Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 323839404142
Results 616 to 628 of 628
  1. #616
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorthon616 View Post
    Sure. My position has always been that Disney breached the contract, but I just find it incredulous that people act like ScarJo is like some pure-souled angel only in it for the fans and love of her art, wherein she's a actually hollywood multimillionare, who has hired lawyers that represent multimillionaires, probably exclusively and are likely millionaires themselves, trying to extort/negotiate for millions for her personal welfare.

    I mean is she planning on donating it to the millions of people who are barely scraping by or something? When did the squabbling between millionaires becomes some cheesy Disney+ movie about the underdog?
    Or...

    The wealth of the person involved is a straight up non-issue.

    (Well, mostly... She has to be well off enough to be able to afford representation.)

    The actual issue is if a company is going to honor a contract.

    That sort of thing probably matters to most folks.

  2. #617
    Astonishing Member Gaastra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    It does not matter if it's scarjol or pee wee herman. She had a contract for theatres only. They told her it WILL go to theatre only and she would be called if they change it then DIDN'T call her. She tried over and over to call them and they ignored her. Even the head of the cca tried to clear it up and lex luthor was to busy getting a big mac and brushed him off.

    What did they think was going to happen? They have tons of times to end this behind the scenes and didn't.

  3. #618
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorthon616 View Post
    Sure. My position has always been that Disney breached the contract, but I just find it incredulous that people act like ScarJo is like some pure-souled angel only in it for the fans and love of her art, wherein she's a actually hollywood multimillionare, who has hired lawyers that represent multimillionaires, probably exclusively and are likely millionaires themselves, trying to extort/negotiate for millions for her personal welfare.

    I mean is she planning on donating it to the millions of people who are barely scraping by or something? When did the squabbling between millionaires becomes some cheesy Disney+ movie about the underdog?
    A corporation that will not honor its commitments to employees who are the most visible to the public and will generate the kind of discussion shown in this thread, probably cannot be trusted to honor its commitments to invisible employees who don't have a team behind them.

    And ScarJo's history of charitable donations is lengthy and generous.

  4. #619
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    867

    Default

    sounds like disney new ceo bob chapek management is ultimately the one at fault for this breakdown in talks.

  5. #620
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,000

    Default

    I was thinking about this in this context as far as negotiations in the future. A service like Disney + keeps bringing in new subscribers. The new subscribers generally come on board for the new content.

    Now if you are one of these actors in one of these movies, that literally helps bring new subscribers onto the service, heck not even one of the actors anyone working on one of these movies, whether its Jungle book or Cruella or whatever it seems that you have to have agents who negotiate a slice of this for you. Because Disney isn't just making money at the box office with these movies, these movies are literally the magnet for brining in new subscribers. Shang Chi is a perfect example. Ok its out in the box office for 45 days. But how many new subscribers is Disney plus gonna pick up the day its released on that service? Probably very complicated to negotiate this stuff but its legit.

  6. #621
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Or...

    The wealth of the person involved is a straight up non-issue.

    (Well, mostly... She has to be well off enough to be able to afford representation.)

    The actual issue is if a company is going to honor a contract.

    That sort of thing probably matters to most folks.
    Of course it's an issue. Unless you are going to pretend that Disney's wealth is a non-issue. (which I don't believe as a general proposition, though perhaps for you specifically in may be a non-issue).

    First off, there is actually no specific penalty for breaking a contract. You're simply legally entitled to be compensated for the breach, based upon damages occurred due to the breach.

    For example, if you put a purchase order for an item at $200 dollars, and someone after the agreement, but before the completion of the contract, offers $400 dollars, the seller I think is perfectly reasonable to sell it for $400. And not some abject scumbag.

    Now, if they had taken your money, you would be owed it back. And if there was some detrimental reliance that could be found, then you could get damages for the reliance found. But it's not like you go to "you broke your contract" jail or anything.

    And ultimately, the decision that has been made was towards how the film is to be distributed, which is frankly Disney's and Disney's decision alone. You do realize that there are other individuals who's livelihood depend upon the success of the film right? That if it went theatrically exclusive, did worse (basically less the Premiere access money), other people's career's and livelihood's could be at risk right? But somehow, for whatever reason, the ONLY PERSON who financially depends upon the success of the film of Scarlett Johannson?

    I have never contended that Disney was not in breach for how it released it.

    But to be perfectly frank, Disney putting it on Disney+ is better, or at least intended as such, for more people (fans and anyone else's livelihood who depends upon the success of the film), whereas Scarlett Johannsson wanting it to be theatrical exclusive is pretty much just better for herself.

    And again, it's not that I have any issue stating that Disney broke their contract. But clearly, people cast Disney's acts as greedy self-interested, where frankly Scarlett is the one who I see as being greedy and self-interested. Which she is perfectly entitled to do and be, but I'm just astounded how people perceive her otherwise.

  7. #622
    Astonishing Member thwhtGuardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorthon616 View Post
    Of course it's an issue. Unless you are going to pretend that Disney's wealth is a non-issue. (which I don't believe as a general proposition, though perhaps for you specifically in may be a non-issue).

    First off, there is actually no specific penalty for breaking a contract. You're simply legally entitled to be compensated for the breach, based upon damages occurred due to the breach.

    For example, if you put a purchase order for an item at $200 dollars, and someone after the agreement, but before the completion of the contract, offers $400 dollars, the seller I think is perfectly reasonable to sell it for $400. And not some abject scumbag.

    Now, if they had taken your money, you would be owed it back. And if there was some detrimental reliance that could be found, then you could get damages for the reliance found. But it's not like you go to "you broke your contract" jail or anything.

