GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Emma Stone Signs On For Cruella Sequel In Wake Of Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit

The Oscar-winning actress signs a deal to appear in the next Cruella movie.

26 Comments

Emma Stone is coming back to play Cruella once again in Disney's forthcoming sequel, Deadline reports. The site said Stone's signing with Disney is good news for the movie giant as it faces some amount of criticism over its decision to launch movies both in theaters and on Disney+. Scarlett Johansson is currently suing Disney over this.

Cruella launched in May in theaters where it made $222 million globally; it was also available on Disney+ with Premier Access, but it's unclear how well it did there. According to Deadline, Disney hasn't decided on a release strategy for Cruella 2 as of yet.

Patrick Whitesell, the executive chairman of Stone's talent agency Endeavor, said clients like Stone and other creative partners "cannot be left on the sidelines to carry a disproportionate amount of the downside without the potential for upside."

"This agreement demonstrates that there can be an equitable path forward that protects artists and aligns studios' interests with talent. We are proud to work alongside Emma and Disney, and appreciate the studio's willingness to recognize her contributions as a creative partner," Whitesell said. "We are hopeful that this will open the door for more members of the creative community to participate in the success of new platforms."

It was previously announced that Cruella director Craig Gillespie and write Tony McNamara will return for the sequel. There is no word yet on any specifics about Cruella 2 like its cast, plot, or release date.

Regarding Johnasson's lawsuit, the Black Widow actress is alleging that Disney releasing Black Widow on Disney+ at the same time it did so theatrically was a breach of her contract. Disney responded, saying the lawsuit is "especially sad and distressing," adding that Johansson was paid $20 million for the movie and stands to potentially make even more.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 26 comments about this story
26 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for madsnakehhh
madsnakehhh

18376

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

The best i can say about Cruella is that Emma Stone looks so pretty in it ...

Also, i love Disney's response to ... "hey you breach my contract" ... and Disney goes ... "we are so sad and distressing".

Upvote • 
Avatar image for PETERAKO
PETERAKO

2579

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By PETERAKO

Probably to shut her up and avert another lawsuit. Can't think any other reason, as her movie was neither good, nor successful.

5 • 
Avatar image for VampireLord123
VampireLord123

295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@PETERAKO: It says in the article it made $222 million, for pandemic box office is actually not that bad.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for stoneraptor
stoneraptor

30

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@PETERAKO: Pay them off to shut them up , that is the Mouse way way to avoid bad publicity.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

Well, I'm not defending Disney, but Johansson should've released that Marvel Side characters don't really get a good end of the stick. When it comes to paying them. Hell, she was in the first MCU that had an actor leave because of a bad pay contract. That's Terrence Howard isn't Warmachine anymore (Remember: Terrence Howard was in Iron-man 1, and mention he was going to put on the suit?).

Also, why does an actress in a totally different movie series have to do with another? This reads like one of Eddie's clickbait-to-hell articles.

<Reads again>

... Because it is...

2 • 
Avatar image for systemoverload
SystemOverload

1193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SystemOverload

@illegal_peanut: the first was a gamble and not everybody gets paid the same it is based on box office draw…

Terrence Howard was probably like WTF? That’s it? I’m out! I don’t think Terrence Howard is currently lighting Hollywood on fire so should have taken the loss in pay and stuck with Avengers…

ScarJo should be happy that Disney made a Black Window film…

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zerojuice
zerojuice

613

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@illegal_peanut: You do realize that post-Avengers (her first big role in the MCU) Scarlett Johansson was always in the top 3 paid actors/actresses in every Marvel movie she was in? Everyone was beneath RDJ but by the time everything was settled (Endgame) Scarlett Jo was tied for #2 with Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth in salaries.

Don't let her fool you. She didn't have a crappy contract. She just thinks she's worth RDJ kind of money and she's not. Nor is her character.

5 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

@zerojuice: And that's my point. Everyone expected Iron Man pay. But, they realize they're not going to get it. Because, big surprise, they're not Iron man. It's like if they made A DBZ cinematic universe and the Chick that plays Bluma is expecting Goku, money. Or if they made Legend of Zelda cinematic universe, and the chick that plays Impa is expecting Link money.

She needs to realize the only reason she was even paid that high in the first place. Was because she was in an ass-ton of marvel moves (IM2, Avengers 1/2/3/4, Captain America 2/3, and her own). And if my memory is working write. Is the most reoccurring MCU member outside of Cap, Iron-man, and Nick Fury.

2 • 
Avatar image for Lamesy
Lamesy

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Disney's response tells all. "It's sad and distressing." Not "we're innocent," not "she's incorrect."

2 • 
Avatar image for timthegem
timthegem

1239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Lamesy: I think Johansson's lack of response tells all. Not "I didn't get paid $20 million and then some on top of the $15 million for Endgame but I NEEED MOARRRR!"

4 • 
Avatar image for Lamesy
Lamesy

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lamesy

@timthegem: it's not whether she needs more. it's whether disney signed a piece of paper saying they owe her more. the lack of contract renegotiation is baffling.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for timthegem
timthegem

1239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Lamesy: It sounds like Disney agreed to pay her a portion of box office revenue. They never agreed to withhold the release of the movie indefinitely until all theaters were reopened. They could have released the film last year exclusively on streaming. That might have breached the contract. But they didn't. People are so desperate to hate on Disney about everything that they ignore the fact that this is a simple case of an actress being greedy.

She should be amazed that she got over $20 million for a film that audiences never asked for in the first place.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Lamesy
Lamesy

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lamesy

@timthegem: The thing is, the contract almost assuredly agreed to pay her a portion of exclusive box office revenue. But they didn't wind up releasing it exclusively in theaters. Literally any change without renegotiation is still a contract violation. Would she have made less if they released exclusively in theaters? Yes. But Disney would take an even bigger loss so they wouldn't do that. Their legit options were renegotiate or keep delaying release. They did neither.

edit: i haven't attacked Disney's motives at all but you've twice attacked Scarjo's. who's desperate to hate again?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

By Scarjo! Grats on committing career suicide!

4 • 
Avatar image for gr4h4m833zy
Gr4h4m833zy

830

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Lol damn scarjo. REPLACED!!!

2 • 
Avatar image for ricklepick
RicklePick

139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@gr4h4m833zy: she wasn’t replaced, she never auditioned for that role. She auditioned for the role of Perdy, with Mike Vick in the role of Pongo.

2 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@gr4h4m833zy: Replaced? Was she even in Cruella? Or going to be in the sequel?

4 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@mogan: Nope, and nope.

Upvote •