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

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over Black Widow Streaming Release, Disney Responds

After the latest MCU movie, Black Widow was released on Disney+, star Scarlett Johansson has filed a lawsuit against Disney

335 Comments

Update: In response to the lawsuit, Disney has released a statement obtained by Variety. "There is no merit whatsoever to this filing," it reads. "The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic." Furthermore, the statement says the company has upheld its end of the contract, while noting the actress has already received $20 million for her role in the film, adding that "…the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date." You can read the original story below.

Black Widow isn't done fighting yet. Scarlett Johansson, who reprised her role as Natasha Romanoff in the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe film, has filed a lawsuit against Disney, alleging that the company releasing the movie on the Disney+ streaming service at the same time it did so theatrically was a breach of her contract.

The news comes from The Wall Street Journal, which reports that Johansson's contract not only guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release for the film but that its performance on the big screen would ultimately determine the actress's salary. Of course, Black Widow was originally scheduled to hit theaters in 2020 but was ultimately delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

When a new release date was set, it was announced that the film would hit theaters and Disney+ Premier Access on July 9. According to the suit, "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."

Per the suit, Johansson's team attempted to renegotiate her contract after the decision to debut the film on Disney+ was made, but Disney and Marvel were not responsive. However, in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by Deadline, Marvel's chief counsel is quoted as previously saying, "We totally understand that Scarlett's willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. 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." According to WSJ, the decision to not renegotiate could end up costing the actress over $50 million.

Black Widow wasn't the only Disney film to get the Premier Access treatment, which allows audiences to watch the film at home for a limited time for a $30 fee. Before Black Widow, Mulan, Raya and the Last Dragon, and Cruella were all released with this model. Mulan was the lone film to initially only be released via Premier Access, as most theaters around the world were closed. Jungle Cruise--due on July 30--will hit theaters and Premier Access simultaneously and is currently the last announced Disney movie to be getting that treatment.

Likewise, Warner Bros. announced that its 2021 movie slate would debut on HBO Max and in theaters on the same day. When the move was announced at the end of 2020, some film creatives were not thrilled with the decision--namely Dune director Denis Villeneuve, who claimed he only learned his movie would be released on streaming through Warner Media's public announcement.

During its opening weekend, Black Widow earned $80 million at the domestic box office--along with an additional $60 million in Premier Access sales. The following week, though, theater revenue dropped 68% to just $26 million, a rather steep drop, especially for a Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Theater owners claimed this was due, in part, to people pirating the film following its digital release--a sentiment echoed in Johansson's lawsuit. "Millions of others who would have watched in the theatres will instead view the Picture on perfect digital pirated copies—-all made possible by Disney's decision to release the Picture 'day-and-date' on Disney+," the legal document reads. "Indeed, Black Widow was the No. 1 pirated title of the July 19 week, per the news site TorrentFreak."

Black Widow remains in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access for those who have yet to see it. The next Marvel movie, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, hits theaters on September 3. Beyond that, the Hawkeye series debuts on Disney+ on November 24.

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

Join the conversation
There are 335 comments about this story
335 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 illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Now regardless of the quality of the film (I'm not one of those want to be cool losers on here. Who says every movie they talk about on this site is stupid). I think they should've just released this in theaters and on Disney Plus after the theater showing.

It's not like it was protecting the common man. A lot of countries are lifting COVID restrictions. Hell the US allowed no masks for people in June. Disney just wanted more Disney Plus subs. Which is totally idiotic. Just give Jo her money, worry about subs later.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@illegal_peanut: The pandemic is hardly 'over'. Hell, nearly 1/3 of the US population is non-vaccinated, many of whom still believe this was all a big hoax. There are 30 confirmed COVID cases in my local hospital, all of which were non-vaccinated. That's a higher number than any time in the past year.

Lifting the mask mandate just allowed more idiots to be idiots and put others' health at risk.

