 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2021 - 11:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dragon53
(Member)
|
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3
BLACK WIDOW---sources claim Scarlett Johansson blames Walt Disney head Bob Chapek for the movie being released theatrically and on Disney+, which reduced ticket sales and lowered Johansson's share of ticket sales. Johannson had expressed concern to Disney in 2019, a year before the pandemic, and Disney assured her BLACK WIDOW would be released only in theaters. When Warner Bros. premiered its movies in theaters and streaming due to the pandemic, it renegotiated its contracts with the actors. Disney did not attempt to renegotiate Johansson's BLACK WIDOW contract.
Reportedly, Chapek's predeccessor, Bob Iger is "mortified" about Johansson's lawsuit. TheWrap quoted sources that the lawsuit has created a rift between Iger and Chapek, "It seems that Iger either intentionally allowed Chapek to shoot himself in the foot with Johansson’s team by failing to step in and negotiate an alternative to a lawsuit, or that he is so disconnected from his successor that he was not in the loop to step in as he usually would." A Disney representative denied reports of the rift.
Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige is "angry and embarrassed” about Disney not settling the situation earlier which led to Johansson's lawsuit.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS---Amazon announced Season 1 has finished filming in New Zealand and will premiere on September 2, 2022.
AMERICAN CRIME STORY: IMPEACHMENT---poster released for the FX series about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal.
BLUE BEETLE---Xolo Mariduena (COBRA KAI) is in talks to star in the HBO Max/Warner Bros./DC superhero movie.
DAN BROWN'S THE LOST SYMBOL---photo released from the Peacock tv series based on the Robert Langdon novel.
DOCTOR WHO---J. Michael Straczynski (BABYLON 5) replied to a fan about his interest in succeeding Chris Chibnall as DOCTOR WHO's new showrunner, "I don't know if the BBC would ever consider an American to show-run #DoctorWho, but if so, I would be there in a heartbeat. (Well, technically two heartbeats, since two hearts....)"
Joe Hill, Stephen king's son, said he once submitted several ideas for DOCTOR WHO to the BBC and received an unpleasant reply which emphasized that only British writers had ever written for the series.
THE MIGHTY DUCKS---Disney+ renewed the revival series for Season 2.
THE DAYS OF ABANDONMENT---HBO cancelled the movie based on the novel because Natalie Portman exited due to “unforeseen personal reasons.”
TRIVIA---Quentin Tarantino said Uma Thurman hated her yellow costume in KILL BILL: VOLUME 1, “Uma hated the yellow tracksuit. Hated it. Didn't get it. Thought she looked like a Popsicle -- a banana Popsicle. She was just not into it. She had no idea who Bruce Lee, practically. I finally had to show her GAME OF DEATH. She sorta kind of got it. Now, since then it's become this totally iconic thing. And she probably doesn't even remember it, But she was like, ‘You're trying to make me look like a clown!’”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2021 - 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
That whole Scarjo thing is already unraveling beneath her and her lawyers
https://variety.com/vip/is-scarlett-johansson-the-face-of-a-new-showbiz-revolution-not-quite-1235032206/
I couldn't read the article--it asks you to subscribe.
Can you copy some quotes, Ado?
Sure
Pretty juicy, this is the bulk of it below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"Is Scarlett Johansson the Face of a New Showbiz Revolution? Not Quite"
It’s a narrative so compelling maybe Scarlett Johansson could have played the part of the protagonist in the movie: A plucky heroine strikes back against an oppressive system … to fight the good fight … for the sake of her people.
Lo and behold, Johansson has found herself in a real-life variation on this overused Hollywood trope. The example par excellence: the 1979 classic “Norma Rae.”
But there’s just one problem with this script. The story isn’t quite that simple.
Here’s the conventional wisdom on what everyone in Hollywood can’t stop talking about right now: Johansson is leveraging her status as an A-list actor to hold Disney to account for reneging on a guarantee the studio made to put “Black Widow” exclusively in a theatrical wide release. Her legal battle, so it is said, is poised to be a milestone moment in showbiz history, ensuring that actors in the future get their fair share of proceeds from a studio system trying to cheat these important profit participants.
But talk to enough lawyers representing top talent in this town, and an alternative interpretation starts to take shape. And it’s a stark departure from the prevailing narrative worth considering if you’re trying to project what’s going to happen next here.
For starters, there’s the distinct possibility that Johansson really doesn’t have much of a case. Consider what is being seized on as the smoking gun of this conflict: an email from Marvel’s chief counsel. While her lawyers are holding it up as an example of an understanding that “Black Widow” would get a traditional release, the email is clearly ambiguous enough to give the studio room to say they met the minimum requirements for the wide release she was promised.
And even if the email contained more incriminating language, the relevance of those words is debatable. Though the entertainment industry had never reckoned with an external force like the pandemic, 2021 really isn’t the first time a studio has been forced to alter distribution plans for a movie due to unforeseen circumstances. In these instances, the basic legal concept of mitigation ensures companies will have the flexibility to take liberties with how they navigate a new marketplace reality in a way that protects their businesses.
Which isn’t to say Disney wasn’t sensitive to Johansson’s own business interests. Besides paying her an upfront fee for her starring and executive producer roles, the studio did give her an unspecified percentage of revenue that came from her movie’s performance on Disney+.
Was that percentage going to make her as much money as the $50 million in bonuses her representatives claimed she stood to make at the box office? Of course not. But see how sympathetic a jury is going to be — in the highly unlikely prospect this lawsuit ever makes it to trial — to the notion that she was entitled to all that money on top of a $20 million upfront salary for a movie that underperformed.
It’s also hard to believe a jury would look at the studio’s distribution strategy for “Black Widow” — charging consumers $30 a pop to stream a movie from home at a time when people are leery of entering theaters in a pandemic — as irresponsible.
But while Johansson is being held up as this rare example of talent with the clout capable of taking on a studio, the opposite may be true. Her lawsuit here has been misread as an exercise in leverage, when in reality it reflects the lack thereof.
The ugly truth is the way Disney is conducting itself here is indicative of a studio that has made the calculation that it doesn't need to be in business with her anymore. And why should it? The Black Widow character is not central to the Marvel mythology, and regardless of whether the character is important or not, Disney has no interest in doing more with the "Black Widow" IP.
his is a key point because in a new world dominated by streaming services, the generous backend deals of yore are going away and never coming back. Netflix single-handedly steered the entire industry to capped backends. The day-and-date pivot Warner Bros. made to its film slate last year kicked off a transition phase for contracts that will be playing out for years.
However, there is one leverage point that still exists in this franchise-heavy world, and that is the ability of talent to command top dollars for participating in all-important sequels. With no future for "Black Widow," Johansson lacked the leverage to say, "Better make me whole now, or else I'm not coming back for 'Black Widow 2.' "
So what Johansson is doing here isn't some kind of demonstration of her clout but an act of desperation. With speculation rampant that Emma Stone ("Cruella") or Emily Blunt ("Jungle Cruise") could be among the next A-list talent to challenge Disney over divvying up the proceeds, they're probably going to be more circumspect about antagonizing the studio. The backend riches of yesteryear may be gone forever, but they still need to stay on good terms at Disney in the future.
It's understandable to see potential for the Johansson lawsuit to set some kind of dramatic precedent — optics are seductive that way. But look deeper than the classic "Norma Rae" premise, which can be irresistible to the press as framing for examining the lawsuit, and there's just not a lot of there there."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2021 - 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Thanks for that, Ado.
Boy, that's a big word salad from Variety, though.
It gives an interpretation of the whole fracas, but no clear-cut pieces of evidence.
I guess what I was hoping for was actual excerpts from the contract itself.
The takeaway for me is that, whether one thinks Johansson is greedy or not, it still looks like a breach-of-contract.
One thing seems certain: if it's proven to be an oversight on Disney's part, they sure as Hell won't let a mistake like that happen in the future.
You are welcome. I cannot see anything in there that indicates that she was actually promised this exclusive theatrical release. I think this is all a lawyer gambit, and besides, this reveals that she was in fact paid a portion of the Disney+ fees. It is getting harder and harder to see her as any kind of victim. And this part, her sounding desperate, and they really do not need her, that is really not working in her favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2021 - 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
You are welcome. I cannot see anything in there that indicates that she was actually promised this exclusive theatrical release. I think this is all a lawyer gambit, and besides, this reveals that she was in fact paid a portion of the Disney+ fees. It is getting harder and harder to see her as any kind of victim. And this part, her sounding desperate, and they really do not need her, that is really not working in her favor.
The part I was referring to was in Dragon's original paragraph:
... and Disney assured her BLACK WIDOW would be released only in theaters. When Warner Bros. premiered its movies in theaters and streaming due to the pandemic, it renegotiated its contracts with the actors. Disney did not attempt to renegotiate Johansson's BLACK WIDOW contract.
Now, on the surface that may seem fairly conclusive.
But, really, it now all depend upon what the actual contract stipulated.
I wonder if any of those sorts of details will be reported upon with accuracy and lack of bias.
I have some healthy doubt.
All in all, $20 mill is a pretty nice nest egg all on its own--that's for damn sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 6:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
So all I'm reading is "assured " and "promised" either in an email or verbally. There's nothing legal about that.
Bullshit. Its called a handshake deal and it has strong legal precedent. Its how Gene Roddenberry robbed Alexander Courage of royalties for the theme from Star Trek by adding terrible, unused lyrics to the piece.
