ScarJo Files Suit Against Disney

[chicago_bastard]

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.

Don't know, maybe because she has a Cruella sequel on the horizon whereas Scarlett is finished with her MCU role. Let's not pretend it is easy for anybody to go up against Hollywood's most influential studio. That's not something you want to rush if you plan to stay in the business.

[Cyke]

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.

Or that she realizes that a win is possible, too. Sometimes things require precedent, especially in the legal arena. If, say, Scarjo wins her case while Emma's case is still underway, Scarjo's case would impact Emma's case and there's a much better chance that the judge for Emma's case would follow the example set by the judge for Scarjo's case.

Speaking of which, even if Scarjo was okay with her income and didn't have a problem with Disney, some kind of legal action would still have to be taken eventually to ensure clarity (and in some cases, even start the path of creating the laws) on these types of issues and then create precedent for future cases to follow and prevent further muddying of the law. If it wasn't going to be her, or Emma Stone, it would've been someone else.

Back when City of Heroes was in its original incarnation (not the current revived version run by fans), Marvel sued NCSoft for fear of players recreating Marvel characters. Their official stance was that they had no animosity towards NCSoft and they knew that only so much can be done to curb players working around their character creation system, but it was more important to state outright that Marvel characters were protected legally in the books to prevent future companies from going off and creating their own Marvel games (or rip-off games) without their permission, and to build a stronger case against companies (especially international companies) that would. That case created precedent that's over a decade and a half old by now, and it was in response to the growing capabilities of MMORPGs and Marvel's growth.

With technology for streaming and distribution improving and accelerating, it was only a matter of time before modern developments in both distribution and compensation would get to this point.

[kidfresh512]

The music industry is going through similar in terms of streaming revenue. And the reason people "wait" till the bigger stars like Taylor Swift taking on Spotify etc for more streaming money is because the bigger stars can afford it. Let her take the first hit pave the way etc, then back her up. As well as someone said earlier in the thread the evidence is now clearer months after Cruella and now with the early still results of Black Widow.

SJ is an A lister top tier Hollywood actresses now. She can afford to do this and has the clout and resume to withstand fighting for this against one of the biggest corporations in the world. A lot of the talent probably want their contracts to reflect the changing demographics of streaming etc. Studios would obviously want to hard as much of the money as they can thus every other studio having its own streaming services in efforts to keep as much in house cash as they can. Rather than just share with a Netflix, or Amazon Prime if they can get away with it.

[nightw1ng]

I was listening to John Campea, and he thinks one of the reasons there's recent tension at the top of Disney is because of the new CEO, Bob Chapek, who replaced Bob Iger this past year.

[Angilasman]

It is disappointing but not surprising that Disney is using the switchover to streaming as an way to pay people less.

Things like skirting union rules and eliminating home ownership so you constantly pay for access are big (as big?) reasons why the companies like streaming; it's not just the preference of the audience driving this thing.

[luprki]

ScarJo will have to convince the court that the pandemic is not an extenuating circumstance. This will hard to do because the courts itself has been adversely affected by the pandemic. She is playing the PR games, hoping Disney will give into PR pressure. Disney has been known to coward when it come to PR, at least under Bob Iger. He coward under PR pressure to rehire James Gun. It will be interesting to see how Bob Chapek handle this situation.

[chicago_bastard]

ScarJo will have to convince the court that the pandemic is not an extenuating circumstance. This will hard to do

Yeah, very hard. I mean she could just point to Universal, Paramount, and Sony all releasing their movies exclusively in theatres at the same time as BW was released, thus exposing Disney's covid excuse as the cheap pretense it is.

[luprki]

Just read her complaint and it’s nonsense. Her main complaint is Marvel promise her a “wide theatrical release” and her claim is that means an “exclusive theatrical release” for 90-120 days like other Marvel movies.

First, Disney fulfill their promise by giving BW a wide theatrical release, which she is contractually financially benefiting from.

Second, wide release is the same as exclusive release is a ridiculous argument. She basically for suing over what she think is Disney state of mind.

Third, the 90-120 days was the window for only DVDs, which Disney hasn’t broken. The digital window has always been 70 days or less.

[luprki]

Yeah, very hard. I mean she could just point to Universal, Paramount, and Sony all releasing their movies exclusively in theatres at the same time as BW was released, thus exposing Disney's covid excuse as the cheap pretense it is.

Each company has the right to manage their company as they see fit. It doesn’t matter what another decide to do.

[Gaastra]

https://deadline.com/2021/07/black-w...ds-1234806667/

Below is Lourd’s statement:

I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.

Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.

This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.

Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades.

[numberthirty]

ScarJo will have to convince the court that the pandemic is not an extenuating circumstance. This will hard to do because the courts itself has been adversely affected by the pandemic. She is playing the PR games, hoping Disney will give into PR pressure. Disney has been known to coward when it come to PR, at least under Bob Iger. He coward under PR pressure to rehire James Gun. It will be interesting to see how Bob Chapek handle this situation.

For starters, we have right around "Zero..." reason to believe that she will have to do so.

[numberthirty]

Each company has the right to manage their company as they see fit. It doesn’t matter what another decide to do.

Since what they did actually proves that a strictly "Theatrical..." release for a given period of time was absolutely possible?

Yeah...

Not only does it matter. It easily proves it.

[chicago_bastard]

Just read her complaint and it’s nonsense. Her main complaint is Marvel promise her a “wide theatrical release” and her claim is that means an “exclusive theatrical release” for 90-120 days like other Marvel movies.

First, Disney fulfill their promise by giving BW a wide theatrical release, which she is contractually financially benefiting from.

Second, wide release is the same as exclusive release is a ridiculous argument. She basically for suing over what she think is Disney state of mind.

Third, the 90-120 days was the window for only DVDs, which Disney hasn’t broken. The digital window has always been 70 days or less.

Courts consider industry standards and terms of art. If people in a particular industry always use a specific term in a specific way, the court will understand that term that way. In 2017 when the contract was made a wide theatrical release meant to everyone in the movie industry an exclusive theatrical release.

Also you somehow forgot to mention this passage:

We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.

"Like our other pictures" means exclusively in theaters as all other MCU pictures were released that way and they even admitted that they'd need to discuss it with Scarlett if their release plans changed which they didn't.

[ed2962]

So is the suit about Disney Plus' subscription or Premier Access?

I was just responding to the idea that Disney somehow left money on the table. I've seen some folks on Facebook say the same thing. Thing is, it seems like it was a good move for them financially. The theatres might be losing out, but Disney is making money...

[luprki]

Courts consider industry standards and terms of art. If people in a particular industry always use a specific term in a specific way, the court will understand that term that way. In 2017 when the contract was made a wide theatrical release meant to everyone in the movie industry an exclusive theatrical release.

Also you somehow forgot to mention this passage:

We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.

"Like our other pictures" means exclusively in theaters as all other MCU pictures were released that way and they even admitted that they'd need to discuss it with Scarlett if their release plans changed which they didn't.

I agree, courts do consider industry standards. But what is industry standards? There have been many movies that were initially a theatrical release, but somehow became streaming or DVD release instead. The industry standards during a pandemic is a different standard than pre covid. The industry standards right now is theatrical release and/or streaming, so this industry standard is will not help her. There are countless theatrical movies that was signed pre-covid, but became same day or exclusively streaming, including Black Widow. If there wasn’t a pandemic and Disney did the same thing, I would definitely be on her side.