ScarJo sues over Disney+ release of "Black Widow"

61 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob Jersey

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 6:20:57 PM7/29/21
to TVorNotTV
“Disney chose to placate Wall Street investors and pad its bottom line, rather than allow its subsidiary Marvel to comply with the agreement,” attys argue in a breach-of-contract action filed today (7/29) in L.A.... WSJ, who first reported the suit, estimated about $50mil in lost bonuses...


B

Kevin M.

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 6:33:11 PM7/29/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I worked in Hollywood for five years, and the single biggest lesson I learned is to always get paid in advance. I can’t believe she’s been in the business for over a quarter of a century without learning that lesson.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/878fb2dd-7352-4c6e-a753-25f778a97ebbn%40googlegroups.com.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

PGage

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 9:30:01 PM7/29/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
There is a larger, and more interesting, issue at stake here, though creative Hollywood accounting is part of it.

I highly recommend the account available at this tweet by Matt Bellini, former editor at The Hollywood Reporter and entertainment lawyer, who has been all over this evolving story.

Basically, the pandemic accelerated the transition of the finances of the film industry from being based on ticket sales to streaming revenue. He says film studios are now basically streamers. Problem is blockbusters being released now had their deals with “talent” based on the old model, but are being released in the new environment. 

The main problem is not really creative accounting, though in a new way that is part of it. The old style creative accounting was mostly about how ro define net profits, but big stars these days structure deals based on gross revenues, so that is less of an issue, as ticket sales are (kind of) verifiable. But there is no way currently to independently access streaming and subscription numbers. Bellini recommends that going forward talent build in contract language giving them the right to independently audit streaming and subscription data.

The real problem Bellini says is a new divergence between the financial interest of Talent, whose deals are tied to box office, and studios, whose profit is now tied primarily to streaming subscriptions. Studios have been streaming blockbusters early, reducing ticket sales, but boosting streaming subscribers.

 Warner had a similar problem earlier in the year, and after initially lowballing its talent, came up with significant additional payments. Disney has been significantly more Dickish, even though stars’ contracts (as ScarJo’s does) often specifically preclude quick release of films to streaming.

So ScarJo’s suit is not about getting paid fir this film (though it is about that of course) but also about trying to curtail attempts by big studios to unilaterally grab a larger share of film revenues under the new model.



--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Steve Timko

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 5:16:21 PM8/1/21
to TV or Not TV
I haven't read the thread Phineas shared, but the Cameron Diaz deal for "Bad Teacher" is well known. when ScarJo negotiated the deal, this is probably what she was expecting. Enough money she never had to work again.


$42 million

Source: Yahoo Finance

Diaz was paid a mere $1 million to get "Bad Teacher" produced, but received a portion of box-office earnings, which secured her over $40 million for the movie. It's known as one of the most "legendary" deals in Hollywood history. 


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKibcAbO9YOcwobOMFNzmN%3DzuuqzKOXOUZ-dkq7w20AuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 7:23:42 PM8/1/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com

She may have been hoping for a windfall like that, but what she expected was for Disney to honor the contract she signed that specified no streaming for a certain number of weeks to protect the box office receipts that were the main basis of her deal.

I have a friend who has been a working (meaning, struggling) actor for 20-something years who posted a blistering take down of ScarJo for her lawsuit. His point was there were so many actors who would be happy to make a “mere” $20M for the chance to work in a film. I understand his feelings, and like him, so did not reply that I disagree with him. I might feel differently if the extra money was going to below the line workers on the film production, rather than Disney shareholders and executives.


Tom Wolper

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 12:45:23 AM8/2/21
to TV or not TV
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 7:23 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

She may have been hoping for a windfall like that, but what she expected was for Disney to honor the contract she signed that specified no streaming for a certain number of weeks to protect the box office receipts that were the main basis of her deal.

I have a friend who has been a working (meaning, struggling) actor for 20-something years who posted a blistering take down of ScarJo for her lawsuit. His point was there were so many actors who would be happy to make a “mere” $20M for the chance to work in a film. I understand his feelings, and like him, so did not reply that I disagree with him. I might feel differently if the extra money was going to below the line workers on the film production, rather than Disney shareholders and executives.


On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 2:16 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't read the thread Phineas shared, but the Cameron Diaz deal for "Bad Teacher" is well known. when ScarJo negotiated the deal, this is probably what she was expecting. Enough money she never had to work again.