4 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@n0matter: When did I say the pandemic was over? I said the governments, included the US is lifting restrictions.

2 • 
Avatar image for angrycreep
angrycreep

1910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By angrycreep

@illegal_peanut:

You sound like Covid is just a thing of the passed. Have you been paying attention lately? Just yesterday New York officials officially again is mandating mask again to stores, restaurants and any local places that you would go.

Cases are in the rise in every city in the unites states and a lot of other cities are also again looking how to implement mask again in some sort of way or capacity. Covid cases are rising again to really high dangerous numbers.

Covid is not going anywhere any time soon and having the option to watch the movie from the safety of your own house is a no brainer. Scarlet doesn't give a damn about anyone but Scarlet and her money.

It's not like they are taking advantage of her, because she did and is still making a lot of money out of this crap terrible movie. These people are completely over paid and greedy.

I'll tell you what, this might be the last time we see her in any other Marvel movie. Let's see how much they pay her in her next not Marvel movie?

5 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@angrycreep: Face it, this plandemic will NEVER end.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

@angrycreep: So, they still lifted restrictions in a lot of areas (Especially in my city).

Also, it doesn't matter if she was making 3 billion off of this movie. You can't just keep potential money away from people, especially if it's in her contract to get it. This is her career. I like to see how easy you'll be if I just scraped a chunk of off your money from your job.

2 • 
Avatar image for Thuban_23
Thuban_23

614

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thuban_23

@illegal_peanut: "I like to see how easy you'll be if I just scraped a chunk of off your money from your job." With liberals in charge now, that's going to be a lot more common. Haha! But no, the movie flopped, so too bad Jo. Plus she's getting old now and not as many people care to see her.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for doomsdayhell01
DoomsdayHell01

659

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@illegal_peanut:

Dude everybody is losing money, Just look at sports like Baseball. players lost a lot of money because people were not going to stadiums. Same thing with movie theaters. People are still not going to movie theaters.People working for big enterprises including CEO's were getting pay less because they were losing money during the Pandemic.

All this big movie companies, have all sort of clauses in place to protect them against all sort of things. If they think she has nothing against them, then that means that Scarlet didn't read the fine print.

Disney is trying to make money anyway they can, and there are still a multitude of people who still would not go to a movie theater and many of those would rather stay home and watch it from home. Disney is just facilitating that and making money in other ways.

I've been to the movie theater 3 times since they open it and during those 3 times, the whole place looked like ghost town. I saw a quiet place a few weeks ago and there was only 3 people in there watching that movie. Only a hand full of people inside the whole movie theater.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@doomsdayhell01: So it really was "A Quiet Place" then huh?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for doomsdayhell01
DoomsdayHell01

659

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@ironhorse89: Yeah it was really quiet bro 😁

Upvote • 
Avatar image for PrpleTrtleBuBum
PrpleTrtleBuBum

3845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@illegal_peanut: yeah while i dont really have sympathy for 20 million scarlett, the other side is that the studio heads make 100 million or something and this extra money goes towards them. if workers actors included dont fight, managers will have a habit of taking more

2 • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@PrpleTrtleBuBum: That's not how it works, managers can't simply take more, they take what was agreed on their contracts and anything else must be agreed with the board of directors and shareholders, and shareholders also want more of return on their investment... so no, they are not taking money from actors and put them directly in their pockets...

2 • 
Avatar image for PrpleTrtleBuBum
PrpleTrtleBuBum

3845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@Shebuka: potato tomato. later theyll look at the results and determine they made more money than they expected (some of it being scarletts supposed money) and then theyre sharing it around.

just like activision kicked people, saw their balance rise and then gave 100 millions to bobby

2 • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@PrpleTrtleBuBum: Again, that's not how it works... and if this is how you think then clickbait titles and sensationalist media worked really well and fused your brain...

On Scarlet thing you are wrong on the premises, Scarlet thinks that they will NOT make more money and that she will lose money because of Disney+ Premium renting.

Activision kicked some people from unprofitable teams and hired people to growing and profitable teams, these teams (their work) generated additional revenue, this additional revenue was split by shareholders and to "thank" the CEO, who is responsible for all decisions in reforming the company, they agreed on giving him a bonus. Simply firing people is not generating additional revenue, it's a save cost and can't be accounted for bonuses calculation.

Please stop blindly trust what sensationalist media says...

2 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

@Shebuka: But, Activision needed those people they kicked though.

For the past nine call of duty games, I repeat “nine call of duty games”. They've been behind on workers and have been understaffed for projects since Call of duty Advance warfare. A game that came out in 2014.

With call of duty's scale and size getting larger and larger each year. They've needed to make a third team help make these games. That’s why call of duty is made by three different studios. Instead of 2 like back in the day.

How do I know this is all true? Well, call of duty usually brings out some kind of trailer, or even a leaked image of the new game within the spring. We’re in the third quarter of the summer. And we don’t have a flipping clue about the latest call of duty, outside of the name.

And to make these cost-saving measures even more idiotic. They didn’t even save money that’s needed by the layoffs. It was used to save money that was wanted, for that brief moment. These firing of staff at the studio has led them to absorb other teams to compensate. This is why the next Spyro game and Crash game is now in limbo. And is why the transformers team doesn’t make transformers games anymore. And, if you’re smart, you would realize this is literally “putting all your eggs in one basket”. Which isn’t a good thing.

And how do I know all of that is true as well? Well, I live right by Raven software. And I just talked to the devs who worked there. Which Raven software is another studio Activision absorbed for call of duty.

So what Bobby did wasn't smart or good. It was a dumb move and ended up making things worse.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@illegal_peanut: The problem in your logic is that you are connecting different things:
* The people they kicked were not in teams working on games or not in the positions they needed.
* They were and are still hiring for the understaffed positions and you can see this yourself on the respective studios' website job offering pages.

The problem with understaffing is that there are not many qualified developers (and with each game you need more of them) out there who want to move to a different country to join a team... This is also why more studios from different locations are working on the same game, it's easier (relatively speaking) to find someone in a nearby area who wants to move a little (to a different city inside the same country as opposed to a different country or even continent) to join the team.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Shebuka: See that's another thing. Why didn't they just reallocate them to a different position then? I've seen that done in companies a lot. Heck, in my last job, there was this one person who worked in my position (And wasn’t really good at it). Who was put in another position the company needed them in. And they had literally no skill in it. But what did they do? They taught them and put them in that position. Because they didn't want to get rid of them.

This is a tactic I've seen done on Japanese game studios all the time. And that's how we got DMC 2. Sure it wasn't the greatest game of all time. But they didn't just tell the workers to screw off.

And on top of that. Firing people in today’s pandemic with little reason outside of “We just want higher numbers”, while making record-high profits. Just makes the company look utterly soulless (Also, the current job market is the worse in American history right now. Like seriously, 40 to 60 hours a week and it’s still hard to live single in a crappy apartment?). It doesn’t help that Activision is always dealing with crunch in their development times, and usually doesn’t have enough staff in other departments. And the fact that they keep having “We’re hiring” signs at their studios. And not accepting most applications at the same time. This is the same issue that the Blizzard branch suffers as well.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@illegal_peanut: I see your point, but what tells you that for every fired person they didn't reallocate a person to another position? or two? We simply don't know this, no one reports on the good company makes (this can be also confidential), only on bad things...

On retraining: there are several factors here, it is hard to retrain someone and you can do it only for low skill jobs. If you work as a community manager retraining you as a software engineer is simply impossible... It takes years of university to become a junior software engineer and even after it's not a sure thing that you'd be a good software engineer... (I'm interviewing every year candidates for curricular internships from our local university and some don't know the definition of OOP one month after giving the exam on OOP...) To add to this, retraining means you need to use someones time to train the person, and it can take from weeks to months of time, if you are already understaffed this means that you will be even more understaffed until the training is complete. This is also why if the profile of an applicant doesn't match the required skills they will not be selected, it simply makes it too hard to hire someone and then you need to train them and not going on with required tasks.

This to say, it's not black and white, you can't paint them evil only because they can't afford to retrain everybody... (afford in terms of human hours spend on tutoring someone and not doing their tasks, requiring to either shift deadlines, crunch the tutor or his colleagues or both... only to not fire someone and hire someone else that already has the required skillset)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Shebuka: I didn’t mean, "make the janitor a coder" ( I don’t know how the heck you got that out of the comment). I’m saying put them in another equally skilled position. Or hell make one up (Like literally every job that exists).

But, that's the thing, they keep doing the same thing. They keep firing people they need. And for the record, it’s mostly developers who get fired like this from Activision/blizzard. In these mass layoffs. And they keep being understaffed, even though their projects get more and more massive. Which is literally, "Let's save money by firing someone we don't need at the current moment." Just to realize in no time flat, "Oh, s*** maybe we needed those guys in the first place. But who cares, more money!".

Activision has been making enough money to keep these people, on top of needing more staff in general.

To make it worse. It’s not like they’re paying good money to the people they keep. They pay cut the hell out of these developers left and right. And now there is talk about sexual harassment, Molestation, and rape at the company by the higher-ups? That has also been going on for years? It’s a complete nightmare over there.

And here you are doing the, “Woeful manager” act. Like these firings have any merit, or good reason to them. When they just don’t. We have a company that earns so much money. They could give every last employee a raise of 20%, and still not be at a financial loss. And on top of that, you’re doing this naive childish “We don’t know what they do over there. We don’t work there.” crap. But there is tons of info about what goes down “over there” on the web right now. Which is literally, “Activision is making sure they make the highest dollar amount possible, fire any worker on the bottom to earn more money, and give the highest-ranking people way too much money.”.

I understand when the company needs it. But, firing people just to have more zeroes in your bank account. With no plans on using it on anything, but junk. That’s just being a d***.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@illegal_peanut: Then what did you mean? You said, citation: "Who was put in another position the company needed them in. And they had literally no skill in it." and this means in our context that someone who is not a coder/designer and has never done any coding/designing must be trained to become one... p.s. This is not even about Activision/Blizzard, it applies to any skilled job.

By legal definition "mass layoff" is when at least "50 employees are fired that are at least 1/3 of the total workforce" or "500+ layoffs regardless of the total workforce". Last I read there were 100 employees fired across all the studios, this is less than 1% out of 10.000+ employees. So there are no mass layoffs and you are spreading misinformation.

You are doing a hella lot of guesswork here and taking your information from sensationalism tabloids without checking it. I've read the lawsuit and if anything is true and proven then it's really horrible place to work and actions must be taken. BUT there are 0, literally 0 allegations of rape. There are also 0 allegations of pay cuts, there are allegations of salary disparity between men and women. There is also 1 direct allegation of a higher-up (Afrasiabi) molesting subordinates, the majority of other incidents are between colleagues of the same level. Again, you are spreading misinformation.

You are being childish here by thinking that by cutting jobs top managers get money right in their pockets... They have contracts like everybody, all the bonuses and percentages are written in the contracts. As you refer to "more money from the cuts" are considered "more money in the budget" for new hires and stuff and are not profits. Bonuses are calculated on gained profits. This is basic accounting...

You are also drawing the worst possible scenario as certain without proofs and due process based on the word on the internet... Show me ONE document that says that money from cuts are going to be bonuses...

This is not being a Woeful manager, it's being a grown-up, look at facts and not bend under cancel culture...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By illegal_peanut

@Shebuka: It's not "sensationalism". It comes from people I've talked to and asked. And when I ask. I tend to ask a few people, several to a dozen. Note, these people don't have to tell me a damn thing, note these people don't even know me well, note these people have no business discussing this type of matter with me, at, ALL. But, they believe it's important for me to know. And they all give me similar stories, that have similarities with other people I've talked to. And I don't cherry-pick. I just grab at random and see who is willing to talk. I match that up with what's been written. And see how it matches with what I've experienced. So pretty much how a news reporter gets info. Ask the people involved, read reports, try to experience it first hand, and add it all up. I'm not some idiot who reads a report or two. And treat it like the bible.

And, that's the other issue. They're playing the loopholes in their contract against people. Because what you're not realizing is that they're getting these bonuses. Without needing much work for it. They just fire a few people, check off a few requirements, and bomb more money. I asked my friends who work in corporate jobs, one of them being blizzard. And they said it's true as well. It doesn't matter if profits are down or up. If they do some random busywork (Firing people, Re-hires, reassignments, large hiring off temps, and handling lay-offs.), they get paid. Which is totally unfair, and needs to be reformed. Because unless you're stupid. You have to admit, getting a bonus regardless of work effort. Is just ridiculous.

And sure, there aren't any grounded facts. But the fact that so many workers are behind this risking their jobs and income. Just to get justice against them. Shows that it's true.

Because people don't risk career jobs on "I have a feeling about this".

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sgtkeebler
sgtkeebler

210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

This movie made it to theaters especially with covid? Is this is true about her contract then she should have gotten a better lawyer especially for expecting the movie to do well at a theater during covid

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jpme226
jpme226

74

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By jpme226

She ought to be ashamed at the 20M she got for such a pant-load of a movie. This one made Wonder Woman 1984 and Harley Quinn movies almost watchable.

2 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@jpme226: It wasn't as bad as WW84 but it still sucked. That Birds of Prey monstrosity was the worst POS ever put to film. So sick of Harley Quinn in general at this point. We get it DC. You want her to be your Deadpool. Newsflash: She ain't Deadpool and never will be.

2 • 
Avatar image for BLKCrystilMage
BLKCrystilMage

1370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 112

User Lists: 0

Sounds to me like someone at Disney was smart enough to realize the movie would flop and put in the pay-based-on-box-office clause to cover their losses.

Also sounds like ScarJo is too dumb to realize you never bite the hand that feeds. Especially when it's Mickey's hand feeding you.

6 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@BLKCrystilMage: This will come back to bite her hard. Disney is known for making people who cross them disappear career wise. Just ask Gina Carano.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for freddy_diggler
freddy_diggler

410

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Well, that's the last we will see of her as Black Widow. So long Scarlett.

7 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@freddy_diggler: Good riddance. Her version of BW was so far removed from the comics it wasn't even close.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for doomsdayhell01
DoomsdayHell01

659

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By DoomsdayHell01

She's been in a few stinkers but this movie Black Widow was just another of those. This movie was just terrible and right up there with Ms Marvel and Wonder woman.

Now putting that aside, if they did had a contract to pay her that much, then she should get her money, only to a certain extent. Why am i saying that? Because when they sign that contract there was no Pandemic so things has changed and obligations had to change to reflect the kind of world that we're living in right now and most likely moving forward.

She didn't want the movie to be released in the disney in demand because she would lose money. The last time i check, there's still a Pandemic going on and there's an even more dangerous virus called the Delta Variant infesting and killing people everyday.

There are a lot people out there that would rather stay home and watch the movie from the safety of their home and not go take any risk at the movie theater. She does sounds greedy to me and also it seems to me that she puts money infront of safety and can care less about you or me, as long as she gets pay her money.

It's not like someone is taking advantage of her, because she did and is still making a lot of money out of this crap terrible movie. These people are completely over paid and greedy.

I'll tell you what, this might be the last time we see her in a Marvel movie. Let's see how much they pay her in her next not Marvel movie?

