ScarJo Files Suit Against Disney

[Kirby101]

You know this is such a shame an artist is sueing Disney for money streaming issues. it would have been more interesting for an artist (director)to sue Disney for taking away most of their creative freedom in a film. lol.

And you know this how? Can you link something that shows an artist or director in the MCU that complained about of their creative freedom being taken away?

[Castle]

And you know this how? Can you link something that shows an artist or director in the MCU that complained about of their creative freedom being taken away?

I was thinking of the mess that became of Iron Man 2. Both Jon Favreau and Mickey Rourke expressed extreme dissatisfaction about the film. Rourke even said many of what he filmed did not make it to the final version of the film and to him, it made the film worse..in quality, something he still seems very bitter about in 2021. after like what....9 years?
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/mi...ng-1234636166/
Wonder if he could have sued them over that, but I am sure, been Marvel, the contract is going to be very tight.

[inisideguy]

I don’t think evil mouse did anything wrong. She took the risk and Disney fulfilled the promise of a wide release. The fans who didn’t want to go to a theater was able to watch it at home. D+ likely hurt the box, but I think it wasn’t a violation of the contract. Her position that wide release and exclusive release are the same thing is bogus, sound like this ridiculous position came from a lawyer.
I see nothing wrong with giving us a choice in a pandemic, but it look like ScarJo didn’t want her fans to have that choice. Seems she would rather have more people in theaters spreading virus to each other so she can make extra bucks. I think this is disgusting.
Bottom line is backend deals are risky, she gambled and loss.

Yup. I don't know how you can say wide releases and exclusive releases are the same thing. To me you take it as a lesson and move on. You have to know when to hold them and no when to fold them. Plus she also looks like a selfish women screaming that she only got 20 million dollars in the middle of a pandemic when millions of people are dead, and hundreds of thousands of people are in the hospital. People keep saying this is a PR disaster for Disney? They didn't bring the lawsuit screaming for 30 million more dollars in the middle of a pandemic. She did.

[Maestro 216]

Yes, PR is very important to Disney, this is a nightmare for them and they will want ASAP to make it go away.

As for Bob Chapek, I don't see him been any different, for a big studio like Disney that does feed of the good and bad side of cooperate capitalism. Chapek comes off as a person that is there to keep a status quo going.

You know this is such a shame an artist is sueing Disney for money streaming issues. it would have been more interesting for an artist (director)to sue Disney for taking away most of their creative freedom in a film. lol.

Depends on if Chapek wants to save money or not.

[Gaastra]

As for Bob Chapek, I don't see him been any different, for a big studio like Disney that does feed of the good and bad side of cooperate capitalism. Chapek comes off as a person that is there to keep a status quo going.

Go read some of the past park forums about him. There is a reason the park fans call him "lex luthor".

[Mister Mets]

Yes, PR is very important to Disney, this is a nightmare for them and they will want ASAP to make it go away.

As for Bob Chapek, I don't see him been any different, for a big studio like Disney that does feed of the good and bad side of cooperate capitalism. Chapek comes off as a person that is there to keep a status quo going.

You know this is such a shame an artist is sueing Disney for money streaming issues. it would have been more interesting for an artist (director)to sue Disney for taking away most of their creative freedom in a film. lol.

The directors would have a tough time suing for creative freedom. They know what the deal is on a Disney product, unless there's specific language in the contract allowing for control when telling someone else's story as part of a shared movie universe.

I don’t think evil mouse did anything wrong. She took the risk and Disney fulfilled the promise of a wide release. The fans who didn’t want to go to a theater was able to watch it at home. D+ likely hurt the box, but I think it wasn’t a violation of the contract. Her position that wide release and exclusive release are the same thing is bogus, sound like this ridiculous position came from a lawyer.
I see nothing wrong with giving us a choice in a pandemic, but it look like ScarJo didn’t want her fans to have that choice. Seems she would rather have more people in theaters spreading virus to each other so she can make extra bucks. I think this is disgusting.
Bottom line is backend deals are risky, she gambled and loss.

First, the argument is that Disney should have offered ScarJo more money when they changed the contract.

Second, there isn't much indication that movie theaters are dangerous. There's been no recorded case of spread due to a movie theater, since these tend to be properly ventilated and it's mainly people not talking one another facing the screen.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...movies/617298/

I am sure there are people with Disney+ who decided to pay for BW and stream it (as some people here did) but I wonder how many people sign up for Disney+ so they get to pay the extra $30 to stream a new release? In other words does the $30 VOD get them more subscribers, or is it just something people already subscribed use. Would they unsubscribe without the occasional same day VOD?

This gets messy, as Disney arguably benefits in ways beyond just the money they got from streaming.

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.

I think it's wrong Iger cowed to PR pressure to rehire James Gunn.

They rehired James Gunn because firing a director who makes decent superhero movies and gets along with the cast and crew was a stupid thing to do.

He was fired in the first place due to a bad faith PR campaign. Disney would have been happiest if no one cared about jokes he had made years ago.

[SiegePerilous02]

Scarlet has more money than I will ever see, but I won't hesitate to side with her against the big corporation screwing her over.

Take 'em to the cleaners, ScarJo

[thwhtGuardian]

Scarlet has more money than I will ever see, but I won't hesitate to side with her against the big corporation screwing her over.

Take 'em to the cleaners, ScarJo

It makes sense to side with her, if it goes the other way then literally all contracts are open to this kind of change which could have chilling effects for us little guys too.

[Username taken]

I was thinking of the mess that became of Iron Man 2. Both Jon Favreau and Mickey Rourke expressed extreme dissatisfaction about the film. Rourke even said many of what he filmed did not make it to the final version of the film and to him, it made the film worse..in quality, something he still seems very bitter about in 2021. after like what....9 years?
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/mi...ng-1234636166/
Wonder if he could have sued them over that, but I am sure, been Marvel, the contract is going to be very tight.

If a director has their creative freedom taken away and can prove this has happened, then they can take it to the directors guild (if they are members).

They can have their name taken off of the movie or use a fake name (like Alan Smithee) to replace their real name.

It's a pretty serious issue for a director to claim not to have full creative control over a movie. And most film makers don't really keep quiet about this sort of thing (David Ayers is now screaming that the first Suicide Squad movie "isn't his movie") but they have to be able to prove it.

Marvel to my knowledge hasn't had any of their film makers claim this.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

I was thinking of the mess that became of Iron Man 2. Both Jon Favreau and Mickey Rourke expressed extreme dissatisfaction about the film. Rourke even said many of what he filmed did not make it to the final version of the film and to him, it made the film worse..in quality, something he still seems very bitter about in 2021. after like what....9 years?
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/mi...ng-1234636166/
Wonder if he could have sued them over that, but I am sure, been Marvel, the contract is going to be very tight.

Surely Rourke isn’t the best person to analyze his own performance. Y’know; egoes and all that.

[Pinsir]

Go read some of the past park forums about him. There is a reason the park fans call him "lex luthor".

I hear they call him "Cheapek"

[luprki]

And you know this how?

I never said I know, that why I said “probably”

[luprki]

Sounds like Disney isn’t the happiest place to work for.
Didn’t Chris Evans have a problem with Disney at one point?

[titanfan]

Scarlet has more money than I will ever see, but I won't hesitate to side with her against the big corporation screwing her over.

Take 'em to the cleaners, ScarJo

She does, but this is also for her agent/publicist/team who likely also are compensated a % of what she makes.

[luprki]

Gerard Butler sues over 2013 Olympus Has Fallen
This case is more straightforward than ScarJo. It not involving streaming or any kind of variation of release.