Black Widow moves to 2021

Archie123

Archie123

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish said:
And it looks like the lawsuit is moving toward settlement with Disney moving it to arbitration, which is also stipulated in the contract:

www.wsj.com

Disney Lawyer Defends Distribution of ‘Black Widow’ in Scarlett Johansson Fight

The lawyer said Disney will seek to move the fight from the courts to arbitration.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

So playing out just as I suspected it would.
Click to expand...

Of course it's going to be settled out of court. Only one person on here thought otherwise which shows how much he knows about the industry. Not a lot.
 
CJR

CJR

Well-Known Member
According to the other site, Disney's separating itself completely from Scarlett Johansson and cutting all future ties. The Tower of Terror reboot movie that she was going to produce and star in has been cancelled.

Personally, I think it's a bad move on their part, but it's their decision to make. Nothing like completely burning a bridge with an actress that gave you a lot over the last decade, with the potential for more. I don't think this is going to end well for a few key executives including Chapek and Alan Horn, who would also be partially responsible (especially for a ToT film).
 
Wendy Pleakley

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
CJR said:
According to the other site, Disney's separating itself completely from Scarlett Johansson and cutting all future ties. The Tower of Terror reboot movie that she was going to produce and star in has been cancelled.

Personally, I think it's a bad move on their part, but it's their decision to make. Nothing like completely burning a bridge with an actress that gave you a lot over the last decade, with the potential for more. I don't think this is going to end well for a few key executives including Chapek and Alan Horn, who would also be partially responsible (especially for a ToT film).
Click to expand...

It's bizarre, and can impact relations with future talent as well. I linked an article a while back about Kevin Feige being upset.

Remember, they've said they're not locking stars into long term deals like they did for Samuel L. Jackson (nine movies or something like that).

That means you might sign an actor for a trilogy, but will need a new agreement to have them make a small appearance in a Civil War type movie or even an Avengers movie. Failing to treat the talent well could mean never having something as impressive as Infinity War again, where everyone comes back.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Wendy Pleakley said:
It's bizarre, and can impact relations with future talent as well. I linked an article a while back about Kevin Feige being upset.

Remember, they've said they're not locking stars into long term deals like they did for Samuel L. Jackson (nine movies or something like that).

That means you might sign an actor for a trilogy, but will need a new agreement to have them make a small appearance in a Civil War type movie or even an Avengers movie. Failing to treat the talent well could mean never having something as impressive as Infinity War again, where everyone comes back.
Click to expand...
That's when he thought that relations between Disney and big name actors were in a honeymoon phase and the big names would surely say yes to whatever Disney asked.

We'll see if the SJ fiasco changes that sentiment of his.
 
M

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
CJR said:
I don't think this is going to end well for a few key executives including Chapek and Alan Horn, who would also be partially responsible (especially for a ToT film).
Click to expand...
Well, Horn is one the way out, finally retiring, though this will definitely spell how his tenure as studio chair was failing upwards, and somehow being Iger's favorite despite his mediocrity and the screwjob he did at New Line with Robert Shaye and Michael Lynne.

But do you seriously think Chapek could be yanked as CEO after 18 months on the job? If so, what would happen? Would Iger somehow step back into the the breach, or someone else, like this forum's favorite, Josh D'Amaro, take the reins? (Also, if people think having D'Amaro as CEO would be best for the parks, wouldn't having stay in charge of parks actually be best in that regard? I don't quite get it.)

What would "new" CEO do, besides settle the lawsuit?
 
Last edited:
CJR

CJR

Well-Known Member
Mmoore29 said:
Well, Horn is one the way out, finally retiring, though this will definitely spell how his tenure as studio chair was failing upwards, and somehow being Iger's favorite despite his mediocrity and the screwjob he did at New Line with Robert Shaye and Michael Lynne.

But do you seriously think Chapek could be yanked as CEO after 18 months on the job? If so, what would happen? Would Iger somehow step back into the the breach, or someone else, like this forum's favorite, Josh D'Amaro, take the reins? (Also, if people think having D'Amaro as CEO would be best for the parks, wouldn't having stay in charge of parks actually be best in that regard? I don't quite get it.)

What would "new" CEO do, besides settle the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

Good question, I don't think even Iger or Chapek know the answer, but I feel confident that Iger is done with his time as CEO. He could stay on the board longer, we'll see. I think he wants to be done with Disney, he's been kind vocal about that.

Chapek has had a hard time at the top, but he agreed to it knowing that what was coming was going to be tough, just as Iger knew what he was doing when he resigned. I would find it hard to believe that he wasn't following what was happening around the world when he said "yes" to the job. It was probably more than he expected, but he had to know that 2020 was going to be rough, just because of what was happening in China at the time, which he oversaw.

I think Josh D'Amaro will not become CEO if Chapek were to leave. He just got promoted to his current role and it's been a bit turbulent for him. I'd be surprised if he'd even want the job after what's happening with Bob Chapek. I also don't think the board would offer it to him because of Bob Chapek and the precedent it sets about "parks and products people". Chapek could very well break such advancements for that career path in the future.

This is just my guess, but Chapek will probably stick it out for a bit before the board brings in an outside CEO or team (similar to the Eisner move) in a very structured transition that will make everyone look good. It'd take a stroke of luck to repeat that success though. If Chapek leaves prematurely, there'll probably be an acting CEO (still don't think it'll be Iger or D'Amaro), although I think this scenario is unlikely. More than likely, all this stuff will just shorten his tenure, we'll see.
 
M

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
That's certainly very good points. After all, when Eisner began making massive mistakes as CEO, he still held the job for years, and even held on for another after being kicked out of the chairman's role. So the wheels move slowly.

Meantime, if you'd like to know an alternate history idea I've done on the side on another site, which involves a different path for Disney starting in the '90s, feel free to talk to me in a PM.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Disney cancelling all projects with SJ seems like an extremely petulant move on their part. Not a good look at all. We'll see how it plays out. I can't imagine that her fans are too pleased.
 
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
Disney cancelling all projects with SJ seems like an extremely petulant move on their part. Not a good look at all. We'll see how it plays out. I can't imagine that her fans are too pleased.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to see Disney will no longer do business with SJ. This lawsuit is a shame and should have been settled behind closed doors. Looking at how Suicide Squad did, I think Black Widow did as well as could have been expected. My wife refuses to go to theaters until Covid19 is over. However, I think all Marvel actors have been over paid. No movies should cost $200 million to make. No actor is worth more than $5 million a movie. If movies cost less to make ticket prices could be lower. The people being ripped off are the consumers stuck paying $10 plus per ticket and $20 for popcorn and sodas. It is just insane what it costs to go to a movie and streaming will put an end to that. But that is a shame since movie theaters provide a better experience. Both Disney and SJ are wrong here as is everyone in the industry.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Archie123 said:
As most predicted, this didn’t go to court.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Scarlett Johansson, Disney Settle Explosive ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit

The settlement ends a back-and-forth PR battle pitting the CAA-repped star against the studio that was poised to have dramatic implications for all of Hollywood’s majors.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
Like I said in another thread, color me shocked, even though I predicted it.

And a bonus that the ToT movie is still on with ScarJo. Guess it was more important of a project for her than she first realized.
 
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
Archie123 said:
As most predicted, this didn’t go to court.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Scarlett Johansson, Disney Settle Explosive ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit

The settlement ends a back-and-forth PR battle pitting the CAA-repped star against the studio that was poised to have dramatic implications for all of Hollywood’s majors.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
It was going to until Disney backed out like the cowards they are. They realized how bad they came off after their intial attack on her and rather than drag it out like they said they were, they caved. Wise move because she would have won no matter what.
 
Archie123

Archie123

Well-Known Member
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST said:
It was going to until Disney backed out like the cowards they are. They realized how bad they came off after their intial attack on her and rather than drag it out like they said they were, they caved. Wise move because she would have won no matter what.
Click to expand...

No, it was never going to go to court. The only thing you said that was correct was that Disney was going to lose no matter what. You know as much about this as you have shown with your persistent failures with predicting Shang Chi.
 
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Archie123 said:
No, it was never going to go to court. The only thing you said that was correct was that Disney was going to lose no matter what.
Click to expand...
Agreed…the first day it happened - it was generally assumed by analysts they broke the contract and were going to lose.

it just takes awhile for the haggle to happen…and in Disney’s case….to let the PR die down
 
Last edited:
Archie123

Archie123

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
Agreed…the first day it happened - it was generally assumed by analysts they broke the contract and we’re going to lose.

it just takes awhile for the haggle to happen…and in Disney’s case….to let the PR die down
Click to expand...

You can’t use the pandemic as a reason to change the terms of a contract. They were obviously going to lose and did not want to go to court.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom