Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies The Courts

Disney Fires Back Against Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow Lawsuit (theverge.com) 153

Posted by BeauHD from the back-and-forth dept.
Disney has filed a motion to have Scarlett Johansson's lawsuit against the company moved to private arbitration, the latest in the ongoing saga of her complaint against the company over Black Widow's streaming release. The Verge reports: Disney's lawyers filed the motion Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court on the grounds that Periwinkle Entertainment, which negotiated her deal, agreed that any claims related to her role in the Marvel film would be handled in confidential arbitration. But the motion also took several swipes at Johansson's complaint that argued Marvel, compelled by its parent company Disney, breached an agreement when Black Widow debuted on Disney Plus through Premier Access the same day that it premiered in theaters. The Hollywood Reporter earlier reported the motion. Johansson's complaint argued that the film's hybrid release cut into her potential earnings, as a simultaneous streaming release hampered the film's box office permanence and therefore impacted her bonuses. At issue is whether the film should have debuted as a theatrical exclusive. But according to Disney's motion, Periwinkle's contract with Marvel "does not mandate theatrical distribution -- let alone require that any such distribution be exclusive."

Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised. Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

Disney also provided updated figures on Black Window's performance, showing that it's continued to bring in big figures at both the box office and through early access rentals. As of August 15th, Black Widow has raked in more than $367 million in box office receipts worldwide and more than $125 million in streaming and download receipts, the motion stated, offering seldom-shared figures about the success of a hybrid release in both theaters as well as on a streaming service itself. Accounting for the $55 million the film pulled in on Premier Access and the $80 million in domestic box office receipts during its opening weekend, Black Widow's numbers surpassed the opening weekend figures of other Marvel films released pre-pandemic, the company argued, including Ant-Man and the Wasp and Guardians of the Galaxy. Disney's lawyers revealed in the motion that it served Periwinkle a demand for private arbitration on August 10th, a little over a week after Johansson's initial complaint was filed. The motion stated Periwinkle had yet to respond. Disney also reiterated its previous position that the complaint had "no merit." In a statement cited by The Hollywood Reporter, Johansson's attorney John Berlinski said that Disney "knows that Marvel's promises to give Black Widow a typical theatrical release "like its other films' had everything to do with guaranteeing that Disney wouldn't cannibalize box office receipts in order to boost Disney+ subscriptions. Yet that is exactly what happened -- and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence that proves it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Fires Back Against Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow Lawsuit More

Disney Fires Back Against Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Don't know (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday August 23, 2021 @09:04PM (#61723289) Journal

    I don't know or understand the complexity of movie contract law, and this is just an argument between rich people, but I know who I'm cheering for.

    • Re:Don't know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @01:55AM (#61723815)

      It goes like this, "We promise to pay you 30% of the movie's profits but we write ourselves a check for billions of dollars so the movie makes no profit because we're a bunch of money-grabbing coke addicts that rape underage starlets."

      • There's no way she signed a contract for percentage of net profit. Only very newbie actors do that. She would only negotiate for percentage of gross.

    • I don't think we need to cheer for anyone. However it does highlight how there is a legal disconnect between theater showings and streaming showing. In a lot of factors including compensation, and as well status and measuring success.

      Being that if I went to a theater and paid $20 for a ticket. Vs me paying Disney+ an extra $20 to watch the movie at the same time. They are treated very differently, even though Disney gets less of my $20 ticket because some of that money will go to the theater, it is still

    • I'm cheering for the person who is right, and that seems to be Johansson. I don't care if she's rich enough to hire Bezos to be her house boy - a contract is a contract and it looks like someone isn't upholding their end of the contract.

      Look, you can be envious of someone's wealth all you want, whatever. But one of the biggest roles of government is contract enforcement because without it our civilization cannot exist. And, yeah, I know that if I make a contract with someone with way more money they have

      • Unfortunately, I don't think that she is right. She is morally right, but contractually, if the snippet of the contract that I saw is correct, she has been badly let down by whoever on her team reviewed the contract.

        Remember when SCO claimed "yes, that is what the contract says, but what it really means is...". Replace SCO with Johansson.

  • Streaming revenue is the key (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday August 23, 2021 @09:10PM (#61723299)

    From the summary:

    more than $125 million in streaming and download receipts

    Well there's the core of which way the suit goes I think.

    If SJ was promised a share of box office receipts, and doesn't get a cut of that, then I think it's fair to say she was shorted as any premium viewing revenue made during the theatrical run she should get a cut of.

    Also it seems strange to me on one hand to claim streaming didn't cut into theatrical revenues, while also touting a large figure that very much was drawn away from box office revenues...

    The (possibly) sad thing about all this is that according to rumor sites Scarlett Johansen is cut from any future movies. I liked her more than most of the other Avengers cast, and fans liked her a lot as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      The (possibly) sad thing about all this is that according to rumor sites Scarlett Johansen is cut from any future movies. I liked her more than most of the other Avengers cast, and fans liked her a lot as well.

      (spoiler alert)
      Black widow is dead already! Also, the new movie seemingly established her "sister" replacement.
      I assume she sued because she was going to be regardless and had nothing to lose.

      • Re:Streaming revenue is the key (Score:5, Funny)

        by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @01:55AM (#61723813)
        Yeah, we can’t have a Marvel movie bringing Black Widow back from the dead. What kind of precedent would that set? They might start bringing OTHER characters back from the dead!

    • From the summary:

      more than $125 million in streaming and download receipts

      Well there's the core of which way the suit goes I think.

      If SJ was promised a share of box office receipts, and doesn't get a cut of that, then I think it's fair to say she was shorted as any premium viewing revenue made during the theatrical run she should get a cut of.

      Also it seems strange to me on one hand to claim streaming didn't cut into theatrical revenues, while also touting a large figure that very much was drawn away from box office revenues...

      I think Disney means to claim they offered her a similar share of the Disney+ premium revenue. The issue with that argument is that Black Widow also would have driven some Disney+ subscriptions (both new subscribers and maintaining existing subscribers) and that wouldn't be counted in that $125 million. There's also a lot of Disney+ subscribers who saw the heavy adverts of when Black Widow would come to Disney+ regular and decided to wait it out instead of going to theatres.

      Of course, COVID played the bigge

      • I think Disney means to claim they offered her a similar share of the Disney+ premium revenue.

        Actually, it is worse, she tried to renegotiate for the two years the movie has been in the can to allow a streaming release by getting some of those profits, and they ignored her, then broke the contract they signed with her giving her an exclusive theatrical release. Then Disney tried to make it about "think of the children" by claiming that she was trying to force people to go to the movies, instead of them being greedy assholes and ignoring contracts they signed.

    • Also it seems strange to me on one hand to claim streaming didn't cut into theatrical revenues, while also touting a large figure that very much was drawn away from box office revenues.

      I think Disney is just one step away from admitting that piracy doesn't affect box office revenue. If SJ's lawyers are competent, they'll force Disney's lawyers to do everything in their powers to avoid conceding such a fact, resulting in a favorable early settlement for SJ.

      • A good example was when HBO Max let everyone see Suicide Squad for free. I still saw it in the theater. It still looks better in the theater. It still sounds better in the theater. Ive got a 65in plasma and a 7.2 surround setup with extra presence speakers. It still looked and sounded better on an imax sized screen with the dozens of speakers. If the movie is worth watching, Im going to do it in a theater for the full effect. I will save the at home streaming for shit like Trolls World Tour. LOL.
        • There will always be purists that demand that extra 10% for a 50% premium on cost, inconvenience and aggravation. I, myself, am finding fewer and fewer movies that demand that experience. Theaters are dying. I can name at least ten theaters/multiplexes that have closed in my area over the years. There are only two multiplexes left in a 15 mile radius from my home. There are two more specialty (eclectic) theaters at right about that distance.

          Pre-Covid, I would only make the effort to see a theatrical

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            so we have a theater here from the company Marcus Theaters. They bought our MovieTavern brand. That theater has DreamLounger electric reclining chairs with a swivel table. It has a full menu of food, and serves alcohol. On Tuesdays, all day long, All tickets are $5/pp, even for the largest screen settings, and the large popcorn is $4.50 instead of $10 (unlimited refills). The sodas are still $6-md and $6.50lg with unlimited refills (though thats a matter of how bad you want to punish your bladder). With th
            • One of our two remaining multiplex has a similar setup. There is a bar in the lobby but no alcohol in the seating. They have nice electric reclining seats. You can buy real food along with the usual overpriced popcorn and candy. They have cheap tickets one day a week.

              That is why I went once a year. Joker was the last movie I saw at the theater. The funny thing is that it would have been fine to watch at home but I was taking my kid out for a treat. Between dinner, the movie (they changed their che

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by e3m4n ( 947977 )
                well you lost your wallet the minute you walked into the Cheesecake Factory ;-) I wouldnt be surprised if there was a charge for water on their checks.

          • Give it a decade and we will be waxing nostalgic about theaters like we do now about drive-ins. Some will still exist, but they won't be primary drivers of entertainment.

            Get rid of Daylight Saving Time (so the "sun goes down earlier" on warm summer nights so you can actually see a full-length double-feature before your date's curfew) and we might get some drive-ins back. Less risk of contagion, less disruption from other theater-goers talking and cellphones, more privacy to enjoy the movie with your signif

            • The problem is the movie distributors demanded that all venues had to switch to digital projectors to protect their precious IP. We saw two of our remaining drive-ins shut down from that a couple years ago. It's hard to justify a hundred thousand dollars in investment for a business that is only open during the summer, particularly when concessions are all that keep it afloat. There are only two left within an hour's drive from my home now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I wonder if it has something to do with "Hollywood accounting", i.e. Disney are telling shareholders that it was a massive success but telling the tax man that they lost millions and made near zero profit.

    • The (possibly) sad thing about all this is that according to rumor sites Scarlett Johansen is cut from any future movies. I liked her more than most of the other Avengers cast, and fans liked her a lot as well.

      Suing your employer seldom works out well. It would make a lot more sense had she quietly gone to arbitration. Negotiation happens all the time.

      Going the trial by publicity route is pretty counterproductive. She's poisoned her relationship with Disney, and likely with any other potential employer as well.

  • Autoduping (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2021 @09:14PM (#61723311)

    Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

    Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

    Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

    • Re:Autoduping (Score:4, Funny)

      by Samantha Wright ( 1324923 ) on Monday August 23, 2021 @10:24PM (#61723421) Homepage Journal
      Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

  • Editors? (Score:5, Informative)

    by skogs ( 628589 ) on Monday August 23, 2021 @09:16PM (#61723317) Journal

    I'm not even sure why slashdot attempts to hold back the firehose sometimes. Did the editor/approver even read this? Paragraph 2....pretty obviously an excited user that really likes Johansen, copy/pasted the exact same line twice.

    People...this is the small thing that is supposed to help keep slashdot content slightly above that of the typical subreddit. If nobody actually reads what they're approving though ...

    • No one reads TFAs, no 9ne reads the comments they respond to, hell some people don't even read their own comments. You expect the editors to proofread?

    • They were jerking of over pictures of Johansson and shot a load while pasting that bit so hit paste twice by mistake.

      • There is no way that Disney can win a fight against an actress who can make a man paste twice. There is no way that Disney can win a fight against an actress who can make a man paste twice.

        • Twice? The first time I saw her in that black skin tight outfit in the Iron Man sequel, Im pretty sure I pasted right then and there.

    • People...this is the small thing that is supposed to help keep slashdot content slightly above that of the typical subreddit.

      Well, I can see from your userid that you're new. But I heard that reddit is the new slashdot!

      The only thing we were ever slightly above was usenet. And that only because we have higher quality trolls.

      • I would still rank us above FB. I have not once heard the BS of aborted fetal tissue being a reason to avoid vaccination on /. Plenty of other reasons, sure. Not that one though.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      They were just creating a dupe with maximum efficiency - no need to post the summary again later!

    • The editors have never paid attention to what the hell they are doing. This isn't the first time, nor the last.

    • I'm not even sure why slashdot attempts to hold back the firehose sometimes. Did the editor/approver even read this? Paragraph 2....pretty obviously an excited user that really likes Johansen, copy/pasted the exact same line twice.

      People...this is the small thing that is supposed to help keep slashdot content slightly above that of the typical subreddit. If nobody actually reads what they're approving though ...

      The typical subreddit is better than the typical discussion in slashdot.

  • Disney fired back a week ago when all of the other news outlets covered it

  • Disney and lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Monday August 23, 2021 @09:47PM (#61723363) Homepage Journal

    Best to hurry and sign that binding arbitration, because Disney's lawyers have lawyers who have lawyers. I'm pretty sure that company is lawyers all the way down.

    • Re:Disney and lawyers (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @01:28AM (#61723765) Journal

      Disney's lawyers have lawyers who have lawyers. I'm pretty sure that company is lawyers all the way down.

      Yes, but they are mickey mouse lawyers.

    • Layers and layers of lawyers.
    • I wonder if they do what ATT does. Put every decent law firm on retainer within the state, just so you cant hire a good firm to sue them.

      • That sounds pretty interesting. I was unsuccessful finding any articles. Would you share a link regarding ATT hiring multiple law firms?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          its my companies personal experience. In the early 2000s 5 private ISPs in the state tried to sue ATT over their unfair pricing toward ISPs reselling their DSL loops. They were charging the ISP more for an unprovisioned loop (where we put our own IPs and route the customers traffic) higher than they were selling complete internet service to an end-user. Additionally they offered Naked-DSL to end users who wanted internet-only but forced the ISPs to buy it bundled with analog telephone service. So a customer

    • Best to hurry and sign that binding arbitration, because Disney's lawyers have lawyers who have lawyers. I'm pretty sure that company is lawyers all the way down.

      That's because these days lawyers often NEED lawyers, and "all the way down". As Trump's lawyers found out.

  • I mean, we're talking about a movie that was clearly produced just to milk the Marvel superhero franchise a bit more, vs anything really theatrically significant. For a while now, the sad reality is that Hollywood movies have been so lackluster, almost the only ones worth paying the high ticket prices to see have been the superhero themed ones. (It's a lot harder to completely screw up a comic book story than a complex novel or series of novels with extremely detailed writing.) But they've reached the satu

    • (It's a lot harder to completely screw up a comic book story than a complex novel or series of novels with extremely detailed writing.)

      Batwoman, Supergirl, Bat vs Sup, Captain Marvel and anything done by Amazon beg to differ.

      • Anything done by 'the CW' is going to be full of SjW crap along with touchy feely feelings discussions hogging the last 15% of the episode. Im pretty sure their only viewing audience is sophomore females in High School, and former readers of the Twilight book series.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It wasn't a bad movie, it just came at the wrong time. With the Thanos saga and original Avengers stories wrapped up they made this movie about setting up Black Widow's replacement in the franchise, rather than setting her up like they did with all the other solo Avengers movies.

      For whatever reason they didn't seem to think that Black Widow (the character) would be popular and didn't bother giving her solo stuff like Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk and even Dr. Strange got. Once they realized that the

      • The first 3 quarters of the movie were good. The last quarter was so bad, I'll probably never watch it again

  • Black Widow has gotten the worst treatment of any of the Avengers, apparently in even in real life.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by irving47 ( 73147 )

      All because her sexist overlord bosses are pigs. Sure. And by the way, ms. I've been sexualized is the only Avenger not to go shirtless on screen!

  • And adapt it (somehow) so as to apply to Disney. Good thinking people will now unite to boycott Disney by way of only pirating their content, or piggybacking off of someone who's paying for it. Lol, you're now no longer "filthy pirates", but instead brave fighters of the cause of fair treatment for women in the workplace.

  • The purpose of Disney is to rip-off artists as much as physically possible, change the laws if necessary, and use them to steal as much money as possible from everyone without working themselves or if possible ever create any new creative work ever again. And then *claim* they exist to keep creative workers safe and literally everybody and their baby is stealing from them.

    TL;DR: Cocaine. ;)

  • I thought the movie sucked but if Disney screwed her box office take for their own financial benefit then I can see why she's pissed and has good legal grounds to sue.

  • What Disney did (Score:3)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @08:21AM (#61724485) Homepage

    1) Movie Companies (including Disney) are scum and their standard contracts are full of lies. Basically they pay themselves money out of gross ( not 'profit'), insisting it is 'costs', when it is not. So they declare hugely successful movies as accounting losses. This lets them not pay the people that worked on the movies, who all get a cut only if there is a profit. Yeah, the stars can negotiate other stuff, but not make up, sound effects, etc.

    2) Scarlet (like most stars) knew this, so she demanded a cut of the gross, rather than the 'profits'.

    3) Disney said, "OK, but only the gross of the theater run, not the streaming"

    4) Scarlet said "OK, but you need to run it in theaters for X days before you let it stream"

    5) Disney said "OK"

    6) Disney then proceeded to send it direct to streaming, breaking the contract

    7) Scarlet sued.

  • The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised. Furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.

    A dupe inside the body of the summary? What do the editors even do? I think we've reached peak slashdot.

  • America: the entitled suing slime bags.

  • ... the big labels got pretty smart. If you're a rights holder to a popular song and it's played on the radio, TV, used in a movie or a commercial, then the rights you get are worth having. But the big labels pulled a bit of a "fast one" when it came to streaming, arguing that because streaming was somehow different, the artist needed either a different contract, or got a small percentage of the rate they would have received for say a CD sale.

    It looks as though something similar is happening in the world

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close