Page 8 of 42 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 628
  1. #106
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inisideguy View Post
    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.
    Nobody got a theatrical release just fine.

  2. #107
    Astonishing Member thwhtGuardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inisideguy View Post
    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.
    They aren't acting like Covid isn't happening...they're acting like there is a contract dispute...which there is. Why is this difficult to understand?

  3. #108
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    Everybody in some way is screwed this pandemic. ScarJo stand in line and take it like everyone else, you are not special.
    except contracts are legally binding. there are conditions and expectations built into that scenario.

    kinda like if YOU pay somebody to give you a specific product and then they give you something else... you are entitled to complain.

    if you agree with a cab driver to take you to place X and they deliver you to place M, don't you have a right to complain?

    if you pay somebody to fix part of your house and they don't do it in a way that is legally up to the necessary building codes and it costs you money... then you get to take some sort of legal action.

    I mean, what are we doing next? are we just dismiss her situation as merely an entitled rich white girl problem?

    I've heard people do stuff like that. if somebody who is rich, famous, and has been wronged by other people... I've met dozens of people who will just shrug and dismiss the whole scenario as "white people problems".

    which is ironic, because not getting paid for your labor is something that can happen to anybody.

  4. #109
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    They aren't acting like Covid isn't happening...they're acting like there is a contract dispute...which there is. Why is this difficult to understand?
    Right. The issue isn't so much they released it to streaming. The suit cake because they didn't seek to compensate her for that change, which altered the contract and her expected earnings.

  5. #110
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    8,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    Right. The issue isn't so much they released it to streaming. The suit cake because they didn't seek to compensate her for that change, which altered the contract and her expected earnings.
    It really is as simple as this.

    Disney can't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

    What they should have done was renegotiate with ScarJo and move on. Disney is trying to eat their cake and have it which is terribly wrong.

  6. #111

    Default

    Disney did the right thing in releasing Black Widow to Disney+ in this pandemic. Disney did the wrong thing in not renegotiating SJ's contract to account for the realities of this approach

  7. #112
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,416

    Default

    To me this little tidbit and any rift with the talent at all is the important piece of this. And it is what will drive Disney imo to settle. I mean if they treat SJ like trash in this and drag her and try to embarrass her and the rest of the talent is sitting there watching it, and being asked about it. And if the main architect Feige is unhappy at the situation and it starts bleeding into the future productions in any way this could go from bad to worse quickly.

    SJ sees what the other male leads RDJ, Hemsworth, C. Evans etc. got from their starring solo outings and she finally got her movie. I can totally see her engineering the contract to get a chunk of the backend which at the time would seem abundantly reasonable. This could possibly be her one payday where the other guys got trilogies etc. with huge paydays.

    For me Disney is going to have to settle here. Dragging it out even if they win do you really want this to start bleeding into the Marvel brand in any way? Negotiating with the top tier talent you want in upcoming projects? X Men, Fantastic Four...all those actors imo would see this and want their contracts to be covering this type issue.

  8. #113
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    8,463

    Default

    So, Disney decided to join WB in screwing over their collaborators with their streaming services. Sad to say I'm not surprised.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  9. #114
    Incredible Member regg215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    562

    Default

    As far as I see it Scarjo has an excellent case. Disney promised theatrical cut and promised her profits based on that. Then cut out her legs from under her by taking the profits for themselves with disney plus. Millionaire or not scarjo got betrayed by disney so that her profits became theirs. Pandemic has nothing to do with what a contract promises. Yes its been hard on everyone but disney still has to honor its contracts or make adjustments like wb did for gadot and denzel for thier movies.

    Secondly it sounds like scarjo is also wanting money for her movies being on the streaming service and driving continued subscriptions. Which in all honesty makes sense. Reruns of old shows like seinfeld or the office earn residual checks for the stars of those shows, how does a streaming service avoid that? If the mandalorian being on disney plus has earned them millions of subscribers how does the continued streaming of that show not earn pedro pascal anything else than his original deal, how does it pay for the continued use of that show in perpetuity? The nature of streaming services is complicated in that way and it seems like scarjo is seeing what she can get legally, from the outside it looks like disney really messed up not giving her the extra money because this might open a really big can of worms for streaming services
    "You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged"- CAPT. Picard

  10. #115
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    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.
    Maybe you should read the articles again. It never stated theatrical release only was in the contract. ScarJo lawyers is trying to make the argument that Disney meant theatrical release only. The article actually states the contract saying a “wide theatrical release”. Her lawyers are making the silly argument that Disney meant “theatrical release only.” Apparently the word “ only” doesn’t appear in the contract.

  11. #116
    Incredible Member chicago_bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    659

    Default

    According to Matt Belloni Emma Stone considers to join with her own lawsuit against Disney. Go Emma!

    Now Emily Blunt is left to join forces with them.
    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.

  12. #117
    Incredible Member Maestro 216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    According to Matt Belloni Emma Stone considers to join with her own lawsuit against Disney. Go Emma!

    Now Emily Blunt is left to join forces with them.
    Yeah, the suits are coming! The suits are coming!

  13. #118
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    According to Matt Belloni Emma Stone considers to join with her own lawsuit against Disney. Go Emma!

    Now Emily Blunt is left to join forces with them.
    Ummm....why didn't Emma speak up before? The movie was released May 28 and now she's piggybacking off of Scarlett? Seems kind of cowardly to me. "Oh yeah I wouldn't do it but since Scarlett is doing it why not?" She's an A List Oscar winning actress herself.

  14. #119
    Astonishing Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,622

    Default

    reports are been told Feige is very angry at Disney for the streaming mess of Black Widow. Hmmmmm, this is big deal because he is their main guy. so I am guessing this law suit may just be settled fast and the court will dismiss it quick. No doubt now, Scar Jo is going to get something, even if it is not 50 million box.

  15. #120
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    Disney is not a dumb company. Does anybody seriously think Disney doesn’t have a disclaimer in the contract giving them the right to manage, alter, adjust or circumvent the contract do to extenuating circumstances. All work contracts has this disclaimer, even union contracts.
    There will be a settlement out of court. Disney will settle for PR reasons, not legal reasons. But if Disney plays hardball and it goes to court, Johansson will have an uphill battle.
    Last edited by luprki; 07-30-2021 at 12:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

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