4 • 
Avatar image for VampireLord123
VampireLord123

295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By VampireLord123

Since her character died in the MCU, and also her role was not in many of the movies, I think she is just trying to get as much as possible at this point because is basically the end of her character.

Also it seems weird to me, because they announce the movie will be in Disney+ from more than 6 months ago, why did she wait so long to fill the lawsuit? Was she hoping that the movie will do better in theaters even if it was on Disney+? So in reality is not about the breach of contract, is only about the money, she is just trying to get more from Disney before she goes through the exit gates.

3 • 
Avatar image for XBgyManX
XBgyManX

192

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Either way, the rich get richer. Meanwhile, the government bitches about helping people pay one months rent.

7 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@XBgyManX: There will be a crap ton of people out on the street starting in August unfortunately now that the eviction moratorium is up. If the US thought it had a homeless epidemic before, it's gonna explode in the next few weeks.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for feryl06
feryl06

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

So her legal team acknowledges that Disney knew Disney would lose money as well by releasing the film this way. It wasn't the best way to release a movie but what choice did Disney have? - postpone their cinematic universeeven further so she can get paid more???

2 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@feryl06: How much Disney loses isn't her concern. Yeah, Disney would have lost more by following the contract to the letter, so they should suck it up and pay the cost for breaking the contract.

3 • 
Avatar image for yearight
YeaRight

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Who cares....after her comments about "being objectified" despite gladly making truckloads of cash off of the avengers....kinda hard to take her seriously about anything.

7 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@yearight: She apparently has no problem defending pedos either ie Woody Allen. That right there alone is reason for me to not give two craps about her beef with Disney. Hope the Mouse buries her.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zeke_pliskin
zeke_pliskin

104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By zeke_pliskin

@yearight: Yes I seem to recall an interview with her around the time she first got cast as Black Widow and making a point of the fact her "girls" 🍈🍈 and dying her hair helped her get the role.

Those same "girls" were part of her first scene in the first Avengers movie. The one that made several truckloads of money.

Don't recall her having a problem with being objectified either of those times, just now when she's pushing 40 and in a turkey of a movie. Maybe she should have just carried it off with class and not cared, like Kate Winslet.

2 • 
Avatar image for tsunami2311
tsunami2311

1840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By tsunami2311

"was payed 20 already", i stooped reading there they are already over payed like most sport players,

there 1 years salary would be enough for most people to live comfortable for reset of there lives

5 • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@tsunami2311: Out of curiosity, what is the maximum salary one can earn before they no longer have the right to have a contract negotiated in good faith between entities be enforceable?

6 • 
Avatar image for Jaxith
Jaxith

708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@zmanbarzel: Honestly, there isn't, but neither is anyone obligated to sympathize for her. If someone is making enough money to feed a small country off of a single job and leaving most of it to wallow in excess anyway, I see no obligation to care for their plight.

The rich already have far more "rights" than the poor, and our society is designed to keep it that way. There is no moral obligation to care about the petty squabbles of the rich over an amount of money that could save many people's lives, but they only need for tissue paper.

5 • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Jaxith: I don’t think SJ or anyone in her camp is looking for sympathy or pity.

2 • 
Avatar image for Wraith3
Wraith3

1250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If her contract says that, the fact that Disney invoked Covid is a really low thing to do. Disney screwing her has nothing to do with Covid, it's a weak, sad excuse.

9 • 
Avatar image for BLKCrystilMage
BLKCrystilMage

1370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 112

User Lists: 0

@Wraith3: Huge multinational corporations having scummy lawyers? What a novel concept!

3 • 
Avatar image for nabinator
Nabinator

1386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Wraith3: especially when Disney has made far more money during Covid

4 • 
Avatar image for bigshaft
BigShaft

140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

I don't know why people are making this about Scarlett's greed or Disney breaking the contract. To me, this ultimately has to do with the pandemic and how movie studios have to shift given the situation we've been in for well over a year.

I find the lawsuit silly given the circumstances. I wouldn't call it greed. Scarlett might feel like she's been wronged. But Disney waited a year to release the movie in hopes that it went to the theaters only. I don't blame them for pivoting. It's not like Disney benefitted from releasing the film the way and when they did.

3 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@bigshaft: Disney shouldn't have signed the contract then. But they did, so if they don't honor it, pay up.

Assumedly in the future they won't be signing contracts with such provisions, but too bad for them, they already did.

3 • 
Avatar image for bigshaft
BigShaft

140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k: Neither you nor I have seen the contract. We don't know if "acts of God" or any other clauses like it are included in the language. In fact, I'd venture to guess that a multi-billion dollar company would NOT sign a contract that doesn't protect them in every which way. So no, until proven otherwise, I will not believe that "Disney shouldn't have signed the contract then."

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@bigshaft: Then they wouldn't be getting sued over it. Acting like Disney is incapable of screwing up because they're Disney is baffling.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bigshaft
BigShaft

140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k: Have you ever been in a lawsuit? It's not that Disney is incapable of screwing up (I never said that); it's that they use a good chunk of their billions of dollars to provide the best lawyers to put together the most iron clad contracts they can. Can they lose a lawsuit? Of course. Does that mean that they do everything in their power to avoid it, and that means putting together contracts that heavily protect them? Of course. How many lawsuits pertaining to revenue have you heard Disney lose??

It's not as simple as "Disney shouldn't have signed the contract then." That makes it sound as if they wrote their contracts in crayon while having drinks with Scarlett Johansson. How the judge determines the contract is what will determine the results of this case. That's it. I assure you this is not as easy as you make it sound. Both parties seem to have a strong argument and either this gets settled out of court (most likely), or this is going to be a sh**show of epic proportions that will most likely impact how agreements are made with actors and streaming services. And ultimately, if that's the case, us consumers will more than likely pay the price.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@bigshaft: Ah yes, so that means Disney would always have iron clad contracts and the best lawyers.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-feb-17-fi-pooh17-story.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-loses-appeal-massive-319-397394/

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036932/disney-redbox-lawsuit-star-wars-marvel-pixar-digital-downloads

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bigshaft
BigShaft

140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k: Did you read the links you posted or did you simply type "Disney loses lawsuit" and copied/pasted the random links you found?? None of those lawsuits you linked have anything to do with Disney writing something in their contracts and blatantly breaching the language of said contract. You're oversimplifying literally dozens of pages of a legally binding contract. But whatever, you can think what you want.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hornet65
hornet65

37

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hornet65

What sense does it make to claim that people who pirated the movie would have gone to a theater to watch it? If those people were willing to pay money to watch the movie they would have just... I don't know, paid money to watch it on Disney+.

Those that pirated the movie wouldn't have gone to a theater to watch it if there was no rip of the movie on day one. They would have just waited for there to be a rip of the movie and then still pirated it.

I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't they have to prove that all those pirated downloads would have translated to actual box office sales?

4 • 
Avatar image for nabinator
Nabinator

1386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nabinator

@hornet65: You can argue if easy pirating options are around, people would be far more inclined to utilise that due to the fact that cinemas are currently closed. After all, the experience of viewing a pirated copy would be very much the same as viewing it on Disney+

This obviously doesn't apply to those who are always going to pirate regardless.

4 • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Edited By mrbojangles25

Oh poor Scarlet, only earning 20 million.

I would only be OK with this lawsuit if she won and took everything she won in the lawsuit and gave it away to charity. Otherwise, **** them both.

Pretty dick move of Disney, though, they should have honored the contract or renegotiated, sounds like they ignored her and just went and did what they want and said "yeah, but but but COVID"

7 • 
Avatar image for valendreth112
ValenDreth112

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

First world problems...

Upvote •