Scarlet Johannson Sues Disney

The film has been in wide release and has racked up about $350 million in grosses, not bad given the reduced attendance at theaters and the availability of streaming. Unless her contract excludes the simultaneous release on the streaming service, or defines "wide theatrical release" in some more constrained way, I think she's probably out of luck. I agree she probably got screwed by Disney's decision, but Disney undoubtedly chose the course that would net them more revenue and, sure, Johansson's share was part of that calculus, but it doesn't look like they broke the contract.

I expect top-tier actors are now structuring their contracts so they get a share of revenues from any source.


And Captain Marvel was mid-level Marvel at best.

Wonder if stories like this will help her case?

Speaking for myself, I'm far more interested in the Shang-Chi film than the Black Widow film.

(Although I did see Black Widow in theatres.)

Black Widow’s origin story is about as necessary as Han Solo’s was.

Waiting for this to leave the Premier access, not in a real hurry to watch it. From what I've read and heard, it seems like it will be one of my lower rated Marvel films. But I'll wait until I actually watch it to decide.

It's good, competent Marvel (below Dr. Strange or Black Panther, about the same as Ant Man), but it's not one that will be particularly remembered.

ScarJo's case really comes down to:
A. Does her contract explicitly say that the theatrical release of Black Widow would not have to compete with streaming video or any other release? (The answer is almost assuredly no.)
B. Should it be read into the contract that the term "theatrical release" meant that there could not have been a simultaneous release on streaming video or other platforms? (That is very much in doubt in my mind, but I don't know much more about contract law than the next guy).
C. Is there some other legal concept that ScarJo can appeal to/use as a saving throw if it is deemed that the terms of the contract ds not require Marvel to do anything more than what it has done? (Possible, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.)

Shang-Chi surpassing(?) Disney/analysts' expectations should not be much of a factor in the lawsuit IMO.

First, they are different movies that aren't necessarily going to draw the same type or level of audience. Shang-Chi's reviews have generally been glowing, while Black Widow's were mixed. Shang-Chi was probably boosted in part by people wanting to see the first Asian-centered Marvel movie do well much more than Black Widow was buoyed by people wanting to see a woman-centered vehicle do well.

Second, one can't really say how many of the people who got Black Widow on Disney+ would have gone to see it in theaters if that had been their only option. Or how many people saw it on theaters AND got it on Disney+. The notion that ScarJo would have made $50m more if Black Widow had been exclusively in theaters is simply crazy.

But even if for argument's sake Shang-Chi's performance could be some sort of reflection as to how BW might have done, it doesn't really matter. The most that could be said is it shows that Marvel was too conservative in hedging its bets by releasing on both platforms. It doesn't address whether it was justified under the contract or general business practices in going dual release without offering ScarJo an amended deal.

Scarlett Johansson and Disney Settle ‘Black Widow’ Pay Lawsuit

Well that was quicker than I thought. I hope some entertainment journalist gets the deets about how much Disney forked over. My guess would be about $5 mil.

Or, a percentage of the Disney+ streaming revenue.

Called it! And on the second post in this thread, no less.