Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract Over Black Widow Release

[ill]

nothing lazy about it.

Dwayne Johnson is more of a draw to theaters than Scarlett Johansson and has been for years.

Scarlett's stats are padded because she is the MCU franchise.

 

[RobBase]

Who is that fat guy? ....he sure looks like Ricky from "Better off dead"

A true classic.


.

Same dude.

That Creep Dan Schneider Finally Got Fired From Nickelodeon

At long last this creep Dan Schneider got taken down. After months of me beating the drum for someone to take notice about Schneider and all of his disgusting allegations (which we will get into in a ...

www.barstoolsports.com

 

[wilwhite]

so you think Scarlett was ignorant to the fact that releasing movies on Disney+ is a thing?

In 2017?

When do you think her contract was executed?

 

[ill]

Same dude.

That Creep Dan Schneider Finally Got Fired From Nickelodeon

At long last this creep Dan Schneider got taken down. After months of me beating the drum for someone to take notice about Schneider and all of his disgusting allegations (which we will get into in a ...

www.barstoolsports.com

Nickelodeon...not Disney...

 

[RobBase]

Nickelodeon...not Disney...

Like I said. Lazy. And painfully stupid.

 

[ill]

In 2017?

When do you think her contract was executed?

no clue

so her contract says "this movie can only be released in theaters"

Disney looks at the landscape and decides we need to do more than that or this is going to be a flop becuase COVID, etc...and it is holding up the rest of our shit.

I don't think Disney is the bad guy here. They made a business decision. ScarJo will get paid, I am not worried about that.

 

[ill]

Like I said. Lazy. And painfully stupid.

you kind of are.

good of you to recognize it. That's the first step.

 

[RobBase]

you kind of are.

good of you to recognize it. That's the first step.

No surprise to see you going hard to defend weird dudes in Hollywood. Middle aged single guys without kids and who have never been married are usually in the closet or pedos. Or both.

 

[RobBase]

so you think Scarlett was ignorant to the fact that releasing movies on Disney+ is a thing?

He’s ignorant so everybody must be.

She will most likely get a fat settlement then never been seen in Hollywood again.

 

[Mebert]

no clue

so her contract says "this movie can only be released in theaters"

Disney looks at the landscape and decides we need to do more than that or this is going to be a flop becuase COVID, etc...and it is holding up the rest of our shit.

I don't think Disney is the bad guy here. They made a business decision. ScarJo will get paid, I am not worried about that.

Changing landscape does not invalidate a contract. Disney trying to bypass a contract and hide behind covid as the reason does make them the bad guy. Breaching the contract is not valid because they deem she made enough already.

 

[wilwhite]

no clue

so her contract says "this movie can only be released in theaters"

Disney looks at the landscape and decides we need to do more than that or this is going to be a flop becuase COVID, etc...and it is holding up the rest of our shit.

I don't think Disney is the bad guy here. They made a business decision. ScarJo will get paid, I am not worried about that.

Why did Disney decline to revisit the contract?

This is a business decision, but a bigger one than you seem to realize. It's not about Scarlett Johannson, it's about increased control of distribution and how talent will be compensated in the future for what were previously blockbuster theatrical releases. ScarJo is just the test case.

The standoff was coming. I'm a little surprised Disney didn't make more of an effort to prevent a bad PR look. You don't want to be sued by Mary Poppins and Black Widow. That's bad.

 

[ill]

No surprise to see you going hard to defend weird dudes in Hollywood. Middle aged single guys without kids and who have never been married are usually in the closet or pedos. Or both.

you claim Disney did something then pull up some dude from another company who did something

at least support your own claims

 

[ill]

Why did Disney decline to revisit the contract?

This is a business decision, but a bigger one than you seem to realize. It's not about Scarlett Johannson, it's about increased control of distribution and how talent will be compensated in the future for what were previously blockbuster theatrical releases. ScarJo is just the test case.

The standoff was coming. I'm a little surprised Disney didn't make more of an effort to prevent a bad PR look. You don't want to be sued by Mary Poppins and Black Widow. That's bad.

eyeroll

 

[Mebert]

Why did Disney decline to revisit the contract?

This is a business decision, but a bigger one than you seem to realize. It's not about Scarlett Johannson, it's about increased control of distribution and how talent will be compensated in the future for what were previously blockbuster theatrical releases. ScarJo is just the test case.

The standoff was coming. I'm a little surprised Disney didn't make more of an effort to prevent a bad PR look. You don't want to be sued by Mary Poppins and Black Widow. That's bad.

Disney's opening salvo was incredibly strange. Attempt character assassination and drop her salary hoping people think it is enough that contracts don't matter.

 

[calsnowskier]

Changing landscape does not invalidate a contract. Disney trying to bypass a contract and hide behind covid as the reason does make them the bad guy. Breaching the contract is not valid because they deem she made enough already.

This is the bottom line, imho.

Her contract specifically stated the movie would be exclusively released in theaters. Period. Her compensation was tied to that fact.

No matter the situation, if Disney is to not exclusively release it in theaters, they have to address ScarJo’s contract. That did not happen. Now they have to deal with the fact they are in breach of contract.

How much she has made to this point is 100% immaterial.

 

[The Q]

This is the bottom line, imho.

Her contract specifically stated the movie would be exclusively released in theaters. Period. Her compensation was tied to that fact.

No matter the situation, if Disney is to not exclusively release it in theaters, they have to address ScarJo’s contract. That did not happen. Now they have to deal with the fact they are in breach of contract.

How much she has made to this point is 100% immaterial.

there’s probably some kind of force major clause.

 

[RobBase]

you claim Disney did something then pull up some dude from another company who did something

at least support your own claims

I pointed out how Hollywood in general treats their female actresses. The other poster asked why all Disney actresses end up severely scared. It’s all the same thing. You’re just argumentative to be argumentative. Remember you were bored and uninterested 100 posts earlier before I entered the chat.

All of a sudden you can’t stop taking about it.

 

[RobBase]

This is the bottom line, imho.

Her contract specifically stated the movie would be exclusively released in theaters. Period. Her compensation was tied to that fact.

No matter the situation, if Disney is to not exclusively release it in theaters, they have to address ScarJo’s contract. That did not happen. Now they have to deal with the fact they are in breach of contract.

How much she has made to this point is 100% immaterial.

It’s pretty cut and dry. They’re just playing hard ball and attempting to turn the public against her before quietly settling and cutting ties w her all together.

 

[calsnowskier]

there’s probably some kind of force major clause.

I am not a lawyer and not familiar with the term. I assume it essentially an “act of god” type thing.

I can’t imagine that would open the door to drastically changing the compensation of a primary party. If she is paid primarily based on theatrical receipts, and the contract spells out protections for that distribution method, and Disney then uses a different vehicle for distribution (regardless the reason), they are in breach. If the theatrical realease clause was not possible (understandable), they needed to cut her in on the Disney+ dollars (or buy her out, or whatever). They didn’t. She is gunna get PAID.

 

[wilwhite]

eyeroll

Why did Disney call the suit "sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic"? I mean, what is that?

Didn't Disney lay off 32K?

Rather than handling this behind closed doors - which Johannson would have been happy to do - Disney first dug in its heels and then Chapek decided to start a food fight with a major female talent.