Rumor Avengers E-Ticket More Dead Than You'd Think

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Regarding the ScarJo suit, I subscribe to an entertainment industry newsletter that nicely summed things up. As many have suggested, increases to the Disney+ subscriber base (and it's long-term revenue stream) drive Disney stock price higher than shorter-term theatrical box office results/revenue. And it's not a particularly surprising decision when you realize Chapek's compensation is tied to the company's performance on Wall Street. On the Black Widow day-and-date release announcement, Disney stock jumped 4%. Johansson apparently has a strong case, as she has documented assurance from Disney/Marvel that the film would have a "typical wide release... like their (Marvel) other pictures" and would receive very large back-end compensation tied to it's expected highly lucrative box office performance.

Not an insignificant factor: Kevin Feige is said to be angry and embarrassed by Disney's actions and behavior regarding this lawsuit. Unlike Disney, Warner Brothers proactively restructured the compensation packages of their onscreen talent to "make them whole" once they decided to employ a similar simultaneous multiple-platform film release strategy that would cannibalize theatrical box-office revenue. Word is that Emma Stone is considering legal action regarding the similar release strategy for Cruella, and that Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt will likely end up doing the same based on the expected diminished theatrical performance of Jungle Cruise. Given all the damage being done by Disney's highly-publicized actions to these extremely important/valuable assets and stakeholders, they (Disney) are expected to settle the suit rather quickly. Then again, we're talking about Chapek, so who knows?
To put cold water on that situation, why did ScarJo file her lawsuit when the movie is still in theaters? Even Emma Stone's Cruella is still in theaters now. Emily Blunt is only rumored to do it, but Jungle Cruise just released. Dwayne Johnson will not file suit. His production company is also in business with Disney so he has 2 income sources for one movie.

No, settling suggests the case is so overwhelmingly against Disney. I'm not so sure. Disney can ask for summary dismissal on the fact that box office receipts are coming in. The movie is #3 in the box office after 4 weekends in theaters. That's not that bad. Unfortunately, the movie is likely a flop and not make back it's money so why does ScarJo deserve any money for a flop in a back end deal even if Disney+ Premiere receipts are included.

The case is not ripe.

 
Last edited:

No Name

Well-Known Member
“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” might be the worst sentence I’ve ever read from a company. Covid is not an excuse for shifty behavior.

If I was Dwayne Johnson I’d sue Disney after reading that.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” might be the worst sentence I’ve ever read from a company. Covid is not an excuse for shifty behavior.

If I was Dwayne Johnson I’d sue Disney after reading that.

This was worded rather poorly (and harshly), but to me, actually makes a fair deal of sense.

Celebrities that have profits tied to the box office results, are going to want to maximize their return, and to that end, they will all want their movie releases delayed until the theatrical market has rebounded.

But the theatrical market can't rebound, if no one wants their movies released. If no movies get released, the theater industry eventually collapses and the potential to make back any money on a movie vanishes. Additionally with the collapse of the theater industry, hundreds if not thousands of people would be out of work.

It's going to take a long time for the market to recover to 2019 levels, and a lot of people and companies (including Disney) are going to have to suffer losses in the interim to achieve that. Johansson is basically asking to be shielded from those loses, in part because she believes that Disney could have just sat on the film until it could guarantee it would make something above $600M on it.

I think it will be extremely difficult to prove that Disney was malicious in releasing the movie this year, or even that the box office performance was significantly impacted by the Disney+ release. It can be assumed that, during a pandemic, some percentage of people viewing on Disney+ had absolutely no intention of actually going to a physical theater to see it.

If I can put on my tin foil hat for a moment, I am starting to think that she might be doing this for reasons that are not terribly obvious. I can't imagine that the amount she would be owed, if given a portion of the Disney+ numbers, is all that significant compared to the $20M she already received, and I somehow doubt that the figure she would have made, even if the movie made $600M would be all that much more either.

Maybe she really just wanted to burn her bridges with Disney and move on. Maybe she was ultimately put off by the way that Disney and Marvel both treated her character for the course of the last 10+ years. There was a lot of speculation and calls for a standalone Black Widow movie, all the way back to 2010, and it didn't materialize for a DECADE. She could have been the first stand alone female MCU lead, but instead that went to Captain Marvel, who is now lined up to make more standalone movies.

I can absolutely sympathize on that front. Black Widow was a fantastic character and Johansson played it well. She could have easily been elevated to the point of having her own line of movies, as the male heroes were given, but for whatever reason Disney/Marvel didn't see fit. She probably lost out a lot more on those previous decisions than she did on the results for Black Widow.
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with el_super. Disney's statement, while callous, was not incorrect. Scar Jo is plowing ahead acting as if we're still not in the throws of a global pandemic, and Disney's like, "well, we are, and that matters."
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
Disney is in the wrong here. If her salary was based off of box office receipts then they needed to negotiate a payment once they decided to go to disney+. This is what happened when all those movies got shifted to hbomax. And there was an email leaked where Disney admitted as much. This is going to get settled and she will get paid.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Disney is in the wrong here. If her salary was based off of box office receipts then they needed to negotiate a payment once they decided to go to disney+. This is what happened when all those movies got shifted to hbomax. And there was an email leaked where Disney admitted as much. This is going to get settled and she will get paid.

I wonder if she would have just settled for a Dream Key?
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Disney is in the wrong here. If her salary was based off of box office receipts then they needed to negotiate a payment once they decided to go to disney+. This is what happened when all those movies got shifted to hbomax. And there was an email leaked where Disney admitted as much. This is going to get settled and she will get paid.

I thought she did receive $20M base salary for the picture? If her contract also included a percent of the gross box office (which she seems to be implying it did), she will get that too. Just seems that shes unhappy with getting $5M versus $50M and blaming the Disney+ release.

It will be nearly impossible to prove that people would have gone to the theater without the Disney+ release. Even if a judge/jury decides that shes entitled to more, how do you calculate what the fair amount is?

For what its worth, I don't think Disney acted maliciously by releasing on Disney+.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It will be nearly impossible to prove that people would have gone to the theater without the Disney+ release. Even if a judge/jury decides that shes entitled to more, how do you calculate what the fair amount is?
There are almost certainly internal projections that guided Disney’s decision to also do Premier Access that can be compelled to produce. It doesn’t really matter if it would have happened, just that Disney believed it would happen.
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
I thought she did receive $20M base salary for the picture? If her contract also included a percent of the gross box office (which she seems to be implying it did), she will get that too. Just seems that shes unhappy with getting $5M versus $50M and blaming the Disney+ release.

It will be nearly impossible to prove that people would have gone to the theater without the Disney+ release. Even if a judge/jury decides that shes entitled to more, how do you calculate what the fair amount is?

For what its worth, I don't think Disney acted maliciously by releasing on Disney+.
There are emails from Disney to her representation that states they would need to negotiate if it went to disney+. She has a slam dunk case. They are gonna pay her so it doesn't go to trial and make them look worse. Her contract stipulated a theatrical release. Once disney changed that they needed to change her compensation. This is why wb did this and renegotiated all their contracts. They were being sued over godzilla by legendary for the same reason and they knew they were in the wrong.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
The movie will report a loss. She needs to give back her salary include the costs to mount this lawsuit, charged back to her, as movie expenses. She should have waited about few months for the theatrical run to end and all receipt counted. Even if she wins, she'll get nothing.
 

Tamandua

Well-Known Member
I don't feel sorry for Scarlett but I do think she has a point. It's possible that Disney was within their rights to do what they did, but it still violates the spirit of their agreement. Too bad I can't muster much sympathy for either side.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
There are almost certainly internal projections that guided Disney’s decision to also do Premier Access that can be compelled to produce. It doesn’t really matter if it would have happened, just that Disney believed it would happen.

It seems like it would be easy to say that the projections were just that, projections, and that the pandemic clearly had a negative impact on the results. Even if everyone assumes a movie will make $600M+ at the box office, it's not a guarantee, and artists that negotiate for a portion of the returns, should know that.

I think her case would be much stronger if the pandemic didn't happen and Disney arbitrarily co-released to Disney+, but the pandemic absolutely had an impact on this situation.


Her contract stipulated a theatrical release.

It had one.

If the argument is that the Disney+ release hurt the box office numbers, they will have to show that it did and by how much.

But since the movie is going to end up being a financial failure for Disney either way, shes not going to be entitled to very much, even if they do find in her favor.
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
No it was supposed to have a theatrical release only. Once disney changed that they breached the contract. I'm not saying she should get money based on how much it would've made. I'm saying she should get compensated based on what disney made on the service. This is why we renegotiated. They doubled gal gadots salary when they went to a hybrid release.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It seems like it would be easy to say that the projections were just that, projections, and that the pandemic clearly had a negative impact on the results. Even if everyone assumes a movie will make $600M+ at the box office, it's not a guarantee, and artists that negotiate for a portion of the returns, should know that.

I think her case would be much stronger if the pandemic didn't happen and Disney arbitrarily co-released to Disney+, but the pandemic absolutely had an impact on this situation.




It had one.

If the argument is that the Disney+ release hurt the box office numbers, they will have to show that it did and by how much.

But since the movie is going to end up being a financial failure for Disney either way, shes not going to be entitled to very much, even if they do find in her favor.
The actual box office performance is immaterial to whether or not Disney chose a strategy that they believed would decrease the box office. Even if Disney+ only cannibalized a small portion of the box office, depending on how deals are structured that overall lower performance could still have resulted in greater compensation.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
The actual box office performance is immaterial to whether or not Disney chose a strategy that they believed would decrease the box office. Even if Disney+ only cannibalized a small portion of the box office, depending on how deals are structured that overall lower performance could still have resulted in greater compensation.

How does one prove that it decreased the box office potential? Johansson is put into the position of having to argue that people would have gone to the theater, during a pandemic and seemingly regardless of their safety, but choose instead to stay home because it was available on Disney+. Conversely also arguing that it was in Johansson's best interest, for Disney to have only released it to theaters, where the market was incredibly weak and viewership would have been depressed anyway.

I definitely think that Disney should have reached out to her, and tried to work something out (although maybe they did?) but this doesn't seem like a slam dunk for her at all. Especially since any conversation over depressed box office numbers is also going to have to bring up the quality of the movie itself.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
How does one prove that it decreased the box office potential? Johansson is put into the position of having to argue that people would have gone to the theater, during a pandemic and seemingly regardless of their safety, but choose instead to stay home because it was available on Disney+. Conversely also arguing that it was in Johansson's best interest, for Disney to have only released it to theaters, where the market was incredibly weak and viewership would have been depressed anyway.

I definitely think that Disney should have reached out to her, and tried to work something out (although maybe they did?) but this doesn't seem like a slam dunk for her at all. Especially since any conversation over depressed box office numbers is also going to have to bring up the quality of the movie itself.
You don’t think Disney did any sort of study to determine the release strategy?
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
You don’t think Disney did any sort of study to determine the release strategy?

In what regard? Do I think that any pre-pandemic strategy would have been important in 2021? No. Do I think that Disney did some calculating and determined the box office numbers would be BAD and decided to get something on Disney+ too? Maybe. But that already betrays the idea that Disney knew the box office numbers would be bad anyway... or they wouldn't have risked co-releasing on Disney+. Disney would have made far more money themselves if the box office numbers were stronger, so they had a financial interest in seeing a wide box office release just as much as Johansson did.

I am just not at all sure that the Disney+ release actually hurt the box office numbers. Black Widow still had the best box office numbers of any movie in the past 12 months. Admittedly some of this is anecdotal on my part, as I was one of those people who bought on Disney+, and I absolutely know I would not have gone to a theater to see it otherwise.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Black Widow is on schedule to beat F9 domestically ($168,858,535 versus $169,277,480 F9). This proves the strength of Black Widow that will still post a loss.

Worldwide it's a different story.
F9: $643,047,480.
BW: $345,358,535.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom