Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over 'Black Widow' Streaming Release (wsj.com) 159
Black Widow has a new enemy: the Walt Disney. From a report: Scarlett Johansson, star of the latest Marvel movie "Black Widow," filed a lawsuit Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against Disney, alleging her contract was breached when the media giant released the film on its Disney+ streaming service at the same time as its theatrical debut. Ms. Johansson said in the suit that her agreement with Disney's Marvel Entertainment guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, and her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film.
"Disney intentionally induced Marvel's breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel," the suit said. The suit could be a bellwether for the entertainment industry. Major media companies are prioritizing their streaming services in pursuit of growth, and are increasingly putting their high-value content on those platforms. Those changes have significant financial implications for actors and producers, who want to ensure that growth in streaming doesn't come at their expense.
"Disney intentionally induced Marvel's breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel," the suit said. The suit could be a bellwether for the entertainment industry. Major media companies are prioritizing their streaming services in pursuit of growth, and are increasingly putting their high-value content on those platforms. Those changes have significant financial implications for actors and producers, who want to ensure that growth in streaming doesn't come at their expense.
Steamboat Willie (Score:2)
What was that phrase from Steamboat Willie?
Ah, yeah: "Don't make me destroy you".
Re:Steamboat Willie (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
She won't be in the next Avengers movie...
Re: (Score:2)
They scammed her once, does she still want to be around for the second one?
Re:So, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
They scammed her once, does she still want to be around for the second one?
Swoosh.
Re: (Score:3)
Dead superheroes not staying dead is a staple of the genre. As the old saying goes, "If they're dead, they're not dead. And if you have a body, that proves they're not dead."
Re:So, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. They'll probably even kill off her character.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Just like Superman.
Um, Well... (Score:2)
You know, apart from earnings for this movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Han dies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, don't watch D. O. A. then. You know who dies really early on. Spoils the suspense :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In comics and soap operas, death is a minor plot point to be milked for all it's worth, then ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a contract.... (Score:3)
Timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the release schedule is really screwed up as it is. They have movies timed to be released to maximize box office returns. You have a backstory movie that doesn't need to be released at any particular time. You don't release it next year, stepping on the box office windows of your movies that need to be released in a particular order to set up the next big story arc. They have three MCU movies set to be released through the end of this year alone. Pad that in with other Disney, Pixar and 20th century film releases, and there aren't a lot of good spots to release a movie where you aren't eating into box office sales of your other movies.
The other side is that Black Widow had been in the can for over a year. They sunk costs of hundreds of millions of dollars, and they had a product sitting around not making any money. At some point, even if the timing is less than ideal, you need to get your money back.
Re: (Score:2)
So pay a few lawyers to hammer out some contract renegotiations, and then release it as planned. A few hours of lawyer renegotiation to remove the exclusivity and grant a percentage of streaming is a drop in the ocean when it comes to a feature film budget like this. They should fucking know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or do the proper legal thing and renegotiate the contract so that you can do the streaming release without being sued by your contracted unionized labor.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have such around in the theater for the stinger. Black Widow's late release already mucked part of the set up for Falcon and the Winter Soldier. And Florence Pugh obviously has a future somewhere in the MCU independent of Natasha Romanov's.
Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't they reach a deal where the "premium access fees" count as box office receipts for the purpose of the contract? Or is she arguing that those fees are lower than what people would have paid to see the film in the theaters? I would love to see data on the second point, as it could easily go either way, but I doubt Disney has any interest in releasing it.
In any case, studios have been cheating actors (and everyone else) out of their earnings with shady accounting since the beginning of film, so it's no wonder this is going to the courts. Would you trust Disney to accurately report their streaming revenue for a movie like this? And how do you account for the base monthly fee, especially if someone signed up and paid the premium fee in the same month?
Re: (Score:2)
court discovery can get that info
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the information need not be public. Discovery records can be kept confidential among the participants in the civil case. Only the fact the case is somehow settled is necessarily public.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a civil case, to be 'settled' means that it reaches conclusion, even in court. Just because it has to be adjudicated by a judge does *not* mean that the material in the civil case automatically is public record.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the judge orders it sealed, which they can do if it constitutes being a "trade secret" which you know Disney's lawyers will argue, and the plaintiff's lawyers won't give a shit if it's public or not - they got to see the figures and that's all they care about.
Re: (Score:2)
That is literally what the dude said. If this went to trial evidence would be publicly submitted. If it settles it won't.
No, not necessarily. That evidence can remain confidential even if the case goes to trial, which is what Junta was saying. Perhaps most obviously, the details of a custody case may not be a matter of public record, even if the case goes to trial and the outcome is on the record. Likewise, trade secrets and other proprietary information are frequently redacted or otherwise kept out of the public eye, even when the cases go to trial and their outcomes are on the record. Civil cases can be conducted behind clo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Moving forward, all the new contracts now have the exclusivity clause suddenly removed.
She wins the battle but the actors lose another chink in the war.
I wouldn't bet on it. Disney wants to do that, but SAG will object, and the new "standard contract" that all studios are requires to agree to if they want to employ SAG/AFTRA members - and members of any other unions in the industry - in future films.
Never underestimate the power of the unions in Hollywood. They'll get what they want in the end.
Re: Simple Solution (Score:2)
Like the writers and revenue from rentals and streaming?
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes, it takes a while. But in the end, the unions control the talent, and the crew, and you don't make a dime from movies you can't make.
There's a reason Hollywood unionized decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving forward, all the new contracts now have the exclusivity clause suddenly removed.
She wins the battle but the actors lose another chink in the war.
I suspect the outcome moving forward is that anyone that asks for a % of theater revenue also asks for a % of streaming revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Fighting this lawsuit will only attract negative attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they reach a deal where the "premium access fees" count as box office receipts for the purpose of the contract?
I would expect that is what she is going for here.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't they reach a deal where the "premium access fees" count as box office receipts for the purpose of the contract?
I'm stunned that Disney didn't default to this position knowing full well that relying on the strict definition of the term "box office receipts" would result in being taken to court.
I'd put money on Disney losing this case if they were to allow it go fully go through. They'll settle because they can't be the company that cheated the PRIMARY FEMALE AVENGER in her only solo/origin story movie. PR, legal... it's a minefield for them and they know it.
Black Widow Origin Story (Score:2)
This is going off on a tangent, but in watching Agent Carter, it really felt like they wanted to be doing her origin story with the character of Dottie Underwood, only fifty years too early.
Sex Discrimination Issues if disney low balls her (Score:2)
Sex Discrimination Issues if disney low balls her.
Can that come up in an full trail by saying they tried to make an low ball deal before court.
Re: (Score:2)
For all we know, they could have tried that as an offer.
Johansson and her lawyers may think they can do better than such an offer. In reality, such a deal would probably fare much better than had there been a theatrical release.
We aren't privy to what deals were/were not attempted on either party, and can only speculate on what might have been offered and why things would not be offered or not be accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they reach a deal where the "premium access fees" count as box office receipts for the purpose of the contract? Or is she arguing that those fees are lower than what people would have paid to see the film in the theaters?
I would argue that the $ amount should be calculated by # times streamed x average price of ticket in region x some number to account for multiple viewers watching a stream who would have bough tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
The premium access is what, thirty dollars? That means usually the whole family watches it, often with friends over. There's no good way of knowing how many views it had. And once it's unlocked, there's no cost to watch it again, so people who wouldn't have watched it twice in the theater may watch it several times at home. In any case, there is no fair direct conversion from streaming to ticket sales, so all that's left is to look at the streaming revenue, which would be the premium access fees, plus m
Reminds me of (Score:4, Interesting)
This whole thing reminds me of one of the little stories James Spader's character tells in The Blacklist. Some guy sells a script to a Hollywood studio and there's a rider in that contract that if the movie makes over $100m he gets some kind of bonus. The movie grosses well over the amount for the bonus so the guy buys a boat and new house, but by the time the movie studio accountants were done, the movie made just under the amount that would trigger the bonus.
Or the countless stories about how some new band signs a deal with a record label and despite having a #1 hit single or best selling album, they find themselves millions of dollars in debt because the studio charges them for literally everything down to having someone order a pizza during a recording session.
The moral of the story being that music/movie studios will screw you over any which way they possibly can.
they better look out as they don't want them w2 (Score:2)
they better look out as they don't want them to be seen as w2 workers vs 1099 workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See the Buchwald v. Paramount lawsuit for lots of gory details of a real-life example.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an old show business tradition [youtube.com].
bellwether? (Score:2)
"The suit could be a bellwether for the entertainment industry."
No. It will just mean a small amendment will be added to any future contract saying a studio can do this. End of story.
Look what happened with Tenet (Score:2)
Nolan puts up what should have been a 'tentpole' blockbuster, gets delayed N times from the Covid shutdowns, he still insists on a theatrical-only release when theaters in many regions were still shuttered, at best it broke even. Disney takes the Black Widow movie it's had in the can for over a year, does a concurrent theater/premium streaming release (I saw it in the theater, thanks; cheaper than coughing up $30 to the Mouse for home streaming), and gets in a reasonable pile of money, which predictably f
Re:Look what happened with Tenet (Score:5, Informative)
All she wants is for Disney to live up to what it agreed to in the contract. They agreed to an exclusive theatrical release, and then broke that agreement. If Disney felt that changes to the market required a different approach, they should have renegotiated the contract. Instead, they just ignored it.