Johannson wasn't expecting that windfall because the studios and media conglomerates made sure it went away years ago. If she'd told her agent to negotiate those terms they would have told her it wasn't going to be possible. I neither know nor care how much Johannson is worth but I'd bet she already has enough money to walk away and never work again.

Those deals where the actor took little up front and made a fortune from gross revenues came from the early 90s when studios demanded from production companies that they have major names attached to a movie before it got a green light. The actors and their agents knew how much leverage it gave them and they could negotiate those deals. The biggest beneficiaries were Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The studios responded by turning to franchise movies where the audience identifies with the character and not the actor. If Disney can't come to an agreement with Johannson they find a new Black Widow and after everybody vents on social media they just move on.

I think everybody knows Disney is screwing the talent by opening streaming the same day while pretending the only revenue that counts comes from theaters. Somebody with deep pockets has to draw a line in the sand so they don't get away with it and make it standard. It seems Scarlett Johannson decided to take that stand.

PGage

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 12:54:21 AM8/2/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
ScarJo and, especially, her agent Bryan Lourd, first among equals at CAA. And apparently the main attack dog going after Disney.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

David Bruggeman

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 1:19:47 AM8/2/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
While Marvel has replaced actors (Don Cheadle for Terence Howard most notably), there has been a narrative crafted around Johannson's work with Marvel that it was a slight that she/Black Widow hadn't had her own film.  If they hadn't come to terms on this particular film, I don't think it would have been made, as it's structured in such a way that it's easily removed from Marvel's various phases and timelines.

David

Adam Bowie

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 6:29:20 AM8/2/21
to tvornottv
I thoroughly recommend reading Matthew Belloni (late of The Hollywood Reporter, and now of a new venture called "Puck" that launches this week) who has an "invite only" newsletter. Anyone can get it :-)  https://whatimhearing.news/matt-belloni

This whole thing is obviously a stake in the ground from big name actors. This might be specifically about Johansson, but it's also very much about CAA and the other big agencies. 

It seems pretty clear at this point that studios like Warners and Disney are more concerned with growing their streaming offerings than worrying too much about whether the next movie in their various franchises hits $1bn at the global box office. They're playing a long-game and at this point it's about growing subscriber bases even if it means a short term hit. In the longer term, I'm sure that they'll be looking for things to even out. But right now, they're getting rewarded by Wall St for those streaming subscriber numbers above all other things. 

So if Black Widow takes a bit less than it might have done, then so be it. At least from the studios' perspective.

Add into this mix that the economics are different. I believe that of the reported box office of a movie's take, the studio might get something like 60-65% of that number, the cinema chain itself taking a big chunk. With digital distribution, the studio gets something more akin to 80%. So $30m at the streaming box office is the same as $40m at the physical box office to the studios' bottom lines. They can afford to take a bit less in the reported numbers and still make the same. If you're an actor who's deal is based off the box office take, then you're losing out.

(That's before you account for losses from piracy, which is suddenly much more rampant given that perfect digital copies of movies are effectively available day and date with releases).

The talent has all done deals under the old system, and we're in that in-between moment when new systems need to be put in place for the talent. In streaming for example, there isn't really even an accurate set of numbers to go off. Disney reports some numbers some of the time. Netflix is even more opaque. And companies like Nielsen are imperfect and in any case, only report US figures, while the movie business is a global one.

This isn't about whether Johansson is being aptly rewarded for her work. Stars get star pay. That's how it works. Disney's response seems particularly ill judged to me - "salary-shaming" her to an extent. Would they have done the same with Robert Downey Jr who made vastly more? The agencies are definitely stepping up here, as they're going to need a system that more accurately reflects the situation going forward with a mixed physical/digital movie system in place. They probably need to do the same with talent rewards for streaming only operators like Netflix, who have the whip hand in having the platform, and the numbers. 

And it's worth noting that while Disney did hold this film back many months, it also did need to get it out because it does fit in with the wider MCU in setting up other characters for future TV/film offerings. 


Adam



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/208153526.1197795.1627881581075%40mail.yahoo.com.

Bob Jersey

unread,
Aug 22, 2021, 11:20:19 AM8/22/21
to TVorNotTV
The Mouse says it's initiated arbitration, and asked the judge to let them supplant the action with same, noting that f'rinstance, the film débuted on many times the number of screens the deal called for, and earned far more in its opening weekend than many other MCU properties...


B

Moi, July 29th:

Steve Timko

unread,
Sep 30, 2021, 9:33:52 PM9/30/21
to TV or Not TV

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/0264c19b-07cf-48a9-a658-90fac532e313n%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages