Page 7 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 628
  1. #91
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tofali View Post
    So is the suit about Disney Plus' subscription or Premier Access?
    Basically ScarJo has lodged a petition to sue Disney for not abiding by her contract and for loss of income that occurred from releasing Black Widow to both theatres and Disney+.

    From what I have heard from entertainment reports on this, her contract had it that the film would be released to theatres exclusively. I think this is because she took a flat fee and a possible percentage of box office takings (Back end).

    Now, while it did get a theatrical release, it was simultaneously released on Disney+. The latter of which hurt the theatrical run due to people choosing to watch it via streaming. Which Disney gets the money from lock/stock. So, she doesn't see any of that money because it technically isn't "theatrical"

    But I see both sides. Disney can't sit on the film forever and some international markets are hampered by lockdowns due to COVID still (Australia is one such market). Plus most people are still cautious to go to cinemas (Even in America). But she had a contract.

    I think this lawsuit will set a precedent if it goes to court (I doubt it. This is most likely a stunt to get Disney to settle out of court). Now every actor will sign a contract and will have to stipulate a cut of streaming profits if their film bypasses theatres exclusively and gets simultaneously release via streaming platforms.

  2. #92
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    The question is was there an Act of God or Emergency clause in the contract. It probably was because Disney has high price lawyers.
    An Act of God clause is when something that happens that total uncontrollable by both parties, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, meteors and global pandemics. An Emergency clause is usually an act of men, such as war, riots etc…
    From time to time there may have legitimate reasons to vary the contract. Disney more than likely has the flexibility to vary from the contract if a situation appears that not controlled by either party.
    All a layer would have to do is point to that Nobody had a "Theatrical Only..." run earlier in the pandemic.

    These "What If?..." scenarios are falling apart before they are even finished.

  3. #93
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inisideguy View Post
    I actually don't understand it. Because after thinking about it there is no way anyone could project what this earns in Box office if released without streaming. They dropped her 20 million. Thats a lot of money. Personally I am thinking more and more like this is a garbage lawsuit.
    The only way is to use other marvel films as a rough estimate to how the film would have performed. But it is incredibly hard to put a figure on what the total outcome would be.

    Let's say it it had the potential to earn close to a billion, but made $800m. Let's say ScarJo wanted 10% of the box office. That's $80m she could have got.

  4. #94
    Incredible Member chicago_bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inisideguy View Post
    For me thats up to lawyers. I am just saying in my case as a consumer I am very happy Disney gave me the choice. I would not have gone to the theater.
    You always had that choice. You waited three months and could watch the movie at home. With Shang-Chi you will have the choice to wait 45 days and watch it at home. So Disney would have gotten the money from you either way, only later.

    But I don't even know what this has to do with the lawsuit. You being grateful for Disney's strategy has no relevance for this case at all.
    Tolstoy will live forever. Some people do. But that's not enough. It's not the length of a life that matters, just the depth of it. The chances we take. The paths we choose. How we go on when our hearts break. Hearts always break and so we bend with our hearts. And we sway. But in the end what matters is that we loved... and lived.

  5. #95
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    All a layer would have to do is point to that Nobody had a "Theatrical Only..." run earlier in the pandemic.

    These "What If?..." scenarios are falling apart before they are even finished.
    I doubt it will get anywhere near court. Most likely they are angling to get Disney to stump up more money to keep it out of court.

  6. #96
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    I doubt it will get anywhere near court. Most likely they are angling to get Disney to stump up more money to keep it out of court.
    Sure, that is a rather likely outcome.

    That said, it's kind of hard not to point out to something that Martin could have handled when he went to court that one time.


  7. #97
    Incredible Member chicago_bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    I doubt it will get anywhere near court. Most likely they are angling to get Disney to stump up more money to keep it out of court.
    Disney's response doesn't sound like they want to settle this peacefully though.
    Tolstoy will live forever. Some people do. But that's not enough. It's not the length of a life that matters, just the depth of it. The chances we take. The paths we choose. How we go on when our hearts break. Hearts always break and so we bend with our hearts. And we sway. But in the end what matters is that we loved... and lived.

  8. #98
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    Disney's response doesn't sound like they want to settle this peacefully though.
    Their lawyers can argue they lost revenue too. So both are fighting over what they got.

  9. #99
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Sure, that is a rather likely outcome.

    That said, it's kind of hard not to point out to something that Martin could have handled when he went to court that one time.

    This was ScarJo's last film with them, right? No wonder she is upset. She was likely hoping on one last big payday.

  10. #100
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    This was ScarJo's last film with them, right? No wonder she is upset. She was likely hoping on one last big payday.
    Seems like?

    If it might not be, I haven't seen that come to light yet.

    That said, yeah. The woman has a totally legit grumble.

  11. #101
    Astonishing Member Frobisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    Except when WB decided to the same thing with HBO Max they saw that it did infringe on prior agreements and renegotiated with all the affected talent.
    Did they? Thought there was still a lot of bad blood from that with Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeuneuve's crews.

  12. #102
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    I wish I can read the actual contract. If the contract actually states the movie must be a theatrical release only, then she has a case.
    If the contract doesn’t state this, then she has no cases and it’s a frivolous lawsuit.
    But the ridiculous part of her lawsuit is that Disney released the movie in a weak market. She is not only suing because of streaming, she is actually suing because of the release date. This movie like every movie is a victim of covid, she needs to get off that high horse. We are all victim of covid
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the Evil Mouse. Putting this on D+ was a good thing for people who are still not comfortable going back to theaters.
    No offense, but if you couldn't be bothered to read the article before commenting originally, I really doubt you'd read the much-longer, much more detailed contract if it were in front of you. At least not with the attention it deserves, regardless of side.

  13. #103

  14. #104
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    The only way is to use other marvel films as a rough estimate to how the film would have performed. But it is incredibly hard to put a figure on what the total outcome would be.

    Let's say it it had the potential to earn close to a billion, but made $800m. Let's say ScarJo wanted 10% of the box office. That's $80m she could have got.

    Yea but you don't know that. This is covid. The movie hasn't even come out in China. You can't just say it could have earned close to a billion. There are place where theaters are barely open. Out poster from Australia has said that many times. I

  15. #105
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    You always had that choice. You waited three months and could watch the movie at home. With Shang-Chi you will have the choice to wait 45 days and watch it at home. So Disney would have gotten the money from you either way, only later.

    But I don't even know what this has to do with the lawsuit. You being grateful for Disney's strategy has no relevance for this case at all.

    I am not going to watch Shang Chi in the theater in this environment. If Disney wants to offer it same day streaming I will buy. Thats the dilemma for Disney I think. Because I am not unique. Personally I am not a huge fan of this lawsuit. Because Scar Jo and her lawyers are acting like covid isn't happening. If true and Disney offered her 20 million then its seems fair.

Posting Permissions

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