Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278
92 comments
Oof. A clear statement like that from a lawyer... and then not doing the thing they themselves said they would need to do?
Someone had an unfortunate day when that email surfaced in court filings.
Someone had an unfortunate day when that email surfaced in court filings.
> But for Disney, “Black Widow” has been seen as a success, given that the company also released the picture on its Disney+ streaming service for a $30 surcharge. Disney says the movie generated more than $60 million in digital sales this way, reflecting viewership of at least two million households over the opening weekend.
Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?
Disney: Hype, take advantage of brand loyalty to make a quick buck, no substance
https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-widow-enters-a-gray-area-...
Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?
Disney: Hype, take advantage of brand loyalty to make a quick buck, no substance
https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-widow-enters-a-gray-area-...
> Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?
$30 for the household, a one-time cost. For one person it's a no-brainer, theater is cheaper unless it's a long drive away. With 2 people it's probably cheaper to go to the theater depending on distance and whether you get concessions. With 3 it's break even depending on theater costs in your area and assuming you don't get concessions. With 4 or more, the $30 price is definitely better outside of a few lower cost of living areas (if they even have a theater nearby). And you can rewatch it throughout that premier access period. Though that's less applicable to Black Widow, versus movies aimed more at small kids.
$30 for the household, a one-time cost. For one person it's a no-brainer, theater is cheaper unless it's a long drive away. With 2 people it's probably cheaper to go to the theater depending on distance and whether you get concessions. With 3 it's break even depending on theater costs in your area and assuming you don't get concessions. With 4 or more, the $30 price is definitely better outside of a few lower cost of living areas (if they even have a theater nearby). And you can rewatch it throughout that premier access period. Though that's less applicable to Black Widow, versus movies aimed more at small kids.
We have a new born and as such, banned from theaters for 3-4-5 years. Glad streaming is an option now.
Also a good reason to prefer streaming. My wife and I don't have kids (yet), but fortunately we also like different movies so when the time comes we'll probably trade off kid duties so the other can go see a movie and get away for a bit (when we go to theaters now, half the time we're not seeing the same movie anyways).
I've been loving theaters currently (post(?) pandemic). Mostly still empty in my town, all seating is comfy heated recliners these days. Bring it.
There you go.
"Said". Good luck with "said" in the court.
Movie was bad nevertheless.
Movie was bad nevertheless.
It's in an email. Why would that be problematic for court?
Because it's not a contract. If emails were contracts, every email that comes later would supersede it. You can't run things that way. If you agree to it, put it in a contract. But if you wanted to allow emails as contracts, then the last email on a subject would always be the final contract for instance. It would be too unfair and difficult to sort out.
For instance, was the highlighted email the last email on the subject? If not, do those subsequent emails also represent contracts? What was in the last email? The game could go on and on. Whereas with a properly executed contract, everyone knows what everyone signed.
Now it can influence legal proceedings, but only insofar as it illustrates where a negotiation was going. And again, subsequent emails would point to where those negotiations landed in the end.
For instance, was the highlighted email the last email on the subject? If not, do those subsequent emails also represent contracts? What was in the last email? The game could go on and on. Whereas with a properly executed contract, everyone knows what everyone signed.
Now it can influence legal proceedings, but only insofar as it illustrates where a negotiation was going. And again, subsequent emails would point to where those negotiations landed in the end.
In some jurisdictions, courts use a "four corners of the document" test, and nothing outside of the document can be used to interpret the meaning of the contract.
Other jurisdictions allow extrinsic evidence (like this email) to help interpret the language of the contract. We would need to know what the governing jurisdiction is for this contract in order to know how much an outside email would matter in court.
But in the court of public opinion (which matters somewhat for famous people and well-known companies), these legal technicalities won't matter. The headline will be that a Marvel exec said that they would need to revisit the compensation if they didn't do a standard theatrical release.
Other jurisdictions allow extrinsic evidence (like this email) to help interpret the language of the contract. We would need to know what the governing jurisdiction is for this contract in order to know how much an outside email would matter in court.