Which, in Hollywood, is a day that ends in "y."
She's getting the David Prowse treatment (Score:2)
LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit!? [slashfilm.com]
So Black Widow dies in all Multi-verses (Score:2)
I guess we won't be seeing her come back in any future MCU movie.
Irony (Score:2)
contract and union issue as well (Score:4, Insightful)
contract and union issue as well
Re:Rich people problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rich people problems (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Rich people problems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah exactly, likely disney offered her X and that number was too low so now she's pulling the "public lawsuit" lever to guarantee a higher payout. All movies are lower in profit this year so everyone is scrambling for the biggest piece of a shrinking pie that they can get
It's also possible that she has borrowed money against future profits (when you get to a certain level, that becomes an option), which is putting additional financial pressure on her, but that kind of gambling isn't really a usable
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Rich people problems (Score:5, Informative)
Did she have a clause saying "you can't sell this movie to Netflix for $5M"? Of course not- she can expect them to try to maximize their own profit, and quite reasonably at that.
If the article is to be believed, Disney promised an "exclusive theatrical release". That means showing the movie only in cinema at least for a while, before it becomes available on streaming services. The contract may or may not have loopholes, the court will figure it out.
Hollywood has a reputation for "creative accounting" though, so I would not be surprised if the lawsuit is justified.
Re: Rich people problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah exactly, likely disney offered her X and that number was too low so now she's pulling the "public lawsuit" lever to guarantee a higher payout.
Not simply because the "number was too low". As TFS/A noted, she was "guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release" and "her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film." A simultaneous theater / streaming release (presumably) reduces the theater box office revenues and, therefore, her income from the film. I imagine that her lawsuit is to have the streaming revenues count toward the "box office" revenue (and her income) to compensate for the change in release timings that was contrary to her contract with Disney.
Re: Rich people problems (Score:4, Insightful)
This all sounds like the standard "Hollywood account" crap that's been going on for as long as movies have been made. As have the lawsuits over it.
If the contract actually says "exclusive theatrical release," she'll win. If there's some loophole her agent missed, there will probably be a settlement we'll never hear the details of (or even hear about at all), for a lot less.
Either way, it's business as usual in Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
This all sounds like the standard "Hollywood account" crap that's been going on for as long as movies have been made. As have the lawsuits over it.
If the contract actually says "exclusive theatrical release," she'll win. If there's some loophole her agent missed, there will probably be a settlement we'll never hear the details of (or even hear about at all), for a lot less.
Either way, it's business as usual in Hollywood.
They can just pay her for a movie that never gets made, like they did for the sequel to Forrest Gump's author.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rich people problems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exactly, likely disney offered her X and that number was too low so now she's pulling the "public lawsuit" lever to guarantee a higher payout. All movies are lower in profit this year so everyone is scrambling for the biggest piece of a shrinking pie that they can get
If her agreement didn't include stream rights but only called for theatrical release then Disney can't just unilaterally release it like that. Of course, such contracts are no doubt very long and bound by numerous agreements with various unions.
Re: Rich people problems (Score:2)
I can't imagine a media contract written after 2012 that doesn't at least mention streaming. Certainly not one valued north of $10mm
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah that's more likely because no movie studio and especially not Disney has ever fucked someone over.
It's weird that for the first time on slashdot, some people are falling over themselves to defend Disney. I wonder what's different about this artist...
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like she wants a cut of the streaming related revenue too. So I am assuming she is for profit / just exercising her legal right under the agreement she had for the movie.
Sounds about right. TFS/A noted:
Ms. Johansson said in the suit that her agreement with Disney's Marvel Entertainment guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, and her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film.
A simultaneous theater / streaming release (a) broke the guarantee of an exclusive theater release and (b) is presumably reducing the theater box office revenues, so it would seem she has a valid complaint against Disney. As the combined release is done (cat's out of the bag) it would seem that the remaining relief would be to have the streaming release revenue count toward he theatrical release numbers and her income.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the biggest issue here is that this contract was signed pre-pandemic (this movie's been in the works that long, and would have been in the theaters last year without the pandemic), when the idea of simultaneous streaming release was laughable.
The market has changed, and the studios using it as an excuse to screw over the talent is business as usual. As is the talent suing over it.
Re: (Score:3)
Contract law doesn't give a fat rat's ass if the market changed or not. If the contract says "exclusive theatrical release" and Disney did something different, they are in breach.
