Scarlet Johannson Sues Disney

In hindsight, I enjoyed it more as a Nick Fury prequel, and an MCU continuity orgy more than a Captain Marvel movie.

That it made CHUDs rip their hair out was just extra sprinkles.

Exactly. It wasn't a Captain Marvel movie so much as it was about why Nick Fury paged someone just before he turned to dust.

CHUDs? I don't care who likes or dislikes a movie or why. I've been around long enough to know some people just want to bitch and if they're bitching about Hollywood, ... they fighting a losing battle.

There's a shock.

Proof that Brie Larson doesn't suck:

I'm with ScarJo on this one. Movie (and television) studios have a long, sad history of screwing actors out of royalties for their work. Not to mention I'm mad at Disney for launching yet another separate streaming service with their exclusive content instead of just using Hulu, which they already have a big stake in. I haven't seen any Marvel stuff post-End Game because I refuse to pay for any more streaming services beyond Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. The media companies are turning streaming back into cable television, where you have to pay for a hundred services to get the three bits of content you actually want to see.

I agree. But, at least, it can be spread out. My son has Disney+ and Netflix. I have Hulu and Amazon. I may also have the Paramount account unless i'm using someone else's and never log in cuz I always choose 'remember me" on my personal stuff. So, We're each paying less than $20/month and the television is constantly on.

Fuck. Judge much? and if I said the kids are constantly fighting? or ... Lanzman is constantly being a fucking dickhead?

She had a relatively small role in thee comic-book movie Scott Pilgrim, which is sort of a narrow taste. (Along with Chris Evans who of course played Captain America, and Brandon Routh, who played Superman and then the Atom).

And she was Abeds girlfriend on Community!

My guess is he's nitpicking as what you described is "the internet" not strictly "the television". I think watching programmes via the internet on TV counts (if you do indeed have the internet hooked up to a TV instead of a laptop monitor or a tablet).

Yea..., well ..., here's what I think about nitpickers ...

Amen, sister.

This suit will be interesting to watch. You're certainly right about Hollywood's history of screwing over actors on royalties. Writers too.

I stopped after endgame too because frankly I'm tired of Marvel. I was so disappointed with that last outing after the awesome setup with Infinity War. Plus the endings for some of the characters were just plain weird( Thor is now a fat slob. Dr.Banner is now a goofy green giant ) The only decent ending for any of the characters was Steve Rogers.

On the streaming services I rotate them. I had Disney just long enough to watch Mandalorian and then off it went. I usually keep no more than two going at a time.

And I must be the only one here who enjoyed Captain Marvel. The only disappointment for me was after all that setup she was pretty inconsequential in Endgame. Should have went with the Black Widow movie and saved Captain Marvel for the next phase. But I digress.

If I’m to believe ScarJo here I would also have to believe that Disney didn’t want to make the most amount of money possible on a Marvel movie. Has Disney exited the money making business?

Or they're playing a long game that cuts out theaters entirely.

You're not alone, I dug it too.

That's actually one of my favourite things about Endgame. A little kid goes into the movie thinking "With Captain Marvel on their side, the Avengers can easily beat up Thanos and save everybody!' but they learn that just being strong enough to beat up your biggest enemy isn't enough to save everybody. It's intelligence and creativity and and self-sacrifice that saves everybody. Captain America can pick up Mjǫlnir while Captain Marvel and the Hulk can't because of who he is on the inside, and so can Thor even though he got fat and struggled with depression and self-doubt. Those are excellent lessons for kids.

ScarJo in her lawsuit (at least, according to the story at the link) says that Disney made the decision to stream specifically to screw her over.

I can buy the notion that Disney might want to test the waters to cutting out theaters entirely/largely, that they might risk money now to get bigger money later and that ScarJo got caught in the crossfire.

But the notion that Disney was like "We want to mess with ScarJo's payday so bad that we will take a $1 billion hit (or whatever the actual number would have to be such that ScarJo could legitimately claim that she got cut out of $50 million that she would have made if it had been theaters-only.)" -- not going to bite on that.

That....actually wasn't the reason Williams was pissed. He agreed to do the movie at scale and only asked that his image not be used to shill to kids. So naturally, Disney did the exact opposite of that because they gonna Disney. From everything I gathered, this wasn't a thing he did for money.

Plus, all the assholishiness Jeffrey "Petty Asshole" Katzenberg pulled to sink Ferngully that Williams did as a passion project around the same time didn't help.



(Really hate giving this cunt any free press because reasons, but it's the best video I can find on the subject)

In case you are curious, Deadline has put up a copy of the actual lawsuit ScarJo filed.
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Complaint_Black-Widow-1-WM.pdf

I took a quick skim through it and several things stand out to me.

It seems strongly implied that the alleged breach is not in fact an actual breach.

What ScarJo's attorney hangs their hats on is that the contract calls for the movie to be a "wide theatrical release." The argument is that ScarJo and Disney/Marvel both understood "wide theatrical release" to mean certain industry standard things: 1. Exclusively in theaters for the first 90 to 120 days of its life, and 2. on 1500 or more screens.

The trouble ScarJo faces is if the contract does not define the term explicitly that way. It almost assuredly does not, or else Team ScarJo would have quoted the section where it was so defined and would not have to rely on the argument, "Well, everyone KNOWS what a wide theatrical release is."

The second problem is that the e-mail about reworking the contract is not quoted in full. But it seems pretty clear from the context that the person from Marvel was trying to assuage fears that Black Widow might become a D+ only product as opposed to that it might run concurrently in theaters and on D+. The e-mail exchange came well before the pandemic made the prospects for a theatrical release problematic.

From what I understand there are industry standards at play here even if the contract does not specify them. I am actually surprised it does not, she should get a better lawyer for her contracts.

I am recalling from way back in the days of VHS video stores. There were agreements in place that allowed for the rental industry to have time to compensate for the standard 69-99 dollar price for new released movies. There were clearly worked out standard times between new release theaters, second run theaters, the window for rental, the window for PPV, the window for premium movie channels, and then finally hitting cable. I would be amazed if these things were not established somewhere in contracts and industry standards. I would also think these things were argued in the past as their relative technologies came to be as streaming is now.

I would think there is some backing for her claims from other actors and perhaps SAG as the decisions regarding streaming are going to effect the industry in the future. I do not know what the decision is or should be, but you can bet there are a lot of involved parties going to weigh in as this will establish some precedent.

I don't specialize in contracts but there are a few possible ways this could go if it were to be decided by a court (which it mostly won't be, because there's an incentive for both sides to settle.)

1. Did the actual contract language require the film to be exclusively in theaters during its initial release? All signs point to no, but we will see.
2. If the actual contract did not specify that the film be exclusively in theaters during its initial release, would Team ScarJo be justified in having the term "theatrical release" construed as "exclusive theatrical release"? There presumably is case law that would spell out when it might be justified. One school of thought would be that it's on Team ScarJo to anticipate and resolve ambiguity. Another might be that no one could have anticipated the decision to stream simultaneously, as that had never been done and normally would appear to be financially bad for Disney as well compared to a theatrical release.
3. Was Disney obligated to come to the bargaining table once it decided it was going to stream the movie simultaneously, knowing that might impact how much ScarJo would make from the box office portion?
4. What defenses might Disney have? The obvious one is that Disney did not breach in letter or spirit. It promised ScarJo a percentage of the theatrical box office, and she's (presumably) getting that percentage. They could argue that the COVID-19 pandemic should excuse any alleged breach.

As it’s already been pointed out, this will result in more detailed contracts, but ScarJo will not win this. She’ll probably get some money though. I guess that might be considered a win.

You're a lawyer, and even though you say you don't specialize in contracts, have you ever seen a well-written contract that doesn't have a force majeure clause?

For those who might not know, force majeure is fancy language for saying that parts or all of a contract can be voided due to "acts of God" that are outside either party's control. An example might be if ScarJo contracts to perform a one-person play at a venue, but then an earthquake happens that would make it unsafe for the performance to go forward, neither side would get to sue the other for breach of contract.

The issue here would be: would such a clause apply here? Does the emergence of the pandemic constitute such an act of God that would prevent Disney from releasing the movie exclusively in theaters?

Again, I imagine the answer would be in some sort of legal precedent, but from a common sense no-legal-research perspective, the answer would seem to me to be no. Disney was free (presumably) to shelve Black Widow and never let it see the light of day and then ScarJo would get no back end. But nothing about the pandemic or any other force outside Disney's control stopped Disney from just having Black Widow appear exclusively in theaters. Disney suits decided it was good for Disney to have it simultaneously available for streaming and in theaters. So that's what they did.

I don't think in strict contract terms ScarJo should win. But the notion that there is something inherently unfair about Disney opting for the streaming route knowing that it would significantly enrich them and lower ScarJo's payday might have some validity.

I've always wondered if marketing is cooked into the production cost or if it's a separate line item altogether. Seems a little odd to exclude it since it's a necessary part of the production.

I knew I’d find a reason to post this sooner or later:

while I understand Captain Marvel isn’t among the top MCU flicks, I still really enjoyed it for what it was and Brie Larson was perfect IMHO.

Thank you for that!

I thought she was wasted in Endgame, but I was already grumpy by that time because I've learned that I can't stand time travel stories. The first movie was good, and I would rather see her adventures in spaaaaaaaaace over those few decades.