I don't see why they don't just give her the same percentage of money from streams as she got from the screens
no fuss no muss
Two reasons:
1) From what's written in the complaint, her bonus wasn't based on percentage it was based on fixed sums at certain thresholds. You could potentially convert those fixed sums to an equivalent percentage, but that assumes that the margins for box office are the same (and scale equivalently) as streaming. Which may not be true.
2) ScarJo's complaint explicitly argues that the two aren't comparable. It gives the example of a superfan who saw Endgame 190 times with a commensurate 190 ticket purchases, whereas with Premier Access they only pay $30 and can watch as many times as they want.
It very much argues that the Black Widow should have been released in theatres only - something that Nolan caught a fair amount of flack last year for arguing the same thing.
I feel like if it was released in theaters only than everyone would have made less money
I don't see why they don't just give her the same percentage of money from streams as she got from the screens
no fuss no muss
Two reasons:
1) From what's written in the complaint, her bonus wasn't based on percentage it was based on fixed sums at certain thresholds. You could potentially convert those fixed sums to an equivalent percentage, but that assumes that the margins for box office are the same (and scale equivalently) as streaming. Which may not be true.
2) ScarJo's complaint explicitly argues that the two aren't comparable. It gives the example of a superfan who saw Endgame 190 times with a commensurate 190 ticket purchases, whereas with Premier Access they only pay $30 and can watch as many times as they want.
It very much argues that the Black Widow should have been released in theatres only - something that Nolan caught a fair amount of flack last year for arguing the same thing.
Nolan wanted Tenet only in theaters because his films are art and must be experienced the way he intends them to be experienced, which is in a theater.
ScarJo has a contract with her payout tied to theater ticket sales. If D+ sold a billion $30 access fees for BW it has no impact on her bonuses. Understandably she'd have preferred everyone who saw it for the first few weeks, at least, bought a theater ticket.
No matter how theater and streaming revenues play out Nolan will still insist people can only properly experience his films in a theater but the BW situation could be resolved by drafting contracts which take streaming revenue into account.
Former THR Editor Matt Belloni took to his exclusive newsletter What I'm Hearing... to report that the Cruella star is currently considering a lawsuit of her own. "Emma Stone, star of Cruella, is said to be weighing her options," he wrote. Belloni also posed Emily Blunt's name as a talent that could speak out after Jungle Cruise opens this weekend. He called Disney "notoriously difficult to deal with" in these circumstances, adding that fellow creatives have been waiting in the wings for someone in the spotlight to speak out.
But according to Disney it's just ScarJo being greedy.
+3
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Oh it's definitely Disney being greedy here. I don't think any reasonable person would think otherwise. But being greedy is perfectly legal. That said these actors should do everything they can to get the compensation they feel they have earned. I just feel like this is going to end badly for them.
However, going forward I fully expect there to be a clause in actor contracts that covers such a contingency. Something to the effect that views on streaming within the first X days count toward performance based bonuses.
This may be going beyond the scope of the thread, but ScarJo's suit really raises the stakes on simultaneous releases. Both Black Widow and Space Jam massively underperformed in their second weekends, which pissed off theaters. Now a star is pissed, which might make other stars more wary of signing contracts. Very interested to see how this shakes out.
Haven't movies been massively underperforming in their second weeks for decades now? I've seen articles on it long before streaming became a thing.
Oof. As much as ScarJo deserves a payday, it's not looking good. BW did indeed get a wide theatrical release. It just also got a wide streaming release at the same time. Sounds like there's nothing in the contact that specifically addresses theater exclusivity. The Academy rules don't apply here and can't be considered.
Sounds like there's some stuff in writing (in discussions between her agent and the studio) that could be taken as a guarantee that it would be exclusively in theaters.
Marvel's chief counsel replied 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."
Marvel's statement that the Black Widow theatrical release would be "like our other pictures" is a reference to the "standard Marvel/MCU 90-120 days of theatrical exclusivity," the lawsuit said.
IANAL, but that kind of thing doesn't sound good for Disney. Obviously, this gets down into the weeds of contract law and all, but... that seems like it could be held as legally binding.
But as the contract posted last page says, "wide theatrical release" has a specific definition and that definition is 1500+ theaters. It doesn't say exclusive.
Doesn't say it isn't exclusive either, and if there's written statements that say it will be (or are held to say that, ultimately), those still count. Contract law goes beyond only whats in the final document iirc.
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Considering how much of a behemoth Disney has become and how it is both producing and distributing now, I find it laughable that anyone here is arguing the talent is going to have luck forcing those revenue doors open
good fucking luck
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
It's hard for me to get worked up about millionaires and billionaires dicking each other over on just how obscenely, disgustingly wealthy they are.
It's hard for me to get worked up about millionaires and billionaires dicking each other over on just how obscenely, disgustingly wealthy they are.
Pretty much. Obviously Disney is the bigger in this case by far, but this doesn't sound like the sort of contract issues the average actor will ever have to deal with - this purely applies to people who already have more money than I ever would in ten lifetimes.
To contrast this with WW84 - Gal Gadot et al. could absolutely have made the case that their release wasn't typical of the other DCEU films. WW84 only opened in 2,151 screens, which while it would have met the "wide release is 1500+" contract stipulation is roughly half the 4,125 screens that Aquaman got during the same Boxing Weekend opening 2 years previous.
Meanwhile Black widow was released on 4,160 screens, more than Aquaman marginally less than Spiderman: Far From Home at 4,634 (and it could probably be argued that there literally weren't 4,634 screens to put it on due to the number of high profile closures during quarantine - F9 also released to 4,179 screens).
It's a reasonable risk strategy for Disney - it's industry accepted practice that the window release strategy maximises revenue (if not necessarily profitability). Disney probably recognises that under normal circumstances a day-and-date streaming release would mean less money for them at the end of the day - regardless of Box Office contractual bonuses. But it's likely that they looked at what happened with Mulan (which was ultimately cancelled for the US theatrical release), Tenet, and WW84 and decided to hedge their bets in case a 4th wave started closing theatres (which, surprise surprise, we're seeing a 4th wave but theatres aren't closing just yet).
From the public statements, it appears that ScarJo (and Stone and Blunt) got a cut of the day-and-date sales - so it's not like they weren't compensated at all for the change in release strategy - but it was likely a lot less than the $10mil Gadot got paid, because WW84 was demonstrably not a traditional wide release. It looks like they feel that they got less money than if it were a theatrical-only release which, if that is the case, then so did Disney (and Paramount for A Quiet Place 2). But it's also almost impossible to prove how big the impact would have been - would they only have got an extra couple of $M with people still being cautious about seeing films in theatres, or is it more on the order of $100M?
It's also entirely possible (which Disney appears to contend) that with their cut of Premier Access, they got paid MORE than they would have with a straight theatrical release - Black Widow beat F9's opening weekend, and had the additional streaming sales coming in.
Regardless they will almost certainly settle outside of court, and agents will start negotiating for explicit streaming release bonus clauses to be included in their star clients' contracts.
It's hard for me to get worked up about millionaires and billionaires dicking each other over on just how obscenely, disgustingly wealthy they are.
While on the one hand, yes, on the other hand, a far less wealthy actor/actress would be completely and utterly fucked in this situation, and having a wealthier one establish precedent can help. I mean this is all about ScarJo getting paid but how many others who worked on the film were under similar contracts and don't have the money to take D to court?
I'm not assigning that as ScarJo's intent, to be clear.
It's hard for me to get worked up about millionaires and billionaires dicking each other over on just how obscenely, disgustingly wealthy they are.
While on the one hand, yes, on the other hand, a far less wealthy actor/actress would be completely and utterly fucked in this situation, and having a wealthier one establish precedent can help. I mean this is all about ScarJo getting paid but how many others who worked on the film were under similar contracts and don't have the money to take D to court?
I'm not assigning that as ScarJo's intent, to be clear.
It's possible no-one else who worked on the film was impacted. Box office bonuses are usually only for marquee leads, big-name directors, and producers.
ETA: They can negotiate to take a smaller fee up front for a bigger piece of the back end. For example, Arnold negotiated $29.5M plus a small piece of backend for T3 for a total package of $35M, but his biggest payout was for Twins where his upfront fee was $0 but got 45% participation which came in at $40M total.
