALLY love that scene. I thought there was a lot of power to that scene. That was the one moment I truly felt for that character. Being told all your life that you can’t do something, and then, one day, you just decide that you’re done with everyone’s bull crap. It’s a bit sad that most of my feelings for the character of Carol Danvers had to do more with the storytelling than with Brie Larson’s performance as an actress…but at least I honestly had a profound emotional moment for that character.
Agreed, great scene.
-
I don't know what anyone "knew" any more than anyone else did, but Disney+ was released in November of 2019. It HAD to be in development for at least a year before. I'm finding "new variable" to be a little bit of an over-statement. But agents, managers and lawyers are paid what they are PRECISELY because they see what others don't coming down the pike. Lawyers in particular are paid what they are paid to anticipate people doing things in their best interest to the detriment of their clients. I'm really struggling to understand how a well-seasoned actor and producer, and her entire business team, can claim "we didn't see this coming".
Bill... just to be sure because I think there's a disconnect here. D+ (subscription for access to tons of content) and D+ Premier Access (specific flat fee for access to a specific title) are 2 different things. Yes, everyone did/could/should have seen D+ on the horizon. And no one could have foreseen Disney releasing a major summer blockbuster first as a stream at home for a price. It's not like they just added it to the D+ inventory.
Why not? Why couldn't someone have foreseen that? We see "direct to DVD" and concurrent theatrical and DVD releases all the time. I defer to the lawyers who do entertainment law here, but I don't think this is the leap that some think it is for people PAID TO GUESS AT TRENDS.
And to be fair, I didn't know the difference between D+ and Disney + Premier Access, but I think it's a distinction without a difference in this particular case.
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
But if they contractually agreed to an *exclusive* theatrical release, it would seem to me that they in breach of contract for releasing it on a platform other that theaters - especially one that gives THEM the bulk of the revenues and none to ScarJo.
And that's the crux, isn't it? I haven't read the contract, so I don't know WHAT they actually agreed to, just what the parties - with special interest - have said in the press. But that's the essence of the disagreement, and if it's as you state - with "exclusive theatrical release" defined as you seem to define it (that sounds more critical than I mean it; I just mean you DON'T define it but the meaning is implied) then you may be right.
-
And to be fair, I didn't know the difference between D+ and Disney + Premier Access, but I think it's a distinction without a difference in this particular case.
I couldn't disagree more. Premier Access is revenue that is directly tied to the release of a specific title, in this case Black Widow, that without the release through Premier Access wouldn't have been recognized, and would have to some extent otherwise been earned through box office/theatrical release.
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
But if they contractually agreed to an *exclusive* theatrical release, it would seem to me that they in breach of contract for releasing it on a platform other that theaters - especially one that gives THEM the bulk of the revenues and none to ScarJo.
And that's the crux, isn't it? I haven't read the contract, so I don't know WHAT they actually agreed to, just what the parties - with special interest - have said in the press. But that's the essence of the disagreement, and if it's as you state - with "exclusive theatrical release" defined as you seem to define it (that sounds more critical than I mean it; I just mean you DON'T define it but the meaning is implied) then you may be right.
I too have not read the contract (but don't need to in order to form my opinion on the matter). What was stated in the original post on this topic was that an exclusive theatrical release was agreed. to. Whether or not that specific term was specifically defined to me is irrelevant. Defined terms are only provided where confusion or ambiguity might prevail. If neither side thought to specifically define "theatrical release", it's because both sides knew what that term meant, or is a commonly used term for the industry that defining it is not necessary.
Ya know, you don't always need to argue every fine point of every little issue on a given subject. Sometimes the bigger picture is just fine.
-
And to be fair, I didn't know the difference between D+ and Disney + Premier Access, but I think it's a distinction without a difference in this particular case.
I couldn't disagree more. Premier Access is revenue that is directly tied to the release of a specific title, in this case Black Widow, that without the release through Premier Access wouldn't have been recognized, and would have to some extent otherwise been earned through box office/theatrical release.
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
But if they contractually agreed to an *exclusive* theatrical release, it would seem to me that they in breach of contract for releasing it on a platform other that theaters - especially one that gives THEM the bulk of the revenues and none to ScarJo.
And that's the crux, isn't it? I haven't read the contract, so I don't know WHAT they actually agreed to, just what the parties - with special interest - have said in the press. But that's the essence of the disagreement, and if it's as you state - with "exclusive theatrical release" defined as you seem to define it (that sounds more critical than I mean it; I just mean you DON'T define it but the meaning is implied) then you may be right.
I too have not read the contract (but don't need to in order to form my opinion on the matter). What was stated in the original post on this topic was that an exclusive theatrical release was agreed. to. Whether or not that specific term was specifically defined to me is irrelevant. Defined terms are only provided where confusion or ambiguity might prevail. If neither side thought to specifically define "theatrical release", it's because both sides knew what that term meant, or is a commonly used term for the industry that defining it is not necessary.
Ya know, you don't always need to argue every fine point of every little issue on a given subject. Sometimes the bigger picture is just fine.
And if I have any mission in life, it's to change this. The contract is the ONLY thing that matters in forming an opinion. That's what controls, at least between two parties negotiating at arm's length. That definition is of PRIMARY relevance. If they are in a dispute now, that's prima facia evidence that there WAS a confusion or ambiguity. That IS the bigger picture. Everything else is fantasy dust and unicorns.
I suppose we could weigh in on what we'd LIKE to see, but isn't that kind of like saying "I liked to see ScarJo date someone with a better sense of humor"? It's none of our business. The freedom to contract is not fundamental, but it's darn close, and we need to allow people to make their own mistakes.
-
To the previous point: I teach contracts as part of my job. Usually, pre-COVID, that is an in-person training over multiple days. I've been doing this, off-and-on, for about 20 years. Something I started doing early on is coming back after a break, have everyone take out a piece of paper, and look around the room and count the "blue" shirts, and write down the number. I'd collect the papers, and this has never once ever failed me: I get a MINIMUM of three different answers. And I make a big point about how "we learn 'blue' as a toddler!". "How can you not know what 'blue' is?" Yadda, yadda.
And that's the point: we can all sort of "understand" what "blue" is; there might even be a scientific answer for this (light waves of wavelength between 450 and 500 nanometers). But think about this: If I'm being PAID by the blue shirt, I'm counting those shirts with blue stripes, blue polka-dots, blue accents, etc. If I'm PAYING by the blue shirt, I'm tending to include only those shirts with a solid blue background or blue fabric.
We can't assume that all these deals are handled like we would handle them at the corner market. What's at risk if the Starbuck's makes your "regular coffee (cream and sugar)" with 1% milk or cream-product instead of whole milk, or sugar syrup or substitute instead of pure cane sugar? They spill out that coffee that cost them $0.12 to produce and make another. Or you can decide to tough it out and be clearer tomorrow. You're not going to spend $750/hr. for legal representation to argue that point. It's my experience that as the dollars go up - and the expense of legal representation to defend becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the total value - the intractability of the parties goes up. There's no "right thing"; the right thing is to honor the terms of the contract. That's how we move forward and make sure that FUTURE contracts get enforced (and we don't have to litigate this stuff over and over and over).
Contracts are not "law" in the sense that a statute is. Many have this presumption that "breaching" a contract is bad or illegal; it's not. It's neutral AS LONG AS THE PARTIES ARE PUT IN THE POSITION THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE CONTRACT WAS PERFORMED. At least in the U.S., that's the measure of damages. If it's inefficient, or otherwise might be against public policy to carry a contract to completion, we WANT parties to breach, and settle on a reasonable damage figure. I would not be surprised even a little bit if Disney fully intends to pay ScarJo for what she's asking, but does not want to have the current iteration of the contract interpreted as providing for this payout. So that for FUTURE negotiations - with celebrities that don't have the star-power of a Scarlett Johansen - they can explicitly (or not) include that provision in the various contracts. Refusing to pay and entering into a settlement - terms to not be disclosed - accomplishes that task.
-
And to be fair, I didn't know the difference between D+ and Disney + Premier Access, but I think it's a distinction without a difference in this particular case.
I couldn't disagree more. Premier Access is revenue that is directly tied to the release of a specific title, in this case Black Widow, that without the release through Premier Access wouldn't have been recognized, and would have to some extent otherwise been earned through box office/theatrical release.
And honestly, even if they DIDN'T see this coming, Disney has no obligation to maximize HER profits over their own. One might argue that Disney's actions were long-term short-sighted, but that's not the same as in breach of contract.
But if they contractually agreed to an *exclusive* theatrical release, it would seem to me that they in breach of contract for releasing it on a platform other that theaters - especially one that gives THEM the bulk of the revenues and none to ScarJo.
And that's the crux, isn't it? I haven't read the contract, so I don't know WHAT they actually agreed to, just what the parties - with special interest - have said in the press. But that's the essence of the disagreement, and if it's as you state - with "exclusive theatrical release" defined as you seem to define it (that sounds more critical than I mean it; I just mean you DON'T define it but the meaning is implied) then you may be right.
I too have not read the contract (but don't need to in order to form my opinion on the matter). What was stated in the original post on this topic was that an exclusive theatrical release was agreed. to. Whether or not that specific term was specifically defined to me is irrelevant. Defined terms are only provided where confusion or ambiguity might prevail. If neither side thought to specifically define "theatrical release", it's because both sides knew what that term meant, or is a commonly used term for the industry that defining it is not necessary.
Ya know, you don't always need to argue every fine point of every little issue on a given subject. Sometimes the bigger picture is just fine.
And if I have any mission in life, it's to change this. The contract is the ONLY thing that matters in forming an opinion.
Bullshit! ... you're chiming with your thoughts and opinions here without having read the contract :lol It might be the ONLY thing that matters when forming a LEGAL opinion, but opinions can be formed with incomplete information on all kinds of various topics.
We're just a bunch of dudes discussing shit here, man... this isn't a deposition. Take the finer legal points over to legaldiscussionforum.org.
-
I'm sorry you're not interested, but it's interesting and important to me, so I'll keep sharing.
The difference of course, is that I'm not guessing at what's "right" or "wrong". I've not weighed in whether one side is "right" or "wrong". I've not cast any judgment about either side's position, good or bad. I've not said that any solution is "just" or not. "Opinions" are not sacred. I cannot have the opinion that "Neil Peart is the drummer of Nirvana". He's not, on any level, with any interpretation of any of those words.
I can't tell, but it seems to me by dismissing it as "LEGAL", you're missing the point; the contract isn't just about "legal". It's the will of the parties. It's what THEY WANTED, else they wouldn't have signed it.
-
Bill, the thing is that the legal position isn't the only thing we're discussing. We can speculate about the legal position, but I don't actually know what it is. But that doesn't mean I can't express my opinion on what the decent and right thing to do is, regardless of the legal obligations.
-
Bill, the thing is that the legal position isn't the only thing we're discussing. We can speculate about the legal position, but I don't actually know what it is. But that doesn't mean I can't express my opinion on what the decent and right thing to do is, regardless of the legal obligations.
But that's my point: why are they separate? Why is the "decent and right thing to do" not stand up for what you said when you negotiated and accept that you didn't cover all the bases the first time? Or "accept that there's more to it than how much money ScarJo puts in her pocket"? Why isn't "the right thing to do" that ScarJo suck it up and let Disney take the proceeds, so that they are more likely to utilize multiple income streams in the future, thus increasing the take for EVERYONE in the big picture? Whether anyone realizes it or not, we contract with other people 10's of times EVERY DAY. Us being here at DTF is, in it's way, a contract. Do we expect everyone to just ignore whatever was agreed to before in order to honor some vague, third-party, subjective idea of what "the right thing to do" is? Whether I think "the right thing to do" is to post porn links or not, I agreed to the terms of this site and I abide by them. I can go through almost every rule here and find an exception that might be "the right thing to do" but I agreed when I came in that I would abide by the terms of the agreement.
-
Bill, the thing is that the legal position isn't the only thing we're discussing. We can speculate about the legal position, but I don't actually know what it is. But that doesn't mean I can't express my opinion on what the decent and right thing to do is, regardless of the legal obligations.
But that's my point: why are they separate? Why is the "decent and right thing to do" not stand up for what you said when you negotiated and accept that you didn't cover all the bases the first time? Or "accept that there's more to it than how much money ScarJo puts in her pocket"? Why isn't "the right thing to do" that ScarJo suck it up and let Disney take the proceeds, so that they are more likely to utilize multiple income streams in the future, thus increasing the take for EVERYONE in the big picture? Whether anyone realizes it or not, we contract with other people 10's of times EVERY DAY. Us being here at DTF is, in it's way, a contract. Do we expect everyone to just ignore whatever was agreed to before in order to honor some vague, third-party, subjective idea of what "the right thing to do" is? Whether I think "the right thing to do" is to post porn links or not, I agreed to the terms of this site and I abide by them. I can go through almost every rule here and find an exception that might be "the right thing to do" but I agreed when I came in that I would abide by the terms of the agreement.
Yes, but we don't only do the minimum required by our contracts (whether literal contracts or implied ones). To stick with your analogy, most people at DTF don't do as much as they can get away with within the rules, and us mods are not 100% strict in enforcing the rules to the letter.
Contracts, rules etc. set a minimum benchmark - generally in life, people go beyond that.
