Jump to content

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract


JayC
 Share

Recommended Posts

From what i've read it sounds like Johansson does get a cut of the D+ premium access money.  Her lawsuit relies on the assumption that same day release hampered movie box office by more than $60 million (or whatever D+ made.. .plus all the "piracy") thus damaging her earnings potential, particular if her contract specified a theatrical release.

Disney seems to be trying to work public opinion by portraying Scarlett as a greedy celebrity (which ok, i'm sure she is somewhat) but while ianal it sure seems like Scarlett has a case, and tbh i'm surprised Disney didn't give her whatever $$ amount she wanted just to avoid bad publicity or damage to the brand.   Especially if Disney views BW as a one-off situation and are thinking Shang-chi, Eternals etc wont have same day premium access release on D+.    I would think going forward to future mcu movies (and really movies in general) that big stars will start to have covid clauses in contract in case the movie ends up streaming same day and thus they dont earn the box office potential they might otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2021 at 12:09 PM, Gigantor said:

Monkee see, Monkee do. By this time next week, half of Hollywood actors/actresses that worked for the Mouse will be filing suit. Gotta love $$ greedy  rich people.

How is it "greedy?" If someone hired you to do a job for such-and-such amount, but they decide NOT to pay you that amount, you're gonna get in their face. It's not being greedy, it's just expecting what was agreed upon.

It doesn't matter if your bussing tables or making a billion dollar epic, a contract is a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 1:06 PM, mako said:

How is it "greedy?" If someone hired you to do a job for such-and-such amount, but they decide NOT to pay you that amount, you're gonna get in their face. It's not being greedy, it's just expecting what was agreed upon.

It doesn't matter if your bussing tables or making a billion dollar epic, a contract is a contract.

Imo, it's being greedy when you're already a multimillionaire 20x over & are griping over even more $$. Just flat out greed of $$ in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 5:31 PM, Gigantor said:

Imo, it's being greedy when you're already a multimillionaire 20x over & are griping over even more $$. Just flat out greed of $$ in this world.

Well let's look at it another way. If your place of employment suddenly stopped paying YOU your normal wage would it be greedy if you took them to task over it? Would it matter if you already had some money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 7:44 PM, mako said:

Well let's look at it another way. If your place of employment suddenly stopped paying YOU your normal wage would it be greedy if you took them to task over it? Would it matter if you already had some money? 

If I'm not mistaken, Disney already paid her. She got mad cuz they also released it on D+ when I guess she was under the assumption that it was just gonna be released only in theatres so she also wants a cut of the D+ moola. That's where the "greedy" part comes in imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 1:39 AM, Gigantor said:

If I'm not mistaken, Disney already paid her. She got mad cuz they also released it on D+ when I guess she was under the assumption that it was just gonna be released only in theatres so she also wants a cut of the D+ moola. That's where the "greedy" part comes in imo.

You're partially mistaken. Like many stars, her contract included a back end deal, where she would receive a cut of the profits after the movie grossed a certain amount at the box office, which releasing the movie on Disney+ prevented, as this cut into theater revenue. Her representatives sought assurances in advance that the movie would be released exclusively in theaters. "In response, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi promised a traditional theatrical bow, while 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.'" When her people reached out again to renegotiate after learning the movie would premiere on Disney+ and in theaters simultaneously, Marvel and Disney were apparently "unresponsive."
This is all in the Variety and Wall Street Journal articles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...







Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE