Board 8 > ScarJo is suing Disney for breach of contract

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278

Essentially saying that part of her agreement with Marvel was that Black Widow get a theatrical release before going to streaming, given that her pay is tied to the Box Office profits, which the simultaneous Disney+ release cut into

Disney called the lawsuit especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic," which, I guess take that how you will

I feel like this case is going to have a pretty major effect on film releases going forward

---

Good thing her character isn't needed anymore!

---

Trusting Disney was her first mistake.

---

Johnbobb posted...

Disney called the lawsuit especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic," which, I guess take that how you will

Even if ScarJo wasn't in the right (which she is), this alone would make me side with her

A megacorporation trying to take advantage of potential misplaced Covid sympathy is gross as hell


---

Another detail I read was that ScarJo's team reached out to Marvel and Disney about renegotiating her contract so she would get part of the streaming profits as well and neither of them ever responded.

So if Disney is going to try playing the pandemic card that doesn't really work out when ScarJo was willing to renegotiate based off that.

---

TomNook posted...

Trusting Disney was her first mistake.

I wouldn't necessarily say she did. If the contract really does have the clause she says it does it means she took steps to protect herself rather than just assume things will go smoothly.
---

ScarJo kinda sucks but also lolDisney

---

Simultaneous release to streaming was obviously a good move from a standpoint of public safety. But the way Hollywood has been handling the business side of this move has been complete shit across the board. Every studio doing this has been making all the decisions unilaterally and conveniently making the ones that maximize their profits while screwing over all other parties.

---

There goes my hope of her getting revived in the MCU.

---

Considering Warner Bros already set a precedent for this kind of situation when they renegotiated contracts before putting up their movies on HBO Max, it just makes Disney look worse.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Even if ScarJo wasn't in the right (which she is), this alone would make me side with her

A megacorporation trying to take advantage of potential misplaced Covid sympathy is gross as hell

Honestly, this feels a lot like Bizzards disastrous initial response to the lawsuit. Heres hoping this one gets just as much blowback!

---

This'll be interesting to follow.

---

redrocket posted...

Honestly, this feels a lot like Bizzards disastrous initial response to the lawsuit. Heres hoping this one gets just as much blowback!

Uh... no. Blizzard should get far more blowback for obvious reasons.

---

Johnbobb posted...

Disney called the lawsuit especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic," which, I guess take that how you will

So who's going to break the news to Disney's distribution department about their plans to release Shang-Chi with an exclusive theatrical window?

In all due seriousness, while the hypocrisy and image control/general tone on display here isn't exactly surprising, it's also telling of Disney's streaming-era financial approach.

---

Idk how they can stand on this being a pandemic decision when Disneyland is open for business
---

Seginustemple posted...

Idk how they can stand on this being a pandemic decision when Disneyland is open for business

By lying.

---

They aren't wrong that this is a pandemic decision.

There is a significant portion of the population right now that would not go to to a theater to see a film right now.

I mean, its a financial decision due to the pandemic. But still.

---

It's absolutely a pandemic decision, just not one made from morality

Edit: yeah what red said.

---

One of my favorite lines from Disney's response:

[Disney] fully complied with Ms. Johanssons contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date.

So... first off that seems like just a straight lie given that the lawsuit is specifically based on the fact that she isn't making money off the Disney+. But even more, they really played the "she's already making a bunch of money, it's not like she needs more. Which, sure, eat the rich and all that, but Disney is one of the richest companies in the world so trying to appeal to the "she's rich so she doesn't need money" argument. And what's crazy is it's working; on Twitter you can see hundreds of people echoing that exact same argument, saying she should be grateful she's making as much as she is and defending Disney of all companies.

---

Sounds like there is a bunch of stuff that people don't know yet, and are just making assumptions on to take a side.

I support upholding whatever the law is, so whatever that ends up being.

But if the amount of care a person can have is finite, I feel like this is an issue where I don't really care, because you have a multi-billion dollar company vs. a person who's networth is $165 million. So uh...sure.

