Black Widow
- Thread starter Laspector
- Start date
It seems like that's EXACTLY where were going, & I can't wait.
Just saw it, enjoyed it.
Maybe I was just a little slow tonight, but I didn't realize the dad was Red Guardian until he crammed himself into the suit. I knew he had some sort of powers, based one the one superhero feat of strength he showed at the beginning, but we had never seen him in the suit before that later scene. It would have had more gravitas if we had. I even didn't connect at first that the guy in jail was the "dad". Beard threw me I guess. Just needed a little more exposition early on for us dummies in the back.
(I'm not that super-aware of the Marvel universe to begin with, so I didn't even know of the existence of Red Guardian to begin with.)
There were two or three occasions where I lost track of who was fighting who. Ooo, Natasha threw that widow across the room. Oh, wait, a widow threw HER across the room! And a little bit of forced shakycam, although for the most part it was acceptable and appropriate use of handheld. Just a couple occasions of "why is the cameraman convulsing, when the person he's shooting isn't even moving?"
A couple of tiny things that didn't pay off, like the helicopter takes fire and we get a closeup of a red warning light on the control panel, but the chopper continues to work fine until it runs out of fuel.
What blew up Natasha's car? I know Taskmaster did it, but it wasn't shown how, like her having fired a rocket or something.
And the widows don't have superpowers, right? They're just well trained fighters? They just sure can take a beating. I know, they're wearing "plot armor"....
Set dressing oddity: why does Dreykov have Betamax tapes on his desk? This is 2016, right?
Maybe I was just a little slow tonight, but I didn't realize the dad was Red Guardian until he crammed himself into the suit. I knew he had some sort of powers, based one the one superhero feat of strength he showed at the beginning, but we had never seen him in the suit before that later scene. It would have had more gravitas if we had. I even didn't connect at first that the guy in jail was the "dad". Beard threw me I guess. Just needed a little more exposition early on for us dummies in the back.
(I'm not that super-aware of the Marvel universe to begin with, so I didn't even know of the existence of Red Guardian to begin with.)There were two or three occasions where I lost track of who was fighting who. Ooo, Natasha threw that widow across the room. Oh, wait, a widow threw HER across the room! And a little bit of forced shakycam, although for the most part it was acceptable and appropriate use of handheld. Just a couple occasions of "why is the cameraman convulsing, when the person he's shooting isn't even moving?"
A couple of tiny things that didn't pay off, like the helicopter takes fire and we get a closeup of a red warning light on the control panel, but the chopper continues to work fine until it runs out of fuel.
What blew up Natasha's car? I know Taskmaster did it, but it wasn't shown how, like her having fired a rocket or something.
And the widows don't have superpowers, right? They're just well trained fighters? They just sure can take a beating. I know, they're wearing "plot armor"....
Set dressing oddity: why does Dreykov have Betamax tapes on his desk? This is 2016, right?
Last edited:
cboath
Master Member
Does she think she'd have done appreciably better without the Disney+ release? It pulled in 200 domestically that weekend, didn't it? I don't really think that number gets all that much higher in the current setup.
Now, if you're upset you're not getting a piece (or bigger one) of the streaming pie...that's something else, however, what i read didn't say that.
I'd also assume this is a short term issue as anyone signing for a flick the last 8 months or so should be addressing that in the contract talks. Should Disney have done something? sure the should. Were/are they obligated to? No. It's not like most people would get the option. If my company found a new market for what i do and started making a loads more off it - i wouldn't expect to get anything retroactively. I'm not on contract either so i'd wager my odds of getting anything out of it either way are slim and none. And if i was under a contract that didn't address it, they'd tell me tough luck.
You can't argue bad faith as the issue was unforeseeable when the deal was signed. I can't begrudge Disney/Marvel for trying to get something out of it as opposed to letting it sit on the shelf either.
Now, if you're upset you're not getting a piece (or bigger one) of the streaming pie...that's something else, however, what i read didn't say that.
I'd also assume this is a short term issue as anyone signing for a flick the last 8 months or so should be addressing that in the contract talks. Should Disney have done something? sure the should. Were/are they obligated to? No. It's not like most people would get the option. If my company found a new market for what i do and started making a loads more off it - i wouldn't expect to get anything retroactively. I'm not on contract either so i'd wager my odds of getting anything out of it either way are slim and none. And if i was under a contract that didn't address it, they'd tell me tough luck.
You can't argue bad faith as the issue was unforeseeable when the deal was signed. I can't begrudge Disney/Marvel for trying to get something out of it as opposed to letting it sit on the shelf either.
Wife and I finally saw it. It was fine, a bit typical although it had some nice self-awareness. The end fight took forever as all superhero movies tend to do. Both the wife and I said this movie ran on too long…..which we say a lot with these movies.
Scarjo should be glad it didn’t get dumped on HBOmax like so many other movies the past year. At least Disney+ charges people for the rental. Maybe she doesn’t get a cut of that, but if this thing had been released last year it would’ve made about fifty bucks.
With all seriousness though, what the heck did she expect? A billion dollar box office return?
There is no way there will be throngs of people lining up to sit inside a delta variant Petri dish of a theater. I would have paid twenty two bucks for the two theater tickets pre pandemic (not counting thirty bucks in snacks) and here I gave them thirty. I get that this streaming stuff is new to performer contracts, and the lack of transparency is an issue.
I worry less about Scarjo and her twenty million dollar plus payday than I do that Dune probably isn’t getting its part 2 because that thing is no way in hell making its money back.
Scarjo should be glad it didn’t get dumped on HBOmax like so many other movies the past year. At least Disney+ charges people for the rental. Maybe she doesn’t get a cut of that, but if this thing had been released last year it would’ve made about fifty bucks.
With all seriousness though, what the heck did she expect? A billion dollar box office return?
There is no way there will be throngs of people lining up to sit inside a delta variant Petri dish of a theater. I would have paid twenty two bucks for the two theater tickets pre pandemic (not counting thirty bucks in snacks) and here I gave them thirty. I get that this streaming stuff is new to performer contracts, and the lack of transparency is an issue.
I worry less about Scarjo and her twenty million dollar plus payday than I do that Dune probably isn’t getting its part 2 because that thing is no way in hell making its money back.
Solo4114
Master Member
I watched it a couple of weeks ago when it hit Disney Plus. Bought it with premier access, and the wife and I watched it.
I liked it a lot. I wish it hadn't taken until after Widow was "dead" in the main timeline for it to come. That actually highlights a larger issue. This one film really should have been its own trilogy. It needed that, I think, for the emotional hits to land effectively. We needed to see the brutality of the Red Room in ways we hadn't until now, showing how Widows are made, and what a monster Dreykov is, with a first movie ending in her defection. A second one being something like her working black ops with Hawkeye, and then getting wind of Dreykov, and finally a third being her putting the pieces together and taking him out. Basically, the story needed to breathe and expand more than what a 2+ hour runtime allows.
You could also really flesh out Dreykov and elaborate on his motivations, his psychology, his disdain for women and where it comes from, etc. The actors played their roles as if there was a lot more going on behind the scenes than what we saw, and maybe there's a cut of this film that's like 30-40 min longer and expands on all of this, but wound up on the cutting room floor. I would envision this story being much more grounded and personal in a lot of ways.
Ah well. It was still enjoyable and well worth my $30, and I'll watch it again at some point.
Also I hope Scarlet gets her money.
I liked it a lot. I wish it hadn't taken until after Widow was "dead" in the main timeline for it to come. That actually highlights a larger issue. This one film really should have been its own trilogy. It needed that, I think, for the emotional hits to land effectively. We needed to see the brutality of the Red Room in ways we hadn't until now, showing how Widows are made, and what a monster Dreykov is, with a first movie ending in her defection. A second one being something like her working black ops with Hawkeye, and then getting wind of Dreykov, and finally a third being her putting the pieces together and taking him out. Basically, the story needed to breathe and expand more than what a 2+ hour runtime allows.
You could also really flesh out Dreykov and elaborate on his motivations, his psychology, his disdain for women and where it comes from, etc. The actors played their roles as if there was a lot more going on behind the scenes than what we saw, and maybe there's a cut of this film that's like 30-40 min longer and expands on all of this, but wound up on the cutting room floor. I would envision this story being much more grounded and personal in a lot of ways.
Ah well. It was still enjoyable and well worth my $30, and I'll watch it again at some point.
Also I hope Scarlet gets her money.
I can't comment on the film itself as I haven't seen it yet.
As for the suit I'm sure it must be frustrating to lose out on a huge payday if it was written into your contract, but it's not like she wasn't compensated at all. The release had already been pushed back several times and the shelf life of movies is so small anymore that there really is only short time to act on it so in the interest of both parties the best move was likely the one that Disney chose which was to do a simultaneaous release. So many theaters are still closed and it's unclear how the pandemic is going to play itself out with regard to theaters reopening. Everyone hoped we'd be on the far side of it by this point, but the way things are going it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. That's not a doomsday prediction but just the reality of it all. Some areas are going through another wave of lockdowns depending on the severity of infection rates. The world is just too volitile at this point to make any hard rules about box office releases, no?
As a career move, she could be cutting her nose to spite her face unless they come to some agreement. I'm giving Disney the benefit of the doubt here given the state of the world. Realistically what good does it even do Scarlett Johansen to have to wait on a theatrical release if it's another year from now and the return is even less the longer everyone waits? At least they can both cash in and make the best of it while there's time and interest in the movie. The returns on movies have been shifting so drastically and COVID has only accelerated the change. If anything this whole mess with actors and contracts exposes Hollywood's complacency as an industry and it doesn't help that so many of them are arrogant enough to think they are beyond reproach. Every single industry in the world has been affected by this change and acting as though their wealth should insulated them entirely is simply unrealistic.
Hollywood has structured an unsustainable model for themselves and the cult of celebrity has a price. If it means an A list actor doesn't get another several million, I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them.
As for the suit I'm sure it must be frustrating to lose out on a huge payday if it was written into your contract, but it's not like she wasn't compensated at all. The release had already been pushed back several times and the shelf life of movies is so small anymore that there really is only short time to act on it so in the interest of both parties the best move was likely the one that Disney chose which was to do a simultaneaous release. So many theaters are still closed and it's unclear how the pandemic is going to play itself out with regard to theaters reopening. Everyone hoped we'd be on the far side of it by this point, but the way things are going it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. That's not a doomsday prediction but just the reality of it all. Some areas are going through another wave of lockdowns depending on the severity of infection rates. The world is just too volitile at this point to make any hard rules about box office releases, no?
As a career move, she could be cutting her nose to spite her face unless they come to some agreement. I'm giving Disney the benefit of the doubt here given the state of the world. Realistically what good does it even do Scarlett Johansen to have to wait on a theatrical release if it's another year from now and the return is even less the longer everyone waits? At least they can both cash in and make the best of it while there's time and interest in the movie. The returns on movies have been shifting so drastically and COVID has only accelerated the change. If anything this whole mess with actors and contracts exposes Hollywood's complacency as an industry and it doesn't help that so many of them are arrogant enough to think they are beyond reproach. Every single industry in the world has been affected by this change and acting as though their wealth should insulated them entirely is simply unrealistic.
Hollywood has structured an unsustainable model for themselves and the cult of celebrity has a price. If it means an A list actor doesn't get another several million, I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Sure, it's true that the pandemic is still uncertain. But I see this more as akin to the following scenario.
Let's say you're Timothy Zahn. You're hired as a contractor to do a job. Let's say the job is writing a 4th edition of the Guide to the Star Wars Universe. In times past, you might've said "I'll do the job, but only for $300,000" (just for example). And, because you're a famous, knowledgeable writer with a following of your own, LFL/Disney knows that selling a book with your name on it is gonna move copies. But they don't want to pay you all $300,000 up front. Instead, they tell you "We'll give you $200,000, plus you get 20% of all hard copy and digital sales." You put in a lot of time and effort. You spend a year on the project, get it all up to date. You're proud of your work. You're even ready to go tour to promote it.
Then -- catastrophe -- a month before the book is supposed to release in hard copy (which is supposed to precede offering the book for sale digitally), war breaks out. The wood that was going to be used for paper supplies is commandeered by the government for its own war efforts, and there simply isn't enough paper to do the print run. LFL/Disney delays the release for two years while waiting for the war to end and paper to come off the ration list. Then there's a cease-fire signed with a possibility for armistice pending negotiations. In that period, paper briefly comes off of ration listing, and the print run can go into effect.