But in the court of public opinion (which matters somewhat for famous people and well-known companies), these legal technicalities won't matter. The headline will be that a Marvel exec said that they would need to revisit the compensation if they didn't do a standard theatrical release.
[deleted]
"said" referring to something written in this case, in an email. It's not hearsay (if that's what you're implying) but a statement by someone with some degree of authority/responsibility.
This can actually become important in legal proceedings. It's one reason to be careful with what people say in meetings or write in communications with customers or others, as it can become legally binding if they're perceived to have sufficient authority/responsibility to back the statement.
This can actually become important in legal proceedings. It's one reason to be careful with what people say in meetings or write in communications with customers or others, as it can become legally binding if they're perceived to have sufficient authority/responsibility to back the statement.
If naked promises are taken seriously and suddenly recognized by courts, everything will burst in flames. This is simply absurd.
I didn't say naked promises, where I've seen this have a real world consequence was when the speaker seemed to have authority they did not, or made a statement that conveyed an intent they did not mean. Like "We're ready to start on the project" being taken by a contractor to mean, "Get dev work started today" and then billing the work when the speaker wasn't actually authorizing the start at that time. It's about whether there's a potential good faith misunderstanding of the statement. The contractor didn't take the statement and run with it to bill hours they shouldn't have billed, they legitimately took the statement to be the go ahead to get started and billed accordingly.
But that doesn't make for a good contractor now, does it? If they're so naive to run after every stick thrown at them and lose on that, no real court should help them.
That is the whole reason for the "invention" of contracts, where everything is finalized, official, set in stone, and unbreakable.
Problem with Scarlet is that in no way she could have foreseen 2020 and didn't think any of it. Now that stuff happened, she's just angry at her misfortune and is reaching for straws. It's unfortunate.
That is the whole reason for the "invention" of contracts, where everything is finalized, official, set in stone, and unbreakable.
Problem with Scarlet is that in no way she could have foreseen 2020 and didn't think any of it. Now that stuff happened, she's just angry at her misfortune and is reaching for straws. It's unfortunate.
This makes sense. A lot of stars expect a cut of box office revenues and negotiate that in. But the negotiations happened probably prior to the pandemic and the new situation probably was unthinkable.
Also the box office in general has been destroyed recently because of the pandemic. What would have likely been $+150M opening weekends and close to $1B totals revenue (or even more) are reduced to fractions of that.
EDIT: Even worse, it was actually to be released in May 2020, thus the negotiations for salary were likely done in 2017/2018 or possibly earlier. Disney+ wasn't even announced back then.
Also the box office in general has been destroyed recently because of the pandemic. What would have likely been $+150M opening weekends and close to $1B totals revenue (or even more) are reduced to fractions of that.
EDIT: Even worse, it was actually to be released in May 2020, thus the negotiations for salary were likely done in 2017/2018 or possibly earlier. Disney+ wasn't even announced back then.
Not hard at all, actually. All stars have very savvy agents and lawyers, and the movie industry has always been a cutthroat business. Don't let the glitz and glamor blind you to the fact that it is an industry which selects for people who work very long hours and drive hard bargains, at every level.
Every professional contract I've ever seen contemplates expansion into future media and markets; it's a technology driven business that has to follow customers to where they are going, and industry lawyers are fully aware that if studios or production companies had the option, most of them would happily relocate to the Moon or Mars to avoid paying out, while maintaining an office on earth to litigate their own copyright interests.
Every professional contract I've ever seen contemplates expansion into future media and markets; it's a technology driven business that has to follow customers to where they are going, and industry lawyers are fully aware that if studios or production companies had the option, most of them would happily relocate to the Moon or Mars to avoid paying out, while maintaining an office on earth to litigate their own copyright interests.
> All stars have very savvy agents and lawyers...it is an industry which selects for people who work very long hours and drive hard bargains, at every level.
