Fascinating, and she's well within her rights, if the article's information is correct.
Spoilers Black Widow grade and discussion thread
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Fascinating, and she's well within her rights, if the article's information is correct.
What I find bizarre it that they didn't just cut her a cheque for the difference to save themselves all the bad publicity they're going to get. It's not like they couldn't afford it.
Apparently, you don't get to be Disney by cutting checks when you can potentially get away with stiffing people. Look at the recent story of Alan Dean Foster and other authors who wrote tie-ins for Star Wars and other properties no longer getting royalty payments after the prior licensors were bought by Disney, who argued the bought the right to reprint the books, but not the responsibility to pay the authors. Mickey Mouse's big round ears are apparently a nickel and a dime.
Even though ScarJo is well into "keeping score" money, I'm still reacting to this on the principle of a big company violating its contract with union labor because it's become inconvenient to management.
Even though ScarJo is well into "keeping score" money, I'm still reacting to this on the principle of a big company violating its contract with union labor because it's become inconvenient to management.
Last edited:
Especially with the Delta variant out there. My wife and I have changed plans to see this in the theater. That said, there's no way I'm going to pay Disney more for watching it at home, especially in light of Scarlett's lawsuit. She deserves to be paid.
She sent them the Scarlett Letter.
Oh do NOT even get me started on that!
I don't know if I'm missing something here or what, but it's been known for months that Black Widow was going to have a simultaneous theatre release and streaming on Disney+ release. IIRC, this was announced back in March or April (or earlier?) when they moved the movie from its May release date to July. Is there a reason Scarlett Johansson didn't make a fuss about it back then instead of waiting a few weeks after release?
The Simpsons really were on the ball with that old "There's profit to be had" joke.
I am going to guess that ScarJo's lawyers tried to renegotiate the terms of her contract earlier--and that when Disney didn't renegotiate (or maybe Disney said something like "we'll be sure to compensate you appropriately"), the lawyers told her to wait until there were real numbers to work with rather than hypothetical.
EDIT: David cgc posted right after me and quotes a Wall Street Journal article the mentions the specifics.
EDIT: David cgc posted right after me and quotes a Wall Street Journal article the mentions the specifics.
After reading all the background in the article regarding Disney's handling of the situation and their refusal to even talk about contract renegotiation after the decision was made for a simultaneous release I say (which Scarlett's agency brought to their attention - but Disney didn't even respond to them In any fashion):
All the more power to her. Disney basically decided to change a major aspect of the film's release, But left the star of the film effectively holding the bag. Yes the film made 80 million the first weekend, But it also made 60 million in streaming revenue and I'm sure the streaming revenue is continuing. Scarlett Johansson definitely deserves a percentage of that as well, and Disney's refusal to even consider that fact just shows how it feels about the talent that uses to make its money.
Disney has a huge number of heavy hitters in the MCU--imagine if they played a Friends cast move and forced Disney into contract renegotiation based on this particular breach of contract. I can see Disney really really regretting this decision.
Back in the day, Robert Downey Jr threatened to walk if Evans and Hemsworth didn't get raises. Too bad Scarlet doesn't have that kind of clout behind her now.
I know it's a big money making business but it's kind of sad that Scarlet has to end her time with Marvel with bad blood.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. That's a bitter pill to swallow.
Well, that's a bunch of BS. But, business going to business. Wealthy people fighting over money is always the most depressing kind of news to me.
The thing is, we are still dealing with the pandemic, so I'm not sure there was that much more money to be had. IMO, people aren't going to go see movies 2-3 times at the theaters the way they did pre-pandemic, so we are going to have to adjust to new pandemic era grosses. I'm sure in a pre-pandemic world, she would have earned another $50 million from the theatrical grosses, but I'm just not sure that would be the case now.
Which just comes back to the point that she should've gotten a cut of the Disney+ shares, too. Give her that and problem solved. Except Disney doesn't want to do that.
She made the original contract when she was informed the release would be Theatre only. Once that changed her people TRIED to contact Disney about renegotiating because of the change to the release structure and Disney didn't even respond - not even to say "No, we don't want to renegotiate...". To me that shows Disney acting in bad faith here. When something like this is changed, it's understandable that the actor would want to talk about the change since it WOULD affect her overall compensation for her work, but Disney wouldn't even reply in any way.
Oh agreed, Disney is acting in bad faith here and if true should be spanked, I'm just saying I don't know if she was likely to get as much as she thinks she should have gotten.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