For example, I think only Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and one of the producers got the $10mil for the streaming release of WW84 - I'm not sure even Chris Pine got a payout, so it's entirely possible he took a flat fee which I'd imagine Weisz, Pugh, Harbour, and Winstone also got for Black Widow.
Isn't one of the main points of contention not the amount of money, ScarJo is owed, but the fact that Disney wasn't willing to renegotiate the contract once the descision to delay then stream the movie was made? That is why she is suing?
Isn't one of the main points of contention not the amount of money, ScarJo is owed, but the fact that Disney wasn't willing to renegotiate the contract once the descision to delay then stream the movie was made? That is why she is suing?
Basically yes. The contract was made pre-pandemic is my understanding. Renegotiating due to factors beyond either party's control would be sensible. The allegation is basically that Disney execs made bank by plowing ahead without coming back to the table, and basically they didnt read the fine print when doing so?
Not unreasonable for Johanssen to be upset that they didnt renegotiate the terms. I view it as her lawyers found enough of an argument to hit Disney back for being dicks.
IANAL, I don't know enough on contract law to know how strong her case actually is. But I think Disney is morally in the wrong if they refused to negotiate.
Isn't one of the main points of contention not the amount of money, ScarJo is owed, but the fact that Disney wasn't willing to renegotiate the contract once the descision to delay then stream the movie was made? That is why she is suing?
Basically yes. The contract was made pre-pandemic is my understanding. Renegotiating due to factors beyond either party's control would be sensible. The allegation is basically that Disney execs made bank by plowing ahead without coming back to the table, and basically they didnt read the fine print when doing so?
Not unreasonable for Johanssen to be upset that they didnt renegotiate the terms. I view it as her lawyers found enough of an argument to hit Disney back for being dicks.
Yeah it’s pretty straightforward and I’ll be surprised if Johansson doesn’t win or get a settlement.
If you sign a contract based on front door profits and then your distributor starts selling out the back door after the fact, there’s not a lot of legal standing for the distributor.
“But we paid up for the theatrical releases!”
“Did you tell them about your non-theatrical release plans that would cannibalize the theatrical profits?”
“Well, no . . .”
“Cool. Pay her.”
Isn't one of the main points of contention not the amount of money, ScarJo is owed, but the fact that Disney wasn't willing to renegotiate the contract once the descision to delay then stream the movie was made? That is why she is suing?
Basically yes. The contract was made pre-pandemic is my understanding. Renegotiating due to factors beyond either party's control would be sensible. The allegation is basically that Disney execs made bank by plowing ahead without coming back to the table, and basically they didnt read the fine print when doing so?
Not unreasonable for Johanssen to be upset that they didnt renegotiate the terms. I view it as her lawyers found enough of an argument to hit Disney back for being dicks.
Yeah it’s pretty straightforward and I’ll be surprised if Johansson doesn’t win or get a settlement.
If you sign a contract based on front door profits and then your distributor starts selling out the back door after the fact, there’s not a lot of legal standing for the distributor.
“But we paid up for the theatrical releases!”
“Did you tell them about your non-theatrical release plans that would cannibalize the theatrical profits?”
“Well, no . . .”
“Cool. Pay her.”
Sure, that sounds great logically, morally, and talking about general fairness.
But legally? Especially when the side that doesn't want to pay is Disney? It's harder to say.
You only need to look at how The Mouse has screwed with copyright laws to imagine their potential influence over other legal precedent.
It might not be a strong lawsuit but, to be fair, "everyone knows theatrical means exclusively in theaters" was absolutely, 100% the truth until maybe a year ago. Certainly when the contract was written.
The contract stipulates a “typical wide release” that is consistent with the “our other pictures”. Disney is going to have a hard time suggesting that they released the avengers or Black Panther simultaneously with streaming on Disney+ considering Disney+ did not exist at the time those films were released. And so will have a hard time suggesting that that the guaranteed release was not clear to everyone involved at the time of the signing of the document.