Moreover, ScarJo's reply to Disney's dismissal is much more specific than the original lawsuit. She's going for a "Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" issue, to which the American Bar Association says "This duty requires that neither party will do anything that will destroy or injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract." which Disney literally did. They didn't void the *letter* of the contract, but they voided the *spirit* of it.
yeah, I understand your passion Lehah, but this case is already falling apart all around her, the piece in Variety takes it all apart, and she looks kinda pathetic. This implied stuff, sounds nice and all, but in reality, it is not gonna wash out so generously in her favor as she would like. And, she is not a hero of the common man or anything, she was paid $20 mil, and a cut of Disney+, she hardly deserves our pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 6:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
So all I'm reading is "assured " and "promised" either in an email or verbally. There's nothing legal about that.
Bullshit. Its called a handshake deal and it has strong legal precedent. Its how Gene Roddenberry robbed Alexander Courage of royalties for the theme from Star Trek by adding terrible, unused lyrics to the piece.
Moreover, ScarJo's reply to Disney's dismissal is much more specific than the original lawsuit. She's going for a "Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" issue, to which the American Bar Association says "This duty requires that neither party will do anything that will destroy or injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract." which Disney literally did. They didn't void the *letter* of the contract, but they voided the *spirit* of it.
yeah, I understand your passion Lehah, but this case is already falling apart all around her, the piece in Variety takes it all apart, and she looks kinda pathetic. This implied stuff, sounds nice and all, but in reality, it is not gonna wash out so generously in her favor as she would like. And, she is not a hero of the common man or anything, she was paid $20 mil, and a cut of Disney+, she hardly deserves our pity.
Since we're putting on our lawyer hats- Emails and text messages can be brought in as evidence in a case but they are not legal contracts. If she was "assured" or "promised" verbally that's a "he said/she said". A promise in itself is not a guarantee. I can promise to take Lehah out to dinner tonight but get into a car wreck and miss our date. Good luck Lehah taking me to court and winning the case because I broke my promise.
Likewise Disney clearly held onto the movie for over a year hoping it can have a wide release after the pandemic was over. Well, its been over a year and Covid cases are skyrocketing again. They had to do something with the property to make some money off of it, so they choose the theatrical and streaming option.
By holding back on releasing the film it shows they acted in good faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the end what will probably happen ins some threatening lawyer letters exchanged, a lawsuit filled, and then Disney will just pay her off (settle) before it gets into the court room to make themselves not look as bad as they think they do (they're way more concerned about their presentation … when it comes to certain minorities of loud voices). Then she'll be quietly and unofficially blacklisted from Disney for a few years.
Sing along:
"I fought the Mouse and the Mouse won."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 9:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
yeah, I understand your passion Lehah, but this case is already falling apart all around her, the piece in Variety takes it all apart, and she looks kinda pathetic. This implied stuff, sounds nice and all, but in reality, it is not gonna wash out so generously in her favor as she would like. And, she is not a hero of the common man or anything, she was paid $20 mil, and a cut of Disney+, she hardly deserves our pity.
I mean
You do realize that your whole point is "This is what Variety says about a court case"
After I quoted the legal definition of her suit - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/business-torts-unfair-competition/practice/2016/duty-of-good-faith-fair-dealing/
So your choice is do you believe an opinion piece in a magazine or the literal judicial system of the American government.
I'd bet even money that this doesn't go to court, she gets an undisclosed sum and both sides have to sign a NDA over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 9:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
yeah, I understand your passion Lehah, but this case is already falling apart all around her, the piece in Variety takes it all apart, and she looks kinda pathetic. This implied stuff, sounds nice and all, but in reality, it is not gonna wash out so generously in her favor as she would like. And, she is not a hero of the common man or anything, she was paid $20 mil, and a cut of Disney+, she hardly deserves our pity.
I mean
You do realize that your whole point is "This is what Variety says about a court case"
After I quoted the legal definition of her suit - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/business-torts-unfair-competition/practice/2016/duty-of-good-faith-fair-dealing/
So your choice is do you believe an opinion piece in a magazine or the literal judicial system of the American government.
I'd bet even money that this doesn't go to court, she gets an undisclosed sum and both sides have to sign a NDA over it.
Lehah, man, implied promises are just not gonna cut it, it was not in her contract, we know that by now.
This is a lawyer / rich celebrity gambit deal, and you are swallowing the whole thing hook line and sinker because you loath Disney. That is your right. But the world does not turn on tear drops and law suits for broken pinky swears. It just does not. And the idea that they pay her $5 million to make her suck it up and be quiet should not be seen as a good thing in the least. But common man always plays a sucker to the millionaire with a tissue in his or her hands whining like a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
