Black Widow
- Thread starter Laspector
- Start date
No doubt influenced by: AMC Entertainment In Deal With Warner Bros For 45-Day Theatrical Window In 2022
cboath
Master Member
They've also got another big release in like 60 days AFTER releasing Shang Chi. I'd wager that has more to do with it. They don't want to be out there pushing both at the same time. Gotta start the heavy press for the Eternals around Halloween.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
I didnt weigh in since I thought it could be deemed political/out of scope but now that the ball has started rolling.
I do think ScarJo’s case has merit and would set a good precedent if she wins. The law is notoriously slow when it comes to technology and given that politicians barely know what google is, streaming sites is a different planet and there would likely not be sufficient guidelines regarding compensation schemes.
Disney is basically undercutting ScarJo and although BW probably wouldnt give her even another half mil or whatever if they gave her streaming, it could be an important negotiation tool in the future as streaming becomes more mainstream.
I would like to see how this plays out and if it will have an impact on the streaming wars.
I do think ScarJo’s case has merit and would set a good precedent if she wins. The law is notoriously slow when it comes to technology and given that politicians barely know what google is, streaming sites is a different planet and there would likely not be sufficient guidelines regarding compensation schemes.
Disney is basically undercutting ScarJo and although BW probably wouldnt give her even another half mil or whatever if they gave her streaming, it could be an important negotiation tool in the future as streaming becomes more mainstream.
I would like to see how this plays out and if it will have an impact on the streaming wars.
Cephus
Master Member
The simple fact is, they had a contract and Disney violated it. That's it. Disney could have and should have tried to renegotiate before the movie was released, but no matter how big they are, they are not above the law. It's time someone reminded the Mouse of that.
Solo4114
Master Member
I don't think that's remotely political, though it isn't my call to make. I mean, it's a simple fact that most legislators aren't nearly as familiar with technology and its implications. Even if they are, though, crafting actual statutes that effectively cover this stuff and aren't immediately rendered moot by the next technological development in 2 years is really, really hard. They have to make a law specific enough that it does something, but broad enough that it can be adjusted over time to fit technology. And that's before you even get to judicial analysis.
Well, that's the question, really. Is what they did a true violation, or is it simply an area that ScarJo's team failed to account for in negotiating? I mean, it's not like streaming itself didn't exist. The big change was the shift to same-day release. And that's a complicated question that relies on the specific facts of the case. In other words, did Disney actually cut the legs out from under her in a way that constitutes either a breach of contract or some bad faith act that vitiates the contract? I think there's a pretty strong case that they did, but I think it ultimately won't matter and the real question will be who blinks first in this. My bet is Disney will, simply because I suspect that this case will uncover a lot of information about their streaming service that they don't want in public records. It's more valuable to them to keep that stuff secret and pay SJ to go away. That, at least, is what I'm guessing her team thinks. It seems plausible to me...
Cephus
Master Member
That's what the courts get to decide. If the contract said "theatrical release only" then it's an open and shut case. Certainly, when the contract was likely signed, that would have been the expectation. Nobody was doing simultaneous streaming releases.
Riceball
Master Member
My understanding of this case is that ScarJo's contract specified that if Disney were to release Black Widow to streaming first or only, then they were to renegotiate the contract. This, apparently, is what the whole thing is all about, Disney stuck to the original box office receipt part of the contract and did not renegotiate the contract when it went to Disney+ first.
Solo4114
Master Member
My guess is that it's not an open-and-shut case. It leans in her favor, probably, but Disney has a colorable case. Otherwise, they'd probably have settled already.
Cephus
Master Member
Assuming she's open to settling and doesn't want to see Disney get what's coming to them. She's never going back to the franchise so she doesn't really care if they like her anymore. If you had a strong case that would set legal precedent, wouldn't you go through with it?
firesprite
Master Member
I don't know... she might have been open to going back and/or negotiating until they released that initial statement trying to paint her as a horrible person who doesn't care about COVID...
There are plenty of reasons not to like ScarJo and I'm under no illusions that she's a perfect human being, but that statement was just... Ugh.
Cephus
Master Member
It just shows what utter **** Disney is. That's a surprise to no one.
cboath
Master Member
It didn't go to + first, it went simultaneously.
It's probably a good time to take it to court though if they get that far. Given the timeline of the pandemic, it flat out wasn't going to get a much more from theaters, so you've got nothing to lose.
Just for the flip side, though, how long should the studio hold things up then? Would everyone have been happy with no streaming release and the same box office numbers?
Cephus
Master Member
When her bonuses were tied directly to theatrical numbers, that's why this is a problem. They at least potentially gutted the box office numbers and that's why she's suing. So long as they have signed contracts that specify box office numbers, they can't be doing these simultaneous releases.
Riceball
Master Member
The other part of it was that Disney was supposed to renegotiate her contract if the film didn't go to theaters exclusively at first.
That's irrelevant, the issue at heart wasn't that it went to Disney+ first or simultaneously, At issue is that Disney was supposed to renegotiate ScarJo's contract if the movie didn't go to the theaters exclusively at first. This is the issue, not holding things up or not releasing to streaming at the same time as theaters. In short, ScarJo is suing because she feels that Disney is trying to do an end run on her contract, and instead of renegotiating her contract which likely would have seen some sort of cut of the money Disney made from streaming it they stuck to the original contract which entitled her to only a cut of the box office receipts.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yup.
To put this in context:
Imagine that I write a book. I go to the publisher. The publisher says "I'll give you $40,000 up front, and back end on 20% of the book sales in brick and mortar stores." I say "Sure!" $40k is a nice chunk of change, but since I think this book is going to sell amazingly well, I'm extra jazzed for the 20% sales gross.
Things are looking great, but a week before the book is going to release, the pandemic hits and nobody goes anywhere for a year. The publisher delays the sale date by a year, and then finally says it's going to release the book. Only the publisher is also going to release it as a "collection special" on the publisher's new subscription-based app, which lets you read anything they publish for a monthly fee. The "collection special" is where you pay $4 for a copy that you get access to 3 months before it shows up on the app for free.
And then there's another pandemic wave and people stop going to bookstores again (what few remain).
The publisher is offering the book for less than what it'd cost to get it in a store (which only has $12 hardback copies), and because our deal was negotiated before their app even offered the "collection special" option, I get no portion of those sales. So not only are they undercutting the brick and mortar sales, but they're also cutting me out of the "collection special" sales.
If that happened? You bet your ass I'd sue.
Master Boda
Sr Member
Agreed but on the flip side what will poor Scar jo do without that extra x amount of millions in her account.
Similar threads
