Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Marvel's Black Widow

12345679»

Comments



  • Possibly, but the other argument needs to be put forward, that the world has changed considerably over the last 18 months or so and the likes of Hollywood and the acting classes have to adapt in the same way most others business and people have had to.

    Black Widow may have made more if this had never happened, but I'm certainly more certain that it wouldn't have made a significant dent if it was still delayed and not released till 'things were back to normal'. We still don't know what the new 'normal' is after all. Casual glance at the UK box-office shows a level half of what it was pre-pandemic, in what is technically a more or less unrestricted and highly vaccinated market. US box-office outlook already indicates revenue damage for the next 4 years, worse than earlier predictions.

    If they'd opened theatrical-only earlier, it would have flatlined, if they delayed for, say, next Spring, it would have had middling returns IMO. Not to mention the impact to other plans. Oft-forgotten is the fact that once a movie is in the can, it's losing money until it sells tickets, whether that's down to investor deadlines, legal obligations, contract disputes etc. It cannot just sit there in the backroom for years.

    I don't know the ins and outs of the details of Johansson/Disney's contract, but I suspect she would have liked her vehicle to have been motoring in the cinemas years ago, which is probably more to the heart of the problem, and while I've no sympathy for Disney at all, both parties need to sit back and re-assess their positions. I suspect a compromise down the line, best case.





  • Thing is, I think there's room for all angles to be correct. There possibly is an element of superhero fatigue, in the sense that if it isn't MCU or DC there's a creeping broad apathy from audiences. The appetite isn't infinite, nor without preferences. Look at how hard Jupiter's Legacy flopped on Netflix, presumably giving the service pause about that big cheque they signed for Mark Milar's work. OK, The Boys on Amazon has done well, but I think it has traded on its inherent violent transgression of the tropes, rather than an embrace of them.

    If Hollywood truly is the race to be second, then it stands to reason the properties most resistant to audience disinterest or fatigue would the one(s) that caused the gold rush in the first place. The MCU created a very stable, long-term product that other studios have singularly failed to replicate (mostly cos they keep ballsing it up, cough cough DC), and I would speculate while broad audiences might tire of capes in general, the MCU might tick onwards within its own realm.





  • Is Jupiter's Legacy any good?

    01001110 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01000111 01101111 01101110 01101110 01100001 00100000 01000111 01101001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01010101 01110000





  • Truthfully? I didn't watch it myself, but mostly because the consensus from opinions I'd value were a series of gigantic shoulder-shrugs. That it wasn't terrible, just very inessential and lacking spark. Lazy almost, perhaps symptomatic of that gold rush. Netflix agreeing, 'cos they cancelled it fairly soon after release?





  • Well, as someone who actually watched the series... It was good but had problems that are understandably off-putting. Like Arrow, it relies on flashbacks except here the flashbacks are by far and away the best thing about the show as its unravelling the mystery of how the main cast got their powers. The present day story picks up by the end of the season with some interesting reveals but by then it's too little too late.

    There's a great philosophical theme throughout the show about whether it's morally just to kill a bad person to save the lives of many. Some interesting characters but the lead character is immensely unlikeable and miscast to boot resulting in bad wigs and fake beards. This is coupled with some terrible costumes that make the whole show look cheaper than it actually is.

    The comic its based on is actually about the main character's daughter but Netflix decided to make the show a prequel about her father instead which may or may not have been a mistake. In the series the daughter is a cliched coked up model but she has super powers that when she puts to use makes her more interesting, so you can see the potential of what the show could have been if they had followed the comics. Overall, it was OK. Not great but not the train-wreck some said it was either IMO.



  • Advertisement


  • "I don't know the ins and outs of the details of Johansson/Disney's contract, but I suspect she would have liked her vehicle to have been motoring in the cinemas years ago, which is probably more to the heart of the problem, and while I've no sympathy for Disney at all, both parties need to sit back and re-assess their positions. I suspect a compromise down the line, best case."

    That's irrelevant. Whether the film was released earlier or later is besides the point. Disney agreed that they would pay Scarlett Johansson what she is owed from the box office ticket sales which they compromised by doing a day and date Disney plus release. Disney violated the contract, didn't answer ScarJo's team's calls when they tried to contact them about it and then put out a daft statement outing the woman's salary to make her look spoiled. They then tried to make out she's some cold and heartless witch for having the audacity to not be treated like trash by the company she has made money for for the past 10 years. To make matters worse they never did this to Dwayne Johnson for Jungle Cruise. Now they're trying to keep the case out of the public eye because they realise how bad they look.





  • How is it irrelevant? The contract details are key, if they had no wording in the deal that stopped a duel release then Johansson it'll be a tough case to make.

    'Compromising' box office ticket sales seems like a stretch when Disney can say they actually saved Johansson far more money by pushing the original release date from peak pandemic to when it was eventually released (not that Disney didn't also gain from it).

    Both sides come out of this looking poorly by not dealing with it behind the scenes - sure Disney made money from Johansson for years but she's also made an absolute fortune from them.






  • Please do your research. If you want, you can actually listen to a lawyer on the matter below. Rather than "if-ing" and "but-ing" you can view, for yourself, why and how Disney clearly violated the contract :



    You can also listen to John Campea's take who used to work in law:



    '"Compromising' box office ticket sales seems like a stretch when Disney can say they actually saved Johansson far more money by pushing the original release date from peak pandemic to when it was eventually released (not that Disney didn't also gain from it)."

    So? They pushed the release date back... and then proceeded to undermine the box office ticket sales by doing a day and date release. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Also, again that has nothing to do with the fact that Disney violated their agreement.





  • That first video is a bit of a joke, she just reads Johannsson's side and nods her head without any effort of thinking what the Disney response could be. The second video has even less substance, just a load of bile from two guys shouting how mean Disney are.

    Here's a pretty short article looking from a legal perspective at the case from both sides and it comes to the conclusion that her case is pretty weak. As discussed here previously, it points out how she had nothing in her contract that it had to be exclusively in theatres - the only explicit element was 1500 screens in the US and they released in 9000. We only have sight of the elements of contract and communications that Johannsson's team has chosen to put into the public domain and they aren't anything close to slam dunks.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/

    A big takeaway is why this was always headed to arbitration - given that it is part of her deal that she very weakly tried to get around and the route she could have gone to from day 1 rather than go public with a lawsuit of Disney. Instead of going this route she agreed to take to resolve contract differences with 'the big bully' she instead took a swing and now her team and many others are trying to paint her as some poor victim after the big bully responded like big bullies do - again both sides coming off really bad.





  • It's generally accepted in the industry that WarnerMedia and HBO overpaid actors for streaming compensation deals on movies

    Hence why there are a few entries on the highest paid roles of all-time by them over the last year and in pandemic times of all times

    https://www.businessinsider.com/16-of-the-highest-paid-movie-roles-of-all-time-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

    buymeacoffee.com/glassopy



  • Advertisement


  • Bumping to remind you that it comes out on Disney+ this Wednesday.



Advertisement