The "Black Widow (2021)" Film Thread - SPOILERS!!! Now Out On Home Video Sept 14

[lordxizor]

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?

[Stadler]

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).

[WilliamMunny]

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.

[jingle.boy]

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]

[lonestar]

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?

[jingle.boy]

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

[King Postwhore]

There would by 12, Dr. Phillip Barbay like people as jurors.

[Stadler]

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.   

[ZirconBlue]

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.

[Stadler]

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).

[Dream Team]

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.

[Grappler]

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.

[lordxizor]

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.

[jammindude]

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.

[Dream Team]

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.

[jammindude]

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.

[lonestar]

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)

[jammindude]

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.

[jingle.boy]

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.

[lonestar]

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.

[Stadler]

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. 

[jingle.boy]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[jingle.boy]

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   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.

[Stadler]

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.   

[ariich]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[ariich]

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.

[jingle.boy]

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."

Every point/argument you've made conveniently disregards this.

[lonestar]

 

[pg1067]

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."

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.

[jingle.boy]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[ariich]

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.