    And ultimately, the decision that has been made was towards how the film is to be distributed, which is frankly Disney's and Disney's decision alone. You do realize that there are other individuals who's livelihood depend upon the success of the film right? That if it went theatrically exclusive, did worse (basically less the Premiere access money), other people's career's and livelihood's could be at risk right? But somehow, for whatever reason, the ONLY PERSON who financially depends upon the success of the film of Scarlett Johannson?

    I have never contended that Disney was not in breach for how it released it.

    But to be perfectly frank, Disney putting it on Disney+ is better, or at least intended as such, for more people (fans and anyone else's livelihood who depends upon the success of the film), whereas Scarlett Johannsson wanting it to be theatrical exclusive is pretty much just better for herself.

    And again, it's not that I have any issue stating that Disney broke their contract. But clearly, people cast Disney's acts as greedy self-interested, where frankly Scarlett is the one who I see as being greedy and self-interested. Which she is perfectly entitled to do and be, but I'm just astounded how people perceive her otherwise.
    The thing that makes Disney come out of this negatively isn't the way they chose to release it in and of itself( I don't care if it was theatrical exclusive or otherwise) it's that they knew they had a contract and chose to break it when it would have been easier and more equitable to just sit down and say,
    "Hey, I know we had a contract that allowed us to pay you way less than the market value of your talents in exchange for a share of back end profits and we thank you for doing that as it greatly helps us reduce the budget of the film. However, times right now are really tough and if we stick with the original plan there we don't think there will be any profits, back end or otherwise, to be made from this film which will negatively affect all kinds of people who depend on our profitability for their livelihoods. We respect that you worked for less than your worth to help bring the film in under budget and fully admit that if times were normal you would have undoubtedly made considerable profits in the end but times right now aren't normal so in lieu of those profits you could have made how do you feel about a payment of x amount of dollars to make up what you would have other wise gained in normal times?"

    And then haggled over what x amount should be.

    That they have chosen not to do that is why they are seen as greedy and Johansson is not.
    Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!

  8. #623
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorthon616 View Post
    And again, it's not that I have any issue stating that Disney broke their contract. But clearly, people cast Disney's acts as greedy self-interested, where frankly Scarlett is the one who I see as being greedy and self-interested. Which she is perfectly entitled to do and be, but I'm just astounded how people perceive her otherwise.
    I perceive her as delusional. She made the contract in robust box office time(pre-covid) and even in healthy times I'm not sure her movie would have hit all the marks for her to get her big bonus. With the majority of movies suffering especially overseas she should know that she wouldn't get compensated anywhere what her contract stated. Yeah Disney is a rip off company but I feel more empathy for the hourly workers getting lowballed at the theme parks and attraction. I don't have much sympathy for a multi-millionaire.

  9. #624
    Astonishing Member Gaastra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    Oops bob.

    Last edited by Gaastra; 09-22-2021 at 07:31 PM.

  10. #625
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colossus1980 View Post
    I perceive her as delusional. She made the contract in robust box office time(pre-covid) and even in healthy times I'm not sure her movie would have hit all the marks for her to get her big bonus. With the majority of movies suffering especially overseas she should know that she wouldn't get compensated anywhere what her contract stated. Yeah Disney is a rip off company but I feel more empathy for the hourly workers getting lowballed at the theme parks and attraction. I don't have much sympathy for a multi-millionaire.
    How is she "delusional" if Disney didn't hold up their end of the agreement? That's the point of the suit.

  11. #626
    Fishy Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorthon616 View Post
    Sure. My position has always been that Disney breached the contract, but I just find it incredulous that people act like ScarJo is like some pure-souled angel only in it for the fans and love of her art, wherein she's a actually hollywood multimillionare, who has hired lawyers that represent multimillionaires, probably exclusively and are likely millionaires themselves, trying to extort/negotiate for millions for her personal welfare.

    I mean is she planning on donating it to the millions of people who are barely scraping by or something? When did the squabbling between millionaires becomes some cheesy Disney+ movie about the underdog?
    I think it's less about ScarJo being a multimillionaire and how much money she's making from this, and more that if Disney thought they could get away with doing this to the highest paid actress in the world how many other actors/actresses have they screwed over who are not in the position to press charges like ScarJo is.
    ~I just keep swimming through these threads~

  12. #627
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    I think it's less about ScarJo being a multimillionaire and how much money she's making from this, and more that if Disney thought they could get away with doing this to the highest paid actress in the world how many other actors/actresses have they screwed over who are not in the position to press charges like ScarJo is.
    EXACTLY. She can afford to fight the behemoth and set a standard for the contracts and negotiations of all working actors and actresses that can't afford it. She shouldn't be penalized or have her contract claims dismissed because "you are rich already". She either wins or loses on the merits of her case regardless of her status and personal wealth.

    I mean the fact Disney is already admitting they are factoring in some of the issues brought up in this case in new talent contracts and renewals proves she was right already and had an impact. All those other contracts after this can thank her for making this so high profile whether she wins or loses.

  13. #628
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfresh512 View Post
    EXACTLY. She can afford to fight the behemoth and set a standard for the contracts and negotiations of all working actors and actresses that can't afford it. She shouldn't be penalized or have her contract claims dismissed because "you are rich already". She either wins or loses on the merits of her case regardless of her status and personal wealth.

    I mean the fact Disney is already admitting they are factoring in some of the issues brought up in this case in new talent contracts and renewals proves she was right already and had an impact. All those other contracts after this can thank her for making this so high profile whether she wins or loses.

    I honestly don't think the other actors needed Scarjo to sue in order to have their agents negotiate streaming issues in the future. I don't know if you know who Curt Flood is but she isn't Curt Flood.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •