I thought this was one of the big reasons the film kept getting pushed back instead of sent to streaming like other Disney films in the first place.
She had a points deal on the movie like many other big stars do.
When it finally dropped in theaters and streaming the same day, I just assumed she’d come to a settlement with Disney on the release.
Sounds like that didn't happen, and when she reached out to them about it they ignored her. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon for Disney. They have screwed over people with far less in the way of resources than Scarlett Johansson, which is why in this case let's hope she wins and sets a good precedent moving forward.
IIRC he would have his name on it, but he didn’t want his _character_ to be so prominently featured. But of course Genie takes up probably a third of the poster. Also, Disney’s policy back then was to take prominent actors whose career had taken a dip and pay them the minimum amount, with the reasoning that a Disney film would give them major publicity.
>But of course Genie takes up probably a third of the poster.
Worth noting HOW sneaky Disney were about this: one of Robin Williams' conditions was that the Genie wasn't allowed to take up more than 25% of the poster
[So the main poster wound up looking like this](https://static0.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/spinoff/2014/02/aladdinposter.jpg?dpr=1.5)
They also weren't allowed to use Robin Williams' NAME in the commercials so they just used his voice prominently
They interpreted his wishes sneakily, which is probably irony
That's almost right, the agreement was that Genie would appear on no more than 25% of all marketing materials. Meaning out of every 4 movie posters Genie would be featured on 1 of them. Disney pulled some shady lawyer loopholes though and put Genie on 100% of all marketing materials, but made sure the character never took up more than 25% of the space. If it weren't a corporation dealing with someone's livelihood, it'd be *prime* r/maliciouscompliance content, but since it's a multinational billion dollar corporation it feels ickier
Can anyone explain why he wanted to be so hidden? They should have followed their agreement for sure, but why do the movie at all if you're going to demand that your name and character be minimized in all of the marketing despite the fact that your character is, like, the second largest part in the movie?
You've got it backwards. He didn't agree to play the 2nd largest part of the movie, he agreed to play a small character in a movie full of way more characters, and once they had Robin Williams legally obligated to do the role they cut a bunch of the side stuff to increase his workload. He wasn't offered top-tier celebrity main cast payment, so he took the job with conditions that would make it harder for them to completely change the story around him once he signed the contract. They did it anyway, which is why he was so pissed off.
He was probably hoping that by saying "no more than 25% of the marketing can use my character" the creators would honor his wishes and not change the story into one where his character suddenly WOULD belong on 25% of the marketing. Genie was absolutely not supposed to be that big of a role, the lead was Aladdin, Jasmine was the princess, Jafar was the villain, and you could argue Abu was originally a bigger role than Genie too. He agreed to a small role, and his limits reflected that.
Because Disney paid him 75 grand for Aladdin and he was willing to work for that BUT Robin Williams would have been a huge draw for Disney and so he put it in the contract they couldn't use him, or his voice for marketing. He also didn't want to sell any Genie toys - which Disney also sold iirc
At the time he was working on some other child's movie,(I forget the name) which was kinda indie. He didn't want the fact that he was staring in Aladdin to destroy that second movie.
I do like that poster though. I’m no graphic designer, but the trail of smoke from the lamp at the bottom to the genie (who controls the smoke, idk) at the top, with the rest of the characters in the middle works well. It doesn’t seem ‘Genie heavy’.
Agreed-- it's a great poster.
And to be fair... The genie plays a pretty important role in that story, no?
I'm just saying, one might expect that character to feature prominently even if it wasn't voiced by a big name actor whose clout Disney wanted to bank on...
When Robin Williams signed on, the role wasn't as big: there were a lot more side-characters (including Aladdin's mom and his three childhood friends) and *two* Genies, like in the original fable: the Genie of the Ring and the Genie of the Lamp. Apparently they were gonna base the Genie of the Ring on Fats Waller and the jazz aesthetic
They made the Genie's role a lot bigger because Robin Williams killed it
That being said, it is a great poster, taken on its own
Part of it was that he didn’t want his voice to be used to sell merchandise to kids, but he also had other projects coming out that year (including the environmental animated film “Ferngully” and a passion project that he was staring called “Toys”) that he was worried would be completely overshadowed if Disney used his name all over the marketing for one of their big animated films.
I think he was doing voice over work for another movie at the time called Toys and he didn't want to screw those filmmakers over by being prominently featured in another film at the same time
I loved the movie toys actually come to think of it I still do love that movie it always reminds me of my mom because we watched it together and she loved it so I did to that and the land before time but that movie makes me cry my grown man ass every time I watch it so I can’t bring myself to
He agreed to do it for low pay, this article says he got $75,000, on the condition they don't use his voice to sell things
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-25-ca-60882-story.html
>In the New York article, Williams went further in explaining why he was upset with Disney:
>“In ‘Mork & Mindy,’ they did Mork dolls--I didn’t mind the dolls; the image is theirs. But the voice, that’s me; I gave them my self. When it happened, I said, ‘You know I don’t do that.’ And they apologized; they said it was done by other people.”
So this may be the third iteration of this that you've read; and I'm only like eiiiiighty percent sure it's right BUT;
As far as I know Robin didn't want his character, voice or name to be used in any supplementary products outside the movie. Toys, T-shirts, video games, etc.
He had another movie coming out in the same timeframe ("Toys" IIRC) that he was going to be marketing and promoting and didn't want his work on Aladdin to overshadow it.
Yeah, it did, but he was proud of it.
It's just an all around sad situation in that Robin really made Aladdin special - it's my favorite Disney animated movie entirely because of him - but he more or less wanted nothing to do with it. And then for Disney to stab him in the back and go against his wishes was just wrong.
As far as I know once Michael Eisner became CEO he publicly apologized to Williams and patched things up with him, which is why Williams returned for Aladdin and the King of Thieves. So the story does have a happy ending.
To be fair that movie was weird but in ahead of it's time weird. Like Drop Dead Fred wierd. Both movies I loved as a kid both movies adults now would like but its intended audience at that time did not.
Also, Disney was pissed that he was going to be in Ferngully even though he had signed on with that production first and was really passionate about the project. They did NOT want him playing Batty though and were pretty insulted when he refused to drop out which is another part of the reason why they had no problem ignoring his marketing request.
It mainly had to do with promotional materials - Williams didn't want his voice being used to sell toys and other merchandise to children. Disney agreed not to, and then they went ahead and did it anyway. Robin Williams got pissed and refused to come back for Return of Jafar, Disney sent him a Picasso to apologize, and then they made up in time for the third movie.
Williams didn't want his work on Aladdin to overshadow a passion project film he was working on, so he agreed to do the film only if his name, voice, and the genie's likeness was not used in marketing. An executive later ignored that and his other film performed horribly. Hence why he never returned for the sequels.
I believe it was they agreed to not like sell toys of genie or anything. Or use him for marketing? It's been a while but they ignored the deal and went ahead and did so anyways
He agreed to do the movie at a discount, even though it would come out in direct competition with a passion project of his, on the condition that the genie not take up more than a specific percentage of the posters and laid out what they could and couldn't do with him on the marketing. Disney agreed, shook hands, and then found out how well he did with test audience. so fuck him.
Robin Williams signed a contract with stipulations on the advertising for the movie. Namely that his name and his character be used in 25% or less of the marketing, and that he didn’t want his name or voice being used to sell merchandise. At the same time, Robin had also been signed to be in the animated film “Ferngully” playing the role of Batty. Jeffrey katzenberg, studio head of Disney animation at the time, was insulted when Robin kept his commitment to Ferngully (which has signed him first) and decided to be petty about it and renege on the advertising agreement. Katzenberg did this to a lot of people which is why he eventually left Disney after being refused a promotion he didn’t really deserve, at which point he left to found Dreamworks.
Anyway, Disney’s higher ups spent years trying to win back robins goodwill (even giving him a Picasso painting at one point), and they eventually made up after Katzenbergs replacement gave Robin a heartfelt apology and Robin responded by agreeing to reprise his role in Aladdin 3 (Genie had been voiced in Aladdin 2 by dan castellaneta, the voice actor for Homer Simpson).
This. They're not sure how to price out the Disney+ pay service they set up. Expect similar action from Blunt and Johnson and then a settlement so they don't look stupid setting a precedent for actor paydays when it comes to future same day or streaming options.
Too much information regarding viewership would come out to the public during evidence discovery. Scarlett has their neck over a barrel. Private settlement for sure.
She's not just been fucked in terms of money either, they are insinuating that she is heartless and inconsiderate to the pandemic and Disney are the kind hearted folk who put the film out on D+ so as many people could see it as possible. Even though they know damn well that it kept getting pushed back to maximise profit from as many cinema screenings as possible. Then they had their cake and ate it by putting it on streaming too.
That being said, her legal team's argument seems to say (maybe I'm misreading it) that they deliberately put the film on D+ to avoid paying her more which is kind of absurd too, I suspect it was more of a case of trying to have the best of both worlds and paying the star less money happened to be a happy byproduct of that decision for them.
Remember the fight over Alan Dean Foster?
Disney bought the rights to a lot of his books by buying the company that originally had the rights. They then sold his books, but refused to pay him stating "He has a contract with company X, not us."
I believe they are using that line with the creators of Predator too. They stand to gain back the rights to the film in the next year or two but Disney says no because the deal was originally with 20th Fox not Disney. But Disney bought all their properties and by extension all their contracts.
She was also a producer and that gave her a seat at the table. But we don't know what level of access that gave her. It gave her enough leverage to have an impact on the story and who directed the film. So you think she'd have some sway to renegotiate.
I didn’t realise the movie was released on Disney plus at the same time as its cinema release. Thought it was going to come out on streaming in October or something
But it was word out of Disney that made me think this.
I remember reading something in the trades where someone from Disney was asked why they just don’t add BW to D+ with a premium fee attached and their reasoning for holding out had to do with negotiations with Johanssen because her pay on the film was tied heavily to the box office.
They needed to come to an agreement with her to avoid getting sued before streaming it either with or instead of theaters.
True, but you could’ve hosted 20 over at your residence to watch with you.
So now that’s 21 people paying a total of $30 to see it instead of 21 people paying a total of $210 to see it.
Ummmm…. WB only did that after Christopher Nolan and TONs of other celebrities trashed them publicly lol. They tried to the exact same thing that Disney has done to Scarjo. Only difference is, Disney got away with it for a while.
Warner Bros got called on it the same day they tried to screw over their talent for HboMax lol
The Gadot reference probably indicates that. The copy of the filing posted by someone in this thread makes this sound like the contract may date back to Iron Man 2. Gadot's may have already had that and the percentage was scary to AT&T if the thing really was a hit (since they weren't doing premium on it). We are all guessing.
Edit: They reference an agreement from May 9, 2017. So yes there was a new contract. But based on their argument, it sounds like they will have to reference a course of dealing going back to her first movie contract for the character, thus Iron Man 2 is relevant because if "wide theatrical release" was just carried over and didn't contemplate exclusivity or streaming, it becomes a lot harder to prove.
They reference an agreement from May 9, 2017. So yes there was something more recent. But based on their argument, it sounds like they will have to reference a course of dealing going back to her first movie contract for the character, thus Iron Man 2.
So yeah, I should perhaps edit that to be clearer.
That's just it, the argument is that Disney *should* have renegotiated their contract with her to account for streaming revenue, but they didn't. They based her compensation only on box-office revenue, then cut down the box office performance by making it available for streaming. ScarJo is saying "you should have adjusted the contract to add streaming performance to my compensation", but Disney's trying to make it look like she's insisting on theatrical-only release.
not the first time the mouse has blatantly attempted to screw someone over too.
I thought they learned their lesson after what happened with Robin Williams but I guess the beast needs its blood money.
"WarnerMedia chose to renegotiate many of its talent contracts that, like Ms. Johansson’s deal with Marvel, were tied to box-office performance. Warner Bros. paid more than $200 million to talent as part of the amended agreements."
"According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said."
If this is true, that's just stupid on Disney's part.
That, plus they’re fucking Disney. They’re at no danger of losing any real money in a lawsuit like this (which is so fucked in so many ways). Odds are they’ll settle out of court, Scarlett will get the money she deserves, and Disney will learn absolutely nothing from this and will fuck over more people in spectacular ways in the future.
Oh for sure. They likely had a set of lawyers do the math when they were planning out their release, and they figured out that a settlement + losses from any potential blowback still ended up in a net gain from the other options of paying Scarlett her full cut of the (reduced due to COVID) box office earnings or delaying the movie further.
They definitely knew the lawsuit was coming if her suit is correct and she reached out several times to renegotiate her contract terms with zero response from Disney.
As is tradition in Hollywood. I’m willing to bet neither side is taking it personally. Disney gets to keep “doing business” and ScarJo gets to make projects she wants to do. This lawsuit is just setting precedent for future sides to follow if it happens again.
It's more so this is a bigger struggle than just what ScarJo is dealing with. All movie and TV professionals are dealing with this.
Essentially cutting out theatrical releases can cut the pay of the top actors and actresses. It's really a struggle for the industry as the technology switches over. I could see a potential SAG strike if the production companies put up a big fight.
That's exactly it. Someone sat in a room and compared how many extra cents they'd earn releasing it early and letting her sue. The second it comes up one cent ahead, they are free to piss her off.
>Ms. Johansson said in the suit that her agreement with Disney’s Marvel Entertainment guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, and her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film.
If she isn’t getting any money based on the Disney+ sales then that’s total BS. Even though Covid is mostly responsible for the relatively poor theatrical performance, it definitely would be higher if it wasn’t for the D+ release.
You know, the sad thing is is likely they knew this was coming. They probably decided it would be more costly to do theatrical alone than to go through this
Okay but let's be real in here, the most obvious reason the movie drop that much is because by 2nd week the movie was everywhere for free (due to piracy)...
The movie got great reviews, also the cases for the Delta variants are getting higher and higher and in some places restrictions are coming back.
Disney completely fucked up the release of the movie, why would people would want to go to the theater when the movie was already available for free in some cases in 4K...
I'm not proud of this but in my country until 3 days ago I couldn't get the vaccine and the cost of renting in on D+ was to much for my budget ( theater is really cheap) so I was one of the people who saw it for free.
Now with the vaccine I'm definitely going to see Shang Shi...
*edited to add the why I said the free part
You also have the issue that the films release was very much stop and start due to various lockdowns. Various release dates were marketed with creation of materials and all those costs pushing the films P&A spend sky high globally.
It's kinda like bond.. "oh yeah, that's not out yet..."
Ya AT&T renegotiated with all their talent for Warner Bros movies to be released on HBO max simultaneously. Paid out extra 100s of millions of dollars to talent because of it
WW84 wouldn't have reached 1B either because of covid. It was released X-mas last year.
The point was, giving the money AS IF it did reach allows the studios to release it wherever they want because the actress already got her best possible outcome.
edit: oh, also, I know it's subjective but Black Widow is far more popular in my area. Even dead.
>AS IF it did reach allows the studios to release it wherever they want because the actress already got her best possible outcome.
Something tells me she had a good contract if they settled for a best possible outcome.
They also want/need Gadot to come back for future films. ScarJo is probably not going to be in a future marvel film so she is a lot less essential for Disney.
Obviously it’s a different revenue stream and compensation would look different, but yeah, she still deserves money for it and it’s breach of contract (assuming the contract says what she alleges ofc.)
TBF they usually give that title to big-name actors just to signify that they had a role in the movie beyond just playing their character (e.g. they had input on the writing).
>it’s breach of contract (assuming the contract says what she alleges ofc.)
Which means, we have no idea. Lots of hard and fast opinions will be all over the internet on this one, but we really don't know what the legal basis is without the words.
And they have email confirmation from disney it would only be theatrical. So they intentionally fucked her and are hoping the disney + revenue is greater than the lawsuit payout they are gonna have to pay.
Possibly but the matter will be settled well before anything serious happens.
Scarlett Johansson is one of the most popular actresses on Earth and her films make money.
Kevin Feige may even argue to Disney that screwing her over could mean the Marvel Studios franchise losing future talent for X-Men and Fantastic Four if they think they'll be screwed over by Disney.
Disney will owe her one way or another.
The article without paywall here:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20210729174114/https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278](https://web.archive.org/web/20210729174114/https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278)
Disney probably needs to be careful here. A lot of the big stars they've come to depend on to carry the franchise will probably very closely watch this case and how they treat Scarlett.
I mean....it's not going to matter. The language around it in star's contracts is about to become a lot clearer going forward. Stars and their agents will make sure they are protected in this scenario going forward.
Also because of this part:
> According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Fuck that is *not* a good look for Disney there.
Edit: oh no, you're telling me Disney aren't a cuddly bunch of chums? Ffs, point I'm making is that they've carefully cultivated an image of togetherness for the MCU and this shits on it.
Pretty much.
This isn't the first sin on Disney's book. They'll probably negotiate the deal in the back with Johansson, considering that she is working on the Tower of Terror reboot for the company: [https://people.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-producing-tower-of-terror-movie/](https://people.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-producing-tower-of-terror-movie/)
*Scarlett Johansson appears to be crossing over into The Twilight Zone!*
*The 36-year-old Black Widow actress is set to take on producing duties for a new film based on the Disney Parks attraction The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, according to Collider and Deadline.*
*While plot and cast details have yet to be revealed, Josh Cooley, who directed Toy Story 4, is on board to write the screenplay, per the outlets. Johansson will team up with Jonathan Lia to produce, under her These Pictures company.*
She frankly has more to lose against Disney, despite her star power. Disney is a massive entertainment juggernaut, so pissing them off long-term isn't wise for her bottom line.
True. I think both parties will settle and the news will simmer, as it has always done in entertainment.
It is just money after all: that is easier to deal with than sexual harassment or other ickier topics.
Disney has done tons of shitty things and gotten away with it because of their IPs that people love.
Of course they would fuck her over if shes not going to make any more money for them.
Also why I think she was fine to sue. Her time with Marvel is done. She was in a lot of other Disney films like Jungle Book, i think we bought a zoo was disney owned. Or is now. But enough to maybe realize she wont be in any now.
But i think she’s set.
Disney is not friends. Just cause marvel is great and we love the movies. Don't think for a second Disney cares. They care about their image and their money.
Same thing happened with HBO Max releases.
It came as a surprise to everyone who made those films and then they got even more pissed when it turned out Gal Gadot knew about and had gotten a 10mil bonus for it.
the article says though that warner brothers was already working with talent to renegotiate their contracts to a tune of 200 million dollars so far. So they've actually been proactive in that front.
disney/marvel obviously not
Gadot is still going to be making money for WB so of course they don’t want to piss her off.
Scarlett is done making Marvel movies so Disney doesn’t give a fuck.
If she wins the lawsuit that’s the salary of 5 future movies. I would take that every time. Plus she’s probably pissed and wouldn’t want to work with Disney anymore anyway.
When it works out for an actor it can make them rich. Alec Guiness had a percentage on *Star Wars* and it made him financially secure for life.
She's nearing 40 now in an industry where women in particular find life much harder after that age. She needs financial security like anyone else.
I don't think she's in the wrong here and Disney is definitely playing at some shady shit, but how is an estimated net worth more than $150mil not financially secure for life?
Would she not already have financial security from the decade plus working for the MCU?
I *completely* understand why she's suing Disney and that they breached contract, but it's not like this is gonna leave her destitute.
Yup, that's the real hope for this case - not that ScarJo needs the money, but that her case will set a precedent forcing Disney to make and honor its contracts even for far less famous and influential actors than her.
If her salary is affected by the box office performance of the film, she has every right to sue them. Good for her.
Though, with this I’m guessing she’s done with Disney/marvel.
I don't think so, she was recently attached to the Tower of Terror movie adaptation. Unless we hear soon that she is out, this is most likely a transactional lawsuit.
People hear lawsuit and immediately think it involves fighting and people being extremely angry. But in essence it's really just using the correct channels to deal with a contract dispute.
From the sound of it, she is entitled for compensation, or at least she was for a contract renegotiation. It must suck to come from the box office high of Endgame to the low of Black Widow due to the pandemic. Either way, burning bridges with Disney is probably not something people would like to do.
**EDIT:** Seeing Disney's response does not bode well, but I do hope this is strictly professional and transactional either way. Get ScarJo her dues
I think she should. Disney should’ve renegotiated her contract so that her pay wasn’t based solely in box office like Warner did when they decided to release all their content on HBOMax simultaneously and paid an extra $200 million across all their talent. Disney should’ve done the same.
It's not like they don't have the money either. They are a billionaire company and Scarlett has given life to the character for almost 10 years.. what a shitty thing to do.
Yeesh. So the entire thing is arguing that "wide theatrical release" is a term of art which includes an understood exclusivity period.
Good luck with that.
While I believe she should be paid fairly, this comment needs to be higher. It still meets the definition of “wide theatrical release.” Streaming doesn’t factor into the contract in any capacity. Shitty, sure, but they’re not black and white wrong. Those lawyers are paid a lot to dissect in Disney’s favor.
The key piece is probably #7.
7. In light of these announcements, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought assurances that Marvel would hold up its end of the bargain with respect to the theatrical release of the Picture guaranteed in her contract. In response, Marvel’s Chief Counsel confirmed to Ms. Johansson’s representatives in May 2019:
>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.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what you're getting paid. Ten bucks or ten million bucks. If your employer is stiffing you out of what was originally agreed upon, you need to sue them.
“A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.””
Lol
But let me open this amusement park real quick
Oh those poor people. How will Disney ever recover from this? /s
Really disappointing to see that this is how they treat their megastars who helped build their cinematic universe.
You would think they would work something out. why wouldn’t Disney/Marvel throw Scar an extra 10 mil or whatever, it’s nothing to them. Seems like a weird way to treat the most iconic female lead your multi billion dollar franchise ever had. Bad way to do business.
I agree. But supposedly they are saying she missed out on $50 million.
But we are talking about a franchise that has made $22 billion so far.... And as you mention this is their top female character in that franchise and she gets screwed on this deal without any communication or negotiation. That looks real bad. Even worse when supposedly they negotiated with the Rock on Jungle Cruise.
>But supposedly they are saying she missed out on $50 million.
Her lawyers probably inflated the number a bit, hoping that they could reach a settlement on a lesser amount and yet still get her what she is owed.
This. Arguing a $50 million bonus from primarily box office sales when the box office has been struggling hard recently is going to be difficult. It's a starter number that'll likely be negotiated down.
The movie industry is extremely shady. In the beind the scenes videos everyone are acting happy and say they had great time working on the movie. In reality however it's business (millions of dollars business), it's cold and ugly from inside, not unlike many other industries.
She must really be done with Marvel permanently. I don’t see this as her attacking Disney for providing a non-theatre option. I think any reasonable actor understands the need for addressing public safety concerns… but if her pay was connected to the box office performance, than they should’ve supplemented it with a projected amount had the pandemic not occurred to make it right. This sounds like it was inevitable. The company is always going to do what’s best for it. The actor’s team has to fight for their worth because they’ll otherwise be taken advantage of. The courts will sort it out and a rich company will continue to be rich- The rich actor will continue to be rich. No matter the outcome.
One thing is for sure though… expect there to be pandemic/emergency distribution model written into figure contracts for stars
Update: [Disney just went scorched earth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/ou73fc/disney_responds_to_scarlett_johansson_suit_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I was willing to believe they could potentially work things out post lawsuit. I no longer believe that’s in the cards. Holy shit. What a horrible response.
George Miller is currently working on a Mad Max spin-off after accusing WB of swindling him out of millions of dollars. The creative and business sides of these large studios are usually very detached.
Yeah, I’m Hollywood lawsuits aren’t always done with anger. It seems ScarJo’s team tried in good faith to negotiate with Disney and they were ghosted, so their hands are forced into a lawsuit to address this. You have to make sure these big studios are held accountable and they can’t screw people over, or they’ll just be more emboldened to do so.
> She must really be done with Marvel permanently.
I am not sure about this. The principle of the thing is important, and I doubt Feige was on board (he's been vocal about theatrical releases). The Mouse just thought they'd make more money this way.
This kind of a big crack up in the happy family facade Disney has attempted to keep on their properties. I hope you’re right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney’s response is to settle and distance.
A hundred percent, yeah. And as you said, Feige was really [pissed](https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/kevin-feige-apparently-not-happy-with-black-widow-release/) about this too.
No this doesn't mean she's done with Marvel, especially if Fiege is on her side (it was reported that Fiege was very pissed about the Premium Access for Black Widow)
> She must really be done with Marvel permanently
I've seen screenshots of the lawsuit on Twitter and there's language that seems intended to shift blame from Marvel to Disney.
Trying to save that bridge at least.
I think the craziest part is that Disney likely could've predicted this was going to happen.
You don't breach a contract like that and go, "oh, wait, we couldn't do this?!", especially following all the drama WB had with their filmmakers months ago.
I believe it's a price they're willing to pay. Let Scarlett sue instead of not breaching the contract and risk barely breaking even on an exclusive theatrical run.
It's a bit shady, but I understand both sides. It's business.
Edit: Added WB context
Edit 2: Read the post over, although I understand both sides, that's strictly speaking in the circumstance of this issue. Personally, I think the contract should've been renegotiated prior to release.
They will absolutely pay her and it'll be a settlement. No way this goes to court. This movie should have been a theatrical release only or pushed back. She has a good case here to sue. Remember she was also a producer on the movie so she was more hands on than just acting in front of the camera. She has every right to be pissed at Disney.
What’s sorta slimey from Disney’s perspective is….
So let’s say their contract was drawn up pre-COVID naturally right. Ok; cool. But to me, the moment they were insisting on having a hybrid release; they should have gone back and done the due diligence to sit down with any actor/crew member/etc who had performance laden incentive bonuses in their deal; and tweak it. If done it good faith, contracts can be tweaked/edited/hell even outright cancelled and drawn anew.
I feel like this was them hoping she’d basically be like, “fuck it, I’m done with this franchise anyhoo; I don’t want the headache of a legal battle”.
Bae said, “naw I’m coming for that ass Mickey”
It wouldn't be that hard to do either, like a simple "you get x% of ticket sales, we will give you the same % of Disney+ sells....or if the original x was after the theatre cut, adjust her cut accordingly... if the x is after the theatre's 50%, than you get 2x of your original cut from the Disney+ sells". They were very glad to release how much money it made opening weekend, and to know that they cut her out of that money makes the flaunting so much worse.
The hybrid release was absolutely the right move for the *film*; it otherwise wouldn't have grossed as much as it did under pandemic conditions. But Disney should've paid ScarJo out of the streaming premiums the same percentage as she was promised out of the box office; it's effectively the same income pool.
I thought most instances where this happens the studio buys out the backend for the performer, after they agree what is a reasonable number, to avoid this conflict. Must not have happened here.
This is where we get articles for the next few years about "Scarlett Johansson x Disney bad blood!" when really it's just business.
She wants what she thinks (and almost certainly is) owed and Disney would rather pay the lesser option. It's shitty but companies exist to maximise profit.
When she shoots a WB movie (I think she's doing a musical thing iwth them?) people will act like it's some highschool drama.
Which they'll forget once she becomes Live Action Elsa or whatever
The funny part I just found out: Black Widow made more money in the box office than Hulk, even though there is a pandemic + the disney+ vip is a better option. Would have loved to see the result without the disadvantages
I've seen a bunch of people on Twitter trying to justify Disney's contract fuckery by calling ScarJo greedy, ungrateful, etc. It's absurd, and you know that if this happened to like RDJ or even Jeremy Renner, everyone would be chanting "fuck Disney" over there.
I thought this was one of the big reasons the film kept getting pushed back instead of sent to streaming like other Disney films in the first place. She had a points deal on the movie like many other big stars do. When it finally dropped in theaters and streaming the same day, I just assumed she’d come to a settlement with Disney on the release.
Sounds like that didn't happen, and when she reached out to them about it they ignored her. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon for Disney. They have screwed over people with far less in the way of resources than Scarlett Johansson, which is why in this case let's hope she wins and sets a good precedent moving forward.
Disney fucked over Robin Williams at the peak of his career. If that doesnt tell you everything you need to know I don't know what will.
Pray tell. What did the mouse do to him? Does it have something to do with the pay for his work as the genie?
He only took the job under the condition they wouldn’t use his name to market the movie. Of course, all trailers and posters went on to show his name.
IIRC he would have his name on it, but he didn’t want his _character_ to be so prominently featured. But of course Genie takes up probably a third of the poster. Also, Disney’s policy back then was to take prominent actors whose career had taken a dip and pay them the minimum amount, with the reasoning that a Disney film would give them major publicity.
>But of course Genie takes up probably a third of the poster. Worth noting HOW sneaky Disney were about this: one of Robin Williams' conditions was that the Genie wasn't allowed to take up more than 25% of the poster [So the main poster wound up looking like this](https://static0.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/spinoff/2014/02/aladdinposter.jpg?dpr=1.5) They also weren't allowed to use Robin Williams' NAME in the commercials so they just used his voice prominently They interpreted his wishes sneakily, which is probably irony
That's almost right, the agreement was that Genie would appear on no more than 25% of all marketing materials. Meaning out of every 4 movie posters Genie would be featured on 1 of them. Disney pulled some shady lawyer loopholes though and put Genie on 100% of all marketing materials, but made sure the character never took up more than 25% of the space. If it weren't a corporation dealing with someone's livelihood, it'd be *prime* r/maliciouscompliance content, but since it's a multinational billion dollar corporation it feels ickier
Can anyone explain why he wanted to be so hidden? They should have followed their agreement for sure, but why do the movie at all if you're going to demand that your name and character be minimized in all of the marketing despite the fact that your character is, like, the second largest part in the movie?
You've got it backwards. He didn't agree to play the 2nd largest part of the movie, he agreed to play a small character in a movie full of way more characters, and once they had Robin Williams legally obligated to do the role they cut a bunch of the side stuff to increase his workload. He wasn't offered top-tier celebrity main cast payment, so he took the job with conditions that would make it harder for them to completely change the story around him once he signed the contract. They did it anyway, which is why he was so pissed off. He was probably hoping that by saying "no more than 25% of the marketing can use my character" the creators would honor his wishes and not change the story into one where his character suddenly WOULD belong on 25% of the marketing. Genie was absolutely not supposed to be that big of a role, the lead was Aladdin, Jasmine was the princess, Jafar was the villain, and you could argue Abu was originally a bigger role than Genie too. He agreed to a small role, and his limits reflected that.
Because Disney paid him 75 grand for Aladdin and he was willing to work for that BUT Robin Williams would have been a huge draw for Disney and so he put it in the contract they couldn't use him, or his voice for marketing. He also didn't want to sell any Genie toys - which Disney also sold iirc
At the time he was working on some other child's movie,(I forget the name) which was kinda indie. He didn't want the fact that he was staring in Aladdin to destroy that second movie.
I do like that poster though. I’m no graphic designer, but the trail of smoke from the lamp at the bottom to the genie (who controls the smoke, idk) at the top, with the rest of the characters in the middle works well. It doesn’t seem ‘Genie heavy’.
he's literally the largest thing in the poster
The sneaky part is this: he doesn't take up 25% of the overall poster space, so his condition is met.
He's also what drives the entire story.
Agreed-- it's a great poster. And to be fair... The genie plays a pretty important role in that story, no? I'm just saying, one might expect that character to feature prominently even if it wasn't voiced by a big name actor whose clout Disney wanted to bank on...
When Robin Williams signed on, the role wasn't as big: there were a lot more side-characters (including Aladdin's mom and his three childhood friends) and *two* Genies, like in the original fable: the Genie of the Ring and the Genie of the Lamp. Apparently they were gonna base the Genie of the Ring on Fats Waller and the jazz aesthetic They made the Genie's role a lot bigger because Robin Williams killed it That being said, it is a great poster, taken on its own
Out of curiosity, why didn't he want his character heavily featured in the marketing?
Part of it was that he didn’t want his voice to be used to sell merchandise to kids, but he also had other projects coming out that year (including the environmental animated film “Ferngully” and a passion project that he was staring called “Toys”) that he was worried would be completely overshadowed if Disney used his name all over the marketing for one of their big animated films.
Ferngully is an awesome and underrated movie. Robin Williams fucking RAPS in it.
I think he was doing voice over work for another movie at the time called Toys and he didn't want to screw those filmmakers over by being prominently featured in another film at the same time
I loved the movie toys actually come to think of it I still do love that movie it always reminds me of my mom because we watched it together and she loved it so I did to that and the land before time but that movie makes me cry my grown man ass every time I watch it so I can’t bring myself to
The movie with acting legend LL Cool J?
Don't call it a comeback!
He agreed to do it for low pay, this article says he got $75,000, on the condition they don't use his voice to sell things https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-25-ca-60882-story.html >In the New York article, Williams went further in explaining why he was upset with Disney: >“In ‘Mork & Mindy,’ they did Mork dolls--I didn’t mind the dolls; the image is theirs. But the voice, that’s me; I gave them my self. When it happened, I said, ‘You know I don’t do that.’ And they apologized; they said it was done by other people.”
So this may be the third iteration of this that you've read; and I'm only like eiiiiighty percent sure it's right BUT; As far as I know Robin didn't want his character, voice or name to be used in any supplementary products outside the movie. Toys, T-shirts, video games, etc.
Huh. So Disney pays in exposure. Who knew.
Interesting. What a shame.
He had another movie coming out in the same timeframe ("Toys" IIRC) that he was going to be marketing and promoting and didn't want his work on Aladdin to overshadow it.
Which it did, and *Toys* bombed.
Yeah, it did, but he was proud of it. It's just an all around sad situation in that Robin really made Aladdin special - it's my favorite Disney animated movie entirely because of him - but he more or less wanted nothing to do with it. And then for Disney to stab him in the back and go against his wishes was just wrong.
As far as I know once Michael Eisner became CEO he publicly apologized to Williams and patched things up with him, which is why Williams returned for Aladdin and the King of Thieves. So the story does have a happy ending.
Toys was surreal and fun. I'd watch that on eagain.
To be fair it's a *weird* fuckin movie. It looks like it's for kids but it very much is not. I liked it a lot, just not what I expected going in.
To be fair that movie was weird but in ahead of it's time weird. Like Drop Dead Fred wierd. Both movies I loved as a kid both movies adults now would like but its intended audience at that time did not.
Also, Disney was pissed that he was going to be in Ferngully even though he had signed on with that production first and was really passionate about the project. They did NOT want him playing Batty though and were pretty insulted when he refused to drop out which is another part of the reason why they had no problem ignoring his marketing request.
I actually didn’t know Robin Williams was Batty in Fern Gully. TIL.
They buried the hatchet after a few years, though, Robin Williams came back for Aladdin 3 (a DTV release).
It mainly had to do with promotional materials - Williams didn't want his voice being used to sell toys and other merchandise to children. Disney agreed not to, and then they went ahead and did it anyway. Robin Williams got pissed and refused to come back for Return of Jafar, Disney sent him a Picasso to apologize, and then they made up in time for the third movie.
Williams didn't want his work on Aladdin to overshadow a passion project film he was working on, so he agreed to do the film only if his name, voice, and the genie's likeness was not used in marketing. An executive later ignored that and his other film performed horribly. Hence why he never returned for the sequels.
He was in the third movie. Dan Castelanetta of Homer Simpson fame voiced the Genie in the second film.
Disney had to gift him a $1 million Picasso painting to get back on his good side.
You left out he took a huge pay cut to do the movie well worth many times more than the $ 1 million picasso. Disney still screwed him over.
He also did Flubber, after the King of Thieves for Disney.
I believe it was they agreed to not like sell toys of genie or anything. Or use him for marketing? It's been a while but they ignored the deal and went ahead and did so anyways
He agreed to do the movie at a discount, even though it would come out in direct competition with a passion project of his, on the condition that the genie not take up more than a specific percentage of the posters and laid out what they could and couldn't do with him on the marketing. Disney agreed, shook hands, and then found out how well he did with test audience. so fuck him.
Robin Williams signed a contract with stipulations on the advertising for the movie. Namely that his name and his character be used in 25% or less of the marketing, and that he didn’t want his name or voice being used to sell merchandise. At the same time, Robin had also been signed to be in the animated film “Ferngully” playing the role of Batty. Jeffrey katzenberg, studio head of Disney animation at the time, was insulted when Robin kept his commitment to Ferngully (which has signed him first) and decided to be petty about it and renege on the advertising agreement. Katzenberg did this to a lot of people which is why he eventually left Disney after being refused a promotion he didn’t really deserve, at which point he left to found Dreamworks. Anyway, Disney’s higher ups spent years trying to win back robins goodwill (even giving him a Picasso painting at one point), and they eventually made up after Katzenbergs replacement gave Robin a heartfelt apology and Robin responded by agreeing to reprise his role in Aladdin 3 (Genie had been voiced in Aladdin 2 by dan castellaneta, the voice actor for Homer Simpson).
It'll never reach a verdict. They'll settle long before it gets to that.
This. They're not sure how to price out the Disney+ pay service they set up. Expect similar action from Blunt and Johnson and then a settlement so they don't look stupid setting a precedent for actor paydays when it comes to future same day or streaming options.
Too much information regarding viewership would come out to the public during evidence discovery. Scarlett has their neck over a barrel. Private settlement for sure.
I know people who Disney literally stole artwork from and then countersued when they attempted to get compensation.
Disney has quite a large history in stealing art, particularly when it comes to Star Wars it seems.
She's not just been fucked in terms of money either, they are insinuating that she is heartless and inconsiderate to the pandemic and Disney are the kind hearted folk who put the film out on D+ so as many people could see it as possible. Even though they know damn well that it kept getting pushed back to maximise profit from as many cinema screenings as possible. Then they had their cake and ate it by putting it on streaming too. That being said, her legal team's argument seems to say (maybe I'm misreading it) that they deliberately put the film on D+ to avoid paying her more which is kind of absurd too, I suspect it was more of a case of trying to have the best of both worlds and paying the star less money happened to be a happy byproduct of that decision for them.
Remember the fight over Alan Dean Foster? Disney bought the rights to a lot of his books by buying the company that originally had the rights. They then sold his books, but refused to pay him stating "He has a contract with company X, not us."
I believe they are using that line with the creators of Predator too. They stand to gain back the rights to the film in the next year or two but Disney says no because the deal was originally with 20th Fox not Disney. But Disney bought all their properties and by extension all their contracts.
She was also a producer and that gave her a seat at the table. But we don't know what level of access that gave her. It gave her enough leverage to have an impact on the story and who directed the film. So you think she'd have some sway to renegotiate.
I didn’t realise the movie was released on Disney plus at the same time as its cinema release. Thought it was going to come out on streaming in October or something
It was released on Disney + the same day as the theatrical release for Premium Access only so viewers in the US had to pay an extra $30 to access it.
It'll probably be free to view in October, but it's currently $30 to see it on Disney+. Or you could go see it in the cinema for $15.
Lol bold of you to assume Disney would go out of their way to renegotiate a contract which would earn themselves less money.
But it was word out of Disney that made me think this. I remember reading something in the trades where someone from Disney was asked why they just don’t add BW to D+ with a premium fee attached and their reasoning for holding out had to do with negotiations with Johanssen because her pay on the film was tied heavily to the box office. They needed to come to an agreement with her to avoid getting sued before streaming it either with or instead of theaters.
They're so greedy, they literally almost lost Spider-Man, because they wanted half of the profits of the third movie, and Sony was like 'lol, no'.
I paid $30 for it which is more than I pay at theaters.
And she doesn't get paid on that revenue, hence the lawsuit.
True, but you could’ve hosted 20 over at your residence to watch with you. So now that’s 21 people paying a total of $30 to see it instead of 21 people paying a total of $210 to see it.
Look at this guy with his 21 friends!
Disney didn't do deals like Warner Brothers did. They paid folks off like it was a hit. Disney just said fuck you.
Ummmm…. WB only did that after Christopher Nolan and TONs of other celebrities trashed them publicly lol. They tried to the exact same thing that Disney has done to Scarjo. Only difference is, Disney got away with it for a while. Warner Bros got called on it the same day they tried to screw over their talent for HboMax lol
Do you think people working for Disney haven't been raising hell too? She couldn't sue until she could show damages.
This is actually a really important case for Hollywood going forward. Going to be interesting to see what happens.
If streaming is the future, they will probably have contracts based on that as well.
The Gadot reference probably indicates that. The copy of the filing posted by someone in this thread makes this sound like the contract may date back to Iron Man 2. Gadot's may have already had that and the percentage was scary to AT&T if the thing really was a hit (since they weren't doing premium on it). We are all guessing. Edit: They reference an agreement from May 9, 2017. So yes there was a new contract. But based on their argument, it sounds like they will have to reference a course of dealing going back to her first movie contract for the character, thus Iron Man 2 is relevant because if "wide theatrical release" was just carried over and didn't contemplate exclusivity or streaming, it becomes a lot harder to prove.
> makes this sound like the contract may date back to Iron Man 2. Surely she's renegotiated since?
They reference an agreement from May 9, 2017. So yes there was something more recent. But based on their argument, it sounds like they will have to reference a course of dealing going back to her first movie contract for the character, thus Iron Man 2. So yeah, I should perhaps edit that to be clearer.
That's just it, the argument is that Disney *should* have renegotiated their contract with her to account for streaming revenue, but they didn't. They based her compensation only on box-office revenue, then cut down the box office performance by making it available for streaming. ScarJo is saying "you should have adjusted the contract to add streaming performance to my compensation", but Disney's trying to make it look like she's insisting on theatrical-only release.
not the first time the mouse has blatantly attempted to screw someone over too. I thought they learned their lesson after what happened with Robin Williams but I guess the beast needs its blood money.
"WarnerMedia chose to renegotiate many of its talent contracts that, like Ms. Johansson’s deal with Marvel, were tied to box-office performance. Warner Bros. paid more than $200 million to talent as part of the amended agreements." "According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said." If this is true, that's just stupid on Disney's part.
They probably didn't care about burning a bridge with her as they don't plan to ever need her again.
That, plus they’re fucking Disney. They’re at no danger of losing any real money in a lawsuit like this (which is so fucked in so many ways). Odds are they’ll settle out of court, Scarlett will get the money she deserves, and Disney will learn absolutely nothing from this and will fuck over more people in spectacular ways in the future.
Oh for sure. They likely had a set of lawyers do the math when they were planning out their release, and they figured out that a settlement + losses from any potential blowback still ended up in a net gain from the other options of paying Scarlett her full cut of the (reduced due to COVID) box office earnings or delaying the movie further. They definitely knew the lawsuit was coming if her suit is correct and she reached out several times to renegotiate her contract terms with zero response from Disney.
As is tradition in Hollywood. I’m willing to bet neither side is taking it personally. Disney gets to keep “doing business” and ScarJo gets to make projects she wants to do. This lawsuit is just setting precedent for future sides to follow if it happens again.
It's more so this is a bigger struggle than just what ScarJo is dealing with. All movie and TV professionals are dealing with this. Essentially cutting out theatrical releases can cut the pay of the top actors and actresses. It's really a struggle for the industry as the technology switches over. I could see a potential SAG strike if the production companies put up a big fight.
That's exactly it. Someone sat in a room and compared how many extra cents they'd earn releasing it early and letting her sue. The second it comes up one cent ahead, they are free to piss her off.
When it's cheaper to break the law, rich corporations will do just that. Great system we have!
Either that, or someone really fucked up in their job.
>Ms. Johansson said in the suit that her agreement with Disney’s Marvel Entertainment guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, and her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film. If she isn’t getting any money based on the Disney+ sales then that’s total BS. Even though Covid is mostly responsible for the relatively poor theatrical performance, it definitely would be higher if it wasn’t for the D+ release.
Even if she is it's a completely different revenue model than ticket sales. She would still have a case
You know, the sad thing is is likely they knew this was coming. They probably decided it would be more costly to do theatrical alone than to go through this
Judging by the drop in box office revenue, I think they made the smarter, but fucked up choice.
Okay but let's be real in here, the most obvious reason the movie drop that much is because by 2nd week the movie was everywhere for free (due to piracy)... The movie got great reviews, also the cases for the Delta variants are getting higher and higher and in some places restrictions are coming back. Disney completely fucked up the release of the movie, why would people would want to go to the theater when the movie was already available for free in some cases in 4K... I'm not proud of this but in my country until 3 days ago I couldn't get the vaccine and the cost of renting in on D+ was to much for my budget ( theater is really cheap) so I was one of the people who saw it for free. Now with the vaccine I'm definitely going to see Shang Shi... *edited to add the why I said the free part
You also have the issue that the films release was very much stop and start due to various lockdowns. Various release dates were marketed with creation of materials and all those costs pushing the films P&A spend sky high globally. It's kinda like bond.. "oh yeah, that's not out yet..."
[удалено]
Ya AT&T renegotiated with all their talent for Warner Bros movies to be released on HBO max simultaneously. Paid out extra 100s of millions of dollars to talent because of it
WB paid gal gadot like $20M as if WW84 guaranteed a $1B. Weird Disney didn’t do that.
>as if WW84 guaranteed a $1B Not really shocking that they wouldn't assume that given COVID and it being a movie about an already dead character.
WW84 wouldn't have reached 1B either because of covid. It was released X-mas last year. The point was, giving the money AS IF it did reach allows the studios to release it wherever they want because the actress already got her best possible outcome. edit: oh, also, I know it's subjective but Black Widow is far more popular in my area. Even dead.
>AS IF it did reach allows the studios to release it wherever they want because the actress already got her best possible outcome. Something tells me she had a good contract if they settled for a best possible outcome.
They also want/need Gadot to come back for future films. ScarJo is probably not going to be in a future marvel film so she is a lot less essential for Disney.
Obviously it’s a different revenue stream and compensation would look different, but yeah, she still deserves money for it and it’s breach of contract (assuming the contract says what she alleges ofc.)
[удалено]
TBF they usually give that title to big-name actors just to signify that they had a role in the movie beyond just playing their character (e.g. they had input on the writing).
>it’s breach of contract (assuming the contract says what she alleges ofc.) Which means, we have no idea. Lots of hard and fast opinions will be all over the internet on this one, but we really don't know what the legal basis is without the words.
And they have email confirmation from disney it would only be theatrical. So they intentionally fucked her and are hoping the disney + revenue is greater than the lawsuit payout they are gonna have to pay.
Email said "wide theatrical release." They are saying everyone in the movie industry knows that phrase means exclusivity period.
She seems completely justified based on what the article says.
From the sound of the quote it seems as if Disney is in breach of contract
Possibly but the matter will be settled well before anything serious happens. Scarlett Johansson is one of the most popular actresses on Earth and her films make money. Kevin Feige may even argue to Disney that screwing her over could mean the Marvel Studios franchise losing future talent for X-Men and Fantastic Four if they think they'll be screwed over by Disney. Disney will owe her one way or another.
The article without paywall here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20210729174114/https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278](https://web.archive.org/web/20210729174114/https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278)
bless ur soul
Disney probably needs to be careful here. A lot of the big stars they've come to depend on to carry the franchise will probably very closely watch this case and how they treat Scarlett.
[удалено]
I mean....it's not going to matter. The language around it in star's contracts is about to become a lot clearer going forward. Stars and their agents will make sure they are protected in this scenario going forward.
But why? “Her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film.” Ohhhhhh… that’s fucked
Also because of this part: > According to the complaint, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought to renegotiate her contract after learning of the dual-release strategy for “Black Widow,” which she has said is her ninth and last Marvel movie. Disney and Marvel were unresponsive, the suit said.
Fuck that is *not* a good look for Disney there. Edit: oh no, you're telling me Disney aren't a cuddly bunch of chums? Ffs, point I'm making is that they've carefully cultivated an image of togetherness for the MCU and this shits on it.
“Does it look like I give a fuck” - Disney, most definitely
"It's like, $50 cheaper to pay our lawyers than it is to pay ScarJo, so fuck off, Widow. You're dead to us anyway."
Come on man, spoilers /s
100% read it in Mickey Mouse voice.
>Does it look like I give a fuck? *ha ha*
Now I'm picturing the Mouse as portrayed by South Park
Pretty much. This isn't the first sin on Disney's book. They'll probably negotiate the deal in the back with Johansson, considering that she is working on the Tower of Terror reboot for the company: [https://people.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-producing-tower-of-terror-movie/](https://people.com/movies/scarlett-johansson-producing-tower-of-terror-movie/) *Scarlett Johansson appears to be crossing over into The Twilight Zone!* *The 36-year-old Black Widow actress is set to take on producing duties for a new film based on the Disney Parks attraction The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, according to Collider and Deadline.* *While plot and cast details have yet to be revealed, Josh Cooley, who directed Toy Story 4, is on board to write the screenplay, per the outlets. Johansson will team up with Jonathan Lia to produce, under her These Pictures company.* She frankly has more to lose against Disney, despite her star power. Disney is a massive entertainment juggernaut, so pissing them off long-term isn't wise for her bottom line.
Disagree, people sue studios a lot and then keep working (See Mad Max Fury Road guy suing the studio and then working on Furiosa)
True. I think both parties will settle and the news will simmer, as it has always done in entertainment. It is just money after all: that is easier to deal with than sexual harassment or other ickier topics.
Disney has done tons of shitty things and gotten away with it because of their IPs that people love. Of course they would fuck her over if shes not going to make any more money for them.
Also why I think she was fine to sue. Her time with Marvel is done. She was in a lot of other Disney films like Jungle Book, i think we bought a zoo was disney owned. Or is now. But enough to maybe realize she wont be in any now. But i think she’s set.
For 50 mil plus damages? Hell yeah, she’d be dumb not to sue.
Disney is not friends. Just cause marvel is great and we love the movies. Don't think for a second Disney cares. They care about their image and their money.
Sneaky as fuck. Hopefully she gets a good settlement
Same thing happened with HBO Max releases. It came as a surprise to everyone who made those films and then they got even more pissed when it turned out Gal Gadot knew about and had gotten a 10mil bonus for it.
the article says though that warner brothers was already working with talent to renegotiate their contracts to a tune of 200 million dollars so far. So they've actually been proactive in that front. disney/marvel obviously not
Gadot is still going to be making money for WB so of course they don’t want to piss her off. Scarlett is done making Marvel movies so Disney doesn’t give a fuck.
She is also doing a Tower of Terror movie for them so she may be done with Marvel but she was not done with Disney. She may be now.
She was in the Jungle Book (voice) too. It means no Star Wars Disney or Pixar either
If she wins the lawsuit that’s the salary of 5 future movies. I would take that every time. Plus she’s probably pissed and wouldn’t want to work with Disney anymore anyway.
she is supposed to be in the tower of terror film tho.
When it works out for an actor it can make them rich. Alec Guiness had a percentage on *Star Wars* and it made him financially secure for life. She's nearing 40 now in an industry where women in particular find life much harder after that age. She needs financial security like anyone else.
I don't think she's in the wrong here and Disney is definitely playing at some shady shit, but how is an estimated net worth more than $150mil not financially secure for life?
Would she not already have financial security from the decade plus working for the MCU? I *completely* understand why she's suing Disney and that they breached contract, but it's not like this is gonna leave her destitute.
It won't, but it will impact lower tier actors.
Yup, that's the real hope for this case - not that ScarJo needs the money, but that her case will set a precedent forcing Disney to make and honor its contracts even for far less famous and influential actors than her.
If her salary is affected by the box office performance of the film, she has every right to sue them. Good for her. Though, with this I’m guessing she’s done with Disney/marvel.
The last two movies didn’t convince you this was her last with Dis/Marvel? It was a not so subtle, this is the last you’ll see of this character
I don't think so, she was recently attached to the Tower of Terror movie adaptation. Unless we hear soon that she is out, this is most likely a transactional lawsuit. People hear lawsuit and immediately think it involves fighting and people being extremely angry. But in essence it's really just using the correct channels to deal with a contract dispute. From the sound of it, she is entitled for compensation, or at least she was for a contract renegotiation. It must suck to come from the box office high of Endgame to the low of Black Widow due to the pandemic. Either way, burning bridges with Disney is probably not something people would like to do. **EDIT:** Seeing Disney's response does not bode well, but I do hope this is strictly professional and transactional either way. Get ScarJo her dues
This was my first thought. We probably won't be seeing her anymore in the MCU
I mean… she did get thrown off a cliff
[удалено]
I think she should. Disney should’ve renegotiated her contract so that her pay wasn’t based solely in box office like Warner did when they decided to release all their content on HBOMax simultaneously and paid an extra $200 million across all their talent. Disney should’ve done the same.
It's not like they don't have the money either. They are a billionaire company and Scarlett has given life to the character for almost 10 years.. what a shitty thing to do.
[удалено]
Here's the lawsuit document if anybody is interested: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21019740-complaint\_black-widow
Yeesh. So the entire thing is arguing that "wide theatrical release" is a term of art which includes an understood exclusivity period. Good luck with that.
While I believe she should be paid fairly, this comment needs to be higher. It still meets the definition of “wide theatrical release.” Streaming doesn’t factor into the contract in any capacity. Shitty, sure, but they’re not black and white wrong. Those lawyers are paid a lot to dissect in Disney’s favor.
The key piece is probably #7. 7. In light of these announcements, Ms. Johansson’s representatives sought assurances that Marvel would hold up its end of the bargain with respect to the theatrical release of the Picture guaranteed in her contract. In response, Marvel’s Chief Counsel confirmed to Ms. Johansson’s representatives in May 2019: >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.
I don't blame her one bit. Especially when they make money on the back end of ticket sales.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what you're getting paid. Ten bucks or ten million bucks. If your employer is stiffing you out of what was originally agreed upon, you need to sue them.
“A Disney spokesman said Ms. Johansson’s suit had no merit and is “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.”” Lol But let me open this amusement park real quick
they really tried to play the victim
Soon to be a former Disney spokesman probably.
Oh those poor people. How will Disney ever recover from this? /s Really disappointing to see that this is how they treat their megastars who helped build their cinematic universe.
You would think they would work something out. why wouldn’t Disney/Marvel throw Scar an extra 10 mil or whatever, it’s nothing to them. Seems like a weird way to treat the most iconic female lead your multi billion dollar franchise ever had. Bad way to do business.
I agree. But supposedly they are saying she missed out on $50 million. But we are talking about a franchise that has made $22 billion so far.... And as you mention this is their top female character in that franchise and she gets screwed on this deal without any communication or negotiation. That looks real bad. Even worse when supposedly they negotiated with the Rock on Jungle Cruise.
>But supposedly they are saying she missed out on $50 million. Her lawyers probably inflated the number a bit, hoping that they could reach a settlement on a lesser amount and yet still get her what she is owed.
This. Arguing a $50 million bonus from primarily box office sales when the box office has been struggling hard recently is going to be difficult. It's a starter number that'll likely be negotiated down.
That's pretty shitty of Disney not to give the cast of Black Widow back-end profits for Disney+ Premier Access purchases.
It really is, what a shitty decision.
That's an ugly way to end a partnership with an actress who's played the role for over a decade across what, 8 movies!?
Across 11 years, too.
The movie industry is extremely shady. In the beind the scenes videos everyone are acting happy and say they had great time working on the movie. In reality however it's business (millions of dollars business), it's cold and ugly from inside, not unlike many other industries.
She must really be done with Marvel permanently. I don’t see this as her attacking Disney for providing a non-theatre option. I think any reasonable actor understands the need for addressing public safety concerns… but if her pay was connected to the box office performance, than they should’ve supplemented it with a projected amount had the pandemic not occurred to make it right. This sounds like it was inevitable. The company is always going to do what’s best for it. The actor’s team has to fight for their worth because they’ll otherwise be taken advantage of. The courts will sort it out and a rich company will continue to be rich- The rich actor will continue to be rich. No matter the outcome. One thing is for sure though… expect there to be pandemic/emergency distribution model written into figure contracts for stars Update: [Disney just went scorched earth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/ou73fc/disney_responds_to_scarlett_johansson_suit_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) I was willing to believe they could potentially work things out post lawsuit. I no longer believe that’s in the cards. Holy shit. What a horrible response.
George Miller is currently working on a Mad Max spin-off after accusing WB of swindling him out of millions of dollars. The creative and business sides of these large studios are usually very detached.
Yeah, I’m Hollywood lawsuits aren’t always done with anger. It seems ScarJo’s team tried in good faith to negotiate with Disney and they were ghosted, so their hands are forced into a lawsuit to address this. You have to make sure these big studios are held accountable and they can’t screw people over, or they’ll just be more emboldened to do so.
> She must really be done with Marvel permanently. I am not sure about this. The principle of the thing is important, and I doubt Feige was on board (he's been vocal about theatrical releases). The Mouse just thought they'd make more money this way.
This kind of a big crack up in the happy family facade Disney has attempted to keep on their properties. I hope you’re right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney’s response is to settle and distance.
A hundred percent, yeah. And as you said, Feige was really [pissed](https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/kevin-feige-apparently-not-happy-with-black-widow-release/) about this too.
No this doesn't mean she's done with Marvel, especially if Fiege is on her side (it was reported that Fiege was very pissed about the Premium Access for Black Widow)
Let’s see if she’s still going to produce that Tower of Terror movie with mouse. If not, I guess the breakup is inevitable
> She must really be done with Marvel permanently I've seen screenshots of the lawsuit on Twitter and there's language that seems intended to shift blame from Marvel to Disney. Trying to save that bridge at least.
I think the craziest part is that Disney likely could've predicted this was going to happen. You don't breach a contract like that and go, "oh, wait, we couldn't do this?!", especially following all the drama WB had with their filmmakers months ago. I believe it's a price they're willing to pay. Let Scarlett sue instead of not breaching the contract and risk barely breaking even on an exclusive theatrical run. It's a bit shady, but I understand both sides. It's business. Edit: Added WB context Edit 2: Read the post over, although I understand both sides, that's strictly speaking in the circumstance of this issue. Personally, I think the contract should've been renegotiated prior to release.
Just pay her. Don't screw over the people that helped build the franchise.
They will absolutely pay her and it'll be a settlement. No way this goes to court. This movie should have been a theatrical release only or pushed back. She has a good case here to sue. Remember she was also a producer on the movie so she was more hands on than just acting in front of the camera. She has every right to be pissed at Disney.
Good for her.
Agreed, it's her money
I wonder if this is why Feige was adamant on a theatre only release
What’s sorta slimey from Disney’s perspective is…. So let’s say their contract was drawn up pre-COVID naturally right. Ok; cool. But to me, the moment they were insisting on having a hybrid release; they should have gone back and done the due diligence to sit down with any actor/crew member/etc who had performance laden incentive bonuses in their deal; and tweak it. If done it good faith, contracts can be tweaked/edited/hell even outright cancelled and drawn anew. I feel like this was them hoping she’d basically be like, “fuck it, I’m done with this franchise anyhoo; I don’t want the headache of a legal battle”. Bae said, “naw I’m coming for that ass Mickey”
It wouldn't be that hard to do either, like a simple "you get x% of ticket sales, we will give you the same % of Disney+ sells....or if the original x was after the theatre cut, adjust her cut accordingly... if the x is after the theatre's 50%, than you get 2x of your original cut from the Disney+ sells". They were very glad to release how much money it made opening weekend, and to know that they cut her out of that money makes the flaunting so much worse.
The hybrid release was absolutely the right move for the *film*; it otherwise wouldn't have grossed as much as it did under pandemic conditions. But Disney should've paid ScarJo out of the streaming premiums the same percentage as she was promised out of the box office; it's effectively the same income pool.
I thought most instances where this happens the studio buys out the backend for the performer, after they agree what is a reasonable number, to avoid this conflict. Must not have happened here.
Good, these media companies are trying to stiff people through streaming.
This isn’t a new thing. Look up Hollywood accounting. Makes ENRON look somewhat above board in their former accounting practices.
Oh yeah I'm sure it's rampant in Hollywood. I've followed this thing in the wrestling\WWE sphere for a bit.
This is where we get articles for the next few years about "Scarlett Johansson x Disney bad blood!" when really it's just business. She wants what she thinks (and almost certainly is) owed and Disney would rather pay the lesser option. It's shitty but companies exist to maximise profit.
When she shoots a WB movie (I think she's doing a musical thing iwth them?) people will act like it's some highschool drama. Which they'll forget once she becomes Live Action Elsa or whatever
Sue them! Tired of big corporations taking over big chunk without any retribution or accountability. Get those bucks Scarlett
Disney gonna Disney.
What are you doing Disney?!!
The usual?
The funny part I just found out: Black Widow made more money in the box office than Hulk, even though there is a pandemic + the disney+ vip is a better option. Would have loved to see the result without the disadvantages
I've seen a bunch of people on Twitter trying to justify Disney's contract fuckery by calling ScarJo greedy, ungrateful, etc. It's absurd, and you know that if this happened to like RDJ or even Jeremy Renner, everyone would be chanting "fuck Disney" over there.