ScarJo Files Suit Against Disney

[Kirby101]

I didnt answer my question. Not every contract suit filed by labor is right. At least according to the courts. Thats just a fact. The way I am see this here is win or lose in many of your eyes Scarjo is right. Because she is labor and its Disney.

Key phrase; "if the system was fair". A history of labor relations and corporate influence in government would tell you it is not.

[numberthirty]

Hey she is getting paid a lot more than the first grip there number thirty. She is in a union but not a union like mine. She isn't negotiating for the camera man. She is negotiating for herself. She isn't negotiating for anyone except her self. As did every other actor on that set. Scarjo didn't sit down and be like look I'm getting getting 20 million but I feel like my other actor brothers deserve that as well. Her lawyers filed this suit for her. Not for the rest of the actors in that movie. Or any other movie. Labor does stupid things to. I was in labor for years. They are not always right. Life doesn't work that way. For cripes sake I was in a cops union who use to defend a hole cops. That was labor number thirty.

One instance is not "Some..."

Past that?

The union in question represents some pretty singular issues.

As for the camera operator?

He has a union who negotiates for him. So, yeah... There is no reason that she would be negotiating for him.

As for it not being for the rest of the actors?

Sure, it does.

[numberthirty]

I mean you could be right I don't know. How they would even begin to figure stuff out like that is beyond me. Like you said you have Disney Plus releases, in certain countries, like Chicago bastard said some movie chains in European countries didn't show in solidarity, it hasn't opened in China, there is a pandemic, other people from Canada and Australia on these boards have said movie theaters are barely open in their countries. Good luck.

You have other films that got the exact sort of "Only Theatrical..." openings that she would have been compensated based on.

[Immortal Weapon]

The Rock isn't going to sue Disney over Jungle Cruise
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...965171201?s=19

[Somecrazyaussie]

I wonder how many people have backend deals. Personally I would be getting my money up front. But thats just me. I know that is 20/20 hindsight but nothing is set in stone in life and no one knows what is around the corner.

It is surprisingly common and has been a standard practice for decades. Back end deals are either 1. Percentage of box office gross and/or merchandising sales & 2. Performance based deals whereby a actor gets so much per cinema screen plays, attendance rates or box office increase (5% if it makes $500m and then 10% if it cracks $1b).

A actor often prefers doing that if they believe the film may be a hit. Some also do it for films where they have a tight budget.

The best example of the latter is Nicholson when he did Batman 89. His asking fee for that time in his career was $10m upfront. But the budget was roughly $30m (it would balloon out to $48m). If they paid him outright, that's a 1/3 of the budget gone before cameras start rolling. So he took $6m (which gave them $4m to play with) and opted for a back end deal for a percentage of takings and merchandise sales. In the end he earned (supposedly) close to $50m. But it's been reported he earned $90m.

[inisideguy]

It is surprisingly common and has been a standard practice for decades. Back end deals are either 1. Percentage of box office gross and/or merchandising sales & 2. Performance based deals whereby a actor gets so much per cinema screen plays, attendance rates or box office increase (5% if it makes $500m and then 10% if it cracks $1b).

A actor often prefers doing that if they believe the film may be a hit. Some also do it for films where they have a tight budget.

The best example of the latter is Nicholson when he did Batman 89. His asking fee for that time in his career was $10m upfront. But the budget was roughly $30m (it would balloon out to $48m). If they paid him outright, that's a 1/3 of the budget gone before cameras start rolling. So he took $6m (which gave them $4m to play with) and opted for a back end deal for a percentage of takings and merchandise sales. In the end he earned (supposedly) close to $50m. But it's been reported he earned $90m.

Holy crap in 1989? Jesus. I mean the thing is with batman 89 it was a huge hit by no means a for sure thing at the time. And they were probably working with a budget that was pretty well set. I mean I don't think with a marvel movie its about the budget of them movie now. I could be wrong. But I don't think Disney/ Marvel was scrounging around for money for special effects.

[inisideguy]

You have other films that got the exact sort of "Only Theatrical..." openings that she would have been compensated based on.

Like what? F9?

[inisideguy]

The Rock isn't going to sue Disney over Jungle Cruise
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...965171201?s=19

Hmmmm. Thats what I figured.

[Somecrazyaussie]

It's not really you I'm sorry for, in large part, TBH (but in some part, I certainly do. Seems like a very dark place for someone to live. ) A company like Disney, fighting a suit like this, is not likely to settle unless they know they will lose. Lawyers know this, too.

This.

On the other hand, ScarJo wouldn't risk filing a lawsuit against Disney when they could counter sue for legal costs if she loses. But for it to even go to court a judge has to be convinced there is a actual case.

Disney will only settle if it looks like the chips won't go their way, or if pressure from negative publicity gets them first.

Either way, actors will be conscious moving forward with regards to their contracts. Especially with streaming. So this case is already having a effect by going public. Irrespective of who wins or loses.

[numberthirty]

Like what? F9?

For starters...

[Immortal Weapon]

Hmmmm. Thats what I figured.

The Rock is playing the field. The lost wages isn't worth destroying his relationship with Disney.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Holy crap in 1989? Jesus.

Yep. The film was a box office hit and netted close to $500m. But it also had one of the best merchandising campaigns in history for a film (up there with Star Wars). Plus his name and likeness was on all the promotional material and merchandise too.

So yeah, he could have simply taken $10m and be done with it. But he wisely didn't and walked home with nearly 10x that.

[inisideguy]

This.

On the other hand, ScarJo wouldn't risk filing a lawsuit against Disney when they could counter sue for legal costs if she loses. But for it to even go to court a judge has to be convinced there is a actual case.

Disney will only settle if it looks like the chips won't go their way, or if pressure from negative publicity gets them first.

Either way, actors will be conscious moving forward with regards to their contracts. Especially with streaming. So this case is already having a effect by going public. Irrespective of who wins or loses.

No judge has said this is a case. She filed a lawsuit. Thats doesn't mean anything. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Many of these contracts disputes and civil issues are worked on without a judge. The civil lawsuit filed against me was decided by an arbitor after my deposition and hers and other witnesses. . No judge was anywhere.

[inisideguy]

The Rock is playing the field. The lost wages isn't worth destroying his relationship with Disney.

Nope. I guess he doesnt care about all the other poor actors and actresses and isn't interested in fighting for their rights. ( sarcasm)

[Colossus1980]

You have other films that got the exact sort of "Only Theatrical..." openings that she would have been compensated based on.

You are talking about movies that opened during COVID right? Like F9, A Quiet Place 2, and GVK?