When I was in law school at UCLA, I considered going into entertainment law. I attended a presentation by a famous entertainment lawyer who said that the lawyers in show business are not actually the most talented — unlike other industries, the big players don't hire primarily from Harvard, Yale, etc.
Instead, the halls of Sony Pictures or Fox are lined with graduates from second- and third-tier law schools who had a foot in the door because of a family connection.
The reason he gave for this is that entertainment law is not as complex as other areas of law, so the basic contract work can be done by a not-stellar lawyer. This was a 15 years ago, and perhaps times have changed. But I'm sure that family/industry connections are still an important part of getting these jobs.
When I was in law school at UCLA, I considered going into entertainment law. I attended a presentation by a famous entertainment lawyer who said that the lawyers in show business are not actually the most talented — unlike other industries, the big players don't hire primarily from Harvard, Yale, etc.
Instead, the halls of Sony Pictures or Fox are lined with graduates from second- and third-tier law schools who had a foot in the door because of a family connection.
The reason he gave for this is that entertainment law is not as complex as other areas of law, so the basic contract work can be done by a not-stellar lawyer. This was a 15 years ago, and perhaps times have changed. But I'm sure that family/industry connections are still an important part of getting these jobs.
Definitely true. And showbiz negotiation is very much about strategy and chutzpah rather than pure legal acuity - I think the smartest minds go into business law or practice in fields like insurance.
But I do think entertainment lawyers are still very good at what they do. If you look at a popular reference like Mark Litwak's Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry there's a heavy emphasis on taking the longest possible view because big openings and box office receipts are only tiny part of the overall revenue stream, and the real money is in syndication, foreign sales, merchandise etc. etc.
But I do think entertainment lawyers are still very good at what they do. If you look at a popular reference like Mark Litwak's Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry there's a heavy emphasis on taking the longest possible view because big openings and box office receipts are only tiny part of the overall revenue stream, and the real money is in syndication, foreign sales, merchandise etc. etc.
Wasn't it Lucas or someone who was famous for negotiating ongoing rights / IP ownership, when the studio (in retrospect) drastically undervalued them?
Sylvester Stallone was one of the first actors to negotiate a fraction of gross revenue and rights (for Rocky).
edit: I heared the above several times over the years, but it appears it may not be true:
https://www.businessinsider.com/sylvester-stallone-on-never-...
edit: I heared the above several times over the years, but it appears it may not be true:
https://www.businessinsider.com/sylvester-stallone-on-never-...
> Wasn't it Lucas or someone who was famous for negotiating ongoing rights / IP ownership, when the studio (in retrospect) drastically undervalued them?
IIRC, it was merchandising rights. Sales of the Star Wars action figures were huge, and my understanding kind of unprecedented.
IIRC, it was merchandising rights. Sales of the Star Wars action figures were huge, and my understanding kind of unprecedented.
Alec Guinness made a lot of money by negotiating a percentage instead of a fee.
> But the negotiations happened probably prior to the pandemic and the new situation probably was unthinkable.
Apparently Warner dealt with this unexpected issue differently:
> WarnerMedia chose to renegotiate many of its talent contracts that, like Ms. Johansson’s deal with Marvel, were tied to box-office performance. Warner Bros. paid more than $200 million to talent as part of the amended agreements.
Apparently Warner dealt with this unexpected issue differently:
> WarnerMedia chose to renegotiate many of its talent contracts that, like Ms. Johansson’s deal with Marvel, were tied to box-office performance. Warner Bros. paid more than $200 million to talent as part of the amended agreements.
> 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.
Meanwhile, the film was released to stream simultaneously with the box office release. Ouch.
Meanwhile, the film was released to stream simultaneously with the box office release. Ouch.
Sounds like she had people negotiating for her who failed to recognize the full weight of the pandemic's lasting repercussions. Who knows? They may have even negotiated this deal before the severity of the pandemic was plain? Whatever the case may be, it's a teachable moment. You almost have to have "continuous wargaming" to sort out ongoing effects the pandemic may have on your business.
Disney lied about it. They said they would renegotiate with her if plans changed about theatrical release, and then when plans changed, they didn’t renegotiate. (The contract was signed WELL before the pandemic.)
I would bet Scarlett Johansson's net worth that her contract included an "entire agreement" clause.
That said, I hope she gets what is fair. The only reason actors / directors get box office gross deals is that studios have absolutely mastered the art of defrauding everyone on net deals and now with streaming it's even worse:
- Now 100% of the release marketing (which reduces net profit) pushes the streaming service as an option next to theaters
- Streaming service is massive LTV & branding value that benefits only Disney
That said, I hope she gets what is fair. The only reason actors / directors get box office gross deals is that studios have absolutely mastered the art of defrauding everyone on net deals and now with streaming it's even worse:
- Now 100% of the release marketing (which reduces net profit) pushes the streaming service as an option next to theaters
- Streaming service is massive LTV & branding value that benefits only Disney
From the article:
> In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “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.”
doesn't sound like they negotiated this 2 months ago...
doesn't sound like they negotiated this 2 months ago...
>They may have even negotiated this deal before the severity of the pandemic was plain?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(2021_film)
The talks for this began in 2017, so undoubtedly it was negotiated at that time before any real work on the film was done.
So very likely, Disney is in the wrong here but I suppose it's for the courts to assess such a thing, or for Disney to find a way to make the issue go away
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(2021_film)
The talks for this began in 2017, so undoubtedly it was negotiated at that time before any real work on the film was done.
So very likely, Disney is in the wrong here but I suppose it's for the courts to assess such a thing, or for Disney to find a way to make the issue go away
The article makes it sound as if her camp became concerned about streaming in 2019, so pre-pandemic and presumably post original contract. You'd need to be a lawyer and read the actual contract to see if there were specific representations about box office and streaming. One would think there were but Disney+ didn't even launch until 2019 so maybe that's what kicked off the concerns.
These negotiation most likely precede the pandemic, considering the original planned release for May 2020. Regardless though, a deal was struck and no pandemic or other unforeseen circumstances will change that contract unless it is renegotiated in mutual agreement.
Disney may argue why it deviated from their contractual obligations, and some of that might sound reasonable in light of the pandemic reality. But that doesn't change that they still violated their contract.
Doing business is a lot of taking (calculated) risks and trying to make a profit that way. Contracts exist to protect the interests of those involved. Of course Disney couldn't foresee the pandemic, but they still made a calculated risk by locking something down in a contract. From that moment on, they were stuck to their deal. If reality made that a tough pill to swallow, tough luck. That's the risk of doing business.
Disney may argue why it deviated from their contractual obligations, and some of that might sound reasonable in light of the pandemic reality. But that doesn't change that they still violated their contract.
Doing business is a lot of taking (calculated) risks and trying to make a profit that way. Contracts exist to protect the interests of those involved. Of course Disney couldn't foresee the pandemic, but they still made a calculated risk by locking something down in a contract. From that moment on, they were stuck to their deal. If reality made that a tough pill to swallow, tough luck. That's the risk of doing business.
Hmm, the point is that Disney breached the contract.
The pandemic would still affect her earnings, but that's beyond the point - the release shouldn't have happened on stream.
So it's Disney who should have gone to her and say, maybe let's give you a cut of the streaming and we will release this simultaneously.
The pandemic would still affect her earnings, but that's beyond the point - the release shouldn't have happened on stream.
So it's Disney who should have gone to her and say, maybe let's give you a cut of the streaming and we will release this simultaneously.
dude, they didn't negotiate on starring in the movie, shoot the movie, post production it, and then released it all within the pandemic window.
The shooting of the movie ended months before the pandemic hit, and the negotiations regarding her salary had obviously been done before the shooting had even started.
I think they were negotiating in March 2019, when there wasn't a pandemic to consider?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Feels like when Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass to become Internet Explorer, and a chunk of the compensation was tied to a fraction of revenue from Internet Explorer. Of course Microsoft gave IE away as part of Windows so IE never had any revenue associated directly with it.
Eventually MS did settle a lawsuit brought by Spyglass for $8 million to make the issue go away.
Eventually MS did settle a lawsuit brought by Spyglass for $8 million to make the issue go away.
That's a great parallel. Most of Disney's profit on this movie is gonna end up coming in the form of Disney+ subscriptions, which she won't be getting any cut of. And unlike the Spyglass case, her original contract explicitly anticipated this -- Disney just ignored it and now a lawsuit is the only way to settle it.
This reminds me of Robin Williams. Disney did roughly the same thing to him. He did Aladdin (highest-grossing of 1992) with the proviso that Disney couldn't sell merchandise. They did. He didn't sue but he refused to work with Disney again and created quite a storm in Hollywood. Disney eventually publicly apologized (but only after Katzenberg left).
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/05/robin-williams-refused-di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Williams
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/05/robin-williams-refused-di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Williams
> The decision to put the movie on Disney+ is projected to cost Ms. Johansson more than $50 million, a person familiar with details of her contract claimed.
Granted, those financial estimates likely assume the movie had premiered as planned without a worldwide pandemic.
Legal accounting is fun.
Granted, those financial estimates likely assume the movie had premiered as planned without a worldwide pandemic.
Legal accounting is fun.
Aside from the issue of box-office split I imagine like there are a lot of other material ways actors lose out when this happens.
A studio may look at a 50M ad buy and think that, because it would only net 60M in ticket sales tops, its not worth the risk. However, from the POV of the actor part of the reason they appeared in a big budget movie was to get lots of screentime on tv/ads beforehand to boost their profile.
A studio may look at a 50M ad buy and think that, because it would only net 60M in ticket sales tops, its not worth the risk. However, from the POV of the actor part of the reason they appeared in a big budget movie was to get lots of screentime on tv/ads beforehand to boost their profile.
I cannot imagine that Disney didn't consider this when making the decision to release on Disney+. There's a shadow budget somewhere to settle this.
You think she’s blacklisted now?
Knowing nothing at all about the industry from an insider perspective, my outsider surmise is maybe a lesser star in this situation would be.
But Scarlett Johansson is the highest grossing female 'bankable'[0] star and as such even if Disney might not want to work with her, I doubt she will ever be wanting for work.
>Expect her ROI to jump after the box-office takes of "Black Widow" are tallied.
ope.
I think the dispute over compensation is likely fair, and will be settled out of court.
[0]https://www.workandmoney.com/s/most-bankable-movie-actresses...
But Scarlett Johansson is the highest grossing female 'bankable'[0] star and as such even if Disney might not want to work with her, I doubt she will ever be wanting for work.
>Expect her ROI to jump after the box-office takes of "Black Widow" are tallied.
ope.
I think the dispute over compensation is likely fair, and will be settled out of court.
[0]https://www.workandmoney.com/s/most-bankable-movie-actresses...
The problem is if Disney blacklists her from its main franchises, Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar/Disney animation films, that is more than half of the box office these days.
The box office is I think 50% super hero films now.
That said I think they won't...
The box office is I think 50% super hero films now.
That said I think they won't...
Sounds very antitrust to me.
The United States government needs to break up The Avengers?
Not exactly, but maybe they shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Pixar, Lucas Films, and Marvel Studios.
[deleted]
No. Suits over compensation are common in Hollywood.
She won't be getting any more roles as Black Widow, anyways.
Unlikely, she is very talented and extremely popular.
She may not do a Marvel Studios project again, but her character's arc is complete now so there's not much of a reason to have her anyway.
She may not do a Marvel Studios project again, but her character's arc is complete now so there's not much of a reason to have her anyway.
Also, she is near the end of her run as the character, so has little to lose.
Many of the Avengers are moving on to let others take over.
Many of the Avengers are moving on to let others take over.
[deleted]
[deleted]
tajustice(7)
> In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “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.”
UPDATE: just realized that she's suing Disney and this quote is from a Marvel exec. Still bad, but it would be much worse if it had been a Disney exec.