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 Gamod
Gamod

70

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Dont worry, who will pay for all her crap it will be us the users who pay to watch disney movies and that we pay the disney+ subscription.. or where does she think Disney money comes from... so, ye, we are the ones that will pay.

She is really a gold digger, in a different level... but true gold digger.

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

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@Gamod: So a woman sticks up for herself, (and fights against the breach of a legally binding contract), and she's a "gold digger"?

Would you be saying the same thing if it was say, Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans in the same situation? Would they be gold diggers too? I wonder...

4 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: No, both of those actors are actually talented.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@n0matter: Which doesn't actually answer the question at all.

2 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator  Online

@thecupidstunts: It kinda does though. : \

"No, I would not call those actors gold diggers if they sued over a breach of contract, because I like them. I don't like this actor, so when she does it, I call her a gold digger."

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: It does though. You asked "Would you be saying the same thing if it was say, Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans in the same situation? Would they be gold diggers too?" And I said "No, both of those actors are actually talented". You have problems with reading comprehension or something?

Poor SJ's movie didn't do as well as she wanted it to and so she raised a lawsuit after it was released (she could have done this months ago--it was already planned for Disney + earlier this year). Hope the door doesn't smack her ass on the way out. I doubt any studio will want to work with her after this.

2 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@n0matter: Disney will end her career just like they did Gina Carano. You don't cross the House of Mouse. She must be out of her mind to pull this crap thinking she'll have any sort of career afterwards.

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

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@n0matter: It wasn't a question about anyone's personal opinions regarding RDJ, CE, or SJ's acting talent. The question was a very simple one; would either of the male counterparts be held in the same regard, ("gold digger"), if they pursued legal action on a breach of contract.

Interesting that you rudely call into question my ability to comprehend, but don't answer the actual question, (twice). Learn some manners, then we can talk. 🙃

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: You're trying to turn this into something about gender, like every other jaded female on the planet right now. I gave you a simple answer, it's just not the one you wanted. RDJ and CE would understand.

2 • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clockworkengine

@n0matter: I'm with you on this one. I'm tired of people trying to use SJW accusations just to win stupid internet arguments. Those are serious aspersions, and it's potentially very harmful to someone in this day and age to even be accused of such things. Very malicious in my opinion.

I should point out that @thecupidstunts is an anagram of a slur against women. Interesting, huh?

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@clockworkengine: "an anagram of a slur against women."

This is true. I've been called a stupid ---- many times in my life, (it's such a gross and disrespectful thing to say to a woman). So I flipped it on it's head and took my confidence back, by using it in a way that is more empowering to me.

I'm really trying to figure out how my question was malicious though? It was absolutely legitimate, (albeit maybe a bit uncomfortable). Even if we take the specific wording of "gold digger" out of the equation, you can clearly see that many are making disparaging comments about ScarJo for defending herself against breach of contract. I just want to know if one of the leading men in the MCU were in this exact same situation, would they be getting the same reactions? Would anyone be saying that Downey is just being overly dramatic? Or that Chris Evan's window of hotness closed 10 years ago? Or that Hemsworth is a lousy actor so all of his legally binding contracts shouldn't be enforceable? It seems like some are doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics to not actually answer that question honestly.

I'm not trying to win an argument. People will think what they want to think, (and I'm not naive enough to think that I'm going to change that), but there is nothing wrong with asking people to maybe think about something that might not have occurred to them otherwise. 😉

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clockworkengine

@thecupidstunts: Reduce the offense you take at anything. My assessment of the reactions on this post is that the reactions have nothing to do with gender and in fact have everything to do with class divide. People are pissed at her wealth, not her vagina. That's just as stupid if you ask me. I believe in getting what you work for whether you're a man or a woman, black or white. I prefer to believe that most people feel this way. Naive? Perhaps. But I recommend naivete. Oversensitivity is stupid and robs people of their freedom to speak and think independently. Your use of an anti-feminine slur is just as subject to scrutiny as a man's use of it. Reconsider. You are not special. You may not practice one thing and preach another, that is if you want to retain the respect of your fellow humans, and if you want the ability to call people out for disrespect against females.

Some of your probative questions are loaded or designed to be unanswerable without "mental gymnastics". For instance, one would not call a man a widow. That's a widower. The answer, though, is yes. And many have called male actors overly dramatic. That's a character flaw to which actors and actresses in general are prone. Just stop. I argued with this guy on another area of this post and I can tell you he was aggressive and nasty sometimes, but he seemed reasonable to a degree and I do not believe he was attacking your gender. Get some perspective, please!

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@n0matter: The term "gold digger" has a very specific connotation, (I'm sure you're aware of it). That turned it into something about gender, not me. I just called it out.

Also, if your perception is that all females on the planet are jaded right now, that says much more about you than it does about females. 🤷‍♀️

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: A gold digger can just as easily be a man. You're the one that made this about gender by suggesting the term can't be applied to male actors. Sorry, this is 100% on you.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@n0matter: "A gold digger can just as easily be a man."

And yet I can't think of a single instance where I've ever heard a man referred to as such. Funny how that works.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: Again, this is on you. I've heard it used in reference to men quite a few times. I guess you're just not as worldly and educated as you thought.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@n0matter: "Not as worldly and educated as you thought".

But you are just as rude as I thought. A shame that you couldn't have just continued the discussion without resorting to insults. 🙁

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thecupidstunts: Not rude, just realistic. Because someone used the term "gold digger", you assumed it was a slight towards females. Because you've never heard it used in a specific context, it couldn't possibly have been meant that way. Because you aren't hearing what you want to hear, someone is being "rude". Get a clue, everything you're saying is just pouty and presumptuous.

2 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@Gamod: She's a gold digger? thats funny.

It sounds like they broke the deal. She's just trying to get what was contractually her's.

And when it comes to disney, I say go after it\them. they sure aren't afraid to sue people, or fire people.

She jumped through the hoops, it was in the contract, she lost money when they released it on their streaming platform. seems pretty cut and dry to me.

8 • 
Avatar image for Gamod
Gamod

70

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@deth420: I just never really liked her :) she is a bit paranoid, but actually I would love to see if she will win this or lose... since we dont know exactly what kind of deals it was between her and Disney...

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-625793e9d045a
deactivated-625793e9d045a

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Get what you can. That movie stunk. They should have never released it.

3 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@fatman98: if this would have followed up civil war or something, I think it would have fit better.

But yeah the movie wasnt great, nor bad in my opinion.

3 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Pretty obvious Disney screwed her over and violated the contract, regardless of whether releasing on streaming was the right thing to do (it was). Pay up, Disney.

6 • 
Avatar image for die_yng
die_yng

90

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By die_yng

I mean, yes, for us regular Joe's $20 million sounds like a fantastic payment for a film, and it is.
My initial reaction was along that line, to how greedy she must be, if 20 million bucks aren't enough for her.
However, to really judge this, one would have to know how much other MCU stars earned through their films.
And let's not forget that the money Johansson makes might be a lot, BUT Disney is earning far more through it.
It's funny how we get angry at celebrities, when it seems as if they can't get enough, but we just blindly accept the same from major corporations.

2 • 
Avatar image for inmycontrol
InMyConTroL

351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@die_yng: man don't be stupid. You can't compare Robert DJ, C.Evans and a few other stars to Johansson. She doesn't make the same revenue as the others for the Marvel Studios/Disney, this comparison is just non-sense. 20M bucks for that movie is a lot of money.

This movie should have never existed.

4 • 
Avatar image for Viper13579
Viper13579

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Viper13579  Online

@die_yng: She will still probably get her extra $30 million but that’s it for her in anymore Disney/Fox movies or series. I hope it was worth it. She won’t be missing any meals or house payments but still. Disney won’t let this go to court. They’ll just settle or give her the $30 million out right. But to be excluded in future MCU projects and the possibility of being blackballed in Hollywood, idk if this was a smart decision. She’s supposed to be in Jungle Book 2 but now that’s probably a no go unless she signed a contract already for the movie that Disney can’t get out of. If any other actress or actor had done the same thing or complained about the same thing, I would be behind her but she’s the first. I wonder if she’s upset Bc she thought the movie would do better

4 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@Viper13579: yeah but shes done with these movies...her character is dead. she put the work in, put up with disney, and had a standard contract for a percentage (or however its was stated) of gross box office. they pulled it from the theaters early, to use it to promote their streaming service.

...pay her.

4 • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@deth420: Just to clarify here. They didn't pull it from theatres, they released it simultaneously in theatres and on Disney+ Premier Access. Disney+ Premier Access is, by all means, a one time rent of a film for 30$, it's not part of the standard Disney+ subscription. She will receive all revenue from every Disney+ Premier Access rent as she will from theatres tickets purchase.

2 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@Shebuka: yeah, I wasnt sure if disney was sharing profits from the streaming service. guess it makes sense to do so.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Viper13579
Viper13579

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Viper13579  Online

@deth420: she’ll get paid. What I’m saying is is this worth it to be possibly blackballed and to lose out on other Disney movies (not Marvel in particular). Plus this is more about COVID than a breach of contract. Disney can argue that because of COVID and super diminishing theater numbers, they had no choice or no one would’ve got paid. Not to mention that it looks more and more like within the next few months states will start to shut down again

2 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@Viper13579: fair assessment.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Viper13579: Have you entertained the likelihood that the actors' guild would prevent Disney from blackballing her over a contractual dispute, especially if the contract dispute turns out to be valid? The SAG or whatever it's called has a lot of power. Disney has power too, but they're at the mercy of their talent. Politics are strange these days. Everyone is a crusader, and money falls second to glory when you're already rich.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Viper13579
Viper13579