There's just one catch. LFL/Disney, which had previously launched its own digital library app, is going to list *your* book as a *day 1* release on the library app. For people willing to pay at least a portion of what they would for a hard copy, they can download the book to their digital library within the app, and own it for as long as they remain on the app.
Moreover, your contract doesn't treat that as a "digital sale" explicitly. I mean, technically, it's not a "sale." It's a temporary license while a user remains subscribed to the app. And LFL/Disney doesn't want to compensate you under the bonus structure to include that. And people -- let's say out of a sense of patriotic duty -- are only buying hard copy books occasionally, and are leaning far more towards digital copies these days. Or at least, a significant portion of the audience is. AND, this approach didn't exist when you and LFL/Disney negotiated the agreement in the first place; it's something that came into existence after the fact.
Does it seem fair to you that LFL/Disney can basically sneak around the terms of your agreement, claim there's a "loophole" and not pay you? Are you even 100% sure that their actions didn't also diminish the number of hard copies that would have otherwise been sold, even with the patriotic paper movement?
I think it's reasonable, under those circumstances, to try to sue if LFL/Disney won't negotiate with you to give you a favorable payout. You did the work. You signed for a specific deal. Then LFL/Disney undercut that deal by doing a side gig that will carve out a part of the money you would have earned.
There's an argument that she may be shooting herself in the foot, but I think there's an equal argument that the studios could be shooting themselves in their own feet as they try to cut the knees out from under their own deals with stars and short them by doing these day-one no-ticket-sale releases, especially if back-end payment is meant to be based on specific terms like ticket sales and/or digital sales. I know I'd be pissed if I were her. Or any of the WB stars, for that matter, thanks to the WB/HBOMax thing.
I mean, as a consumer, I love it, but if I were an actor with points on the deal, I'd be super goddamn pissed about it.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
This is one of those times where two things can be true and not cancel each other out.
Disney took an opportunity to make their money and try to get around paying her. ScarJo should get paid.
ALSO
Watching two entities that both have more money than practically everyone on the planet have a pissing match about a few million dollars makes me want to write off civilization and go live in the woods for the duration.
Disney took an opportunity to make their money and try to get around paying her. ScarJo should get paid.
ALSO
Watching two entities that both have more money than practically everyone on the planet have a pissing match about a few million dollars makes me want to write off civilization and go live in the woods for the duration.
Violation of a contract is clearly an issue and I'm not suggesting that she shouldn't be paid at all. What I am saying is that Hollywood is far behind the curve with theatrical releases and making deals even before the pandemic wasn't a guarantee that people would go to the theater to see the movie at all, given the increasing use of streaming services. I mean honestly it's taken the major studios and television networks nearly a decade or more to catch up to Netflix or Hulu and the like so it's not like they haven't had ample time to get on board with the latest trends. I miss the theater experience and think there is a place for it, but that's not where the future of the business lies and Hollwood and Disney both know it. Surely the actors who work for these entities are aware of this too and the risks that come with it. It doesn't totally absolve Disney of guilt, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the multi billion dollar corporate entity will recoup their money any way they can even if it means breaking a contract with one of their stars.
Add a worldwide pandemic to the mix that has affected every industry, not just films, but a corporation that loses money by waiting on releasing their film being desperate to mitigate any loss and it's a recipe for someone to get hit and it shouldn't shock anyone that they would sacrifice a contract rather than incurr the loss themselves. Even if they did further delay the streaming version and wait until they could do a proper theatrical release there was no guarantee that the back end ticket sales will amount to much after having been delayed several years or that ADHD audiences will even care to watch when 20 other movies have come and gone during the wait. Plus after Endgame the superhero genre is starting to wane a bit.
Is it fair that Scarlett lost money or that Disney violated her contract? No. Not at all. Should she get paid for her work? Absolutely. But given the circumstances I don't see how anyone can surprised by Disney's move. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. It's just an observation from the outside. It could very well be more media hype to generate interest in the movie too. You never know these days.
Add a worldwide pandemic to the mix that has affected every industry, not just films, but a corporation that loses money by waiting on releasing their film being desperate to mitigate any loss and it's a recipe for someone to get hit and it shouldn't shock anyone that they would sacrifice a contract rather than incurr the loss themselves. Even if they did further delay the streaming version and wait until they could do a proper theatrical release there was no guarantee that the back end ticket sales will amount to much after having been delayed several years or that ADHD audiences will even care to watch when 20 other movies have come and gone during the wait. Plus after Endgame the superhero genre is starting to wane a bit.
