Hacker News Reader

Comment by bilbo0s | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like she had people negotiating for her who failed to recognize the full weight of the pandemic's lasting repercussions. Who knows? They may have even negotiated this deal before the severity of the pandemic was plain? Whatever the case may be, it's a teachable moment. You almost have to have "continuous wargaming" to sort out ongoing effects the pandemic may have on your business.

View on HN

Disney lied about it. They said they would renegotiate with her if plans changed about theatrical release, and then when plans changed, they didn’t renegotiate. (The contract was signed WELL before the pandemic.)

I would bet Scarlett Johansson's net worth that her contract included an "entire agreement" clause.

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

From the article: > 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.”

doesn't sound like they negotiated this 2 months ago...

>They may have even negotiated this deal before the severity of the pandemic was plain?

>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

The article makes it sound as if her camp became concerned about streaming in 2019, so pre-pandemic and presumably post original contract. You'd need to be a lawyer and read the actual contract to see if there were specific representations about box office and streaming. One would think there were but Disney+ didn't even launch until 2019 so maybe that's what kicked off the concerns.

These negotiation most likely precede the pandemic, considering the original planned release for May 2020. Regardless though, a deal was struck and no pandemic or other unforeseen circumstances will change that contract unless it is renegotiated in mutual agreement.

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.

Hmm, the point is that Disney breached the contract.

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.

dude, they didn't negotiate on starring in the movie, shoot the movie, post production it, and then released it all within the pandemic window.

The shooting of the movie ended months before the pandemic hit, and the negotiations regarding her salary had obviously been done before the shooting had even started.

I think they were negotiating in March 2019, when there wasn't a pandemic to consider?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com