|
Post by Jayman on Jul 30, 2021 6:42:48 GMT 1
Exactly! Plus it took them over a decade to put out a Black Widow film! Talk about embarrassing! Somebody please find my post from a decade ago where I told everybody they weren't going to make a Black Widow film for a decade. Can you hook me up with some lotto numbers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 6:44:54 GMT 1
A contract is a contract. Oh poor Disney needs to possibly shell out some more money... It's even possible that she tried to approach them before the lawsuit If she's smart, she'll settle out of court. And even then, It'll take at least a year longer than she wanted it to, and it won't be nearly as much as she was hoping for... All kidding aside, this is a hassle for her more than it affects her personal bottom line. She took home a well-deserved $20 M paycheck upfront. The $50 M in points she wants her slice of is likely to keep payroll for some production company moving - and to bankroll a transition from female-action-star to GOOP style mogul. A contract is indeed a contract. The complaint "alleges" that Disney "promised" an "exclusive" theatrical release. But did they? That just seems unlikely. Putting aside any emotions you might feel for Scarlett, why would Disney promise anyone a release of their movie limited to a single vertical c. 2021? If Disney opted to debut the film on streaming, there was likely no explicit legal barrier preventing them from doing so. If there was an explicit exclusivity clause, no risk officer worth their salt would have green-lit premier access. We will know if this is real if less high-profile entities also vested in BW backend points follows Scarlett's lead on the litigation train. Right now, the burden of proof is on team Johanssen to prove Disney intentionally released the film on streaming to cut her out of the profit-sharing loop. She's got very little in the way of proof and even less in leverage. Her franchise dead-ended at birth, and she was not aggressive about inking post-Widow deals with Disney. Her best bet is to rally others who also got stiffed on points to join her cause or to settle. This is going to take a bit of time to resolve as everyone involved stalls and stonewalls. In the interim, there's no bonus payday for anyone. That said, I'd like to be the first to welcome Scarlett to her knew career - in the DCEU. Hee hee hee... Yeah if she does have a case then that would be the usual way of doing things, out of court. No one wants this to get ugly. I watched a Campea vid where he mentioned seeing in the comments that people were saying, well this is the last time we will see Black Widow (jokingly or not). To be fair, it's hard to say. Although the bigger picture is not just Black Widow but Disney at large. I think Disney would still want to work with Scarlett in the end. It really depends on how the situation is handled though Campea goes on to say it might trigger others to sue too. The other actors and the director
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 30, 2021 7:09:47 GMT 1
If she's smart, she'll settle out of court. And even then, It'll take at least a year longer than she wanted it to, and it won't be nearly as much as she was hoping for... All kidding aside, this is a hassle for her more than it affects her personal bottom line. She took home a well-deserved $20 M paycheck upfront. The $50 M in points she wants her slice of is likely to keep payroll for some production company moving - and to bankroll a transition from female-action-star to GOOP style mogul. A contract is indeed a contract. The complaint "alleges" that Disney "promised" an "exclusive" theatrical release. But did they? That just seems unlikely. Putting aside any emotions you might feel for Scarlett, why would Disney promise anyone a release of their movie limited to a single vertical c. 2021? If Disney opted to debut the film on streaming, there was likely no explicit legal barrier preventing them from doing so. If there was an explicit exclusivity clause, no risk officer worth their salt would have green-lit premier access. We will know if this is real if less high-profile entities also vested in BW backend points follows Scarlett's lead on the litigation train. Right now, the burden of proof is on team Johanssen to prove Disney intentionally released the film on streaming to cut her out of the profit-sharing loop. She's got very little in the way of proof and even less in leverage. Her franchise dead-ended at birth, and she was not aggressive about inking post-Widow deals with Disney. Her best bet is to rally others who also got stiffed on points to join her cause or to settle. This is going to take a bit of time to resolve as everyone involved stalls and stonewalls. In the interim, there's no bonus payday for anyone. That said, I'd like to be the first to welcome Scarlett to her knew career - in the DCEU. Hee hee hee... Yeah if she does have a case then that would be the usual way of doing things, out of court. No one wants this to get ugly. I watched a Campea vid where he mentioned seeing in the comments that people were saying, well this is the last time we will see Black Widow (jokingly or not). To be fair, it's hard to say. Although the bigger picture is not just Black Widow but Disney at large. I think Disney would still want to work with Scarlett in the end. It really depends on how the situation is handled though Campea goes on to say it might trigger others to sue too. The other actors and the director When you read the headlines, it seems like it's Scarlett Johanssen, the person suing Disney. In reality, it's Scarlett Johanssen, the brand suing them. It's her lawyer, her manager, her agent, etc. They collectively made the decision. They weren't just looking forward to the Black Widow payday - they needed it. The Marvel machine consistently delivers - it's the American postal service. It's better than bonds. They likely leveraged themselves against expected BW earnings to finance other deals that will now fall apart. Scarlett and co. are likely looking for a quick settlement - and they might even take nickels on the dollar. Then again, Frank Darabont toughed it out in a jury trial with AMC to the tune of a $200 M payday. It took him a decade, but who's counting? TWD has been on so long the payout was likely just a parking ticket for AMC.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 30, 2021 10:24:01 GMT 1
Somebody please find my post from a decade ago where I told everybody they weren't going to make a Black Widow film for a decade. Can you hook me up with some lotto numbers? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Thank me later ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jul 30, 2021 15:18:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 30, 2021 15:48:06 GMT 1
Stop the lies. Space Jam did not outperform Black Widow! It's not even close at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 30, 2021 17:46:43 GMT 1
I don't understand why Kevin would or should feel embarrassed. Disney paid him to do a job. He did with his usual high level of skill and competency. Any grievances between the talent and his bosses are out of control.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Jul 30, 2021 18:56:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 30, 2021 19:37:34 GMT 1
Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit Is Game-Changing, But May Be Legally WeakFrom an arbitration provision to some possibly valid justifications for streaming the superhero film, why Disney should be favored to beat the actress in a case that will by closely-watched.And you don't need to be Perry Mason to see them.This is an interesting tactic because it allows her to preserve her relationship with Marvel. Disney's leadership is likely to turnover faster than Marvel's which could reopen a closed door to her in the future.This is more or less what I was getting at yesterday. There's no straightforward declaration of breach, she's using a workaround instead (i.e., tortious interference). Her claim is that when Disney released Black Widow on streaming, they forced Marvel to breach their prearranged contract with her.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 30, 2021 19:46:43 GMT 1
Again, my argument of yesterday made more verbose. Disney is going to jump on this with both feet if she insists on doing this in open court.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 30, 2021 19:53:07 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 2:09:32 GMT 1
Some interesting commentary from Campea
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 2:41:33 GMT 1
Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit Is Game-Changing, But May Be Legally WeakFrom an arbitration provision to some possibly valid justifications for streaming the superhero film, why Disney should be favored to beat the actress in a case that will by closely-watched.And you don't need to be Perry Mason to see them.This is an interesting tactic because it allows her to preserve her relationship with Marvel. Disney's leadership is likely to turnover faster than Marvel's which could reopen a closed door to her in the future.This is more or less what I was getting at yesterday. There's no straightforward declaration of breach, she's using a workaround instead (i.e., tortious interference). Her claim is that when Disney released Black Widow on streaming, they forced Marvel to breach their prearranged contract with her. Interesting. Goes to show that Feige and Scarlett are cool with each other in a way Ok say covid is a valid excuse, would she still need to be compensated a little extra regardless? Like it said it was an industry standard and Im sure she could point to many examples. I mean context is important Anyway, I think both you and Campea will be right. It will probably be settled out of court eventually, hopefully. Not really good for anyone otherwise
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 3:02:53 GMT 1
This guy weighs in too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 3:05:55 GMT 1
Also imo there is really no excuse to not have it exclusively at the cinemas for at least one month and then do the streaming option
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2021 3:22:09 GMT 1
Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit Is Game-Changing, But May Be Legally WeakFrom an arbitration provision to some possibly valid justifications for streaming the superhero film, why Disney should be favored to beat the actress in a case that will by closely-watched.And you don't need to be Perry Mason to see them.This is an interesting tactic because it allows her to preserve her relationship with Marvel. Disney's leadership is likely to turnover faster than Marvel's which could reopen a closed door to her in the future.This is more or less what I was getting at yesterday. There's no straightforward declaration of breach, she's using a workaround instead (i.e., tortious interference). Her claim is that when Disney released Black Widow on streaming, they forced Marvel to breach their prearranged contract with her. Interesting. Goes to show that Feige and Scarlett are cool with each other in a way Ok say covid is a valid excuse, would she still need to be compensated a little extra regardless? Like it said it was an industry standard and Im sure she could point to many examples. I mean context is important Anyway, I think both you and Campea will be right. It will probably be settled out of court eventually, hopefully. Not really good for anyone otherwise Scarlett's case could be the beginning of a tidal wave of talent litigating against studios for "their share" of streaming revenues. Your compensation for a job is non-negotiable. If someone agreed to pay you $20 M upfront for a role, that is what you are owed and should receive. Profit-sharing is a little different. It's an incentive above and beyond your fee, and it's performance-based. The better the film does financially, the better you do. It's a gamble in that you can't predict how much money you will make (if any). Team Scarlett's claim that they lost out on a potential $50 M in revenue is probably based on the past performance of Marvel movies in a pre-pandemic screen to VOD pipeline. I don't see why Disney should payout on a speculative figure and unrealistic assumtions.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2021 3:30:16 GMT 1
Also imo there is really no excuse to not have it exclusively at the cinemas for at least one month and then do the streaming option Day and date was a mistake, but honestly, it was Disney's mistake to make. They're entitled to do what they want with their property. I feel like Scarlett's team took that $50 M backend for granted. They likely used it as revolving credit to put future projects in motion for the house of Johanssen. Without the money, they're looking at losing deposits, missed opportunities, and even a possible cash flow crunch that will force Scarlett back into the world of leg throws and tights sooner than she wants to be. This isn't about justice or fair play; she wouldn't be doing this unless she was jammed up in some way.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Jul 31, 2021 3:30:31 GMT 1
Scarjo right now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 3:36:10 GMT 1
Also imo there is really no excuse to not have it exclusively at the cinemas for at least one month and then do the streaming option Day and date was a mistake, but honestly, it was Disney's mistake to make. They're entitled to do what they want with their property. I feel like Scarlett's team took that $50 M backend for granted. They likely used it as revolving credit to put future projects in motion for the house of Johanssen. Without the money, they're looking at losing deposits, missed opportunities, and even a possible cash flow crunch that will force Scarlett back into the world of leg throws and tights sooner than she wants to be. This isn't about justice or fair play; she wouldn't be doing this unless she was jammed up in some way. What makes you think she's jammed up in some way? Even Emma Stone is considering this This is not a new issue either. Just look at Warner and hbo max
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2021 3:46:52 GMT 1
Day and date was a mistake, but honestly, it was Disney's mistake to make. They're entitled to do what they want with their property. I feel like Scarlett's team took that $50 M backend for granted. They likely used it as revolving credit to put future projects in motion for the house of Johanssen. Without the money, they're looking at losing deposits, missed opportunities, and even a possible cash flow crunch that will force Scarlett back into the world of leg throws and tights sooner than she wants to be. This isn't about justice or fair play; she wouldn't be doing this unless she was jammed up in some way. What makes you think she's jammed up in some way? Even Emma Stone is considering this This is not a new issue either. Just look at Warner and hbo max It's just a hunch. Getting into a legal battle with Disney is a big commitment. I don't think she'd do it if she didn't have a lot to lose. Disney didn't get their end when the film underperformed, either. A lot of other people lost out too. Not sure what makes Scarlett or Emma unique in this regard (other than that they're famous). When HBO decided to do day and date, their talent came out in opposition early and often. This after-the-fact strategy seems to be calculated. If you really wanted to ensure your end, you should have applied pressure before release. This looks a little opportunistic to me.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 2, 2021 0:00:44 GMT 1
