Scarlett Johansson sues Disney over Black Widow streaming release

[Frank Cox]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...aming-release/

Scarlett Johansson, star of the Marvel superhero movie “Black Widow,” sued the Walt Disney Co on Thursday, alleging that the company breached her contract when it released the movie on streaming at the same time it debuted in theaters.

The dual release strategy reduced Johansson’s compensation, according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. “Black Widow” was released on July 9 in theaters and for a $30 charge on the Disney+ streaming service. Disney has been testing the dual release plan for some films during the coronavirus pandemic as the company tries to boost its streaming service.

Johansson’s lawsuit claims that Disney wanted to steer audiences toward Disney+, “where it could keep the revenues for itself while simultaneously growing the Disney+ subscriber base, a proven way to boost Disney’s stock price.”

“Second, Disney wanted to substantially devalue Ms. Johansson’s agreement and thereby enrich itself,” the lawsuit said.

A Disney representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Jim Cassedy]

Maybe she could also sue this theater near me
for turning her into an OLD Black Widow this week- -
OldBlackWidow_S.jpg
LoL


EDIT: ☞ Maybe she should also think about suing her manager or business agent for not
negotiating a better deal for her.

[Leo Enticknap]

Her business agent clearly didn't see streaming coming, or at least, busting the 90-day window and making payment based on box office figures alone a bum deal. It'll be a case of once bitten, twice shy on that score. Talent agents will surely be demanding that streaming revenues are part of the math in future deals.

As for the marquee, it reminds of of the infamous one that did the rounds many years ago: three movie titles underneath each other on a marquee as follows:

ERIN BROCKOVICH
SCREWED
MY DOG SKIP

[Frank Angel]

BLACK WIDOW, JUNGLE CRUSE -- as Scorsese says, they are trash movies, not cinema. Oh woe is poor Scarlett Johansson...how is the poor girl ever going to survive on $56 million?1

I just love how The Rodent plays that boo-hoo covid card "...the lawsuit was “especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” as if the covid pandemic has any legal relevance to a law suit about profit sharing vs. profit stealing. And not for nuthin, charging $30 for a movie during the horrific covid pandemic sounds pretty callous, sad and distressing on its face. You don't see Disney giving any "covid pandemic discounts" on their streaming service.

[Allan Young]

Her business agent clearly didn't see streaming coming, or at least, busting the 90-day window and making payment based on box office figures alone a bum deal. It'll be a case of once bitten, twice shy on that score. Talent agents will surely be demanding that streaming revenues are part of the math in future deals.

CNN mentions the claim that Johansson did indeed have a "a promise" from Marvel regarding the release. Whether this "promise" actually made it into her contract is another matter, of course...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/29/m...uit/index.html

Actress Scarlett Johansson filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday that alleges Disney breached her contract by releasing the highly anticipated superhero film "Black Widow" on its streaming service, Disney+.

The film was released simultaneously on the service and in theaters, which the suit claims broke an agreement between the star and the company. The suit alleges that Johansson agreed that her salary for the film would be based, in large part, on the film's box office haul.

"To maximize these receipts, and thereby protect her financial interests, Ms. Johansson extracted a promise from Marvel that the release of the picture would be a 'theatrical release,'" the suit claimed. "As Ms. Johansson, Disney, Marvel, and most everyone else in Hollywood knows, a 'theatrical release' is a release that is exclusive to movie theatres. Disney was well aware of this promise, but nonetheless directed Marvel to violate its pledge and instead release the picture on the Disney+ streaming service the very same day it was released in movie theatres."

[Martin McCaffery]

Good for Scarlett. She doesn't need the money, but she can afford to take on the studio where lower ranked people can't. I'm sure other people have deals, too and if Disney screwed with them, they should pay.
Let's face it, the studios have a long history of using people's work and not properly paying for it. Like when video tapes and dvd first came in and the studio monetized them without compensating the creators. Actually, it goes all the way back to the beginning of sound (I'm sure if I thought about it more I could think of an example from the silent era) when studios would use copyrighted music because the copyright law didn't cover films. Studios have zero benefit of the doubt.
So here's hoping she has a good contract and a better legal team and they can kick the big D's ass.

[Leo Enticknap]

(I'm sure if I thought about it more I could think of an example from the silent era)

I'm hazy on the details, but am pretty sure that many jurisdictions' copyright laws did not cover adaptation until studios had been helping themselves to popular novels, plays, and operas for quite some time. "Buying the film rights" didn't become a thing until the 1920s.

Edit: Adaptation was covered as of 1911 in the UK.

[Mike Blakesley]

Disney probably has about a thousand lawyers, most of whom are probably well versed in contract law. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a clause buried in the fine print that deals with "acts of God" or "unusual circumstances" or some such legality that'll get them off of whatever hook she presents.

It is surprising though, because they could decide to replace her with a more cooperative Black Widow in the inevitable next instalment. Nobody should ever think they are indispensible or irreplaceable in these superhero movies. Only Christopher "Superman" Reeve has that distinction... Warner's has tried to replace him and flopped every time.

[Leo Enticknap]

Both Disney and Johansson likely have an unlimited legal budget on this one. She wouldn't be doing this if she wasn't confident of achieving her objective: but that objective might not be winning the case. To fully discuss what I suspect could be going on, I'd have to get political. Let's just say that a strategic playing of the victim card could be part of all this.

To some extent I agree with Martin. If the end result is that studio workers far further down the food chain benefit from union contracts and/or the ability to negotiate individual contracts that fairly reflect streaming revenues, maybe she'll have done the industry a favor.