Contract law actually does care if it's impractica (Score:2)
> Contract law doesn't give a fat rat's ass if the market changed or not. If the contract says "exclusive theatrical release" and Disney did something different, they are in breach.
Impracticability doctrine is actually a thing in contract law.
Performance of a contract will be excused if the performance is made impracticable by an occurrence that neither party to the contract anticipated (the covid pandemic) and which would make performance unreasonably difficult, or impracticable.
Probably the mos
Re:Contract law actually does care if it's impract (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe.
The reason they aren't doing that is because they'll make a lot more money releasing on streaming.
If theater-only would make $8 million for Disney, while adding streaming will make $40 million, one could argue it would be unreasonable for Disney to do theater-only. I'm not making that argument; I'm not saying I necessarily believe that, but it's an argument that one could reasonably make.
Probably what SHOULD have happened is for Disney to tell her something like this:
If we do first weekend theater-onl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But the best path forward for everyone is for everyone to understand how they got to where they are.
Re:Rich people problems (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt this lawsuit was even instigated by Scarlett Johansson. You can bet she has agents who are also paid based on her earnings. These agents would also see a cut in pay due to the movie streaming. And considering agents specialize in dealing with these sorts of contracts - they would have cried foul long before Scarlett noticed. She is an actor, a good actor who is probably focused on her acting roles and not the specific details of contracts.
Of course once Scarlett was alerted (presumably) she would have obviously given her OK to sue. But the legal actions are likely the result of those individuals, also impacted by the loss of earnings, who specialize and are comfortable with such actions. This is exactly why one works with qualified agents - even if they take a big cut.
Re: (Score:2)
She's not looking for your sympathy or anyone else's. An agreement is an agreement. Pretty sure poor people would sue too.
Pretty sure Disney would counter-sue with some frivolous claims just to keep them in court until they're bankrupt. Disney has a long history of some pretty under-handed & hard-nosed tactics against its sub-contractors. They're mostly a bunch of lawyers who occasionally finance films & TV shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rich people problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really trying to scrape up some sympathy for both of them.
You've never been screwed by the boss?
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of worse than that. She is stating that she'd rather people go to the theater (and risk covid) to see the movie so she can make even more money than she already has made.
As Hollywood starts citizens businesses for not sacrificing or for opening up during covid, it reeks of establishment hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of worse than that. She is stating that she'd rather people go to the theater (and risk covid) to see the movie so she can make even more money than she already has made.
Not really. Disney broke a contractual agreement for an "exclusive theatrical release" upon which a large part of her income was based. Since the release has happened, her remaining relief is to have the streaming revenue count toward the box office revenue and her income. Disney broke the agreement and increased *their* revenue at her expense. This doesn't affect movie watchers in any way as they will still be able to watch the film in theaters and/or online.
Re:Rich people problems (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants your sympathy. However, it seems reasonable that when work is performed according to a contract, that contract should probably be followed for the compensation bit too.
Fuck Disney, I hope they eat punitive damages in order to set a precedent that you need to actually follow your own contracts that your god damn lawyers wrote up.
Re: Rich people problems (Score:2)
Punitive damages are not typically a feature of contract law. Rather the opposite really; if one party can breach and pay damages and still come out ahead, it's considered perfectly acceptable for them to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie hit theaters in my area the night before.
So not only would the contract need to state "exclusive theatrical release" but also mention a timeframe.
And it really matters what "exclusive theatrical release" was refering to? Was it stating that it would be the only "exclusive" Marvel movie when it hit theaters or did it state that it couldn't be streamed at release?
Re: (Score:2)
Box office performance was poor because theaters that are open are restricting seats, and in many places theaters haven't even opened yet.
Really, if tshe had always wanted an exclusive theatrical release they should have waited at least another year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Box office was neutered by the pandemic. Streaming is an option to continue bringing in premier revenue during the pandemic.
"Box office receipts" should include streaming revenue for all purchases made while the move is still in the theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
So she should have negotiated a part of the streaming profits as well. Plus DVD sales. It sounds like she has idiots for agents.
Re: (Score:2)
So she should have negotiated a part of the streaming profits as well. Plus DVD sales. It sounds like she has idiots for agents.
What are the streaming profits when it gets to Disney+ regular? And how much of the Disney+ Premium profit comes from the rental and how much the monthly profit (no reason Disney couldn't discount the premium to drive up subscriptions)? Box-office performance is easier to measure and is typically where the vast majority of profits come for big Hollywood films, so it makes sense to get a cut of that.
As for the agents, well the agreement supposedly guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, so it sounds like