There aren’t damages listed because ScarJo needs discovery to know streaming numbers and so provide damages
I think it’s pretty clear cut that Disney is in the wrong here. And I think that their legal strategy being “smear her in public” pretty much admits to it.
Disney could argue that if it's good enough for the Academy Awards, it should be good enough for satisfying the conditions of the contract.
No because they stipulated a “wide release” (at least 1500 screens) like “our other properties”. The wide release was simultaneous with the streaming release. And so not like the other movies at the time of the signing. There is no confusion about what both sides knew. Disney is in breach regardless of what the oscars say about what theatrical release means since it’s clear neither side was using that definition.
Well, but many of their 'other properties' are doing the same Disney+ streaming now as well, no? It's not like they specifically picked Black Widow out to screw her over
Fundamentally I agree that she's getting screwed, but I think like 90% of the cause is just that there's a global pandemic that's tanking in-theater moviegoing. Obviously that's the problem - the question of 'how much better would it have done without the Disney+ launch' is unknowable, and she thinks the answer is 'a lot' and Disney thinks it's 'not much'. FWIW I kind of lean towards the latter - the fact that F9 is doing basically equivalently (or even slightly behind) suggests to me that the evidence isn't really great that the streaming launch had a major impact. And obviously in-theater sales are about to tank even more with the Delta variant concerns.
I actually think a lawsuit in general here isn't a bad outcome - in that they really just need an impartial 3rd party to set a number. In a way it reminds me of the arbitration system in MLB - including the negative problems with it (namely, that it turns it into an adversarial thing which can drive animosity as both sides are trying to 'win' the argument by tearing down the other side).
Yeah honestly I don’t think the simultaneous streaming really affected the theater numbers as much as they think. Sure some films are also getting the simultaneous streaming on HBO, but not all of them, and they all seems to be getting the same drop off.
Well, but many of their 'other properties' are doing the same Disney+ streaming now as well, no? It's not like they specifically picked Black Widow out to screw her over
Fundamentally I agree that she's getting screwed, but I think like 90% of the cause is just that there's a global pandemic that's tanking in-theater moviegoing. Obviously that's the problem - the question of 'how much better would it have done without the Disney+ launch' is unknowable, and she thinks the answer is 'a lot' and Disney thinks it's 'not much'. FWIW I kind of lean towards the latter - the fact that F9 is doing basically equivalently (or even slightly behind) suggests to me that the evidence isn't really great that the streaming launch had a major impact. And obviously in-theater sales are about to tank even more with the Delta variant concerns.
I actually think a lawsuit in general here isn't a bad outcome - in that they really just need an impartial 3rd party to set a number. In a way it reminds me of the arbitration system in MLB - including the negative problems with it (namely, that it turns it into an adversarial thing which can drive animosity as both sides are trying to 'win' the argument by tearing down the other side).
I think it matters more what was the situation at the time of the signing.
“Yea but we screwed all of our stars out of their negotiated theatrical bonuses!” Probably doesn’t hold quite as much weight in court as you think it does.
Moreover, (and I am pretty confident in this from business 1L) what matters is the situation at the time of the signing and not the time of the execution. If I agreed to pay you 1BTC in 10 years, 10 years ago I can’t come back and be like “well prices changed so 1BTC is no longer 1BTC here is 2 ETH which is clearly what was meant by 1BTC”(to use currencies no one should use but everyone knows how dumb prices of are)
You cannot update the definition of terms in a legal document unilaterally. They have the commonly understood meaning at the time of the signing. Disney could have renegotiated the deal based on the premise that “we want to release this simultaneously with streaming because we think it’s gonna get shit on in theaters due to covid and so if you give up the release schedule we will modify your bonus schedule to fit with the new release”
But specifically(allegedly) Disney refused to have that conversation. And no deal was struck regardless. Which makes Disney pretty clearly in the wrong in terms of the reading of the contract. They failed to deliver something they said they would deliver while ScarJo had upheld her contract to a T.
The only thing that I see having an issue is there not being a clearly defined penalty in the contract and damages maybe being hard to prove. But that is a matter for after discovery and convincing a judge/jury of what damages are.
Gonna watch Venom 2 purely just for Tom Hardy chewing scenery again, but god damn did they not learn their lesson about doing CGI blob fights at night in the first one?
Liked Cletus's transformation tho. Very body horrorish which I'm always down for.
+1
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Gonna watch Venom 2 purely just for Tom Hardy chewing scenery again, but god damn did they not learn their lesson about doing CGI blob fights at night in the first one?
Liked Cletus's transformation tho. Very body horrorish which I'm always down for.
They know the problem, they don't care because CG in the dark is easier because you don't have general daylight to contend with and also things are generally more obscured so the CG doesn't have to be as perfect.
It's lazy, but it's also cheaper than doing it properly, and doing CG "properly" (meaning how the CG studio wants you to do it) is kinda hard tbh, unless you're working really closely with your effects studio, and a lot of these types of movies just feel like they sort of aren't doing that.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I worry that Sony learned all the wrong lessons from Venom. Venom's only redeeming qualities were in how bad it was. So bad it went around to being kinda good again. The clunky dialogue and Bollywood levels of overacting was easily translated and made accessible to international audiences. The next one looks like they're trying to make it more about the connections to other, more successful franchises, being serious, and being gritty. That is NOT what we need. We need Tom Hardy climbing into an aquarium and snacking on a live lobster levels of silly.
Did I miss all the Loki talk? I just finished watching it and man... I don't understand some of the conjecture. Like:
How is there any confusion that He Who Remains is Kang the Conqueror? That statue at the end was definitely in Kang's costume.
Depends on what you mean
While HWR is obviously a variant of the man who would become Kang, that name in the comics was an assumed one. Depending on how accurate they want to be to the comics, he might just straight up be Nathanial Richards. Or, given his costume, he's probably actually Immortus.
+1
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Did I miss all the Loki talk? I just finished watching it and man... I don't understand some of the conjecture. Like:
How is there any confusion that He Who Remains is Kang the Conqueror? That statue at the end was definitely in Kang's costume.
Well... (Loki and Antman 4 spoilers)
He's a Kang. He's not our villain, Kang. He won the multiversal war by eliminating all other Kangs and setting up the TVA to make sure they don't come back.
Now that he's dead, the TVA seemingly has other duties and is run by another Kang who is not quite a 'hide in shadows' type Kang. This new Kang might be our villain Kang the Conquerer, depending on what happens in season 2 before Antman 4.
Kang the Conquerer is definitely the new big villain, but the Kang that died wasn't that Kang.
I feel pretty bad for Simu Liu. He seems like a big fan and he finally gets his wish to be cast in a Marvel film... only for it to be the one that's going to be released during the pandemic without a simultaneous Disney+ release.
Posts
I feel like if it was released in theaters only than everyone would have made less money
Nolan wanted Tenet only in theaters because his films are art and must be experienced the way he intends them to be experienced, which is in a theater.
ScarJo has a contract with her payout tied to theater ticket sales. If D+ sold a billion $30 access fees for BW it has no impact on her bonuses. Understandably she'd have preferred everyone who saw it for the first few weeks, at least, bought a theater ticket.
No matter how theater and streaming revenues play out Nolan will still insist people can only properly experience his films in a theater but the BW situation could be resolved by drafting contracts which take streaming revenue into account.
https://screenrant.com/cruella-movie-emma-stone-disney-lawsuit-rumors-updates
But according to Disney it's just ScarJo being greedy.
However, going forward I fully expect there to be a clause in actor contracts that covers such a contingency. Something to the effect that views on streaming within the first X days count toward performance based bonuses.
Haven't movies been massively underperforming in their second weeks for decades now? I've seen articles on it long before streaming became a thing.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-says-disney-release-of-black-widow-broke-contract/
Sounds like there's some stuff in writing (in discussions between her agent and the studio) that could be taken as a guarantee that it would be exclusively in theaters.
IANAL, but that kind of thing doesn't sound good for Disney. Obviously, this gets down into the weeds of contract law and all, but... that seems like it could be held as legally binding.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
good fucking luck
Pretty much. Obviously Disney is the bigger in this case by far, but this doesn't sound like the sort of contract issues the average actor will ever have to deal with - this purely applies to people who already have more money than I ever would in ten lifetimes.
Meanwhile Black widow was released on 4,160 screens, more than Aquaman marginally less than Spiderman: Far From Home at 4,634 (and it could probably be argued that there literally weren't 4,634 screens to put it on due to the number of high profile closures during quarantine - F9 also released to 4,179 screens).
It's a reasonable risk strategy for Disney - it's industry accepted practice that the window release strategy maximises revenue (if not necessarily profitability). Disney probably recognises that under normal circumstances a day-and-date streaming release would mean less money for them at the end of the day - regardless of Box Office contractual bonuses. But it's likely that they looked at what happened with Mulan (which was ultimately cancelled for the US theatrical release), Tenet, and WW84 and decided to hedge their bets in case a 4th wave started closing theatres (which, surprise surprise, we're seeing a 4th wave but theatres aren't closing just yet).
From the public statements, it appears that ScarJo (and Stone and Blunt) got a cut of the day-and-date sales - so it's not like they weren't compensated at all for the change in release strategy - but it was likely a lot less than the $10mil Gadot got paid, because WW84 was demonstrably not a traditional wide release. It looks like they feel that they got less money than if it were a theatrical-only release which, if that is the case, then so did Disney (and Paramount for A Quiet Place 2). But it's also almost impossible to prove how big the impact would have been - would they only have got an extra couple of $M with people still being cautious about seeing films in theatres, or is it more on the order of $100M?
It's also entirely possible (which Disney appears to contend) that with their cut of Premier Access, they got paid MORE than they would have with a straight theatrical release - Black Widow beat F9's opening weekend, and had the additional streaming sales coming in.
Regardless they will almost certainly settle outside of court, and agents will start negotiating for explicit streaming release bonus clauses to be included in their star clients' contracts.
Edit: cleaned up some run-on sentences.
While on the one hand, yes, on the other hand, a far less wealthy actor/actress would be completely and utterly fucked in this situation, and having a wealthier one establish precedent can help. I mean this is all about ScarJo getting paid but how many others who worked on the film were under similar contracts and don't have the money to take D to court?
I'm not assigning that as ScarJo's intent, to be clear.
ETA: They can negotiate to take a smaller fee up front for a bigger piece of the back end. For example, Arnold negotiated $29.5M plus a small piece of backend for T3 for a total package of $35M, but his biggest payout was for Twins where his upfront fee was $0 but got 45% participation which came in at $40M total.
For example, I think only Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and one of the producers got the $10mil for the streaming release of WW84 - I'm not sure even Chris Pine got a payout, so it's entirely possible he took a flat fee which I'd imagine Weisz, Pugh, Harbour, and Winstone also got for Black Widow.
Basically yes. The contract was made pre-pandemic is my understanding. Renegotiating due to factors beyond either party's control would be sensible. The allegation is basically that Disney execs made bank by plowing ahead without coming back to the table, and basically they didnt read the fine print when doing so?
Not unreasonable for Johanssen to be upset that they didnt renegotiate the terms. I view it as her lawyers found enough of an argument to hit Disney back for being dicks.
IANAL, I don't know enough on contract law to know how strong her case actually is. But I think Disney is morally in the wrong if they refused to negotiate.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yeah it’s pretty straightforward and I’ll be surprised if Johansson doesn’t win or get a settlement.
If you sign a contract based on front door profits and then your distributor starts selling out the back door after the fact, there’s not a lot of legal standing for the distributor.
“But we paid up for the theatrical releases!”
“Did you tell them about your non-theatrical release plans that would cannibalize the theatrical profits?”
“Well, no . . .”
“Cool. Pay her.”
Sure, that sounds great logically, morally, and talking about general fairness.
But legally? Especially when the side that doesn't want to pay is Disney? It's harder to say.
You only need to look at how The Mouse has screwed with copyright laws to imagine their potential influence over other legal precedent.
The contract stipulates a “typical wide release” that is consistent with the “our other pictures”. Disney is going to have a hard time suggesting that they released the avengers or Black Panther simultaneously with streaming on Disney+ considering Disney+ did not exist at the time those films were released. And so will have a hard time suggesting that that the guaranteed release was not clear to everyone involved at the time of the signing of the document.