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Viper13579  Online

@clockworkengine: you are absolutely right, but none of her constituents have come out to support her (from what I’ve read). And you can get blackballed without SAG getting involved. Not the same level of actress but look at what happened to Monique. She was hot commodity, won an Oscar, start getting the big head, now she can’t get anything in Hollywood worth any type of money. SAG hasn’t stepped in at all. She’s going to get paid from the Disney+ stuff. She’s just being kinda difficult about one piece of verbage in a contract that was probably agreed to before COVID happened. Ask yourself this: if it’s so bad, why haven’t other actors and actresses did the same thing? I think this is a Scarlett problem more than anything else

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clockworkengine

@Viper13579: Well I can't verify nor speak to some of the facts in your response so therefore I can't argue them. However, history has shown SAG strikes or walkouts have typically revolved around business or working-conditions issues. If Monique got herself blackballed for her attitude and difficulty to work with, then her fellow actors and directors would support that blackballing. I've heard of many cases where some actors outright refuse to work with others for those reasons. But no members of the guild would support a business or contractual wrongdoing, especially that which sets a legal precedent that reduces their bottom line basically in perpetuity. This unfolding situation presents a serious potential threat to them. They won't just sit there and watch. But we'll see, of course I'm just operating here from logic and historical precedent.

Read this article: Screen Actors Guild - Wikipedia. It will demonstrate the historical pattern established by the history of SAG strikes, and it will show that they have always revolved around business issues, not personal issues. One thing to realize here is that any union is the master of their members. If a union board decides to strike, for any reason and for any cause, the actors have no choice but to obey the strike, because no guild members may work on non-union projects and no union projects will hire non-guild members to work. Union rules, simple as that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: lol, yeah like SAG can do shit about studios not wanting to hire her. WB: "No thanks", Paramount: "Hell no", Touchstone: "No effing way." SAG: "But you HAVE to hire her!"

SAG has no power at all--it's basically just a list of actors and has zero influence over studio politics and casting decisions.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@n0matter: I guess you don't know about labor strikes. The world has been changed many times over from labor strikes. Fortunes lost. When a guild comprises almost every actor (read: member of a work force), they hold all the cards.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: When the entire Entertainment industry has tanked over the course of two years, no one is striking shit. And SAG doing anything at all to support one greedy actress is laughable. Past SAG strikes have also never been all-inclusive. Meaning you either see either actors or writers banding together to demand better profit-sharing and incentives.

SAG is, at best, an unorganized union. And virtually none of their efforts have been lauded by Joe Consumer (everyone thinks that an over-paid actor demanding more money is absurd). Basically everything you and your buddy have posted about SAG makes me realize that you know nothing about how it works; it can't control the fate of individual actors, the way the OP suggested. And many of their endeavors have failed over the decades.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clockworkengine

@n0matter: Everyone might think that an overpaid actor demanding more money is absurd, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a contract (whose exact language is unknown, so spare the pretense) which has potentially been violated. I'm not sure what realm you're from, but in the realm of professional responsibility one must honor all agreements or face consequences. She might win, she might lose. But the merit of the suit itself is not for us to decide, unless you typically make a habit of talking out of your ass.

Let me also add, if Disney wins the lawsuit it could set a precedent which has the potential to take money away from actors worldwide on a regular basis. It could easily be imagined that the guild would take interest in this and fight it universally. All I'm saying is it's a possibility, and a distinct one. All you can do at this point is tell me I'm wrong as if you know exactly what's going to happen based on extremely limited information. If that's your stance, I'll leave you to it. Not a good idea though, one should know what one does not know.

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: Anyone who pretends to know the details of the contract here is talking out of their ass. Including you. The facts of the case are already stacked against her (she didn't raise this lawsuit until AFTER the lackluster box office and D+ numbers, even though it was announced ages ago that this would be a D+ feature). So, while we can only speculate on the verbiage of the contract, we already know this is a just a play on her part to make up for her movie being shit and performing accordingly. And, if Disney had anything at all to fear regarding the allegations, they likely would have either tried to bury this or begin negotiations. The fact that they're sticking to their guns just makes her look even more greedy.

On a personal level, I and many others feel that she's over-paid, limited in talent and making a very stupid decision here that will burn bridges indefinitely. You can disagree with that if you'd like.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@n0matter: We don't "already know" any of that. And nice paraphrasal of my last comment. But please, form your own arguments.

Also, you keep bringing up what other people think to support your arguments. How about you argue on your own merit? This is the search for truth, not victory. Let's argue honestly or walk away.

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: Then elaborate on your original SAG arguments instead of shifting gears entirely. We're currently on a tangent and deviated from your original response. I'm interested in hearing more about your expertise when it comes to how SAG works, how it pertains to this situation, how the strikes are organized and to what end and so on. Don't just shift gears the moment you're called out on something and then try to dissect someone else's arguments about an entirely different subject.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clockworkengine

@n0matter: Ok, do try your very best not to skim down to your response. Read carefully, as you have already missed several points (I know this since you asked me to clarify them again)

First of all, let me clarify that I have probably the same amount of SAG expertise as you, which likely reads zero. I have repeatedly used words like 'possibly', 'potentially', etc, in a deliberate effort to not put off the image that I'm pretending to know anything about the lawsuit or the associated organizations. And indeed, I have clarified the things you asked me to clarify, but you were more interested in the tangent so the foam pouring out of your mouth as you slammed your keyboard probably obscured those passages to your eye. I'll explain again for your convenience.

I can't comment on the SAG's organization, but I can tell you that most actors of any repute are members. I can tell you that the lawsuit filed highly indicates that actors lose money when companies release to stream simultaneously with theatrical releases. This is a simple inference requiring only logic. The SAG is pertinent to this situation in that they have the power to control the actions of their guild members. There is a thing in legality called 'precedent', which is basically the fact that in court, a lawyer can produce the results of a past lawsuit as evidence in a current lawsuit, and judges almost always follow precedent which makes them very difficult to reverse. If this lawsuit is won by Disney, that would set the precedent that allows corporations to circumvent an actor's pay by releasing the product on sources which do not flow income to said actors. This would be interpreted by the SAG and anyone else with an interest (such as every actor in the world) as a huge threat to the bottom line of their interested parties. If you do not believe the SAG (who has thousands of highly skilled lawyers) would do everything in their power to stop that precedent from being established, up to and including a labor strike against Disney productions, then I doubt you'll see my point here. The SAG is not a lame duck. They are comprised of, and indeed conduct the will of, all the actors in their organization. We have only seen the beginning of this. I believe it will get complicated.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: Clever. It's possible that I am potentially right about this and you aren't. Now you say the same and, according to your logic/approach to the discussion, there is nothing else to be said.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@n0matter: Well we certainly aren't here to argue the lawsuit. We're here to fruitlessly speculate on the possibilities. There is no wrong or right in this discussion; there is only the discussion, and the respect you do or don't show your fellow commenters.

2 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@n0matter: unless they all go on strike.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@deth420: Yeah that will totally happen...over this

2 • 
Avatar image for nazart81
nazart81

329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

I would happily pay for a single streaming service with everything in it, like spotify, but no, studios want their own platform. I'll stop torrenting when a spotify like service arrives with almost everything in it.

6 • 
Avatar image for BLKCrystilMage
BLKCrystilMage

1370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 112

User Lists: 0

@nazart81: You mean like Netflix used to be?

2 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nazart81: That was cable, years ago. And it was far more expensive than the cost of all these streaming providers combined.

I am perfectly happy with what we have now, because I can even stop paying for certain services when i deem there is nothing I want to watch on it at the moment.

2 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@nazart81: Fun fact: after decreasing for a number of years, global torrent traffic began increasing again. Analysis found it was due to the rise of segmented streaming services. Turns out most people will only pay for one streaming service, and pirate everything else they want to watch.

The media companies have only themselves to blame for this clusterfuck of greed.

9 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: yeah thats me. had several streaming services. down to 1 now, and back to the bay.

5 • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A lot of commenters here are clearly angry at not being celebrity rich. Way too many people that want to see the rich brought low. Wouldn't it be better if you brought yourself up high?

6 • 
Avatar image for Jaxith
Jaxith

708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: I don't think it's worth it or fair to be angry at her, but I don't see any reason to care either. I would say though, saying people should just bring themselves up high is really pandering and even insulting. Society isn't built as a ladder for the poor. It's a safety net for the rich.

Funny thing with a net though, it's awfully hard to get out if you're under it...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Jaxith: Someone who is insulted by the suggestion that they should rise above their station is likely someone who would be insulted by anything. How about taking my advice instead? Gaining wealth is not the only way to climb the ladder. Develop your talents!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rgraf77
rgraf77

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: I agree. People act like just because your successful that you shouldn’t want to get paid. They should have negotiated to add in streaming sales towards her salery.

4 • 
Avatar image for Shebuka
Shebuka

110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@rgraf77: Just to clarify here. Disney+ Premier Access is, by all means, a one time rent of a film for 30$, it's not part of the standard Disney+ subscription. She will receive all revenue from every Disney+ Premier Access rent as she will from theatres tickets purchase.

What they wanted is to renegotiate the base salary (the 20M$) in case it was on streaming service simultaneously with theatres.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for valendreth112
ValenDreth112

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@rgraf77: No bro, this is a first world problem, she has made a killing appearing in many movies in the MCU. Now she is biting the hand that feeds.

Upvote •