Is it fair that Scarlett lost money or that Disney violated her contract? No. Not at all. Should she get paid for her work? Absolutely. But given the circumstances I don't see how anyone can surprised by Disney's move. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. It's just an observation from the outside. It could very well be more media hype to generate interest in the movie too. You never know these days.
Last edited:
Solo4114, Disney is exploiting the situation obviously but unless there's specific language in the contract prohibiting a coinciding streaming release or at least some compensation for affected box office revenue, does Johansson have a strong case here? Personally I think she's in the right but I wonder if Disney's "loophole" holds up in court.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, I wasn't remotely surprised by Disney's move. It actually makes a ton of sense to me, and I see that as the future of entertainment content delivery. From the studios' perspective, why wouldn't they? They keep every dollar spent within their own ecosystem. Of course, they'll want to do that. But that means that contracts need to be adjusted to account for that, and it may change how compensation schemes are structured (e.g., we may see a shift back to more front-loaded compensation).
The pandemic was bad for theaters, and things already weren't looking amazing for them (largely because I think the experience kinda sucks unless you're at a place like Alamo Drafthouse or the like), but you'd basically have to pay me ScarJo's salary to get me into a theater right now.
I think it's a decent question, and that actually cuts in her favor, tactically speaking.
It raises a bunch of related questions like how much money do theatrical releases actually make, and what impact can be proven from simultaneous streaming releases. That's all pretty new stuff, but there has to be data on it somewhere or data that can be created to address that question. It's also a decent question whether it counts as a kind of breach of contract to undermine the theatrical release...buuut that also involves a hypothetical of "What would have happened if we'd only released theatrically and not on D+ at the same time?" I think we're about to find out with Shang Chi, actually. (And boy, talk about "What If...?")
Where this becomes tactically beneficial for ScarJo (I think) is in the process by which these questions get answered in a lawsuit that is itself a matter of public record. This will necessarily involve examining the text of ScarJo's contract itself, or at least relevant portions (e.g., compensation). That's sensitive stuff for Disney/Marvel. But it will also involve delving into data that they'd almost certainly prefer to keep under wraps like the actual impact of D+ purchases, how often people are re-watching the films (which can be used as an analogy for repeat viewings in a theater and lost ticket revenue), etc. Basically, it's a bunch of info that Disney/Marvel probably doesn't want in the public record, but that's exactly where it'll be if we get too far into the discovery phase.
Moreover, they very likely do NOT want a bad judgment on this, because it'll serve as precedent by which other actors can do the same thing and demand the same results. And this case is messy enough that it could go badly for Disney/Marvel. So the question is how hard they wanna fight it, and is it cheaper to just pay ScarJo to go away or to have their information outed and possibly get a bad precedent set?
Based on all of this, as I've been predicting since the suit was announced, I would expect that this case settles for an undisclosed amount and on undisclosed terms, likely in ScarJo's favor. She may not get everything she wants, but she'll definitely get more than what Disney/Marvel was offering her before the suit was filed.
The gal's got leverage, and she's definitely using it. Props to her for that.
firesprite
Master Member
WB changed their releases to streaming simultaneous with theatrical release. and proactively reached out to creators to make sure they were compensated. There's precedent for what she's asking for.
cboath
Master Member
When that first happened, they apparently reached out to some, but others said 'no one contacted me'...there were threats of legal issues from actors and directors at WB/HBO Max as well. Don't know if they finally worked it all out with everyone or not.
I see why she's mad, but I also ask what else was Disney supposed to do? Wait on theaters to be back at full speed? They might have 15 marvel movies alone stacked up at that point. We've discussed elsewhere that they aren't making them faster than the last few years, but the pandemic shoved things back so they've got something every 2-3 months for nearly a year or more at this point. How long do you sit on it? They already messed up their scheduling a bit in conjunction with movies and streaming shows by holding back movies.
I seem to recall that her side didn't like the offer they made for streaming, then the offer was pulled or something, now this. It's hard for them to release something that a hefty chunk of this country couldn't see in a theater since a number are still closed. So, what do you do? We seem to think Disney is raking it in off streaming sales...do we know if that's actually true?
Do we even know if it made a profit from on-screen sales at this point? I don't know, i'm asking. While the conventional thinking is 'yeah, they should've done something for those who have % clauses', do we know there's enough profit to this point that it'd make any difference? At the same time, if it tanks, should the actor(s) have to give some money back?
firesprite
Master Member
They could have not ignored her representatives and sat down to try to renegotiate. They could also have not released the shittiest possible response ever, basically trying to paint her as some kind of mustache-twirling villain who wants people to die in order to see her movie. I'm not ScarJo's biggest fan by a wide measure, but that was out of line in the extreme.
Johansson’s lawsuit claims the actress tried to renegotiate with Disney after she discovered the film would not be released exclusively in theaters, but the studio did not respond.
Scarlett Johansson's agent slams Disney for accusing 'Black Widow' star of disregarding public Covid risks
Bryan Lourd fired back at Disney for "shamelessly and falsely" accusing Scarlett Johansson of being insensitive about the global coronavirus pandemic.
www.cnbc.com
Solo4114
Master Member
They could have not ignored her representatives and sat down to try to renegotiate. They could also have not released the shittiest possible response ever, basically trying to paint her as some kind of mustache-twirling villain who wants people to die in order to see her movie. I'm not ScarJo's biggest fan by a wide measure, but that was out of line in the extreme.
Johansson’s lawsuit claims the actress tried to renegotiate with Disney after she discovered the film would not be released exclusively in theaters, but the studio did not respond.
Scarlett Johansson's agent slams Disney for accusing 'Black Widow' star of disregarding public Covid risks
Bryan Lourd fired back at Disney for "shamelessly and falsely" accusing Scarlett Johansson of being insensitive about the global coronavirus pandemic.
A lot of this is going to be "he said/she said" but at the end of the day, my guess is that Disney made an offer, but it wasn't what she wanted. There was some back and forth, but at the end of the day she said "No, not good enough. Guess we'll settle this in court."
Disney's response is a bit of hardball, because it -- as her agent notes -- subtly maligns her, without quite crossing the line in to defamation territory. They disclose her salary, which makes people a lot less sympathetic to her, and they reference the "Callous disregard for the COVID-19 pandemic" which could further hurt her reputation.
It's also kind of beside the point. The point isn't "Make people go to the theaters." The point is "Pay me what you owe me, and don't actively work to undercut that amount by setting up a competing distribution stream that you cut me out of altogether and which earns a lot less money." Like, Disney's statement conveniently ignores that they've released in theaters anyway. They're every bit as happy to show "callous disregard" as they claim SJ is. And it's not like simultaneously releasing on D+ was some grand humanitarian gesture. If that were the case, you know what they'd have done? They'd have only released on D+, for free, kept everyone safe, and given them a free pony, too. But they didn't. They released in theaters becasue they want money, and SJ is saying "Fine. Then give me the cut you said you'd give me, and don't sabotage that in the process."
If people want to go to theaters, they'll go to theaters. Apparently Shang Chi is going to release only in theaters first, and you know what? I'll be skipping it on the big screen because I don't want to roll the bones on my health or that of my as-yet-unvaccinated 5-year-old, even if I'd probably be....eh...okish if I caught the virus at a theater. (I still don't want the virus.) I guess Disney's got lots of callous disregard when it comes to that movie, huh?
Anyway, all of this strikes me as posturing and attempts to exert leverage. SJ has the upper hand insofar as I suspect Disney doesn't want their information disclosed. Disney is (I suspect) trying to apply a little leverage themselves by pressuring SJ's reputation. The game is the game, I guess.
From my perspective, I think when you're an actor whose continued presence in films has helped them garner amounts of money that dwarf the GDP of several small countries, yeah, you're entitled to a piece of the pie. If any one of us was told we'd get a cut of profits, and then our employers did some other thing to make them money but said "Oh, but those don't count as profits. Sorry," I think we'd all be righteously pissed off, especially if it was our work specifically that they were relying on for those extra "not-quite-profits."
Disney says it found ways to compensate talent in the wake of 'Black Widow' lawsuit | Engadget
Disney has apparently found "ways to fairly compensate" talent, even if it continues its hybrid release strategy..
www.engadget.com
Similar threads