There aren’t damages listed because ScarJo needs discovery to know streaming numbers and so provide damages
I think it’s pretty clear cut that Disney is in the wrong here. And I think that their legal strategy being “smear her in public” pretty much admits to it.
Let’s hope punitive damages are significant
No because they stipulated a “wide release” (at least 1500 screens) like “our other properties”. The wide release was simultaneous with the streaming release. And so not like the other movies at the time of the signing. There is no confusion about what both sides knew. Disney is in breach regardless of what the oscars say about what theatrical release means since it’s clear neither side was using that definition.
Fundamentally I agree that she's getting screwed, but I think like 90% of the cause is just that there's a global pandemic that's tanking in-theater moviegoing. Obviously that's the problem - the question of 'how much better would it have done without the Disney+ launch' is unknowable, and she thinks the answer is 'a lot' and Disney thinks it's 'not much'. FWIW I kind of lean towards the latter - the fact that F9 is doing basically equivalently (or even slightly behind) suggests to me that the evidence isn't really great that the streaming launch had a major impact. And obviously in-theater sales are about to tank even more with the Delta variant concerns.
I actually think a lawsuit in general here isn't a bad outcome - in that they really just need an impartial 3rd party to set a number. In a way it reminds me of the arbitration system in MLB - including the negative problems with it (namely, that it turns it into an adversarial thing which can drive animosity as both sides are trying to 'win' the argument by tearing down the other side).
I think it matters more what was the situation at the time of the signing.
“Yea but we screwed all of our stars out of their negotiated theatrical bonuses!” Probably doesn’t hold quite as much weight in court as you think it does.
Moreover, (and I am pretty confident in this from business 1L) what matters is the situation at the time of the signing and not the time of the execution. If I agreed to pay you 1BTC in 10 years, 10 years ago I can’t come back and be like “well prices changed so 1BTC is no longer 1BTC here is 2 ETH which is clearly what was meant by 1BTC”(to use currencies no one should use but everyone knows how dumb prices of are)
You cannot update the definition of terms in a legal document unilaterally. They have the commonly understood meaning at the time of the signing. Disney could have renegotiated the deal based on the premise that “we want to release this simultaneously with streaming because we think it’s gonna get shit on in theaters due to covid and so if you give up the release schedule we will modify your bonus schedule to fit with the new release”
But specifically(allegedly) Disney refused to have that conversation. And no deal was struck regardless. Which makes Disney pretty clearly in the wrong in terms of the reading of the contract. They failed to deliver something they said they would deliver while ScarJo had upheld her contract to a T.
The only thing that I see having an issue is there not being a clearly defined penalty in the contract and damages maybe being hard to prove. But that is a matter for after discovery and convincing a judge/jury of what damages are.
Regarding the Scarlett suit, Shang Chi is specifically theaters only, so not all their properties are doing the Disney +thing
I kind of wish it was though.
Also, I need more lines like "My legs. My legs were broken and now they're not broken."
Liked Cletus's transformation tho. Very body horrorish which I'm always down for.
"A red one!" fucking is it?
They know the problem, they don't care because CG in the dark is easier because you don't have general daylight to contend with and also things are generally more obscured so the CG doesn't have to be as perfect.
It's lazy, but it's also cheaper than doing it properly, and doing CG "properly" (meaning how the CG studio wants you to do it) is kinda hard tbh, unless you're working really closely with your effects studio, and a lot of these types of movies just feel like they sort of aren't doing that.
Depends on what you mean
Well... (Loki and Antman 4 spoilers)
Now that he's dead, the TVA seemingly has other duties and is run by another Kang who is not quite a 'hide in shadows' type Kang. This new Kang might be our villain Kang the Conquerer, depending on what happens in season 2 before Antman 4.
Kang the Conquerer is definitely the new big villain, but the Kang that died wasn't that Kang.
Fuck... clicked quote instead of spoiler. Fixed.
I feel pretty bad for Simu Liu. He seems like a big fan and he finally gets his wish to be cast in a Marvel film... only for it to be the one that's going to be released during the pandemic without a simultaneous Disney+ release.