Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release
wsj.com
wsj.com
> In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
UPDATE: just realized that she's suing Disney and this quote is from a Marvel exec. Still bad, but it would be much worse if it had been a Disney exec.
Movie was bad nevertheless.
For instance, was the highlighted email the last email on the subject? If not, do those subsequent emails also represent contracts? What was in the last email? The game could go on and on. Whereas with a properly executed contract, everyone knows what everyone signed.
Now it can influence legal proceedings, but only insofar as it illustrates where a negotiation was going. And again, subsequent emails would point to where those negotiations landed in the end.
Other jurisdictions allow extrinsic evidence (like this email) to help interpret the language of the contract. We would need to know what the governing jurisdiction is for this contract in order to know how much an outside email would matter in court.
But in the court of public opinion (which matters somewhat for famous people and well-known companies), these legal technicalities won't matter. The headline will be that a Marvel exec said that they would need to revisit the compensation if they didn't do a standard theatrical release.
This can actually become important in legal proceedings. It's one reason to be careful with what people say in meetings or write in communications with customers or others, as it can become legally binding if they're perceived to have sufficient authority/responsibility to back the statement.
That is the whole reason for the "invention" of contracts, where everything is finalized, official, set in stone, and unbreakable.
Problem with Scarlet is that in no way she could have foreseen 2020 and didn't think any of it. Now that stuff happened, she's just angry at her misfortune and is reaching for straws. It's unfortunate.
Someone had an unfortunate day when that email surfaced in court filings.
Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?
Disney: Hype, take advantage of brand loyalty to make a quick buck, no substance
https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-widow-enters-a-gray-area-...
$30 for the household, a one-time cost. For one person it's a no-brainer, theater is cheaper unless it's a long drive away. With 2 people it's probably cheaper to go to the theater depending on distance and whether you get concessions. With 3 it's break even depending on theater costs in your area and assuming you don't get concessions. With 4 or more, the $30 price is definitely better outside of a few lower cost of living areas (if they even have a theater nearby). And you can rewatch it throughout that premier access period. Though that's less applicable to Black Widow, versus movies aimed more at small kids.
Also the box office in general has been destroyed recently because of the pandemic. What would have likely been $+150M opening weekends and close to $1B totals revenue (or even more) are reduced to fractions of that.
EDIT: Even worse, it was actually to be released in May 2020, thus the negotiations for salary were likely done in 2017/2018 or possibly earlier. Disney+ wasn't even announced back then.
Apparently Warner dealt with this unexpected issue differently:
> WarnerMedia chose to renegotiate many of its talent contracts that, like Ms. Johansson’s deal with Marvel, were tied to box-office performance. Warner Bros. paid more than $200 million to talent as part of the amended agreements.
Every professional contract I've ever seen contemplates expansion into future media and markets; it's a technology driven business that has to follow customers to where they are going, and industry lawyers are fully aware that if studios or production companies had the option, most of them would happily relocate to the Moon or Mars to avoid paying out, while maintaining an office on earth to litigate their own copyright interests.
edit: I heared the above several times over the years, but it appears it may not be true:
https://www.businessinsider.com/sylvester-stallone-on-never-...
IIRC, it was merchandising rights. Sales of the Star Wars action figures were huge, and my understanding kind of unprecedented.
When I was in law school at UCLA, I considered going into entertainment law. I attended a presentation by a famous entertainment lawyer who said that the lawyers in show business are not actually the most talented — unlike other industries, the big players don't hire primarily from Harvard, Yale, etc.
Instead, the halls of Sony Pictures or Fox are lined with graduates from second- and third-tier law schools who had a foot in the door because of a family connection.
The reason he gave for this is that entertainment law is not as complex as other areas of law, so the basic contract work can be done by a not-stellar lawyer. This was a 15 years ago, and perhaps times have changed. But I'm sure that family/industry connections are still an important part of getting these jobs.
But I do think entertainment lawyers are still very good at what they do. If you look at a popular reference like Mark Litwak's Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry there's a heavy emphasis on taking the longest possible view because big openings and box office receipts are only tiny part of the overall revenue stream, and the real money is in syndication, foreign sales, merchandise etc. etc.
Meanwhile, the film was released to stream simultaneously with the box office release. Ouch.
doesn't sound like they negotiated this 2 months ago...
That said, I hope she gets what is fair. The only reason actors / directors get box office gross deals is that studios have absolutely mastered the art of defrauding everyone on net deals and now with streaming it's even worse:
- Now 100% of the release marketing (which reduces net profit) pushes the streaming service as an option next to theaters
- Streaming service is massive LTV & branding value that benefits only Disney
The pandemic would still affect her earnings, but that's beyond the point - the release shouldn't have happened on stream.
So it's Disney who should have gone to her and say, maybe let's give you a cut of the streaming and we will release this simultaneously.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(2021_film)
The talks for this began in 2017, so undoubtedly it was negotiated at that time before any real work on the film was done.
So very likely, Disney is in the wrong here but I suppose it's for the courts to assess such a thing, or for Disney to find a way to make the issue go away
Disney may argue why it deviated from their contractual obligations, and some of that might sound reasonable in light of the pandemic reality. But that doesn't change that they still violated their contract.
Doing business is a lot of taking (calculated) risks and trying to make a profit that way. Contracts exist to protect the interests of those involved. Of course Disney couldn't foresee the pandemic, but they still made a calculated risk by locking something down in a contract. From that moment on, they were stuck to their deal. If reality made that a tough pill to swallow, tough luck. That's the risk of doing business.
Eventually MS did settle a lawsuit brought by Spyglass for $8 million to make the issue go away.
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/05/robin-williams-refused-di...
Granted, those financial estimates likely assume the movie had premiered as planned without a worldwide pandemic.
Legal accounting is fun.
A studio may look at a 50M ad buy and think that, because it would only net 60M in ticket sales tops, its not worth the risk. However, from the POV of the actor part of the reason they appeared in a big budget movie was to get lots of screentime on tv/ads beforehand to boost their profile.
But Scarlett Johansson is the highest grossing female 'bankable'[0] star and as such even if Disney might not want to work with her, I doubt she will ever be wanting for work.
>Expect her ROI to jump after the box-office takes of "Black Widow" are tallied.
ope.
I think the dispute over compensation is likely fair, and will be settled out of court.
[0]https://www.workandmoney.com/s/most-bankable-movie-actresses...
The box office is I think 50% super hero films now.
That said I think they won't...
Many of the Avengers are moving on to let others take over.
She may not do a Marvel Studios project again, but her character's arc is complete now so there's not much of a reason to have her anyway.