ScarJo Files Suit Against Disney

[luprki]

The fact is that it matters tremendously, despite what you think. If the court (or defense) can argue why you didn't think something was wrong two years ago, when the thing actually happened, then your case is dramatically weaker. It should be different, but that's why rape cases are so tough to prosecute years after they occurred, despite the victim's trauma at the time and being understandably unwilling to file charges at the time of the incident.

What? A rape case is much different, you might have to have witnesses, physical and mental trauma. With a contract dispute it’s either on paper or is not.

[inisideguy]

The fact is that it matters tremendously, despite what you think. If the court (or defense) can argue why you didn't think something was wrong two years ago, when the thing actually happened, then your case is dramatically weaker. It should be different, but that's why rape cases are so tough to prosecute years after they occurred, despite the victim's trauma at the time and being understandably unwilling to file charges at the time of the incident.

I understand your point. But a civil case like this isn't the same as a criminal case.

[chicago_bastard]

No I am not asserting any such thing. I am asserting that this could have waited. And this wasn't the time or place for it. There is a huge pandemic happening. Companies are trying to adjust how they are dealing with this and with their employees. If Disney is wrong then they are wrong. People seem more concerned about Scarjo than they do meat packing workers. She has a net worth of 165 million dollars. She makes more in a day than most people make all year. She got paid 20 million for this movie ( at least). She also tied her money to the box office. That was her choice. Because she wanted more money and gambled.

Actors are not the ones who want to tie their wages to box office success, it's mainly in the studio's interest as this way the studio can keep the costs low when a movie disappoints at the box office. If they didn't include these backend deals they would have to pay A-listers like Scarlett a higher fixed salary than now. 20 million may seem outrageous to you but without backend deals A-listers would have gotten even higher fixed wages than that.

[green_garnish]

I understand your point. But a civil case like this isn't the same as a criminal case.

Because we all know there are no civil cases that stem from criminal actions, like rape.

[Castle]

We don’t know if they did speak to her or not. We only heard one side of the story.

I don't think they spoke to her since they are all stunned by the law suit to the point Feige is very angry and he has a reputation for always been in control.

It's so funny how just 2 weeks ago, some of here on the box office thread were trying to make sense of the box office drop of BW in the 2nd week. who would have predicted this law suit was coming?

[inisideguy]

Actors are not the ones who want to tie their wages to box office success, it's mainly in the studio's interest as this way the studio can keep the costs low when a movie disappoints at the box office. If they didn't include these backend deals they would have to pay A-listers like Scarlett a higher fixed salary than now. 20 million may seem outrageous to you but without backend deals A-listers would have gotten even higher fixed wages than that.

Scarjo had the pull to negotiate a front end deal on a marvel movie. Come on. Her agents said look ScarJo you can get 30 million, but with a backend deal on a movie like this with how huge marvel is we will negotiate like this you will make a lot more money. This thing is gonna do a billion. And it would have. No doubt in my mind. But the pandemic happened. There are actors with front end deals. Unless you are saying there aren't. Then you have a point.

[green_garnish]

Actors are not the ones who want to tie their wages to box office success,

A good part of my potential wages are tied to my company's financial success. If they underrepresent their performance, there's legitimate action I can take. I have nothing at all to do with show business. If they intentionally tank a certain part of their business, or manage it in a risky and unconventional way that impacts what I can expect in earnings, there is legitimate action to take.

[inisideguy]

Because we all know there are no civil cases that stem from criminal actions, like rape.

Civil cases draw out for long periods of time. As long as OJs criminal trial was his civil case was much longer. He paid out.

[green_garnish]

Civil cases draw out for long periods of time. As long as OJs criminal trial was his civil case was much longer. He paid out.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I suspect you haven't made it,

[inisideguy]

A good part of my potential wages are tied to my company's financial success. If they underrepresent their performance, there's legitimate action I can take. I have nothing at all to do with show business. If they intentionally tank a certain part of their business, or manage it in a risky and unconventional way that impacts what I can expect in earnings, there is legitimate action to take.

Are you asserting Disney intentionally tanked this film and Jungle Cruise? To not pay their actors? Or managed it badly during a pandemic? What the heck were they suppose to do? They had 3 choices. Release it in theaters only. Not release it. Release it in a hybrid fashion. ScarJo filed the lawsuit. No one else has. In the middle of a pandemic. I mean Disney released Mulan only on Disney plus. They didn't want to do that. That doesnt benefit them. They did what they could. I haven't seen any of those people file a lawsuit.

[inisideguy]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I suspect you haven't made it,

Civil cases are not criminal cases. They just aren't. The civil case against OJ was filed after the criminal case. He paid them money when all was said and done years after the murders.

[luprki]

I don’t if this applies. But my experience is whenever there’s a dispute between a company and a union member, it will first go to a third party arbitrator for a hearing. The arbitrator will rule on the case. If one or both sides disagrees with that ruling than the next step is to file a lawsuit if they choose. I think there was an arbitration hearing and ScarJo disagreed with the ruling.

[green_garnish]

Are you asserting Disney intentionally tanked this film and Jungle Cruise? To not pay their actors? Or managed it badly during a pandemic? What the heck were they suppose to do? They had 3 choices. Release it in theaters only. Not release it. Release it in a hybrid fashion. ScarJo filed the lawsuit. No one else has. In the middle of a pandemic. I mean Disney released Mulan only on Disney plus. They didn't want to do that. That doesnt benefit them. They did what they could. I haven't seen any of those people file a lawsuit.

Yes, I am asserting Disney mismanaged the release of this movie, and they should be required to pay for ScarJo's loss of income that resulted. No employee should be liable for the bad decisions of a handful of executives. It's negligence.

[thwhtGuardian]

I don’t if this applies. But my experience is whenever there’s a dispute between a company and a union member, it will first go to a third party arbitrator for a hearing. The arbitrator will rule on the case. If one or both sides disagrees with that ruling than the next step is to file a lawsuit if they choose. I think there was an arbitration hearing and ScarJo disagreed with the ruling.

...Her complaint is literally that there was no arbitration.

[luprki]

Civil cases are not criminal cases. They just aren't. The civil case against OJ was filed after the criminal case. He paid them money when all was said and done years after the murders.

A civil case about contracts is also different from a civil case about a death. Contract cases are much easier, all the evidence is on paper.