What makes you think she's jammed up in some way? Even Emma Stone is considering this This is not a new issue either. Just look at Warner and hbo max It's just a hunch. Getting into a legal battle with Disney is a big commitment. I don't think she'd do it if she didn't have a lot to lose. Disney didn't get their end when the film underperformed, either. A lot of other people lost out too. Not sure what makes Scarlett or Emma unique in this regard (other than that they're famous). When HBO decided to do day and date, their talent came out in opposition early and often. This after-the-fact strategy seems to be calculated. If you really wanted to ensure your end, you should have applied pressure before release. This looks a little opportunistic to me. Without having looked into it further, according to my wife she asked to have her contract renegotiated and was told not to worry about it, they weren’t releasing it online. How true that is, or what exactly was said I can’t be sure.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 2, 2021 0:47:50 GMT 1
It's just a hunch. Getting into a legal battle with Disney is a big commitment. I don't think she'd do it if she didn't have a lot to lose. Disney didn't get their end when the film underperformed, either. A lot of other people lost out too. Not sure what makes Scarlett or Emma unique in this regard (other than that they're famous). When HBO decided to do day and date, their talent came out in opposition early and often. This after-the-fact strategy seems to be calculated. If you really wanted to ensure your end, you should have applied pressure before release. This looks a little opportunistic to me. Without having looked into it further, according to my wife she asked to have her contract renegotiated and was told not to worry about it, they weren’t releasing it online. How true that is, or what exactly was said I can’t be sure. She should have worried about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 21:26:27 GMT 1
Well well this is interesting now Marvel's Eternals Will Not Get a Dual Theatrical/Streaming Release link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 6:58:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 4, 2021 21:20:31 GMT 1
Interesting... I'm surprised by how many people believe Johannsen has a strong case despite the lack of specificity in her contract and her over-reliance on the circumstances of previous Marvel film releases to bolster her argument. Her lawsuit is certainly not frivolous, but I don't think it's a slam dunk either. Campea covers a fair amount of broad legal constructs in American contract law, but conspicuously absent is a concept called "frustration of performance" wherein "a party to a contract cannot rely on the failure of another to perform a condition precedent where he has frustrated or prevented the occurrence of the condition." This is another common law doctrine that may excuse performance, but only in a narrow set of circumstances. It applies when a change in circumstances after a contract was entered into makes one party’s performance worthless to the other, frustrating his purpose in making the contract. To excuse non-performance, the frustrated purpose must be so fundamental and essential to the contract that, without it, the parties would have never entered into their transaction in the first place. The objective intent of the parties, as exhibited by the language of the contract itself, is typically the key to determining whether the frustration goes to the essential purpose of the contract. The event causing the frustration must also have been unforeseeable, as the non-occurrence of the frustrating event must have been a basic assumption on which the contract was made. Generally, a contract will not be deemed to have been frustrated to the point of invoking the doctrine if the event merely renders the contract more expensive or difficult to perform, if an alternative method of performance is available, or if the event is the fault of one of the contracting parties. Although the burden of proof for invoking the doctrine of frustration is high, the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government-mandated restrictions imposed on businesses as a result of it may present circumstances that support its application in specific cases.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 14, 2021 0:25:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 21, 2021 18:31:15 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 23:48:48 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 22, 2021 0:07:17 GMT 1
Impressive?? $370 M is likely the best pandemic-era gross of any day-and-date release.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2021 0:09:51 GMT 1
Impressive?? $370 M is likely the best pandemic-era gross of any day-and-date release. Lol yeah true. Day and date. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out
|
|