Black Widow

[Stalker0]

The court needs to determine if Streaming release has reduced Box office numbers, and if Johanssen has suffered damages as a result

No the real heart of the matter is whether the contract indicates any form of “exclusive box office release”

unless the contract specifies that, then it’s hard to argue that Disney does not has the freedom to release product on its own services…it just means you didn’t think through your contract carefully enough.

now you could have a argument if streaming didn’t exist when the contract was made, but that is unlikely to be the case

 

[CapnZapp]

Trying to add interesting articles about this development. Using the app so might make a mess of it.

Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow lawsuit has unearthed a huge problem with streaming

Hybrid releases have complicated everything.

www.theverge.com

Disney Needs ‘Stabilizing Force’ Like Alan Horn to Defuse Escalating Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit

As the war between Scarlett Johansson and Disney escalates over 'Black Widow,' the company needs a 'stabilizing force' like Alan Horn.

variety.com

 

[Blue]

now you could have a argument if streaming didn’t exist when the contract was made, but that is unlikely to be the case

From one of the articles that @CapnZapp linked to:

"According to Johansson’s complaint, terms of her Black Widow release were initially finalized in 2017 — early enough that Disney Plus hadn’t been announced"

So streaming existed but pre Disney+ and pre COVID-19 the concept of an AAA film getting a concurrent streaming release didn't exist.

 

[Ryujin]

No the real heart of the matter is whether the contract indicates any form of “exclusive box office release”

unless the contract specifies that, then it’s hard to argue that Disney does not has the freedom to release product on its own services…it just means you didn’t think through your contract carefully enough.

now you could have a argument if streaming didn’t exist when the contract was made, but that is unlikely to be the case

Streaming certainly did exist at the time the contract was signed, however, a Marvel/Disney specific streaming service did not. The existence of that service and the need to drive subscriptions gave Disney a reason to interpret the contract in a manner favourable to themselves, despite the fact that industry standard, prior to this, had been a delay of between 90 and 120 days (approx.) between "wide theatrical release (the term that the filing says was used in the contract) and online release.

 

[CapnZapp]

One thing I would like articles that discuss the future of box office stars getting huge paychecks to mention, is the historic angle.

That is because the issues and dilemmas are nothing new. There has already been an era where the motion picture production companies owned the distribution channels, did not have to share any data, and more or less "owned" the movie stars. Much like how Netflix is described now, they preferred an endless stream of interchangeable faces, and that people talked about going to, say, the Metro-Goldwyn theater to see whatever it was showing; not that they talked about going to see Scarlett Johansson's latest movie, no matter what company that made it.

Boil it all down to its conclusion and you get a future where Congress prohibits Disney et al from both producing movies and distributing them. A Paramount decrees for the internet era, if you will.

 

[Mind of tempest]

One thing I would like articles that discuss the future of box office stars getting huge paychecks to mention, is the historic angle.

That is because the issues and dilemmas are nothing new. There has already been an era where the motion picture production companies owned the distribution channels, did not have to share any data, and more or less "owned" the movie stars. Much like how Netflix is described now, they preferred an endless stream of interchangeable faces, and that people talked about going to, say, the Metro-Goldwyn theater to see whatever it was showing; not that they talked about going to see Scarlett Johansson's latest movie, no matter what company that made it.

Boil it all down to its conclusion and you get a future where Congress prohibits Disney et al from both producing movies and distributing them. A Paramount decrees for the internet era, if you will.

it would never happen now Disney could just buy congress.

 

[Zaukrie]

I enjoyed the movie a lot. Too bad it didn't come out years ago.
I am no fan of how Disney treats artists and authors......

 

[Umbran]

The existence of that service and the need to drive subscriptions gave Disney a reason to interpret the contract in a manner favourable to themselves, despite the fact that industry standard, prior to this, had been a delay of between 90 and 120 days (approx.) between "wide theatrical release (the term that the filing says was used in the contract) and online release.

It is slightly worse than that, in that Disney had recognized this was unfair before doing it. From Variety, emphasis mine:

"Johansson legal team said that representatives for the actress were worried that “Black Widow” would debut on Disney Plus even before coronavirus brought life to a standstill. As part of the suit, they share emails from the star’s management group that asked the studio to guarantee that “Black Widow” would premiere exclusively in cinemas. In response, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi promised a traditional theatrical bow, while 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.”"

But apparently Disney made no effort to come to that understanding.

That this is happening right around when the Screen Actor's Guild is having elections is very interesting.

 

[Ryujin]

It is slightly worse than that, in that Disney had recognized this was unfair before doing it. From Variety, emphasis mine:

"Johansson legal team said that representatives for the actress were worried that “Black Widow” would debut on Disney Plus even before coronavirus brought life to a standstill. As part of the suit, they share emails from the star’s management group that asked the studio to guarantee that “Black Widow” would premiere exclusively in cinemas. In response, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi promised a traditional theatrical bow, while 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.”"

But apparently Disney made no effort to come to that understanding.

That this is happening right around when the Screen Actor's Guild is having elections is very interesting.

I don't know if you have ever heard of copyright attorney Leonard French, or his Youtube channel "Lawful Masses", but he did a piece on the filings for Scarlett Johansson on his channel a few days ago. You might find it interesting.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know if you have ever heard of copyright attorney Leonard French, or his Youtube channel "Lawful Masses", but he did a piece on the filings for Scarlett Johansson on his channel a few days ago. You might find it interesting.

Hm, yeah. The guy's assessment that this is probably never going to get to court seems reasonable.

I think the "You got $20 million, that's enough," response sounds intended to make her seem greedy, and that's a bad "pot calling the kettle black" move for the Mouse. It does not make them look good at all. And, with the confidentiality they seem to prefer, I'm a little surprised they spoke hard numbers about her compensation in public at all.

Just pay the talent, and move on, Mouse.