[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…she was never going to say….oh well, it’s only $50 million so…

Well, exactly!

Like a lot of big fat businesses, they probably thought they could get away with cutting corners to screw people over.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

She is or was a couple of years ago the highest grossing actor regardless of sex but she was still no where near the highest paid actor most probably because she's a woman. I could see therefore why this **** would annoy her

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

The irony is that this is largely because all of the highest earning actors have taken percentage deals linked to box office performance rather than a flat fee - e.g. this is why RDJ has earned so much from the Iron Man franchise. One of the first was Hugo Weaving who made an absolute fortune in the early 2000's as I believe he was getting revenue from both The Matrix triology and LOTR trilogy at the same time.

Anyway, that's the deal Scarlett Johansson had made for her solo movie, taking that advice on board from Avengers co-stars, but then the pandemic came along and she got ****ed over.

It's an unprecedented situation but that doesn't mean Disney should be saying "and therefore tough luck" - they should be saying "this is an unprecedented situation" and just bloody well pay her an estimate of what the revenue would have been pre-pandemic. They'd still be making a huge profit on the movie, and she's been a huge part of the Avengers franchise, which has grossed literally BILLIONS of dollars at the box office for Disney, not to mention merchandising etc.

Disney is easily worth $150 billion+ and, for the fact that her movie was impacted so badly by the pandemic and as she's been such a huge part of the MCU thus far, they should just have made an exception and paid her.

[Jordan.]

Disney's response:

“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,” Disney said in an unusually fiery statement. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The company went on to state that the star has already received $20 million for her work and argued 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.” Disney did not provide any information about whether or not Johansson’s pact was renegotiated so that she could share in streaming rental revenue.

Using the pandemic as a stick to beat someone with and an excuse not to adhere to a contract... and they want to call her the callous one

[Ammi]

…a lie keeps growing and growing until it’s as plain as the breach in your contract…/Pinocchio….

[Ammi]

…they considered their profits but it isn’t ok for Scarlett to consider her income…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…they considered their profits but it isn’t ok for Scarlett to consider her income…

This is the thing, people are like "boo hoo poor Scarlet, she only earned $20million" this only seems to apply when it's a female who's lost out on money. Are there bigger issues in the world? Of course there is but she's still entitled to claim back what's hers and sue this massive company for breaching their agreement

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Disney's response:



Using the pandemic as a stick to beat someone with and an excuse not to adhere to a contract... and they want to call her the callous one

…your impact, Jordan…

Disney criticised for ‘disgusting’ response after Scarlett Johansson sues studio over Black Widow release…

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/disney-cri...061450472.html

[bots]

the devil is in the detail .....

The actor’s lawsuit says that her compensation for the movie was “largely based” on Black Widow’s box office performance, and had “extracted a promise from Marvel that the release would be a ‘theatrical release’.’

a promise is not a contract

[Ammi]

Johansson, whose lawsuit says Disney “intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the Agreement” to prevent her “from realising the full benefit of her bargain”, has been supported in her decision to take action against the studio.


…the ‘detail’ will be the lawyer/law team that wins the case……implied contracts are legally binding in the eyes of the law and Disney is not showing great ethics or honesty here from what is being said…

[Ammi]

…no matter the contract wording, I would interpret a pledge/promise etc as being an implied contractual thing and that is recognised legally as well…so the devil is open to what the court decides…

[Ammi]

…anyway, Team Scarlett……

[bots]

These things happen all the time. Someone will have made a commitment to her at a lower level in the company, but the contract is with the executive of the company, and unless that commitment made its way into the contract, by the time it gets to the executive, there isn't a whiff of any commitment.

It's nothing new, it has been happening forever in all sorts of business. Once bitten, twice shy

Just to add, at the time the contract was signed, it was pre-pandemic, no-one would be thinking that streaming it early would be a valid economic option, but times changed

[Ammi]

…well that bite left her shy of around 50 million……and we don’t know what the contracts says or who promised or pledged what and what level they were within the company etc…and that’s what the law suit will decide as it’s absolutely something that she’s not accepting and she shouldn’t accept it…this is her livelihood and the agreement is breaching what she felt that was agreed to…she’s in an industry that can have a very short working life span and she will consider her work offers based on what they have her believe they will fulfil…

[bots]

it's all very complex and i'm sure the lawyers will gleefully get involved. It's an important lesson though. None of us know what the future holds, so when it comes to contracts, dot the i's and cross the t's, cause thats all that matters in the land of litigation

[Ammi]

…another ‘lesson’ maybe for Disney…?…a brand that considers money and profit before people and promises shows none of the ethics and integrity that its reputation has always aimed to…maybe that’s how the court will see it, hmmmmm….

[Niamh.]

https://www.cbr.com/emma-stone-cruel...IoCpfAfc5WOGGo

[Ammi]

…I wouldn’t be messing with the Black Widow and Cruella de vil….

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I wouldn’t be messing with the Black Widow and Cruella de vil….

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Niamh.]

Assholes

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/...hTGFwBqEcj5zNs

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Marsh.]

She's literally had to fight tooth and nail to be treated as equal to her male counterparts her entire tenure with Marvel so they're simply making themselves look worse and worse. Wouldn't want to work for them again if I were her. Fortunately, she probably won't need to.

[Niamh.]

Speaking of her male marvel counterparts, It would have been nice if one of them would have spoken up for her

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Speaking of her male marvel counterparts, It would have been nice if one of them would have spoken up for her

I'd say it's possible (maybe even probable) that they have contractual reasons that they legally can't.