-
Bill, the thing is that the legal position isn't the only thing we're discussing. We can speculate about the legal position, but I don't actually know what it is. But that doesn't mean I can't express my opinion on what the decent and right thing to do is, regardless of the legal obligations.
But that's my point: why are they separate? Why is the "decent and right thing to do" not stand up for what you said when you negotiated and accept that you didn't cover all the bases the first time? Or "accept that there's more to it than how much money ScarJo puts in her pocket"? Why isn't "the right thing to do" that ScarJo suck it up and let Disney take the proceeds, so that they are more likely to utilize multiple income streams in the future, thus increasing the take for EVERYONE in the big picture?
Why do you keep dancing around (ie, avoiding) the point that was made in the OP on this matter that "The Marvel star claims her agreement with the company guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release for her solo film, and her salary was based, in large part, on the box office performance. (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/29/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release.html)"
Every point/argument you've made conveniently disregards this.
-
:corn
-
Why do you keep dancing around (ie, avoiding) the point that was made in the OP on this matter that "The Marvel star claims her agreement with the company guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release for her solo film, and her salary was based, in large part, on the box office performance. (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/29/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release.html)"
Every point/argument you've made conveniently disregards this.
I haven't closely read all the bickering over the last couple of pages, but I think a couple points may be worth emphasizing at this point: First, we only know what Johansson has alleged. We don't know what the contract says (other than the selective quotes in the complaint). Second, in cases like this, there is often a tendency among the public to side with the plaintiff because (1) the plaintiff's side is all we have at this point, and (2) the general public will generally side with the "face," as opposed tot he faceless corporation.
Also, it appears that the news reports that the parties agreed to an "exclusive theatrical release" are somewhat incorrect. This is an unfiled copy of the complaint, which I'll assume is legit: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Complaint_Black-Widow-1-WM.pdf
It alleges that, "In recognition of an reliance on [Scarlett Johansson having "generated billions of dollars for Marvel Studios, and . . . Disney], . . . Johansson extracted a promise from Marvel that the release of the Picture would be a 'theatrical release.'" At no point does it alleges that the parties agreed to an "exclusive" theatrical release (although there a couple of allegations of an agreement to a "wide theatrical release," which is defined in the agreement to mean no less than 1,500 screens). Rather, it alleges that, "[a] Ms. Johansson, Disney, Marvel, and most everyone else in Hollywood knows, a 'theatrical release' is a release that is exclusive to movie theatres." Stated differently, it alleges that "We agreed to 'X.' I understood 'X' to mean something and I believe that the other party had the same understanding." That's where it gets tricky. More expert witnesses, some of whom will support Johansson, and some of whom will support Disney.
Interestingly (at least to me), Johansson has NOT sued the actual contracting party (the contract was made between Johansson's loan-out corporation, Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc., and MVL East Coast Productions, LLC). Rather, Johansson/Periwinkle sued The Walt Disney Company in tort for intentional interference with contractual relations and inducing breach of contract (which are basically the same thing). This means that the motivations of the defendant DO come into play, and Periwinkle/Johansson have included a prayer for punitive damages. This will increase Periwinkle/Johansson's negotiating leverage.
As I mentioned last week, the two sides will likely do a bit of preliminary punching at each other and eventually settle in a mediation that results in Johansson getting a share of the premium streaming revenue and possibly includes guarantees of certain future deals.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
-
This isn't going to be a win for ScarJo, but hopefully it will cause future contracts to be written differently. So this suit serves a purpose either way.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
PG makes a good point though, that it's not a simple, cut-and-dry matter of "if it says exclusive then it is, if it didn't then it isn't". Common industry practice when it comes to definitions and protocols can definitely be argued to be implicit in a contract even where not explicitly stated. Whether that's the case here I have no idea - the plaintiffs are clearly arguing that it does, but whether a court would agree with that (if it ever got to that stage) would, as PG says, depend on the testimony of experts which might very well be split and inconclusive, unless there is any clear legal precedent.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
By way of perspective (and I only say this because this much is public information), back in the mid-2000s, Mel Gibson's company, Icon Productions, sued Regal Entertainment Group over the division of proceeds from exhibitions of the movie The Passion of the Christ. Icon alleged that it and Regal had agreed to "studio terms." According to Icon, this meant somewhere in the 55-65% range. Regal's position was that the agreement was for a more standard deal for what was, at the time the deal was being made, an indie, foreign-language movie. Obviously, at the time the deal was made for Regal to exhibit the movie, no one knew or reasonably believed it would become, at one time, the third highest grossing movie in history (which is pretty amazing considering it's now down around #160). Unfortunately, there wasn't even a written contract in that case, which led to both sides spending a shload on attorneys' fees for about a year and a half before -- you guessed it -- finally settling after a mediation.
I don't think that case really had any far-reaching implications in the business (although I expect it changed some of Regal's business practices), but I agree that this Black Widow case might have that sort of impact.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
PG makes a good point though, that it's not a simple, cut-and-dry matter of "if it says exclusive then it is, if it didn't then it isn't". Common industry practice when it comes to definitions and protocols can definitely be argued to be implicit in a contract even where not explicitly stated. Whether that's the case here I have no idea - the plaintiffs are clearly arguing that it does, but whether a court would agree with that (if it ever got to that stage) would, as PG says, depend on the testimony of experts which might very well be split and inconclusive, unless there is any clear legal precedent.
But, to you and to Jingle, what the contract DOES say - clear or not - is far more at issue than what ScarJo claims in her petition. I didn't "ignore" what she said, I just took it at the value it deserved, i.e. one of two probably very different points of view of the SAME LANGUAGE. Blue shirts.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
PG makes a good point though, that it's not a simple, cut-and-dry matter of "if it says exclusive then it is, if it didn't then it isn't". Common industry practice when it comes to definitions and protocols can definitely be argued to be implicit in a contract even where not explicitly stated. Whether that's the case here I have no idea - the plaintiffs are clearly arguing that it does, but whether a court would agree with that (if it ever got to that stage) would, as PG says, depend on the testimony of experts which might very well be split and inconclusive, unless there is any clear legal precedent.
But, to you and to Jingle, what the contract DOES say - clear or not - is far more at issue than what ScarJo claims in her petition. I didn't "ignore" what she said, I just took it at the value it deserved, i.e. one of two probably very different points of view of the SAME LANGUAGE. Blue shirts.
That's how I've taken it throughout as well, since my first post on the matter. But per some of my other posts, I (and others) have been discussing both the legal situation and, separately, wider considerations about what we think is the decent thing to do regardless of the legalities. I understand that you feel the two are or at least could/should be the same, but some of us don't and so have wanted to discuss both.
-
Thank you for the very insightful (and investigative) commentary. If the agreement didn't specifically outline "exclusive" around the theatrical release, then (imo) the ground is pretty shaky for ScarJo. I will admit, I was taking her claims in the 'reporting' at face value. Their accuracy (or potential lack thereof) does have some sway with my opinion on the matter.
PG makes a good point though, that it's not a simple, cut-and-dry matter of "if it says exclusive then it is, if it didn't then it isn't". Common industry practice when it comes to definitions and protocols can definitely be argued to be implicit in a contract even where not explicitly stated. Whether that's the case here I have no idea - the plaintiffs are clearly arguing that it does, but whether a court would agree with that (if it ever got to that stage) would, as PG says, depend on the testimony of experts which might very well be split and inconclusive, unless there is any clear legal precedent.
But, to you and to Jingle, what the contract DOES say - clear or not - is far more at issue than what ScarJo claims in her petition. I didn't "ignore" what she said, I just took it at the value it deserved, i.e. one of two probably very different points of view of the SAME LANGUAGE. Blue shirts.
That's how I've taken it throughout as well, since my first post on the matter. But per some of my other posts, I (and others) have been discussing both the legal situation and, separately, wider considerations about what we think is the decent thing to do regardless of the legalities. I understand that you feel the two are or at least could/should be the same, but some of us don't and so have wanted to discuss both.
Then can someone explain how a multi-billion dollar corporation just giving money to a multi-million dollar actress in contradiction to the contract - remember, we ALL enter into tens of contracts every day and RELY on the other person to stick with what they say they are going to do, not some arbitrary unilateral determination of "what's the right thing to do" - is in fact "the right thing to do"? Why should we promote the expectation that the contract doesn't matter and we don't have to be precise in our language, or be clear in our intent? Or that we can or should bully the other side into giving us what we want regardless of what we all negotiated at arms length at day 0?
I'm not just disagreeing that it's "both", I'm saying something slightly different: it's NOT the right thing to do. It's like looking at one frame of a movie and deciding whether it's "good" or not.
-
Then can someone explain how a multi-billion dollar corporation just giving money to a multi-million dollar actress in contradiction to the contract - remember, we ALL enter into tens of contracts every day and RELY on the other person to stick with what they say they are going to do, not some arbitrary unilateral determination of "what's the right thing to do" - is in fact "the right thing to do"? Why should we promote the expectation that the contract doesn't matter and we don't have to be precise in our language, or be clear in our intent? Or that we can or should bully the other side into giving us what we want regardless of what we all negotiated at arms length at day 0?
I'm not just disagreeing that it's "both", I'm saying something slightly different: it's NOT the right thing to do. It's like looking at one frame of a movie and deciding whether it's "good" or not.
Lots to respond to here.
1. I agree with you that the context here is about a multi-millionaire and a multi-billion dollar corporation, so it's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing and still taking seriously.
2. I don't think anyone is saying Disney should "contradict" the contract, we're suggesting they could go beyond it.
3. I also don't think anyone is saying Disney should be "just giving money" over. We're suggesting they could and probably should have been discussing a fair cut of the Disney+ Premier revenue, instead of releasing it there and keeping every penny for themselves (which to be clear, I don't know if that is exactly the case, but it is implied by the legal case).
4. I'm going to very strongly disagree with the implication that because "we ALL enter into tens of contracts every day and RELY on the other person to stick with what they say they are going to do", this means it's never good or decent or fair to do *more* than we say we are going to do, or legally have to do. Everyday life is full of examples of that happening. Your post implies (perhaps inadvertently) that the right thing to do is only the minimum of what we say we will, and nothing more.
5. In this particular circumstance, the agreement between Disney and ScarJo was made before the pandemic, when there was simply no precedent for a major blockbuster release also being widely available on a different medium at the same time. As PG said above, in terms of the legal case, it's possible from this lack of precedent it could be argued that the wording in the contract was or should have been understood by all parties as having a particular meaning, but perhaps not. My point away from the legal case is that, either way, there's unlikely to be anything in the contract to stop Disney from making a further payment or specifically negotiating an additional bonus based on Disney+ receipts, given this was a different process not foreseen when the original contract was agreed.
Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that you and I regularly pitch in $20 each, get some drinks in and shoot the breeze. In theory we could get any drinks in, but we always get the same beers as we know we both like them. This time though, I took our $40 to the store but our usual beers were sold out. I didn't call you to see what you wanted instead, I just went ahead and bought a bottle of single malt Scotch, even though I'm aware you don't really like Scotch (I have no idea what your drinks tastes actually are, this is just a thought experiment). You end up having a couple of shots but don't really like it, so I have most of the bottle.
Do I have to do anything? No. We followed our usual agreement, which is to split the costs and for one of us to go and buy some drink. But I would feel like an absolute dick for doing that. What I most likely would have done was call you to see what you wanted, or if for some reason I didn't or couldn't then I'd have tried to get something similar to our usual or at least that I thought we'd both like. And in the event that I had just gone ahead and come back with something that you got less out of, I'd probably have offered a resolution such as I cover the full cost this time, or you get to choose the drink next time.
-
The only way this is gonna end is with Disney giving her some money. How much and how long before they reach that point is up for debate I suppose.
-
The only way this is gonna end is with Disney giving her some money. How much and how long before they reach that point is up for debate I suppose.
Which, at a guess, might well be all she's looking for, and that the whole breach of contract issue is essentially a negotiating position.
-
Lots to respond to here.
1. I agree with you that the context here is about a multi-millionaire and a multi-billion dollar corporation, so it's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing and still taking seriously.
I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't worth discussing, I was suggesting that there's no moral requirement here (if this was a case where someone was hoarding food and people were dying as a DIRECT RESULT of that hoarding, there might be a different answer). This is purely about the sanctity of contract, and the need for all of us to be able to rely on what we in the business call "the four corners of the contract".
2. I don't think anyone is saying Disney should "contradict" the contract, we're suggesting they could go beyond it.
Sorry to sound like a six year old, but "why"?
3. I also don't think anyone is saying Disney should be "just giving money" over. We're suggesting they could and probably should have been discussing a fair cut of the Disney+ Premier revenue, instead of releasing it there and keeping every penny for themselves (which to be clear, I don't know if that is exactly the case, but it is implied by the legal case).
Why? Why should Disney guess/assume/presume that there is some unstated desire here that THEY have to meet? And what does this do for the precedent of future interpretations of contract? I think it's being forgotten here that every act, every action here has impacts BEYOND the immediate discussions at hand. The contract isn't what we can ASK, it's what we can DEMAND, and any changes to that are arguably binding moving forward. Obviously some contracts are more complicated than others, but at their heart they are simple: offer, acceptance (a "meeting of the minds") and performance. It's the framework under which society works, not just "legally", but practically.
And why is THIS the "right" thing to do? Why isn't the "right" (by the way, in quotes because I think this is an arbitrary and subjective determination; I don't at ALL think this is the right thing to do) thing to do for ScarJo to forego her INDIVIDUAL profits in favor of the COLLECTIVE, the company, given that the likelihood is that with the higher profitability there is a far greater chance that there will be additional films, providing income and jobs for 1,000's of people in the company, 10's of thousands of people ancillary to the movie industry, and perhaps even more when you get into the 1,000's of theaters that will show the film.
4. I'm going to very strongly disagree with the implication that because "we ALL enter into tens of contracts every day and RELY on the other person to stick with what they say they are going to do", this means it's never good or decent or fair to do *more* than we say we are going to do, or legally have to do. Everyday life is full of examples of that happening. Your post implies (perhaps inadvertently) that the right thing to do is only the minimum of what we say we will, and nothing more.
I'm not saying that; I am saying that it's never good or decent to DEMAND OTHERS to act in what we feel is "decent" or "right". I guess we're going to devolve into "it's my opinion", and we disagree on that as well since I don't believe opinions are sacred, but the nature of a contract is the meeting of the minds of TWO ENTITIES. There IS no "decent" or "right" in that context, since - with few exceptions - we're not parties to it. (By the way, this is what LAWS are for; this is why we elect representatives to pass laws that work for all of us in terms of what we feel "policy" should be).
5. In this particular circumstance, the agreement between Disney and ScarJo was made before the pandemic, when there was simply no precedent for a major blockbuster release also being widely available on a different medium at the same time. As PG said above, in terms of the legal case, it's possible from this lack of precedent it could be argued that the wording in the contract was or should have been understood by all parties as having a particular meaning, but perhaps not. My point away from the legal case is that, either way, there's unlikely to be anything in the contract to stop Disney from making a further payment or specifically negotiating an additional bonus based on Disney+ receipts, given this was a different process not foreseen when the original contract was agreed.
But why would they opt for that? Whose interest does that serve, other than ScarJo? Does that REALLY serve the collective best interest? Because despite your (and Jingle's) accusations, I'm not looking at this purely legally. I'm also looking at this behaviorally. What happens in the future? What happens when the NEXT big breakthrough comes? Let's say in 2025 there is "Black Widow: Brown Recluse" in production, and just before release, there is the Romeo variant of COVID, and oh-by-the-way, Disney has new technology that beams the movie right into your frontal cortex. Do we want Disney releasing that for the benefit of society, or do we want them saying "well, let's sit on this until after the release of this because we don't want to after-the-fact have to pay ScarJo 30 Brazilian dollars because we did it last time because "it was the right thing to do". We don't, as a matter of public policy, want that to be the decision process do we? Isn't that already how it works, to great detriment and consternation, in the pharmaceutical industry?
Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that you and I regularly pitch in $20 each, get some drinks in and shoot the breeze. In theory we could get any drinks in, but we always get the same beers as we know we both like them. This time though, I took our $40 to the store but our usual beers were sold out. I didn't call you to see what you wanted instead, I just went ahead and bought a bottle of single malt Scotch, even though I'm aware you don't really like Scotch (I have no idea what your drinks tastes actually are, this is just a thought experiment). You end up having a couple of shots but don't really like it, so I have most of the bottle.
Do I have to do anything? No. We followed our usual agreement, which is to split the costs and for one of us to go and buy some drink. But I would feel like an absolute dick for doing that. What I most likely would have done was call you to see what you wanted, or if for some reason I didn't or couldn't then I'd have tried to get something similar to our usual or at least that I thought we'd both like. And in the event that I had just gone ahead and come back with something that you got less out of, I'd probably have offered a resolution such as I cover the full cost this time, or you get to choose the drink next time.
As would I (feel like a dick, that is). I would like to think I would do the same thing more or less. But that's not a function of an arms length deal between two independent parties; I have too much of a need to be liked to ever make it more than a friendly discussion point. The point is, you could just as easily say "suck it up, bitch, and drink it. It'll put some much needed hair on your chest!" and the outcome is the same for everyone around us except for you and me. You're doing, for yourself, what you think is the decent thing to do. There's no right answer there. The problem here is that we're projecting our "right" onto someone else.
-
This is purely about the sanctity of contract, and the need for all of us to be able to rely on what we in the business call "the four corners of the contract".
This reminds me of something the great Mark Corrigan once said:
"This is the whole point about contract law. The whole point of a contract is to make sure that this kind of thing never happens".
https://youtu.be/BWMg3iDSQRw
-
Ya gotta think that Warner/HBO are hoping like hell something gets ironed out amicably. If things go to a settlement and NOT in favour of Disney, Warner/HBO is fucked with all the releases that go/went straight to HBO Max.
-
Ya gotta think that Warner/HBO are hoping like hell something gets ironed out amicably. If things go to a settlement and NOT in favour of Disney, Warner/HBO is fucked with all the releases that go/went straight to HBO Max.
Not sure what "a settlement . . . NOT in favor of Disney" means. A settlement is a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute, and it is sometimes said that the best settlements are those in which neither side is happy with the result. In any event, while some aspects of a settlement might become public, the financial terms almost certainly won't. Also, you seem to be assuming that the powers that be behind HBO Max didn't make the sorts of agreements that Johansson alleged she sought with Marvel/Disney before Black Widow was released. In fact, the complaint alleged that HBO had made an agreement with the stars of that Wonder Woman movie that got released on HBO Max last December and that she tried to get Marvel/Disney to make a similar agreement with her.
-
Ya gotta think that Warner/HBO are hoping like hell something gets ironed out amicably. If things go to a settlement and NOT in favour of Disney, Warner/HBO is fucked with all the releases that go/went straight to HBO Max.
Not sure what "a settlement . . . NOT in favor of Disney" means. A settlement is a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute, and it is sometimes said that the best settlements are those in which neither side is happy with the result. In any event, while some aspects of a settlement might become public, the financial terms almost certainly won't. Also, you seem to be assuming that the powers that be behind HBO Max didn't make the sorts of agreements that Johansson alleged she sought with Marvel/Disney before Black Widow was released. In fact, the complaint alleged that HBO had made an agreement with the stars of that Wonder Woman movie that got released on HBO Max last December and that she tried to get Marvel/Disney to make a similar agreement with her.
Warner Brothers did essentially renegotiate the contracts with the people involved in the movies they put directly on HBO Max. But there is the difference that Disney made people pay extra for Black Widow on D+ and WB did not for the movies on HBO Max. It's very easy to see the financial gain Disney made my releasing it on D+, whereas the financial gain by HBO Max is pretty hard to quantify.
-
Ya gotta think that Warner/HBO are hoping like hell something gets ironed out amicably. If things go to a settlement and NOT in favour of Disney, Warner/HBO is fucked with all the releases that go/went straight to HBO Max.
Not sure what "a settlement . . . NOT in favor of Disney" means. A settlement is a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute, and it is sometimes said that the best settlements are those in which neither side is happy with the result. In any event, while some aspects of a settlement might become public, the financial terms almost certainly won't. Also, you seem to be assuming that the powers that be behind HBO Max didn't make the sorts of agreements that Johansson alleged she sought with Marvel/Disney before Black Widow was released. In fact, the complaint alleged that HBO had made an agreement with the stars of that Wonder Woman movie that got released on HBO Max last December and that she tried to get Marvel/Disney to make a similar agreement with her.
Didn't Disney's lawyer issue a statement along the lines of being willing to go to arbitration? That's what I meant to suggest might go not in Disney's favour - sorry if it was unclear.
And I wasn't aware about WB renegotiating.
-
Yeah, Warner Brothers wound up renegotiating contracts with a ton of talent prior to releasing films day-and-date on HBO Max, for precisely this reason. All of those films were produced to be theatrical release films (as was Black Widow). No studio spends that kind of money on direct release films (direct to DVD/Bluray/streaming). So when they were set to become, instead of theatrical release films, simultaneous release films (which, before COVID, was only done with indie films, never big studio projects), Warner Brothers would have been in breach of contract on every single one.
Black Widow was released day-and-date simultaneously to theaters and to Disney + Premiere Access, which involves a separate fee paid by the subscriber on top of the normal monthly fee. It was only created during COVID, so would not have in any way been part of the original contract language between Disney and Johanssen.
If they don't settle, I can't see how she doesn't win.
-
Part of WB's motivation was clearly to get a big splash from their subscriber count. If D+ was just launching around April/May/June like HBO Max was, I can totally see them making BW just part of the catalogue (as WB did). But because they'd had an 18-month period to build a subscriber base, no need to give it away as part of the subscription fee (like HBO did / had to).
-
Part of WB's motivation was clearly to get a big splash from their subscriber count. If D+ was just launching around April/May/June like HBO Max was, I can totally see them making BW just part of the catalogue (as WB did). But because they'd had an 18-month period to build a subscriber base, no need to give it away as part of the subscription fee (like HBO did / had to).
For sure. But the point is that since they were changing their release method, they had to take care of their talent, and they did. Disney didn't bother, apparently, at least with this film.
They had the same release for some other Disney properties, but they may not have involved the same kinds of contract provisions.
-
Ya gotta think that Warner/HBO are hoping like hell something gets ironed out amicably. If things go to a settlement and NOT in favour of Disney, Warner/HBO is fucked with all the releases that go/went straight to HBO Max.
Not sure what "a settlement . . . NOT in favor of Disney" means. A settlement is a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute, and it is sometimes said that the best settlements are those in which neither side is happy with the result. In any event, while some aspects of a settlement might become public, the financial terms almost certainly won't. Also, you seem to be assuming that the powers that be behind HBO Max didn't make the sorts of agreements that Johansson alleged she sought with Marvel/Disney before Black Widow was released. In fact, the complaint alleged that HBO had made an agreement with the stars of that Wonder Woman movie that got released on HBO Max last December and that she tried to get Marvel/Disney to make a similar agreement with her.
Didn't Disney's lawyer issue a statement along the lines of being willing to go to arbitration? That's what I meant to suggest might go not in Disney's favour - sorry if it was unclear.
So...I just looked and found this article: https://variety.com/2021/film/news/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-black-widow-1235036466/
I used to work with Disney's attorney. He was lead counsel in the civil lawsuit against O.J. Simpson and is one of the most respected entertainment industry trial lawyers.
Anyway, the article indicates that the contract at issue contains an arbitration clause. If they can get the case moved to an arbitration forum, that simply means that the proceedings won't be public. Otherwise, it won't be any different. If the parties settle, it will be largely private. Also, there's some scathing commentary from Gabrielle from Beverly Hills 90210.
I also found this article: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/
It suggests that Johansson's primary motivation for suing was to make the suit public. That's why she sued Disney (and not Marvel) for tortious interference with contract, as opposed to suing Marvel for breach of contract. The article suggests that the relevant contract almost certainly has an arbitration clause (i.e., an agreement that any disputes arising out of the contract have to be resolved in arbitration, not in a court). By suing for tortious interference, she's trying to get around that clause. There are junior associates at O'Melveny & Myers (Disney's lawyers) researching the extent to which arbitration can be compelled.
The whole arbitration thing will be part of the preliminary punching I mentioned in prior posts, before the case inevitably gets settled privately.
-
Love your insights man... very helpful for the lay person. :tup
-
Love your insights man... very helpful for the lay person. :tup
My time in the salt mines is finally paying off! :lol
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
If that's accurate, and the Premier revenues count as box office receipts, then as I said before, I would side with Disney.
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
If that's accurate, and the Premier revenues count as box office receipts, then as I said before, I would side with Disney.
:iagree:
-
To be fair, and consistent, I've said before you have to take what the individual parties say with a grain of salt but if you're going to consider ONE side, you have to consider the other, and there IS a right answer here. They either are (as Disney says) or they are not (as Scarjo says). We'll know soon enough, but this is just another example of why we can't make any real determinations from the chatter around a dispute, only the discrete facts of the dispute, which we don't have.
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
Just spitballing here, but like I said earlier, Disney + Premier Access didn't exist when the contracts would have been first done, so there can't have been any specific language regarding it. So the fact that he says it is a boost for Johnson is cute, as is the fact that they are counting it in the box office tally.
Here's why: If a family of eight goes to see Black Widow in a theater, they are spending around $80.00 on tickets. So ScarJo would get whatever her piece is of $80.00, or $10.00 per viewer.
If that same family of eight watches from home, they spend $29.99, and then all the friends and family with whom they share their Disney + login info watch it for free. So, depending on how many people that is, her piece of the action diminishes more and more.
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
Just spitballing here, but like I said earlier, Disney + Premier Access didn't exist when the contracts would have been first done, so there can't have been any specific language regarding it. So the fact that he says it is a boost for Johnson is cute, as is the fact that they are counting it in the box office tally.
Here's why: If a family of eight goes to see Black Widow in a theater, they are spending around $80.00 on tickets. So ScarJo would get whatever her piece is of $80.00, or $10.00 per viewer.
If that same family of eight watches from home, they spend $29.99, and then all the friends and family with whom they share their Disney + login info watch it for free. So, depending on how many people that is, her piece of the action diminishes more and more.
But as I've said, there are also people (like me) who spent their Ł20 ($30) to watch it at home when, 1. it would only have cost less than Ł10 to watch in the cinema, and 2. I would almost certainly not have gone to the cinema anyway.
-
Nice, PG.
I still see, though, that the assumptions are flying with respect to this case. Some of the things being said CANNOT be known without the contract in front of us (and in some of the assumptions, the OTHER contracts that the company has entered into). And of course there is this (from PG's article): "Petrocelli countered that the Disney Premier Access release was a boost for Johansson because that revenue is factored in to the box-office tally for the purpose of computing bonuses."
And just for shits and giggles, if ScarJo WAS getting a cut of the Premier Access money is still suing - against the clause in the contract that requires arbitration, a well-respected and widely used (I'm in two arbitrations right now as we speak) dispute resolution method - why isn't she being compelled to "do the right thing"?
Just spitballing here, but like I said earlier, Disney + Premier Access didn't exist when the contracts would have been first done, so there can't have been any specific language regarding it. So the fact that he says it is a boost for Johnson is cute, as is the fact that they are counting it in the box office tally.
I don't agree with that logic; that it wasn't released doesn't mean it wasn't known, or that similar systems weren't available that could lead to appropriate language in the contract. The contract does not need to refer directly to "Disney + Premium Access" in order to contemplate it in the language.
When George Bush issued the increased emissions standards for rail, the technology didn't exist to achieve those standards. Yet, we had language in our contracts almost five years before that technology was reached (by GE).
Here's why: If a family of eight goes to see Black Widow in a theater, they are spending around $80.00 on tickets. So ScarJo would get whatever her piece is of $80.00, or $10.00 per viewer.
If that same family of eight watches from home, they spend $29.99, and then all the friends and family with whom they share their Disney + login info watch it for free. So, depending on how many people that is, her piece of the action diminishes more and more.
Except, you're isolating one variable at the expense of others. How many are like me, that wouldn't have spent $80 to see it in the theater, but WOULD have spent $29.99 at home? Or who would have gone to the theater but would have been alone or with his daughter ($20, $40) but would much prefer to be home on my couch watching it? I don't have the algorithm to work through this, but it's dangerous to assume that the numbers will fall a certain way. In fact, I think there are FAR more people that would forgo the $20 to be seen alone in the movie theater and would pay $29.99 to watch it at home free from anxiety, ridicule, and those assholes that can't put their phone down or shut their pie holes for two hours.
-
I don't agree with that logic; that it wasn't released doesn't mean it wasn't known, or that similar systems weren't available that could lead to appropriate language in the contract. The contract does not need to refer directly to "Disney + Premium Access" in order to contemplate it in the language.
It wasn't known. There was no reason for it to exist. It was created due to problems with not being able to release films theatrically during the pandemic.
There are no similar systems available for large-scale Disney/Marvel films. There would have been theatrical release, and the eventual home release (DVD/bluray/streaming services). Disney + Premier Access is a strange combination thereof necessitated by the pandemic.
Except, you're isolating one variable at the expense of others. How many are like me, that wouldn't have spent $80 to see it in the theater, but WOULD have spent $29.99 at home? Or who would have gone to the theater but would have been alone or with his daughter ($20, $40) but would much prefer to be home on my couch watching it? I don't have the algorithm to work through this, but it's dangerous to assume that the numbers will fall a certain way. In fact, I think there are FAR more people that would forgo the $20 to be seen alone in the movie theater and would pay $29.99 to watch it at home free from anxiety, ridicule, and those assholes that can't put their phone down or shut their pie holes for two hours.
Yeah, lots of variables. All introduced by the creation of Disney + Premier Access.
-
I don't agree with that logic; that it wasn't released doesn't mean it wasn't known, or that similar systems weren't available that could lead to appropriate language in the contract. The contract does not need to refer directly to "Disney + Premium Access" in order to contemplate it in the language.
It wasn't known. There was no reason for it to exist. It was created due to problems with not being able to release films theatrically during the pandemic.
There are no similar systems available for large-scale Disney/Marvel films. There would have been theatrical release, and the eventual home release (DVD/bluray/streaming services). Disney + Premier Access is a strange combination thereof necessitated by the pandemic.
Am I fundamentally misunderstanding what Disney + Premier Access is? This article (https://www.gamesradar.com/what-is-premier-access/) basically has it as an on-demand rental that you can watch unlimited times, which is essentially like that code you get in a Blu-ray to download digital content. Which has been around for years. The only difference - and it's not a "difference" as much as a policy - is that it's available while the movie is in theaters. Again, not a concept that is new; movies have gone direct to DVD or simultaneously to DVD for years.
Except, you're isolating one variable at the expense of others. How many are like me, that wouldn't have spent $80 to see it in the theater, but WOULD have spent $29.99 at home? Or who would have gone to the theater but would have been alone or with his daughter ($20, $40) but would much prefer to be home on my couch watching it? I don't have the algorithm to work through this, but it's dangerous to assume that the numbers will fall a certain way. In fact, I think there are FAR more people that would forgo the $20 to be seen alone in the movie theater and would pay $29.99 to watch it at home free from anxiety, ridicule, and those assholes that can't put their phone down or shut their pie holes for two hours.
Yeah, lots of variables. All introduced by the creation of Disney + Premier Access.
[/quote]
Me not wanting to be seen as a loser by myself in a theater is introduced by the creation of Disney + Premier Access? Someone needs to refund all that therapy, STAT! :) :) :) :) :)
-
(https://c.tenor.com/djYK_zrzVgQAAAAM/miss-the-point-missing-the-point.gif)
-
(https://c.tenor.com/djYK_zrzVgQAAAAM/miss-the-point-missing-the-point.gif)
Don't be rude to Hef. He'll get it, he's smart.
(Because you certainly don't mean me, homie. :) )
-
Am I fundamentally misunderstanding what Disney + Premier Access is?
I think so.
This article (https://www.gamesradar.com/what-is-premier-access/) basically has it as an on-demand rental that you can watch unlimited times, which is essentially like that code you get in a Blu-ray to download digital content. Which has been around for years. The only difference - and it's not a "difference" as much as a policy - is that it's available while the movie is in theaters. Again, not a concept that is new; movies have gone direct to DVD or simultaneously to DVD for years.
OK, once more, from the top.
You are correct about the essence of what Premier Access is. It's an extension of Disney +.
What I'm saying is that Premier Access was only created because of the pandemic. It was not a thing when the film was filmed or when the contracts were signed. Therefore it was not accounted for in any contract language. Blu-ray content is accounted for. Renting something on Amazon Prime or through On Demand services once a film has completed its theatrical run would be accounted for. This is not that. There was no mechanism by which a Disney film could be in theatrical release and also available for home streaming at the same time (which by definition takes away from the theatrical take). That whole thing is only for the pandemic. Before the pandemic, no studio wanted such a thing, so as not to interfere with the amount of money they could make in theatrical release.
-
Put another way, D+ Premier Access was another distribution channel that Disney created (rightly so, because of the pandemic), and only made the revenues available to themselves. The Premier Access fee is movie-specific. So there is a direct correlation between those revenues, and some level of unearned box office revenues. Who knows what the actual correlation is... 1:1 - not likely. 0.8:1? 0.5:1? Impossible to know - but they revenues that at some level would have been earned at the box office.
Look, say you take a job as a to develop a new product that will only be sold in their store locations. It's a killer product, lots of demand, company guarantees you 20% of all sales at in store, and there's only one way to buy the product - at the store. So you agree take a small or no salary, and a % of all sales. You invest a year to develop and build the product, and on launch day, you find out the company has created a whole brand new channel to sell the product, one never used in the industry before, and you don't get a cut of those sales. Maybe it's not the best analogy, but close enough.
*awaits 'yeah buts'*
-
From everything I've seen she didn't get a percentage of the D+ (that totally sounds dirty but I'm leaving it). Granted most of the sources I'm seeing are heavy on team ScarJo.
So then yeah... that's shifty on Disney's part. Logical from the sense of the right thing to do given world conditions, but shifty as a means of getting out of having to pay her millions.
Also how much revenue was lost through easier pirating due to the D+ release? I'd gather it was substantial.
Fo sho
Just bringing this back up again. I think ScarJo could have a case against Disney in that, because they made the film available digitally day-and-date with the theatrical release, the availability of an HD pirated version of the film became widespread, something that wouldn't happen until the film reached digital outlets weeks or months later (and in the case of Black Widow, it is out on DIGITAL today, with the usual extras, just 32 days after it's initial theatrical release, which sounds like some sort of record).
Since the film was available for piracy, the amount of people who wanted to say that paid ZERO is probably insanely high. Regardless of the film's quality and rating, I think if it was a normal theatrical release, sans the pandemic, it might have been close to a billion dollar maker, being the first MCU film in roughly 2 years. I look at how Iron Man 3 made a billion after the first Avengers film came out, and granted, MCU hype was reaching new heights at that point, but I think a 2-year drought of MCU films might have caused Black Widow to bring in some huge numbers if it was a theatrical-only release.
But as others have said here, I'm pretty certain Disney did not have Premier Access in mind when Black Widow had wrapped up productions in October 2019.
I do have to wonder how long this case has been known by Disney, because back in May, when the first Shang-Chi trailer came out, it was said that that film would have a 45-day theatrical-only window, meaning it won't have Premier Access day-and-date like Black Widow (and other Disney films). I wonder if that decision was made because of ScarJo's case, or if that plan was always in place. Either way, when we look back on this in the years to come, it'll look like Disney just short-changed the BW film, either by accident or on purpose, but we can never really know how things might've turned out had the pandemic subsided by July fully, or just never happened at all.
-Marc.
-
Am I fundamentally misunderstanding what Disney + Premier Access is?
I think so.
This article (https://www.gamesradar.com/what-is-premier-access/) basically has it as an on-demand rental that you can watch unlimited times, which is essentially like that code you get in a Blu-ray to download digital content. Which has been around for years. The only difference - and it's not a "difference" as much as a policy - is that it's available while the movie is in theaters. Again, not a concept that is new; movies have gone direct to DVD or simultaneously to DVD for years.
OK, once more, from the top.
You are correct about the essence of what Premier Access is. It's an extension of Disney +.
What I'm saying is that Premier Access was only created because of the pandemic. It was not a thing when the film was filmed or when the contracts were signed. Therefore it was not accounted for in any contract language. Blu-ray content is accounted for. Renting something on Amazon Prime or through On Demand services once a film has completed its theatrical run would be accounted for. This is not that. There was no mechanism by which a Disney film could be in theatrical release and also available for home streaming at the same time (which by definition takes away from the theatrical take). That whole thing is only for the pandemic. Before the pandemic, no studio wanted such a thing, so as not to interfere with the amount of money they could make in theatrical release.
But this is what I'm struggling with. PREMIER ACCESS - the branded product - was released as part of the pandemic, but the CONCEPT of a streaming/on-demand/hybrid service was not new at that time. According to the Disney lawyer, not only was it contemplated but it was included. That runs directly contrary to what you're saying. The contract need not reference "Disney + Premier Access" specifically, or reference a released product, to contemplate that it MAY be a factor to be considered. That TESLA the car was debuted in 2008 doesn't mean that the whole concept of cars - or even electric cars - was never contemplated.
I mean, we can leave this if we're just circling the drain on the discussion, but as a general point you're making statements there - "there was no mechanism" - that I don't know to be true and that based on what some who DO know have said, ISN'T true. It's Disney's content; why can't they release to Amazon Prime any time they want?
-
Premier Access was *created* as a result of the pandemic. No studio had ever contemplated releasing a blockbuster movie direct-to-home on release day, nor did they have a way to monetize it for a specific title.
At this point, it's almost as if you don't want to get the point, looking at this only through your lawyer lens. Maybe Disney would hire you :biggrin: ScarJo certainly won't! :lol
-
PREMIER ACCESS - the branded product - was released as part of the pandemic, but the CONCEPT of a streaming/on-demand/hybrid service was not new at that time.
Yes, but only as part of secondary release, not initial theatrical release. The accounting for such is completely different. That's why, pre-COVID, the big news on new releases was how much they made in theatrical release. You never heard how much they made on blu-ray sales or On Demand after their theatrical run is over, because it's a completely separate animal.
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
-
Just dropped in to say: From a legal and factual standpoint, I mostly agree with Stadler.
-
Premier Access was *created* as a result of the pandemic. No studio had ever contemplated releasing a blockbuster movie direct-to-home on release day, nor did they have a way to monetize it for a specific title.
Given that both their marketing and legal staff are essentially paid to "see the future", I find that almost IMPOSSIBLE to believe. Maybe they didn't want to do it, maybe they didn't want to be the FIRST to do it, maybe they didn't want to see a scenario where it might be necessary to do it, but I find it unconscionable that they never CONTEMPLATED it.
And if it WAS as Petrocelli claims, they DID contemplate it.
And they absolutely did have a way to monetize it; that's the "on-demand"/PPV mechanism. Whether something is in a theater or not is immaterial as to whether you can individually charge for a title or not.
At this point, it's almost as if you don't want to get the point, looking at this only through your lawyer lens. Maybe Disney would hire you :biggrin: ScarJo certainly won't! :lol
Can you, respectfully, stop with the "you don't get the point"? "Not agreeing with you" or "Not flooding the thread with :hefdaddy emojis" is not the same as "not getting the point". I get the friggin' point. I disagree with the assumptions that are leading to it. And if we're going to talk about "not getting the point", I will remind you (both) that I'm not saying you're WRONG, I'm saying that we can't KNOW that for certain and it's just as likely as not that you are right as you are wrong. You both may actually be right, IF the language supports that. If ScarJo can prove Disney never even CONTEMPLATED this release before, then that changes the discussion measurably. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of weight resting on a foundation of assumptions that we cannot know at this point, some of which don't sustain logical analysis. Neither Disney NOR ScarJo is any more or less likely to hire me here, because I'm not taking sides, though I think they'd want me because I'm not taking anything for granted.
I'm actually willing to accept that Disney OR ScarJo might be right here (though I have my personal belief and I've stated it: neither side has a slam dunk, ScarJo made this an issue in the press for the very reasons we're seeing here - 'Big bad corporation! Poor little actress being taken advantage of!' - and this will never see the inside of a court or arbitration room. There will be a settlement within a few months, terms not disclosed). Much of what I'm reading doesn't seem to be that accommodating.
-
In terms of who is "right," I would put my money on this being a case where it isn't a clearcut case of either party being "right." And I'm not sure either party considers her/itself wholly in the right either. As Stadler pointed out earlier in the thread, the lawsuit is almost surely just a mechanism for ScarJo to ensure some additional compensation by way of settlement out of an unfortunate situation that was brought about by something nobody could have expected.
-
PREMIER ACCESS - the branded product - was released as part of the pandemic, but the CONCEPT of a streaming/on-demand/hybrid service was not new at that time.
Yes, but only as part of secondary release, not initial theatrical release. The accounting for such is completely different. That's why, pre-COVID, the big news on new releases was how much they made in theatrical release. You never heard how much they made on blu-ray sales or On Demand after their theatrical run is over, because it's a completely separate animal.
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I defer to PG here, he's the resident entertainment lawyer, but whether an actor gets residuals for on-demand or DVD rentals is not tied to anything we're talking about here (contemplation, timing) but whether they are a big enough star to warrant that kind of compensation. Robert Downey, Jr., as I understand it, DOES get paid for DVD/Blu-ray sales and for on-demand sales (he gets a cut of the profits). I know generally someone like Tom Cruise does. Zachary Levi (Fandral in the MCU) is likely not.
-
In terms of who is "right," I would put my money on this being a case where it isn't a clearcut case of either party being "right." And I'm not sure either party considers her/itself wholly in the right either. As Stadler pointed out earlier in the thread, the lawsuit is almost surely just a mechanism for ScarJo to ensure some additional compensation by way of settlement out of an unfortunate situation that was brought about by something nobody could have expected.
I wouldn't take that bet (meaning, I don't disagree with that at all). Rarely is this stuff black and white.
-
PREMIER ACCESS - the branded product - was released as part of the pandemic, but the CONCEPT of a streaming/on-demand/hybrid service was not new at that time.
Yes, but only as part of secondary release, not initial theatrical release. The accounting for such is completely different. That's why, pre-COVID, the big news on new releases was how much they made in theatrical release. You never heard how much they made on blu-ray sales or On Demand after their theatrical run is over, because it's a completely separate animal.
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I defer to PG here, he's the resident entertainment lawyer, but whether an actor gets residuals for on-demand or DVD rentals is not tied to anything we're talking about here (contemplation, timing) but whether they are a big enough star to warrant that kind of compensation. Robert Downey, Jr., as I understand it, DOES get paid for DVD/Blu-ray sales and for on-demand sales (he gets a cut of the profits). I know generally someone like Tom Cruise does. Zachary Levi (Fandral in the MCU) is likely not.
I agree, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up now.
Lookit, I'm not saying that I know more than anyone, or that I'm right. But I know a little, and I'm just explaining why I think that if it goes to court, ScarJo wins, but I still don't think it will go that far. I would be shocked if this isn't settled.
-
PREMIER ACCESS - the branded product - was released as part of the pandemic, but the CONCEPT of a streaming/on-demand/hybrid service was not new at that time.
Yes, but only as part of secondary release, not initial theatrical release. The accounting for such is completely different. That's why, pre-COVID, the big news on new releases was how much they made in theatrical release. You never heard how much they made on blu-ray sales or On Demand after their theatrical run is over, because it's a completely separate animal.
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I defer to PG here, he's the resident entertainment lawyer, but whether an actor gets residuals for on-demand or DVD rentals is not tied to anything we're talking about here (contemplation, timing) but whether they are a big enough star to warrant that kind of compensation. Robert Downey, Jr., as I understand it, DOES get paid for DVD/Blu-ray sales and for on-demand sales (he gets a cut of the profits). I know generally someone like Tom Cruise does. Zachary Levi (Fandral in the MCU) is likely not.
I agree, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up now.
Lookit, I'm not saying that I know more than anyone, or that I'm right. But I know a little, and I'm just explaining why I think that if it goes to court, ScarJo wins, but I still don't think it will go that far. I would be shocked if this isn't settled.
I didn't bring it up, you did: You said she wouldn't be paid these because this was "new technology". That's not necessarily accurate.
I don't know, and I stand by that, but I don't see anything that gives either side a clear advantage in terms of case outcome (though some of that is procedural in nature). I'm with you, though, I don't think it gets that far.
-
Can you, respectfully, stop with the "you don't get the point"? "Not agreeing with you" or "Not flooding the thread with :hefdaddy emojis" is not the same as "not getting the point". I get the friggin' point.
For starters, I'm not looking for you to agree with me. I can count on one hand the number of times you've done that (one of them used to be in my sig it was such a rare occurrence ;) :D). But with as much respect in return, from my vantage point I don't think you do, because you keep coming back to Premier Access being nothing new, or nothing that couldn't have been foreseen (see point earlier about HBO renegotiating their contracts to accommodate for HBO Max). Accounting for redirected revenues to Premier Access is precisely the point.
And they absolutely did have a way to monetize it; that's the "on-demand"/PPV mechanism. Whether something is in a theater or not is immaterial as to whether you can individually charge for a title or not.
Fair point, I was thinking only about subscription streaming services, and being unable to specifically monetize something through a subscription fee, so you're right in the on-demand/PPV/physical sales distribution methods. I'll grant you that. Perhaps you can acknowledge that those distribution channels have NEVER been used for a Day 1 release from a major studio for a major motion picture - particularly a 'summer blockbuster'. And the likelihood of "seeing the future" and coming to the conclusion that it would be released through additional channels is as reasonable as thinking everyone involved should've 'seen the future' of a global pandemic.
You both may actually be right, IF the language supports that. If ScarJo can prove Disney never even CONTEMPLATED this release before, then that changes the discussion measurably. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of weight resting on a foundation of assumptions that we cannot know at this point, some of which don't sustain logical analysis.
Has Disney publicly indicated that they did consider it? The first public acknowledgement I can find of Premier Access is the announcement in August 2020 during it's Q3 earnings release that Mulan would be released as such (https://observer.com/2020/08/mulan-disney-plus-box-office-info-details/) - 3 months after the original planned release of Black Widow. If the notion of what Premier Access represents is not reflected in the contract language, then I'm unsure who owns the burden of proving/disproving this. If her salary was specifically negotiated (by both parties) to be primarily driven by box office sales, and Disney had an undisclosed plan to redirect that revenue, I'd say that's acting in bad faith.
If my company gave me a compensation plan heavily weighted on commissions earned in my territory (example - Banks New York), then on Day 1 severely limited my territory (ie, they assign me banks in Buffalo, New York), I think I'd have a reasonable beef.
As I've said... if Disney is accounting for Premier Access as part of the % of revenue that she is getting paid on, then I'm firmly on Team Disney. If they are not, then I think she has a viable beef.
-
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I just had to pop back in here for this
:clap: This is why :hefdaddy is your emote.
-
You said she wouldn't be paid these because this was "new technology".
That is not at all what I said.
-
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I just had to pop back in here for this
:clap: This is why :hefdaddy is your emote.
See what I mean (above)? :tdwn
Misses the whole point entirely. :)
-
Disney introduced a secondary release mechanism simultaneously with the theatrical release, which automatically cuts into the theatrical take and introduces a heretofore unseen mechanism for revenue for which the talent wasn't compensated. That's why I think Disney loses if it makes it to court (which I don't think will happen).
I just had to pop back in here for this
:clap: This is why :hefdaddy is your emote.
See what I mean (above)? :tdwn
Misses the whole point entirely. :)
Oh for fucks sake dude... the part I bolded is a line from Infinity War that I'm applauding! I'm simply acknowledging
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/a8/78/2ca8784f01768d3585836ad17203e475.gif)
-
Now, and I'm being serious, THAT point I DIDN'T get. Where your emoji/GIF/meme when we need it?? :)
-
Now, and I'm being serious, THAT point I DIDN'T get. Where your emoji/GIF/meme when we need it?? :)
Something like this? :lol
(https://c.tenor.com/ctNSfLVjACAAAAAC/jeff-dunham-peanut-peanut.gif)
It's ok... it just proves you don't have the reflexes of Drax.
-
Ah, I see. I took it to mean that you reduced my entire argument to saying she wouldn't get paid at all from the Premier Access revenue.
Big stars are generally paid by large upfront fee, or a piece of the theatrical release revenue, or a combination thereof (as she was in this case). Whatever money they may receive in any kind of secondary release will be separate, and generally much less.
The Premier Access release introduced a secondary release type mechanism, but during the theatrical release. It would thereby reduce the amount of theatrical release revenue, which would necessarily decrease the piece of the action that Scarlett Johanssen would receive.
That's the whole argument. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
-
Can you, respectfully, stop with the "you don't get the point"? "Not agreeing with you" or "Not flooding the thread with :hefdaddy emojis" is not the same as "not getting the point". I get the friggin' point.
For starters, I'm not looking for you to agree with me. I can count on one hand the number of times you've done that (one of them used to be in my sig it was such a rare occurrence ;) :D). But with as much respect in return, from my vantage point I don't think you do, because you keep coming back to Premier Access being nothing new, or nothing that couldn't have been foreseen (see point earlier about HBO renegotiating their contracts to accommodate for HBO Max). Accounting for redirected revenues to Premier Access is precisely the point.
And they absolutely did have a way to monetize it; that's the "on-demand"/PPV mechanism. Whether something is in a theater or not is immaterial as to whether you can individually charge for a title or not.
Fair point, I was thinking only about subscription streaming services, and being unable to specifically monetize something through a subscription fee, so you're right in the on-demand/PPV/physical sales distribution methods. I'll grant you that. Perhaps you can acknowledge that those distribution channels have NEVER been used for a Day 1 release from a major studio for a major motion picture - particularly a 'summer blockbuster'. And the likelihood of "seeing the future" and coming to the conclusion that it would be released through additional channels is as reasonable as thinking everyone involved should've 'seen the future' of a global pandemic.
Well, if it has never happened, of course I'll acknowledge that. It's certainly rare; a little research (Wikipedia) shows like three exceptions (The Interview being one, which is not apples to apples). So sure. But the same research shows this: "In 2005, Disney CEO Bob Iger suggested that simultaneous releases of films at theaters and on DVD could help to counter piracy, going as far as suggesting that DVDs could be sold directly at the theater (providing an additional source of revenue to their owners).[7][3]". So it's not that it didn't happen because no one thought of it, but because no one was willing to - or was put in the position of - doing it first.
But in fact, the CEO of DISNEY voiced this possibility 15 years ago. 15 years.
You both may actually be right, IF the language supports that. If ScarJo can prove Disney never even CONTEMPLATED this release before, then that changes the discussion measurably. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of weight resting on a foundation of assumptions that we cannot know at this point, some of which don't sustain logical analysis.
Has Disney publicly indicated that they did consider it? The first public acknowledgement I can find of Premier Access is the announcement in August 2020 during it's Q3 earnings release that Mulan would be released as such (https://observer.com/2020/08/mulan-disney-plus-box-office-info-details/) - 3 months after the original planned release of Black Widow. If the notion of what Premier Access represents is not reflected in the contract language, then I'm unsure who owns the burden of proving/disproving this.
See above on consideration. They arguably did. But in terms of your question, ScarJo brought the suit; she has the burden of proof on most of these issues. She has to prove her allegations.
If her salary was specifically negotiated (by both parties) to be primarily driven by box office sales, and Disney had an undisclosed plan to redirect that revenue, I'd say that's acting in bad faith.
If my company gave me a compensation plan heavily weighted on commissions earned in my territory (example - Banks New York), then on Day 1 severely limited my territory (ie, they assign me banks in Buffalo, New York), I think I'd have a reasonable beef.
As I've said... if Disney is accounting for Premier Access as part of the % of revenue that she is getting paid on, then I'm firmly on Team Disney. If they are not, then I think she has a viable beef.
You may have a beef you may not; the devil is in the details. Disney has no duty or obligation to disclose their future plans. That's the art of negotiation. Knowledge is power. it seems in your last sentence that "if she gets paid it's all good, if she doesn't she's got beef". That's why I'm arguing this; there are realistic, accurate legal scenarios where she doesn't get a dime. The "what side you WANT to win" doesn't factor in. This isn't about who we might like better.
-
15 years ago, and it never ever has come up since would suggest it was not a fiscally sound premise.
Also, what I want is fairness. I could care less if ScarJo gets more money on top of her $20M base salary for this film. I mean, it's not like I'm concerned about the financial distress this is putting on her ::). I see her side as a matter of principle. I was taught that ethics is doing the right thing... always. My moral compass is usually in sync with laws and contracts, but as you said, the devil is in the details - which in this situation, I don't know them. But on the premise that she is not getting a share of the D+ Premier Access revenues as part of her variable renumeration per her contract, I don't see that as fair.
That's just me.
-
15 years ago, and it never ever has come up since would suggest it was not a fiscally sound premise.
Also, what I want is fairness. I could care less if ScarJo gets more money on top of her $20M base salary for this film. I mean, it's not like I'm concerned about the financial distress this is putting on her ::). I see her side as a matter of principle. I was taught that ethics is doing the right thing... always. My moral compass is usually in sync with laws and contracts, but as you said, the devil is in the details - which in this situation, I don't know them. But on the premise that she is not getting a share of the D+ Premier Access revenues as part of her variable renumeration per her contract, I don't see that as fair.
That's just me.
Well, if nothing else I understand where you stand. It's not accurate, within the boundaries of contract law, but at least I understand it. We HAVE fairness, at least as is regarded as fair in contract law. ScarJo and her representatives - consenting adults who are competent to enter into contracts - negotiated a contract at arms length with Disney and their representatives. Since they both signed, we can assume they were happy enough with the deal to move forward. They are not novices, they are not beginners, and there is likely some knowledge of the business and the trends within that business. THAT'S the fairness, and by all accounts that's what happened. There is no "ethics" involved in arbitrarily giving up what you're entitled to under the contract if the other party got something different than what they hoped for; in fact, one might argue that is the epitome of UNfairness. Why even enter into a contract in the first place, if you're going to potentially lose your consideration over an arbitrary and subjective determination of "fairness" or an application of someone else's ethics? This is precisely WHY we have contracts to begin with.
If there was a breach - and we cannot know that at this time - then the parties will be put in the position they would have been had the contract been performed. Interestingly, that MIGHT give ScarJo LESS revenue than she got; will she be entitled to give any back? Wouldn't that be "fair"? And of course, at least vis-a-vis the contract, you're ignoring all the unfair things that (apparently) ScarJo did; her contract was with Marvel and called for arbitration; she ignored all that and sued DISNEY in COURT. Why does she get an ethics pass for ignoring those terms of the contract? Where's the "fair" in that?
-
Oh, I know contracts have nothing to do with fairness... I was just explaining responding to your comment around 'what I want'. I think PG explained last page the likely reason she was suing Disney and not Marvel.
-
Hey, I just thought of something. Not to start all of this back up, but it seems like one big thing that could foul this up for Disney (in my non-lawyer way of looking at things) is, again, introducing Premier Access which takes away from theatrical access.
I forgot that it doesn't really function like regular On Demand. With regular On Demand services, once you pay, you typically get a limited time to watch the thing. With Premier Access, I paid once, and I (or anyone else in my household, or anyone with whom I share my membership info) can rewatch the film as many times as we want. I don't have to pay each time I watch it, which would be the case if it were an exclusively theatrical release (which has been the case with every other MCU film).
Does that make a difference?
-
Never thought of that as an additional wrinkle. PA gives unlimited access to a watch and re-watch the title - different than on-demand or PPV.
-
Never thought of that as an additional wrinkle. PA gives unlimited access to a watch and re-watch the title - different than on-demand or PPV.
It is essentialy a no-frills digital BD, no extras but unlimited viewings, and for not much more than a BD typically goes for when a movie is new (usually $20-25), though those come with extras, so you're really only getting like $10-15 worth with the movie itself. Essentially you're paying twice what you would for a BD just to watch the film 3 months earlier, and because Premier Access ran concurrently with theatrical, it really cut out of theatrical box office profits (not to mention piracy).
To put that in perspective, the film just went to digital purchase earlier this week, just over a month from theatrical, and I think Disney did that to try and make as much back as possible on the film because digital releases are usually 2 months out from theatrical release, not one. Hell, the BD and 4K UHD sets come out on September 14th! I cannot think of a big blockbuster film with that quick of a turnaround between theatrical and home video.
Disney is definitely trying to recoup on this as quickly as possible because if they wait longer, more folks will just pirate or D+ account share.
-Marc.
-
DVD.
Here's another wrinkle: Let's say you guys are spot on, and this was unforeseen and was a blatant disregard of what BOTH parties intended when they entered into the contract. ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well? What if it didn't sell, or sold less than forecast; shouldn't she then share some of the losses as well? What about development costs? Absent that, should we accept the fact that Disney quite possibly could have sat on this innovative technology and not released it rather than pay her? Regardless of who is (factually) right, this was a bold decision that was not a guaranteed success (even with the $60M in return; it depends on what the investment was and the required time for ROI); what is fair about Disney bearing ALL the risk and not being able to recoup the commensurate reward? Like it or not, we live in a capitalist system, and that's the incentive process for these types of decisions. Don't we complain about this in the pharmaceutical realm? Pfizer will make dick pills and COVID vaccines, because they make bank; they don't do obscure medicines because the return isn't there. I think we all agree that's a sub-optimal state*, so why encourage that behavior elsewhere, even if "lives" are not at stake?
* I have long said that as part of Obamacare, instead of "guaranteeing" profits for Pharma, as the Feds did, they should have agreed to government fund the R&D for new drugs so there wasn't such a high hurdle to recoup investment on new pharmaceuticals. We do this in the rail industry, for example. I'm sure we do it to some degree in the Pharma space, but we should broaden that across the board.
-
and because Premier Access ran concurrently with theatrical, it really cut out of theatrical box office profits (not to mention piracy).
Well those are not complimentary; if you're cutting piracy, you're presumably INCREASING profits, whereas if you're really cutting theatrical box office, assuming the Premier Access is less profitable (not a guarantee, because the overheads are not the same), you'd be DECREASING profits. I've noted before that in a COVID situation, it's not a given that these are people that would alternately go to the theater but for Premier Access. I have no way of knowing, and I'm not going to speculate, but if I was counsel on EITHER side, as part of my due diligence I'd be asking for some data as to what that demographic cross-section looks like (the data may not be there, but I'd like to know).
So, in the interest of fairness, should ScarJo give back the profits that would have been lost to piracy? Is this a net-net discussion? Why should Disney bear the sole burden of cutting piracy, and yet seemingly be penalized for actually doing so?
-
ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well?
I don't know that she is asking for profits from the Premier Access (she may be, I just don't know). She is saying that the existence of Premier Access hurt the theatrical take, which is where she would have made a boatload.
I think she was an executive producer on this one, as well, which means (I would assume) that she WAS sharing the risk, at least to some extent.
Also, Disney didn't do anything to cut piracy. If anything, the Premier Access release made piracy much, much easier.
-
And by the way, I'm not trying to be snarky with the constant references to fairness. I'm being sincere, and just trying to show that the playing field of "fairness" is sometimes broader than we first envision. "Fair" is almost always in the eye of the beer holder, IMO, and why I'm loathe to do anything other than leave it to the parties.
-
And by the way, I'm not trying to be snarky with the constant references to fairness. I'm being sincere, and just trying to show that the playing field of "fairness" is sometimes broader than we first envision.
Oh, I get that. I'm in the insurance business. Each side is only entitled to what is in the contract (more or less).
-
ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well?
I don't know that she is asking for profits from the Premier Access (she may be, I just don't know). She is saying that the existence of Premier Access hurt the theatrical take, which is where she would have made a boatload.
I think she was an executive producer on this one, as well, which means (I would assume) that she WAS sharing the risk, at least to some extent.
Also, Disney didn't do anything to cut piracy. If anything, the Premier Access release made piracy much, much easier.
That last is a whole 'nother discussion; I tend to agree with you, but there are some - see M, see the quote I posted - that feel that simultaneous release DOES reduce piracy. I'm skeptical; then again, when a movie comes out, you can go down to Battery Park and buy home-made DVDs transferred from handheld cameras of in-theater movies literally the day of release.
-
ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well?
I don't know that she is asking for profits from the Premier Access (she may be, I just don't know). She is saying that the existence of Premier Access hurt the theatrical take, which is where she would have made a boatload.
I think she was an executive producer on this one, as well, which means (I would assume) that she WAS sharing the risk, at least to some extent.
Also, Disney didn't do anything to cut piracy. If anything, the Premier Access release made piracy much, much easier.
That last is a whole 'nother discussion; I tend to agree with you, but there are some - see M, see the quote I posted - that feel that simultaneous release DOES reduce piracy. I'm skeptical; then again, when a movie comes out, you can go down to Battery Park and buy home-made DVDs transferred from handheld cameras of in-theater movies literally the day of release.
If I wasn't clear, I was saying that *because of* the Premier Access, pirates were able to rip a very good HD version of the film off of Disney+ for piracy and torrenting. Those don't usually hit the web and/or the market for bootleg sale until the eventual digital release (usually 2 months after the theatrical release), which means if you wanted to watch the film in at least HD quality, the theater was where you needed to go. Granted, some folks are fine with off-angle handicam versions of the film bootlegged from a theater, but these simultaneous day-and-date digital releases have cut that wait time between release and HD bootlegs from 2 months down to zero, meaning piracy has gone WAY up for movies like Black Widow and The Suicide Squad, both of which have seen HUGE reductions in profits on their second weeks. Anyone who wanted to see it in a theater did, and anyone who didn't either saw it for "free" (on HBO Max in the case of TSS) or through Premier Access on Disney+ (or pirated via torrent), but any of those ways of viewing these films means less money through theaters and the box office.
But of course, we wouldn't be in this situation without the pandemic, so it's hard to say how this would've shaken out in a non-pandemic world. These big blockbuster films have never had to be handled this way before, so tossing out examples of direct-to-DVD/home video films aren't quite accurate considering these films are meant to be HUGE draws for movie-going audiences. In a non-COVID timeline, they would've probably brought in close to a billion dollars each! The MCU has had a history of pulling in billion dollar films, especially in the last 5 years, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Black Widow may have done the same, especially given how popular her character is with many fans.
There are a lot of "what ifs..." involved, no pun intended, surrounded these releases that make it difficult to figure out exactly what should happen with these film's profits. Should ScarJo get more? Most likely! But we can't ever truly know just how much she lost by not having a theatrical-only release, COVID or not.
-Marc.
-
DVD.
Here's another wrinkle: Let's say you guys are spot on, and this was unforeseen and was a blatant disregard of what BOTH parties intended when they entered into the contract. ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well? What if it didn't sell, or sold less than forecast; shouldn't she then share some of the losses as well?
Um... that's exactly what she's doing. Any employee that has a variable component to their compensation (ie, not a bonus, but a variable incentive - the two are not the same) is sharing in the risk of performance - their own, and the company's. Her compensation shouldn't be viewed as a static/fixed base + bonus ... she's taken a lesser base salary, on the goal of the movie crushing it and her base + variable rate (% of box office revenue) being much higher than a fixed base salary alone.
What about development costs?
What about them? Using the Pfizer example, employees don't bear any responsibility in the development expenses of a product. That's the responsibility of the producer.
what is fair about Disney bearing ALL the risk and not being able to recoup the commensurate reward?
That's their role as the owner of the Studio. Everything is a risk/reward equation, and the studio is the top of the pyramid.
-
DVD.
Here's another wrinkle: Let's say you guys are spot on, and this was unforeseen and was a blatant disregard of what BOTH parties intended when they entered into the contract. ScarJo wants the profits from the Premier Access, does she share the risk as well? What if it didn't sell, or sold less than forecast; shouldn't she then share some of the losses as well?
Um... that's exactly what she's doing. Any employee that has a variable component to their compensation (ie, not a bonus, but a variable incentive - the two are not the same) is sharing in the risk of performance - their own, and the company's. Her compensation shouldn't be viewed as a static/fixed base + bonus ... she's taken a lesser base salary, on the goal of the movie crushing it and her base + variable rate (% of box office revenue) being much higher than a fixed base salary alone.
I get the difference between bonuses and variable comp. I get all that. But neither of them cover LOSSES, only lesser profits. There is absolute risk, for sure, but it's capped. Is ScarJo giving money BACK if the service loses money? No. And neither cover the process of NPI (New Product Introduction). I still don't think this is new, I still don't buy that this is something that no one could have foreseen, but goose/gander, I don't know that. I can't base an opinion on it. As we talk it through, and especially if we're talking about "fairness", I see less and less reason why ScarJo is the victim here.
What about development costs?
What about them? Using the Pfizer example, employees don't bear any responsibility in the development expenses of a product. That's the responsibility of the producer.
And so is the pricing and payouts, no?
what is fair about Disney bearing ALL the risk and not being able to recoup the commensurate reward?
That's their role as the owner of the Studio. Everything is a risk/reward equation, and the studio is the top of the pyramid.
And so don't they have the responsibility and, perhaps even the DUTY, to mitigate that risk? Such as, I don't know, maybe looking at new paradigms for release like day and date? This idea that Disney did this to screw over ScarJo seems less and less a reality; I'm almost wondering if they had an OBLIGATION to do this. And given that the Disney attorney said she WAS paid for the alternate release path, as I noted (but who knows?), I've been pretty adamant that I don't have a side here, but that's getting more and more difficult to maintain.
-
We'll see what happens, but I will just say that when faced with a similar (not identical) situation, Warner Brothers chose to renegotiate contracts with actors/directors with similar payment systems before simultaneously releasing their new films in theaters and on HBO Max.
I don't have anything else.
-
Is ScarJo giving money BACK if the service loses money? No.
You're right. If the studio thought there was a possibility or risk of losing money, I'm sure they could negotiate a reclamation of her base salary. And who's to say this isn't in the standard terms of the contract?
At this point, we really are circling the drain. Like Hef, I'm not sure I have any additional perspective, or any other way of saying what I've already said.
-
Is ScarJo giving money BACK if the service loses money? No.
You're right. If the studio thought there was a possibility or risk of losing money, I'm sure they could negotiate a reclamation of her base salary. And who's to say this isn't in the standard terms of the contract?
At this point, we really are circling the drain. Like Hef, I'm not sure I have any additional perspective, or any other way of saying what I've already said.
Me too; I was just thinking that as I was reading both your posts. I guess we buy popcorn and see how it shakes out.
In the meantime, I might watch Endgame again this weekend.
-
Exactly... let's leave the legal stuff to the pros. :neverusethis:
-
Exactly... let's leave the legal stuff to the pros. :neverusethis:
Exactly!
Wait.........
-
So...the movie was, again, pretty good, after having it set in for a bit. I didn't pay for it on D+, so I only saw it one time in the theater. This is probably the first Marvel film I don't have immediate plans to purchase on physical media. Nothing wrong with the film. But I'm just...I dunno...I kinda feel like Marvel reached its peak with the conclusion of phase 4. I don't feel the strong urge to be a completist going forward. That could change if the next few films are really good. But I imagine I'll probably just see them once in theaters, and then repeat view later when they go free on D+. I hear there are some deleted scenes I need to go back and watch now, so I may do that soon. Maybe that will rekindle my interest. But for now, I'm content having seen it once, and I look forward to the next film.
-
You bring up an interesting point, that they peaked with Endgame, and we're stuck in this 'where does it go from here' phase that may take 4 or 5 movies to start getting the ball rolling again, to develop a continuous storyline that we can all get vested in. I'm gonna guess Spiderman will be the one to break that seal, or Dr Strange.
-
You bring up an interesting point, that they peaked with Endgame, and we're stuck in this 'where does it go from here' phase that may take 4 or 5 movies to start getting the ball rolling again, to develop a continuous storyline that we can all get vested in. I'm gonna guess Spiderman will be the one to break that seal, or Dr Strange.
I feel this emotion, too, but Dr. Strange - my favorite character in the MCU - is where I'm pinning my hopes. I loved the comic character and I love Brandon Cucumberpatch's portrayal.
-
You bring up an interesting point, that they peaked with Endgame, and we're stuck in this 'where does it go from here' phase that may take 4 or 5 movies to start getting the ball rolling again, to develop a continuous storyline that we can all get vested in. I'm gonna guess Spiderman will be the one to break that seal, or Dr Strange.
I feel this emotion, too, but Dr. Strange - my favorite character in the MCU - is where I'm pinning my hopes. I loved the comic character and I love Brandon Cucumberpatch's portrayal.
And you just reached the Endgame point, most of us have been sitting here for three years waiting for 'what's next' :lol
-
You bring up an interesting point, that they peaked with Endgame, and we're stuck in this 'where does it go from here' phase that may take 4 or 5 movies to start getting the ball rolling again, to develop a continuous storyline that we can all get vested in. I'm gonna guess Spiderman will be the one to break that seal, or Dr Strange.
Well, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that things will "decline" and fade away. I'm perfectly OK with Endgame being the peak and with future arcs not achieving that emotional resonance. I'll still likely enjoy them. And I don't need them to reach as high. But I sense that they are still striving for that and still swinging for the fences, which is cool. I'm glad they are aspiring to that same greatness. Just not expecting it, and totally cool if they never hit it again.
-
First time is always the best time
-
For anyone interested, Black Widow is now out on home video today. I know Target has a special edition that is in line with their previous special editions (coming with a condensed behind-the-scenes book and an o-card slipcover). I called my Target this morning and they said they didn't have any in stock (as the website showed as well), so I just ordered it online, which is fine, but I had to pay for shipping. Ah well.
Anyone else getting Black Widow on home video? I'm sure Best Buy has a steelbook, but I don't collect those. I'm not sure if Wal Mart has any sort of special exclusive, though. At any rate, I'm excited to check out some of the behind-the-scenes video extras on the home video!
-Marc.
-
Already out on DVD ? When did it come out in the cinema ?
Wiki says June. Pretty fast turnaround..
Also : Budget $200 million[2]
Box office $372.7 million[3][4][a]
Yikes.
-
Already out on DVD ? When did it come out in the cinema ?
Wiki says June. Pretty fast turnaround..
Also : Budget $200 million[2]
Box office $372.7 million[3][4][a]
Yikes.
June? I thought the wide release date was July 9th (with a July 8th Thursday night preview), so less than 10 weeks from theater to home video, which is INSANELY fast. The digital video release was just over a month from theatrical release. Granted, I'm sure the home video units have been made and stuck in a warehouse for MONTHS now given how many times the film was delayed, so I think they probably just wanted to get it out there ASAP.
-Marc.
-
picked up the Best Buy steelbook earlier since I've been collecting them since the start of phase 3, glad I managed to get it while it was still available since I've missed out on some limited steelbooks lately like The Thing. Eventually I'll need to start upgrading my phase 1 and 2 films to 4K, but since I have the phase box sets for each of those I haven't wanted to spend even more until there's a good deal or a new run of early MCU steelbooks (doubtful that'll be any time soon tho). Anyone else a financially irresponsible collector like me? :lol
-
Already out on DVD ? When did it come out in the cinema ?
Wiki says June. Pretty fast turnaround..
Also : Budget $200 million[2]
Box office $372.7 million[3][4][a]
Yikes.
Box Office numbers don't include Disney+ Premiere income, which, unlike the box office take, doesn't have to be split with the theaters.
-
Or the actors! :neverusethis:
-
:icy:
-
Disney's gotta figure out that contract stuff. I read they were trying to work with the Russo brothers again who may have put a halt to it all because of this. As in, what if THEIR movie goes straight to streaming?
-
Yeah Disney really don't seem to have done themselves any favours by changing their plans without consulting/renegotiating with the star(s), whereas Warner/DC for all that they've got wrong, did at least do that right.
That said, they announced it was going to be on Disney+ Premier sometime before it actually came out, so ScarJo could also have approached them during that time. Really, neither party comes out especially well from this. :lol
-
Warner/DC may have figured out the new deals before the films were released or before it got to the point of litigation like with ScarJo, but they absolutely did NOT get it right. Most of their big-name directors are still furious that Warner sent their 2021 film slate directly to HBOMax without consulting them, and now they lost one of their biggest directors in Christopher Nolan to Universal.
-
That said, they announced it was going to be on Disney+ Premier sometime before it actually came out, so ScarJo could also have approached them during that time. Really, neither party comes out especially well from this. :lol
According to the original WSJ article about this suit, she did approach them:
According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278?mod=hp_lead_pos11)
-
Warner/DC may have figured out the new deals before the films were released or before it got to the point of litigation like with ScarJo, but they absolutely did NOT get it right. Most of their big-name directors are still furious that Warner sent their 2021 film slate directly to HBOMax without consulting them, and now they lost one of their biggest directors in Christopher Nolan to Universal.
They're upset about the release strategy, but WB paid out $200Million to renegotiate these deals.
-
That said, they announced it was going to be on Disney+ Premier sometime before it actually came out, so ScarJo could also have approached them during that time. Really, neither party comes out especially well from this. :lol
According to the original WSJ article about this suit, she did approach them:
According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278?mod=hp_lead_pos11)
Well, if that's true then that was kind of dumb on the part of Disney.
Warner/DC may have figured out the new deals before the films were released or before it got to the point of litigation like with ScarJo, but they absolutely did NOT get it right. Most of their big-name directors are still furious that Warner sent their 2021 film slate directly to HBOMax without consulting them, and now they lost one of their biggest directors in Christopher Nolan to Universal.
They're upset about the release strategy, but WB paid out $200Million to renegotiate these deals.
Yeah that's my understanding too, they don't see concurrent streaming as a good model for releases, but they at least had the opportunity to renegotiate their deals.
-
That said, they announced it was going to be on Disney+ Premier sometime before it actually came out, so ScarJo could also have approached them during that time. Really, neither party comes out especially well from this. :lol
According to the original WSJ article about this suit, she did approach them:
According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278?mod=hp_lead_pos11)
Well, if that's true then that was kind of dumb on the part of Disney.
Disney clearly believed (and likely still believes) that what they were doing with the release on D+ was not in violation of the contract. They almost assuredly consulted with some of the best lawyers in the world about the contract. Why renegotiate a contract when there's no need to?
Now, it remains to be seen if Disney is correct that they were not in violation of the contract, but we can only speculate since we haven't read it. I would be shocked if this is as cut and dry in Scarlett's favor as most people seem to think it is.
-
That said, they announced it was going to be on Disney+ Premier sometime before it actually came out, so ScarJo could also have approached them during that time. Really, neither party comes out especially well from this. :lol
According to the original WSJ article about this suit, she did approach them:
According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278?mod=hp_lead_pos11)
Well, if that's true then that was kind of dumb on the part of Disney.
Disney clearly believed (and likely still believes) that what they were doing with the release on D+ was not in violation of the contract. They almost assuredly consulted with some of the best lawyers in the world about the contract. Why renegotiate a contract when there's no need to?
Now, it remains to be seen if Disney is correct that they were not in violation of the contract, but we can only speculate since we haven't read it. I would be shocked if this is as cut and dry in Scarlett's favor as most people seem to think it is.
Scroll back: I wrote a lot about this and along those same lines. I think a lot of this has to do with the general perception of <Charleton Heston Voice> "BIG BAD CORPORATION" and <Betty Boop Voice> "meek little actress".
First, it's never going to court, but if it does, I would be stunned if this went in Scarlett's favor, absent an aggressive, judicially active court.
-
I think there's more Disney should worry about than "Is this technically legal?"
Why should future stars or people with sway in hollywood work with them if they can so easily be screwed over? The Russo's just brought negotiations to a pause because of this. And those are the guys responsible for their highest grossing films (not counting Fox stuff). How many future actors/writers/directors/etc will start to think twice about working with Disney after this?
Not everything is simply a matter of "legal or illegal."
-
I think there's more Disney should worry about than "Is this technically legal?"
Why should future stars or people with sway in hollywood work with them if they can so easily be screwed over? The Russo's just brought negotiations to a pause because of this. And those are the guys responsible for their highest grossing films (not counting Fox stuff). How many future actors/writers/directors/etc will start to think twice about working with Disney after this?
Not everything is simply a matter of "legal or illegal."
Yes, this exactly.
-
I think there's more Disney should worry about than "Is this technically legal?"
Why should future stars or people with sway in hollywood work with them if they can so easily be screwed over? The Russo's just brought negotiations to a pause because of this. And those are the guys responsible for their highest grossing films (not counting Fox stuff). How many future actors/writers/directors/etc will start to think twice about working with Disney after this?
Not everything is simply a matter of "legal or illegal."
But to be clear, I agree with you on this point: Disney SHOULD consider more variables. That's just smart business for them. If they don't, however, we can't make them. The only thing we CAN force them to do IS simply a matter of "legal" or "illegal".
If you want a general conversation about the movie business, and how the various studios should or should not manage their revenue streams, that's one thing. If you want to have a specific conversation about the merits of Scarlett's case, that's an entire other thing (almost wholly unrelated). The Scarlett aspect is driven almost entirely by "legal" and "illegal".
Having said all of that, I feel like Disney is not going to hurt for actors/actresses to work for them. This isn't the first time that the Mouse has done something that is seemingly unfriendly to the talent. It's a BUSINESS, and at the end of the day there are more people that will compromise their principles for a hefty paycheck than there are people that will go back to Montana on those principles.
-
I feel like the majority of the discussion around this has stemmed from it being nebulous as to whether we're we're talking about what Disney should do and what Disney is legally required to do. I'll leave the latter to actual lawyers (and Stadler :biggrin:), but as to the former I tend to side with Scarlett. She agreed to do a movie and the compensation was partially based on an expectation of a certain box office performance range. I don't think it's controversial to say that the movie would have done markedly better at the box office if not for Covid. It's great that Disney was able to pivot to an alternate release model, but given that it's very easy to see the revenue generated by the D+ release (since it was not included in a D+ subscription, but a separate fee) then they should be doing something in terms of compensation for those who lost out on box office performance based pay. Probably wouldn't be hard to put together a reasonable model to argue that it makes financial sense too. Weigh the cost of paying out a portion of the D+ release revenues versus potential additional costs from future negotiations (see the Russos) and generation of goodwill from voluntarily paying their people.
-
I think there's more Disney should worry about than "Is this technically legal?"
Why should future stars or people with sway in hollywood work with them if they can so easily be screwed over? The Russo's just brought negotiations to a pause because of this. And those are the guys responsible for their highest grossing films (not counting Fox stuff). How many future actors/writers/directors/etc will start to think twice about working with Disney after this?
Not everything is simply a matter of "legal or illegal."
But to be clear, I agree with you on this point: Disney SHOULD consider more variables. That's just smart business for them. If they don't, however, we can't make them. The only thing we CAN force them to do IS simply a matter of "legal" or "illegal".
If you want a general conversation about the movie business, and how the various studios should or should not manage their revenue streams, that's one thing. If you want to have a specific conversation about the merits of Scarlett's case, that's an entire other thing (almost wholly unrelated). The Scarlett aspect is driven almost entirely by "legal" and "illegal".
Having said all of that, I feel like Disney is not going to hurt for actors/actresses to work for them. This isn't the first time that the Mouse has done something that is seemingly unfriendly to the talent. It's a BUSINESS, and at the end of the day there are more people that will compromise their principles for a hefty paycheck than there are people that will go back to Montana on those principles.
Well, you keep using words like "force" and I don't think any of us (save for Hef) have the ability to do that. We're not forcing anyone to do anything. We're saying what we think they should do. We DO have every right to do that. I agree that if we're discussing the legal merits of the case (which many of us are at times) then it really is down to legal/illegal. But a lot of the conversation goes beyond that and keeps getting brought back to that, which I don't think is helpful.
And it's not a matter of principles. It IS a matter of business. What they did to Scarlet isn't scaring off the Russo brother's because of their principles. They're nervous that it will happen to them. That is bad for business for Disney. They will likely be fine, but they are also likely going to miss out on major opportunities because of the reputation they are getting with this. It might be GOOD for business to renegotiate with Scarlet and let that set a precedent for how future contracts will look, thus allowing people like the Russo's to feel more confident getting into bed with them.
-
Of course you have that right. Never said otherwise. But there's a degree of reasonableness. I think Disney SHOULD open their parks for free, and give me free, cold beer each time I get on a ride. And I have that right to say that. It's not grounded in any reality other than my own but I have the right to say that.
It'd just be nice for once to have even ONE post say "I get that it's not reality, I get that it would likely have other consequences I know nothing about, but I'd sure feel a lot better if this is how it was handled!" Instead, it's like the threads on the new DT song; you SAY you're respectful to the legal argument, and you SAY you understand it, but the bulk of the posts don't read that way.
I'm not sure I've articulated this yet, but I would not be THAT surprised if Disney WANTED her to sue so that they COULD pay her, in a confidential settlement, as opposed to making a unilateral decision that would (potentially) have dollars consequences far beyond her particular cut. Wouldn't be the first time.
Not to say that companies don't make bad decisions - they do - but for every bad decision you hear about there are 10's of thousands of decisions that are good (more or less) that you've never heard of. If I learned anything working for General Electric for over a decade, the crazier a corporate decision seems to the outsider, the less crazy it ACTUALLY likely was in the boardroom.
-
Of course you have that right.
Quoted the important part. \
Edit: Dammit! I misread that as you saying that I am right. Damn you!
-
Of course you have that right.
Quoted the important part. \
Edit: Dammit! I misread that as you saying that I am right. Damn you!
I am the Thesaurus, after all. ;) :) :) :)
-
Of course you have that right.
Quoted the important part. \
Edit: Dammit! I misread that as you saying that I am right. Damn you!
I am the Thesaurus, after all. ;) :) :) :)
:metal
-
Funny how there's not really another word for "thesaurus".
-
Funny how there's not really another word for "thesaurus".
I thought it was stadler?
-
Funny how there's not really another word for "thesaurus".
I thought it was stadler?
I wasn't going to point that out, but... :) :) :)
-
Funny how there's not really another word for "thesaurus".
I thought it was stadler?
I wasn't going to point that out, but... :) :) :)
IT'S LITERALLY YOUR JOB!
-
Funny how there's not really another word for "thesaurus".
I thought it was stadler?
I wasn't going to point that out, but... :) :) :)
IT'S LITERALLY YOUR JOB!
:dammitstadler: ... you had one job!
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
-
I’m shocked!!
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
Well, it was common sense. :neverusethis:
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
Well, it was common sense. :neverusethis:
That's low.
:)
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
Well, it was common sense. :neverusethis:
That's low.
:)
It's downright deplorable.
-
Can someone recap? I've read that article twice, and a few others, and all I get is that "they reached an agreement". Lots of details about how it came about, and why, but nothing on what was actually decided.
-
It is probably confidential. Most settlements are.
-
It is probably confidential. Most settlements are.
Yeah, I read elsewhere that details aren't being released
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
Don't call me "Bill." :biggrin:
My best guess is that the two sides will do a bit of preliminary punching at each other and eventually settle in a mediation.
Although there seems to have been little or no preliminary punching and no mediation.
Now I need to check what's going on with the Nirvana album cover lawsuit.
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
As expected. I'm glad it's over.
-
Both parties reached and agreement
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html
Well there you go. Exactly as Bill called it.
Don't call me "Bill." :biggrin:
Ok, Shirley.
-
It is probably confidential. Most settlements are.
Yeah, I read elsewhere that details aren't being released
That's what I figured, but some people were saying that the results were exactly what they'd predicted. What, that they would settle before actually going to court? That's also true of most cases like this, so this isn't a surprise.
-
No, it isn't surprising. But the fact that it settled so quickly would tend to indicate that, as the lawyers here predicted, the goal of both sides from the getgo was likely to reach a mutually-agreement resolution rather than to use litigation to beat each other into submission.
-
It seems like a bizarre way to resolve things, but yeah I know it happens all the time. There's a disagreement. You try to work it out, but eventually one side doesn't just threaten to sue the other; they actually do it. Let's get a few million-dollar lawyers to fight it out. Oh, on second thought, let's not. Next thing you know, things are settled. That's good, sure, but couldn't they have done that without taking legal action?
-
Yeah, but when you have contracts that are (1) as complicated with so many different terms as these likely are, and (2) have as much money at stake as these like do, it isn't something you just hash out together. Even if you could agree on all the terms without the lawyers (which is unlikely because of so many moving parts), you still need the lawyers to make sure everything you are doing is legal and doesn't cause some other unintended consequences. Suing in this type of situation does not always necessarily mean contentiousness. It just means that you are triggering some processes that, for practical reasons, are necessary to get to a resolution. Yes, it is inefficient. But it is what it is.
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
Yup..too bad they can't unburn that bridge in Endgame, though it wouldn't be below a comic universe to do some extreme mental gymnastics to bring someone back to life.
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
Yup..too bad they can't unburn that bridge in Endgame, though it wouldn't be below a comic universe to do some extreme mental gymnastics to bring someone back to life.
I don't see it happening. Bringing someone backs in the comics costs nothing. Bringing back Scarlett will cost Disney a pretty penny and she's not exactly RDJ in terms of how many people she'll bring to the theaters for her revival.
-
Oh I don't see it happening either, just wistful thinking.
Im sure both sides are happy that she's still viable as a Disney actor in general though, she does have some solid marketability.
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
Yup..too bad they can't unburn that bridge in Endgame, though it wouldn't be below a comic universe to do some extreme mental gymnastics to bring someone back to life.
I don't see it happening. Bringing someone backs in the comics costs nothing. Bringing back Scarlett will cost Disney a pretty penny and she's not exactly RDJ in terms of how many people she'll bring to the theaters for her revival.
Yeah, but Ronnie James Dio is dead too, so I'm not sure why that's the comparison. ;) :) :)
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
Yup..too bad they can't unburn that bridge in Endgame, though it wouldn't be below a comic universe to do some extreme mental gymnastics to bring someone back to life.
I don't see it happening. Bringing someone backs in the comics costs nothing. Bringing back Scarlett will cost Disney a pretty penny and she's not exactly RDJ in terms of how many people she'll bring to the theaters for her revival.
Yeah, but Ronnie James Dio is dead too, so I'm not sure why that's the comparison. ;) :) :)
Swing and a miss!
-
Yeah, but when you have contracts that are (1) as complicated with so many different terms as these likely are, and (2) have as much money at stake as these like do, it isn't something you just hash out together. Even if you could agree on all the terms without the lawyers (which is unlikely because of so many moving parts), you still need the lawyers to make sure everything you are doing is legal and doesn't cause some other unintended consequences. Suing in this type of situation does not always necessarily mean contentiousness. It just means that you are triggering some processes that, for practical reasons, are necessary to get to a resolution. Yes, it is inefficient. But it is what it is.
Yeah, I guess it does make sense. The lawyers are gonna get involved anyway since the contracts are so damned complicated, so you might as well make it official.
"I'll see you in court! Or have your guys stop by my office next week. We'll chat."
-
Awesome, sounds like bridges weren't burned beyond repair. Looking forward to more Black Widow in the MCU.
Yup..too bad they can't unburn that bridge in Endgame, though it wouldn't be below a comic universe to do some extreme mental gymnastics to bring someone back to life.
I don't see it happening. Bringing someone backs in the comics costs nothing. Bringing back Scarlett will cost Disney a pretty penny and she's not exactly RDJ in terms of how many people she'll bring to the theaters for her revival.
Yeah, but Ronnie James Dio is dead too, so I'm not sure why that's the comparison. ;) :) :)
Swing and a miss!
It was funny in my head. :)
-
It is probably confidential. Most settlements are.
Not official, but Hollywood news outlets (like Deadline (https://deadline.com/2021/09/disney-black-widow-lawsuit-scarlett-johansson-rsettlement-1234847437/)) are reporting that she got $40 Million out of the settlement.
-
I finally watched Black Widow, and while I didn't hate it, I was kinda bored, and had a feeling of emptiness. The characters were entertaining, but the comic relief never really got me to crack a smile. It was just kind of there. I like the Black Widow character. She was cool. I'm looking forward to seeing Yelena in future movies, but this movie didn't really do anything for me.
Also, Why did William Hurt look like a CGI robot?
-
Gave this another go now that it's on D+, and can confirm I still have a massive crush on ScarJo.
-
So I finally saw this since it's on Disney+, and I loved it. I'm kind of surprised people have been somewhat lukewarm on it; honestly I'd put among the best MCU films so far. The first half of the movie is especially good, it's a bit smaller scale and grounded, kind of slower, and the interactions between Natasha and Yelena when they meet again are fantastic; funny but not over the top and genuinely heartfelt. If the entire movie was as strong as the first half, I think it might have even been the best MCU film overall. But even though the second half does turn into the obligatory Marvel huge action thing, it's at least fun to watch since I enjoy the characters so much. It really made me kind of regret that there'll never be another Black Widow film since this one worked so well.
I do hope that Marvel learns slow + small scale doesn't necessarily = bad, but I guess I won't really hold my breath on that. :lol
Oh I forgot to mention I loved Crimson Dynamo too. Rachel Weisz was alright but I don't feel like they really gave the character enough breathing room for us to start caring about her.
-
Finally got to head to watching this, mostly because I wanted to watch Hawkeye in time for Christmas.
I was really going in just a check the box but it actually was a pretty decent movie. Not great, but a lot of fun.
-
I finally watched Black Widow, and while I didn't hate it, I was kinda bored, and had a feeling of emptiness. The characters were entertaining, but the comic relief never really got me to crack a smile. It was just kind of there. I like the Black Widow character. She was cool. I'm looking forward to seeing Yelena in future movies, but this movie didn't really do anything for me.
Also, Why did William Hurt look like a CGI robot?
He was getting close to being dead in real life . . . maybe they had to touch him up a little.
-
Finally got to head to watching this, mostly because I wanted to watch Hawkeye in time for Christmas.
I was really going in just a check the box but it actually was a pretty decent movie. Not great, but a lot of fun.
Nice! :tup I agree that it was a fun movie. I went into it with low expectations, just feeling like, although BW has been such a great character, this was just a movie that few wanted and nobody needed. The thing about Natasha is that she is a great supporting character. There was really no need to try to make her a compelling lead character. That aspect of the film was actually handled well, IMO. For all intents and purposes, Natasha was practically a co-lead in what ended up being a small ensemble movie, and that worked well. It was great to title it "Black Widow," because it wasn't a Natasha movie--it was a movie about black widows. And while this film didn't end up making me love Yelena, it gave us a great arc and lots of development for her that is making her a great character moving forward.
There were basically three things that bugged me: (1) Taskmaster was poorly written and a wasted opportunity; (2) the action in the final act was so over the top that it kind of took me out of the moment; and (3) the editing/writing at the very end between Natasha giving herself up and about to be taken into custody, and then mysteriously being free and about to go break everyone out of The Raft made no sense. On point #3, I say "editing/writing" because I don't know which. I don't know if it was actually written well, but crucial information was left on the cutting room floor, or if it was just badly written from the beginning. But it made no sense and still bugs me. We know from Civil War, Infinity War, and the beginning of this film that Ross was really hot to have her locked up. It makes no sense for her to be just about to be locked up, and then mysteriously free. Either don't have her get caught in the first place, or have her make a comment about getting caught on purpose and having contacts that will help her break everyone out from the inside, or something. This ending bugged me.
That said, again, I agree with your overall feeling. I enjoyed this one more than I thought I would, and would put it somewhere in the middle of the pack for the MCU individual hero films.
-
The more and more I think about it, Thunderbolts is shaping up to be a sequel to Black Widow, with the inclusion of Yelena, Red Guardian, and Taskmaster on the titular team, plus Val being there bringing them all together, it feels like a sequel to Black Widow (but also a follow-up to Captain America: New World Order, since it comes out right after it).
-Marc.