---

---

Johnbobb posted...

And what's crazy is it's working; on Twitter you can see hundreds of people echoing that exact same argument, saying she should be grateful she's making as much as she is and defending Disney of all companies.

Let's be real: it's because she's a woman and people were ambivalent on Black Widow

Chris Pratt wouldn't get twitter blowback

---

I have no doubt that Disney would farm Twitter bots or whatever to push that narrative but then I also have no doubt there are legions of real zealots eager to simp for the mouse
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Let's be real: it's because she's a woman and people were ambivalent on Black Widow

Chris Pratt wouldn't get twitter blowback

wut

Pratt has literally had a mob trying to cancel him for months now just because they dont like his church

---

yeah, uh, Pratt and various other men involved in Marvel projects have had all sorts of blowback against them for various things. Let's not make this a gender thing.

---

Both of these parties are in the wrong. Megacorp Disney trying to whine about the pandemic (especially given the outrageous Premier Access price of those movies) is ridiculous, but so is ScarJo going "boohoo I'm only making a couple of mil instead of many mil over this movie".

---

this isn't crying, this is enforcing contracts

it's the perfect thing for the legal system to take care of

---

Yeah no ScarJo is completely in the right. If she had somehow breached contract with Disney they'd be all over it.

They had a signed sealed document, that Disney broke and it's important that these big companies are held responsible for it.

---

RyoCaliente posted...

but so is ScarJo going "boohoo I'm only making a couple of mil instead of many mil over this movie".

You realize that the money has to go somewhere right? If it doesnt go to ScarJo, it just goes to megacorp Disney instead. Do you think thats a better outcome?

---

redrocket posted...

You realize that the money has to go somewhere right? If it doesnt go to ScarJo, it just goes to megacorp Disney instead. Do you think thats a better outcome?

RyoCaliente posted...

Both of these parties are in the wrong.

---

I mean, objectively, no. Disney broke contract. In what way is ScarJo wrong for pursuing a lawsuit in this case?

---

https://youtu.be/eipZnwYEHtU
---

I assume because it's "greedy" to want more? But I'd say it's not really greedy to want what you're entitled to contractually

---

Really I think it matters because ScarJo is one of the only people who CAN sue Disney and actually have a chance to be taken seriously. Any smalltimer who gets fucked over with broken contracts can't do much about it against Disney's legal team

---

RyoCaliente posted...

Both of these parties are in the wrong.

How is she in the wrong for wanting what is contractually owed to her?

---

https://twitter.com/BenjaminJS/status/1420876224025350144?s=19

---

Wow the world's greediest company being sued for being greedy?

Crazy
---

If the movie being exclusive to theaters was really part of the contract I wonder how Disney is going to get away with this

---

Nanis23 posted...

If the movie being exclusive to theaters was really part of the contract I wonder how Disney is going to get away with this

Same way they get away with everything else??

Nanis23 posted...

If the movie being exclusive to theaters was really part of the contract I wonder how Disney is going to get away with this

That's why she is suing, because otherwise they will just get away with it.

---

Yeah, Disney is completely in the wrong over this. But at the same time, the millionaire losing out on money is hard to feel a ton of sympathy for.

That said, Disney is just going to settle with ScarJo for many millions of dollars and it will disappear.

---

RyoCaliente posted...

Both of these parties are in the wrong. Megacorp Disney trying to whine about the pandemic (especially given the outrageous Premier Access price of those movies) is ridiculous, but so is ScarJo going "boohoo I'm only making a couple of mil instead of many mil over this movie".

This is an objectively wrong post and you should feel bad for posting shit like this

I think people who say "it's hard to feel sympathy for a millionaire so who cares" are also wrong

She is completely in the right to pursue this. She had an agreement in good faith on sharing revenue, and Disney is intentionally squirming around it, in a way that is both morally wrong and, luckily for ScarJo, legally wrong. Even if you don't think it matters if ScarJo gets her payout or not, it's objectively good if she establishes precedent that companies like Disney can't screw people over by moving revenue to streaming services so they don't have to respect the contract

it's not that different from how Disney is dodging paying royalties to writers and other creators that are due royalties from Star Wars and properties in the Fox takeover. they just aren't honouring any of those contracts "because they didn't sign them" even though they acquired the property and are legally required to honour them. but since most of those creators, they don't really have a shot at fighting it. there's couple big creators that actually are fighting it and all the smaller ones will live or die based on how that goes.

---

CoolCly posted...

This is an objectively wrong post and you should feel bad for posting shit like this

I think people who say "it's hard to feel sympathy for a millionaire so who cares" are also wrong

She is completely in the right to pursue this. She had an agreement in good faith on sharing revenue, and Disney is intentionally squirming around it, in a way that is both morally wrong and, luckily for ScarJo, legally wrong. Even if you don't think it matters if ScarJo gets her payout or not, it's objectively good if she establishes precedent that companies like Disney can't screw people over by moving revenue to streaming services so they don't have to respect the contract

it's not that different from how Disney is dodging paying royalties to writers and other creators that are due royalties from Star Wars and properties in the Fox takeover. they just aren't honouring any of those contracts "because they didn't sign them" even though they acquired the property and are legally required to honour them. but since most of those creators, they don't really have a shot at fighting it. there's couple big creators that actually are fighting it and all the smaller ones will live or die based on how that goes.

This is nice to think she's doing something noble by stopping Disney.

But she isn't. She's going to settle for a fat check out of court and this will get dismissed before they can legally tell Disney "Nah you can't do this." It's ScarJo though, so she's in a very rare number of folks who can actually take them to task. But to think she's going to ensure nobody else gets screwed by this is wild.

---

it literally doesn't matter if she's doing it nobly or not, and it's incredibly small minded to frame it to yourself that way

---

CoolCly posted...

I think people who say "it's hard to feel sympathy for a millionaire so who cares" are also wrong

I think not having sympathy is understandable given her wealth - but everyone should have empathy with being screwed despite having a contract.

Also even if she settles out of court is that not incentive for Disney to just...yknow, save themselves the hassle and PR hit, and pay their people correctly?

---

correctamundo

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

This is nice to think she's doing something noble by stopping Disney.

But she isn't. She's going to settle for a fat check out of court and this will get dismissed before they can legally tell Disney "Nah you can't do this." It's ScarJo though, so she's in a very rare number of folks who can actually take them to task. But to think she's going to ensure nobody else gets screwed by this is wild.

Actually legally no one is ever going to be screwed by this. Contract law is pretty easy

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Actually legally no one is ever going to be screwed by this. Contract law is pretty easy

Not as much as you'd think. It's clear Disney is going to play some cards to try to weasel out of it, they're going to waste some of ScarJo's money (many of these actors don't have that money to challenge Disney), and they'll end up settling for some much smaller amount than what she's asking for, but it will still be gargantuan.

People going "I hope ScarJo cleans Disney out!" aren't going to get that satisfaction. Drop in the bucket for them by the end of this.

I just find this harder to care about due to the amount of life-changing money that will change hands that ultimately won't mean much for either party by the end.

---

Lawsuits like these can have good results for other people - a good example is the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit, which caused Apple to introduce the App Store Small Business Program, cutting App Store fees from 30% to 15% for small devs, helping the people who need it most and doing nothing for major corporations.

Also, any settlement or ScarJo victory will include Disney paying her legal fees.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I just find this harder to care about due to the amount of life-changing money that will change hands that ultimately won't mean much for either party by the end.

Then why have you already made 3 posts in this topic about it?
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

Then why have you already made 3 posts in this topic about it?

First, lol

Second, I care about legal stuff, but I guess I need to clarify to avoid weird gotchas that when I say it's "harder to care about" in that I don't have an investment in ScarJo getting hers because it's a rich people battle that won't change anything.

---