Robbiem
Well-Known Member
Does this mean disney had deals with MGM for the name and Turner to use classic IPs when DHS opened?
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Hollywood insiders say there's growing tension at Disney as CEO Bob Chapek chafes at Bob Iger's 'long goodbye'
- Thread starter Creathir
- Start date
dsinclair
Active Member
Since MGM was sold in 86, and the licensing deal was in 85 it was probably just one.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
doubt it.
VJ
Well-Known Member
That will likely just be a settlement.
DoleWhipDrea
Well-Known Member
I don't think Chapek will stick around as long as Iger has, but the BOD would need a real prospect for a replacement first...pretty sure they don't have anyone on their radar at the moment.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Whilst that is true - a couple of points this could mean more folks coming out of the woodwork for residuals and that talent like Scarlett Jo, Emma Stone, The Rock and Emma Blunt may no longer want to work with the Mouse House anymore.
Well for one they are contracted to in most cases, so they would take a hit after they are out of their contract. I don't disagree with you that it should not happen, but The Rock like Depp ten years ago is a matured product. Hollywood is a mess and most actors are happy to be getting any attention and those large incomes right now.
You are right, it is one more headache the execs do not need.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
I *just* read a story about Emma Stone "weighing her options" now that ScarJo has sued.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
This, I think, is certainly true and it may be that Disney becomes the studio that has to work through the legal ramifications of this shift in strategy in the short term. I am kind of surprised Disney didn't renegotiate the contracts when the release strategy was changed to avoid this messy outcome.
Beyond that, though, I find it very hard to imagine the BOD being so scandalised by Scarlett Johansson and possibly Emma Blunt suing over their contracts that they sack the CEO. They're probably not quite that prone to swoon over Hollywood stars.
Exactly. They just cut some change from here and there elsewhere, and find someone else.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
The problem is if this has a snowball effect: Talent who have been victims over contract breaches sue Disney, Disney settles out of court, talent from other productions that are in development for Disney+ demand residuals. Talent advises other talent to stay away from Disney films.
It just kind of depends if Board likes being known as the disreputable movie studio compared to ones in Hollywood. But from one article Disney refused to meet with Scarlett Jo refused regarding compensation after it went to a dual strategy release.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Does anyone remember the marathon of lawsuits from people like Peggy Lee and others when Disney first started releasing its movies to VHS?
It's happening all over again.
It's happening all over again.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Peter Rice, Jimmy Pitaro, and Kareem Daniel seem to be the up-and-comers, but none of them have meaningful Parks experience.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Is there any evidence of this with The Rock? He seems to be a pretty big "Disney Guy" at this point, along with Josh Gad and a few others.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It's a legitimate complaint, and one that's going to become a bigger issue going forward. A lot of movie stars have compensation that's at least partially based on box office receipts, so anything that cuts in to that market cuts their compensation.
I assume there will be a contractual shift to eliminate that type of percentage based payment in the future, but that means the upfront cost of producing these films will increase when they're having to pay someone $20 million regardless of how well the movie performs.
I assume there will be a contractual shift to eliminate that type of percentage based payment in the future, but that means the upfront cost of producing these films will increase when they're having to pay someone $20 million regardless of how well the movie performs.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
The obvious solution here is to just include a cut of Premiere Access as if it was part of box office.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I thought of that, but I'm not sure actors would go for it, at least not without asking for a higher percentage than they typically received from the box office -- and I'm not sure Disney would go for that. It's almost always going to be a smaller take, if only because more than one person can watch it for the price. You can't pay for one ticket to a movie and bring 5 other people with you.
I understand "Fair Compensation" but I have a hard time seeing you suing after you got 20 Mil. Yeah it would have been more if it wasnt for pandemic. But to me this kinda tarnishes Ms Johanssen to me a bit and I am a fan of hers. In light of the current world she should have kinda understood she would not make what she could have previously and banked on the future. She isnt going to stop getting job offers.