Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Marvel's Black Widow



  • Registered Users Posts: 74,122 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1

    Was RDJ the only one who made mega bucks from all the films he featured in as Tony Stark with producer credit plus profits share, I would think all the main Avengers were on big money by the end including ScarJo

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,336 ✭✭✭ FunLover18

    I think it looks worse on Disney to be honest, they signed the contract and they breached it and using the pandemic as an excuse not to compensate SJ (which they've done in their statement) or using it to get people on their side seems more than a little underhanded. This is a corporation that made thousands redundant after the Fox merger. SJ may not need the money but she's entitled to it and as you say had a right to sue if it is how she says it is. It's not like she's taking it out of the hands of Disney employees.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭ The Phantom Pain

    I'm sick of Disney so I'm rotting for ScarJo either way.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,480 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp

    it looks like Disney are in the wrong, the cinemas were open globally so muh covid doesnt work as some kind of force majeure

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp

    I have been meaning to look into it for a while ... but are the various contractors and production crew also tied into profit-sharing at the box office? The stars get the headlines, but had wondered if maybe some of the unheralded staff like senior DPs or audio engineers are also losing out when this carry on is done. I vaguely recall Christopher Nolan making that case when Tenet got bumped into streaming...

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,301 ✭✭✭ Oafley Jones

    Disney's statement is so ham fisted that I'm wondering who else on the senior team has departed the Mouse House in the last week or two.  If I was given to gossip and conspiracy theories, I'd say this was more music to Iger's ears.  Medium to Long term I think Johansson's people are betting that Chapek's tenure will be fairly short and won't impact on any post Marvel projects

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,569 ✭✭✭✭ B.A._Baracus

    Scarlett suing is an interesting one...

    One could argue that after making millions from appearing in Disney marvel movies she's biting the hand that once fed her very well. But there was a contract. If she didn't forfill her end they would likely have sued her.

    Another view is that if she was still scheduled to be in the mcu universe she would be more "accommodating" with Disney to reach an agreement. You know yourself.

    All about the money huh?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭ kerplun k

    Yeah, it’s a tough one, I don’t think either side is coming across very well at the moment.

    I do find the wording of SJs statement to be a little inaccurate.

    “Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel,”

    IMO, saying it was without justification is simply wrong. It was a film that was already out of date, releasing it now under the circumstances they did was fully justified. The MCU is basically a serialised TV show, holding onto this for another year to wait for the movie going audiences to return to normal levels would have been a disaster.

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    Gave a lot of people who didn't feel comfortable going to or indeed plain couldn't go to the cinema another option to get some entertainment in this pretty sh1tty time by being able to access it on streaming

    I'm taking Disney's side on this one

    Scarlett is worth an estimated $165 million plus already (as of 2019) - she can already afford pretty much any lifestyle she wants

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,165 ✭✭✭ Ardent

    I doubt very much the contract states that the movie would be launched exclusively to theatres. If it does, major booboo on Disney's part.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,639 ✭✭✭✭ Penn

    I think it's acceptable that Disney had to split the release between theatrical and D+ given the situation. That's fair and understandable.

    However if people's contracts were tied to it being a theatrical release only, then Disney should have made an offer of a part of the Premium Access sales, or a one-off fee in-lieu of the losses from the theatrical release.

    Regardless of how much SJ is worth, Disney took actions which meant SJ lost out on a lot of money. Disney also likely made more money given D+ subscriptions and premium access. Fair is fair. They should have re-arranged the deal to offset the changes in not having a full theatrical release. I think Disney are in the wrong here (morally anyway, contractually/legally I have no idea).

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    Taking the money on both sides out of it I'm taking the view that as I said it gave a lot more people access to some entertainment in this crappy time

    A lot more ordinary people were able to access it as a result

    As if it's so virtuous to be rooting for the mega-rich individual movie star vs the corporation anyways

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭ kerplun k

    I wouldn’t be rushing to the defence of either side of this one just yet. It could be that SJ is fighting this for the wider staff as well. I doubt she needs the money, and by doing this she’s put her whole career in jeopardy. She’s burnt her bridges with Disney, whilst other studies who have suffered badly may also see her as a trouble maker, someone who hasn’t played ball during a time of uncertainty, so this could potentially blow up in her face. But she’s obviously done this for a reason.

    I know WB took the hit and paid off their stars when they released their movies on HBOmax, I bet Disney are regretting not doing the same now.

    It will be an interesting one to follow that’s for sure.

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    "It could be that SJ is fighting this for the wider staff as well"

    the minor actors nevermind the non-acting plebs don't get revenue-share deals on franchise films

    only primary stars in certain movies and certain directors

    but in franchise movies like this it will only be primary stars, not the directors

    I'd be very confident in stating that SJ was the only actor with a such a deal on this movie.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,336 ✭✭✭ FunLover18

    No one's disagreeing with you but Disney using that as some sort of moral high ground in order to get out of paying what is owed is low and it could set a dangerous precedent in the future. Neither side needs the money but contracts have to be honoured. Disney get to keep every cent of money made by the premium access, nothing goes to cinemas or distributors, the fact that they're trying to shaft SJ while simultaneously taking the high ground is despicable and it's just greedy.

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    look yes, a contract is a contract etc but I did say taking the money out of it there is more benefit to the average person having streaming available in the pandemic times

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    Filming took place from May to October 2019 in NorwayBudapestMoroccoPinewood Studios in England, and in AtlantaMacon, and Rome, Georgia."

    "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 (DIS) responded on Thursday saying that "there is no merit whatsoever to this filing"

    "Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of 'Black Widow' on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date," a Disney spokesperson said in a statement."

    As the filming was completed well in advance of the pandemic so would any contracts obviously it would have been very unusual that an exclusive theatrical release was spoken of in the contract as there would have been no concern about a concurrent streaming release at that point. Notice no mention of "exclusive theatrical release" from SJ's lawyers

    Disney seem to be intimating that she'd get some money from Disney + as how could they argue that additional compensation could be gained from streaming otherwise as that just wouldn't make any sense saying that

    Over to the lawyers......

  • Registered Users Posts: 74,122 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1

    Emma Stone and Emily Blunt latest names to come after Disney, their films did get cinema released too as well as streamed

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,036 ✭✭✭✭ flazio

    For me, it's the timing that seems a bit out.

    Scarletts representatives would have known for a while that Disney would have been considering the dual release. Scarlett would have been aware as she was doing the zoom call PR interviews leading up to the dual release. Why didn't she try to stop the release in the first place?

    The negotiations should have been done and settled before the movie hit our screens. I'm not saying she doesn't have a point, but it should have been made earlier than this.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy

    Having read Disney's scummy response, I'm rooting for SJ.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,282 ✭✭✭ Cork_exile

    I watched it, again, this week as my wife wanted to see it.

    They completely ballsed it up doing a weekly drop. It is a different beast altogether, binge viewed.

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

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,282 ✭✭✭ Cork_exile

    Probably because a suit is the last step. Going public hurts both sides and there will have been talks, which have broken down.

    Disney didn't give a crap about their new FOX staff, when cutting thousands of jobs. They're a mega business who were never going to the pandemic wall. This is a slimeball exec trying it on.

    Edit: She's also a 36 year old actress just killed off in the biggest global franchise after a decade of being passed over for her own lead outings, while being absolutely key to driving said franchise.

    BW could have had a trilogy by now and they're screwing her on her only film? Screw that

    Post edited by Cork_exile on

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

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,282 ✭✭✭ Cork_exile

    As for Disney's COVID highground attitude...

    They certainly didn't look after their staff, during lockdown either

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

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp

    Disney are a nickel and dime operation, and a corporation in the truest most modern sense. Heck most studios try to skip paying cinemas people or taxes, this isn't new. Hiding behind CoVid in the press release seems on brand for a corpos tactic. While Johansson may not need the money she's entitled to a grievance that she was owed something different. Heck she herself might have had investments tied into an expected, successful cinema release. She could be looking at a larger loss than what she felt was owed.

    I could see the thinking there: those first 3 episodes were a chore to get through at the best of times. Still think the show was poor, possibly having way less story than it had episodes to work with. Felt like a film script stretched paper thin

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,282 ✭✭✭ Cork_exile

    It didn't feel stretched at all doing it that way, and I did feel that on weekly view. Its pacing is completely different when you continue the story immediately.

    The first 2 episodes do what they're supposed to and you're asking what's going on but don't have a week to contemplate are they meant to be funny or not.

    E3 and 4 together really open it up and then you're on the home stretch. It's, honestly, opened my eyes to how pacing choices completely change a presentation

    Edit: it's actually reminded me of Star Trek Enterprise season 3. During the original airing I was constantly just hoping they'd get on with it. Recent Netflix run through and it's a tight, tense, and claustrophobic (in a good way) season

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

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,423 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor

    ScarJo would have had publicity obligations under her contract, so she can't go damaging the film's box office prospects while simultaneously claiming she's entitled to greater compensation. That would her hurt lawsuit as well as her pocket. Other factors may be at play too. ScarJo has another Disney film in the works at the moment. She may be trying to get out of it or negotiate a better deal.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,824 ✭✭✭✭ Varik

    Pretty sure she's going to lose.

    Kind of hard to argue what the definition of "wide theatrical release" is when it's defined in the actual contract you've signed; 1500+ screens.

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso

    Doesn't have a leg to stand on - was definitely playing on over 4,000 screens

    Ironic that any poster "virtue signalling" for SJ that have pirated the movie instead of going to the cinema was doing her out of money 😂

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭ The Phantom Pain

    "Superhero fatigue!"

    Black Widow has made almost 500 million dollars worldwide with 125 million being from Disney Plus. I'm not sure why Disney felt releasing those numbers helped their case. If anything it just goes to show that they cheated her out of what she was worth.

    On a side note, movie probably would have made about 800 million minimum pre pandemic.