Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Marvel's Black Widow

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Wandavision missed its mark? Personally, I thought it was fantastic, start to finish. Sure, it was odd and slow for the first 3/4 episodes but it was also fresh and wonderful. The finale delivered in spades - walking the line between blockbuster budget smackdown, and... Vision beating Vision with a thought experiment. The Quicksilver red herring is the only mark against it IMO. Also... 23 Emmy nominations. Disney knocked that show out of the park. I don't think that show had an impact on Falcon or Loki either. Both shows stood on their own, with their own merits and failings.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,029 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    didn't particularily like the car chase, would have preferred to see more taskmaster fights up close, it was them two talking and then taskmaster killing or injuring a load of people in the APC, maybe it was supposed make TM seem like the terminator that didn't care about people at all, suggesting it was a robot of some sort...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭speedboatchase



    Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Seems fair enough at first blush; a lot of these blockbusters were shoved onto streaming services with little ceremony, and, it turns out, without factoring in actor's contracts re. shares of the box office. Maybe that's it; perhaps in another bout of Hollywood Accounting it was figured they could bypass payouts to big stars if they paralleled these releases between cinemas and streaming. Wonder what Johansson was expecting - or promised with the original contract. Given Spider-Man: Far From Home made 1.1 billion, I suspect the answer was ... quite a lot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,980 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news of the lawsuit, reports that sources close to Johansson estimate that the decision to release the film concurrently on Disney + resulted in $50 million in lost bonuses



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,382 ✭✭✭✭CastorTroy


    Looking at boxofficemojo site. (first that came up when googled for mcu movie box office

    I wouldn't have expected it to do as well as it has in comparison to other films. Though I am curious how well it would've done if cinema only release and/or there was no pandemic. And would the premium fee count as box office to go to her percentage?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I can see why. She has nothing to lose and appears on the face of it a breach of contract might have occurred.

    Some suspected she'd some day return in one way or another to the MCU as these things tend to go in franchises but this does confirm 100% watertight she will not be in any other Disney/Marvel movie going forward.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,459 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    if the contract said exclusive theatrical release, then it’s as clear day that she has every right to sue. I’d love to see if Disney have themselves covered somewhere in the contract.

    Personally I think it looks bad on scarlett johansson. The pandemic has hurt a lot of people at Disney, the film division, theme parks, cruise lines, etc. They all took a huge hit. Disney+ and premier access have been the saving grace for Disney. The two Bobs have done exceptionally well to keep the company in a healthy position and have possibly saved a ton of jobs. I genuinely believe the premier access and same day release was the best option here to minimise the loss.

    Did ScoJo lose money? Yes, but so did Disney, so did the theme park workers, so did the cruise line workers, so did the contractors and staff that where due to work on the delayed movies. Unfortunately that’s just one of the many consequences of a global pandemic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,382 ✭✭✭✭CastorTroy


    Think she was the reason it didn't launch on Disney+ before now as well as it needed a theatrical release.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,092 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I am curious that they didn't give her a cut of the disney+ release in exchange for dropping that part of her contract out. They had to have realised it was part of the contract and easier to deal with than lawyers later on unless they didn't think she would push it.


    I doubt many will think worse of her for catching out the Disney legal team though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,980 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Was RDJ the only one who made mega bucks from all the films he featured in as Tony Stark with producer credit plus profits share, I would think all the main Avengers were on big money by the end including ScarJo



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    I think it looks worse on Disney to be honest, they signed the contract and they breached it and using the pandemic as an excuse not to compensate SJ (which they've done in their statement) or using it to get people on their side seems more than a little underhanded. This is a corporation that made thousands redundant after the Fox merger. SJ may not need the money but she's entitled to it and as you say had a right to sue if it is how she says it is. It's not like she's taking it out of the hands of Disney employees.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain


    I'm sick of Disney so I'm rotting for ScarJo either way.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    it looks like Disney are in the wrong, the cinemas were open globally so muh covid doesnt work as some kind of force majeure

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I have been meaning to look into it for a while ... but are the various contractors and production crew also tied into profit-sharing at the box office? The stars get the headlines, but had wondered if maybe some of the unheralded staff like senior DPs or audio engineers are also losing out when this carry on is done. I vaguely recall Christopher Nolan making that case when Tenet got bumped into streaming...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,510 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    Disney's statement is so ham fisted that I'm wondering who else on the senior team has departed the Mouse House in the last week or two.  If I was given to gossip and conspiracy theories, I'd say this was more music to Iger's ears.  Medium to Long term I think Johansson's people are betting that Chapek's tenure will be fairly short and won't impact on any post Marvel projects



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,208 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Scarlett suing is an interesting one...

    One could argue that after making millions from appearing in Disney marvel movies she's biting the hand that once fed her very well. But there was a contract. If she didn't forfill her end they would likely have sued her.

    Another view is that if she was still scheduled to be in the mcu universe she would be more "accommodating" with Disney to reach an agreement. You know yourself.

    All about the money huh?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,459 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    Yeah, it’s a tough one, I don’t think either side is coming across very well at the moment.

    I do find the wording of SJs statement to be a little inaccurate.


    “Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel,”


    IMO, saying it was without justification is simply wrong. It was a film that was already out of date, releasing it now under the circumstances they did was fully justified. The MCU is basically a serialised TV show, holding onto this for another year to wait for the movie going audiences to return to normal levels would have been a disaster.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    Gave a lot of people who didn't feel comfortable going to or indeed plain couldn't go to the cinema another option to get some entertainment in this pretty sh1tty time by being able to access it on streaming

    I'm taking Disney's side on this one

    Scarlett is worth an estimated $165 million plus already (as of 2019) - she can already afford pretty much any lifestyle she wants



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,349 ✭✭✭Ardent


    I doubt very much the contract states that the movie would be launched exclusively to theatres. If it does, major booboo on Disney's part.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I think it's acceptable that Disney had to split the release between theatrical and D+ given the situation. That's fair and understandable.

    However if people's contracts were tied to it being a theatrical release only, then Disney should have made an offer of a part of the Premium Access sales, or a one-off fee in-lieu of the losses from the theatrical release.

    Regardless of how much SJ is worth, Disney took actions which meant SJ lost out on a lot of money. Disney also likely made more money given D+ subscriptions and premium access. Fair is fair. They should have re-arranged the deal to offset the changes in not having a full theatrical release. I think Disney are in the wrong here (morally anyway, contractually/legally I have no idea).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    And Disney are worth bajillions and could easily find 50m for SJ in Donald Duck's shorts. There's no reason SJ should be at a substantial loss when it's likely Disney made a fortune in D+ subscriptions and premium access.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    Taking the money on both sides out of it I'm taking the view that as I said it gave a lot more people access to some entertainment in this crappy time

    A lot more ordinary people were able to access it as a result

    As if it's so virtuous to be rooting for the mega-rich individual movie star vs the corporation anyways



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,459 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    I wouldn’t be rushing to the defence of either side of this one just yet. It could be that SJ is fighting this for the wider staff as well. I doubt she needs the money, and by doing this she’s put her whole career in jeopardy. She’s burnt her bridges with Disney, whilst other studies who have suffered badly may also see her as a trouble maker, someone who hasn’t played ball during a time of uncertainty, so this could potentially blow up in her face. But she’s obviously done this for a reason.


    I know WB took the hit and paid off their stars when they released their movies on HBOmax, I bet Disney are regretting not doing the same now.


    It will be an interesting one to follow that’s for sure.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    "It could be that SJ is fighting this for the wider staff as well"

    the minor actors nevermind the non-acting plebs don't get revenue-share deals on franchise films

    only primary stars in certain movies and certain directors

    but in franchise movies like this it will only be primary stars, not the directors

    I'd be very confident in stating that SJ was the only actor with a such a deal on this movie.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    No one's disagreeing with you but Disney using that as some sort of moral high ground in order to get out of paying what is owed is low and it could set a dangerous precedent in the future. Neither side needs the money but contracts have to be honoured. Disney get to keep every cent of money made by the premium access, nothing goes to cinemas or distributors, the fact that they're trying to shaft SJ while simultaneously taking the high ground is despicable and it's just greedy.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    look yes, a contract is a contract etc but I did say taking the money out of it there is more benefit to the average person having streaming available in the pandemic times



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]



    Filming took place from May to October 2019 in NorwayBudapestMoroccoPinewood Studios in England, and in AtlantaMacon, and Rome, Georgia."


    "To maximize these receipts, and thereby protect her financial interests, Ms. Johansson extracted a promise from Marvel that the release of the picture would be a 'theatrical release,'" the suit claimed. "As Ms. Johansson, Disney, Marvel, and most everyone else in Hollywood knows, a 'theatrical release' is a release that is exclusive to movie theatres"

    Disney (DIS) responded on Thursday saying that "there is no merit whatsoever to this filing"

    "Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of 'Black Widow' on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date," a Disney spokesperson said in a statement."


    As the filming was completed well in advance of the pandemic so would any contracts obviously it would have been very unusual that an exclusive theatrical release was spoken of in the contract as there would have been no concern about a concurrent streaming release at that point. Notice no mention of "exclusive theatrical release" from SJ's lawyers

    Disney seem to be intimating that she'd get some money from Disney + as how could they argue that additional compensation could be gained from streaming otherwise as that just wouldn't make any sense saying that

    Over to the lawyers......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,980 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Emma Stone and Emily Blunt latest names to come after Disney, their films did get cinema released too as well as streamed



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,277 ✭✭✭✭flazio


    For me, it's the timing that seems a bit out.

    Scarletts representatives would have known for a while that Disney would have been considering the dual release. Scarlett would have been aware as she was doing the zoom call PR interviews leading up to the dual release. Why didn't she try to stop the release in the first place?

    The negotiations should have been done and settled before the movie hit our screens. I'm not saying she doesn't have a point, but it should have been made earlier than this.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,020 ✭✭✭Mr Crispy


    Having read Disney's scummy response, I'm rooting for SJ.



  • Posts: 8,385 [Deleted User]


    I watched it, again, this week as my wife wanted to see it.

    They completely ballsed it up doing a weekly drop. It is a different beast altogether, binge viewed.



  • Posts: 8,385 [Deleted User]


    Probably because a suit is the last step. Going public hurts both sides and there will have been talks, which have broken down.


    Disney didn't give a crap about their new FOX staff, when cutting thousands of jobs. They're a mega business who were never going to the pandemic wall. This is a slimeball exec trying it on.


    Edit: She's also a 36 year old actress just killed off in the biggest global franchise after a decade of being passed over for her own lead outings, while being absolutely key to driving said franchise.

    BW could have had a trilogy by now and they're screwing her on her only film? Screw that

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Posts: 8,385 [Deleted User]


    As for Disney's COVID highground attitude...


    They certainly didn't look after their staff, during lockdown either



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Disney are a nickel and dime operation, and a corporation in the truest most modern sense. Heck most studios try to skip paying cinemas people or taxes, this isn't new. Hiding behind CoVid in the press release seems on brand for a corpos tactic. While Johansson may not need the money she's entitled to a grievance that she was owed something different. Heck she herself might have had investments tied into an expected, successful cinema release. She could be looking at a larger loss than what she felt was owed.

    I could see the thinking there: those first 3 episodes were a chore to get through at the best of times. Still think the show was poor, possibly having way less story than it had episodes to work with. Felt like a film script stretched paper thin



  • Posts: 8,385 [Deleted User]


    It didn't feel stretched at all doing it that way, and I did feel that on weekly view. Its pacing is completely different when you continue the story immediately.


    The first 2 episodes do what they're supposed to and you're asking what's going on but don't have a week to contemplate are they meant to be funny or not.

    E3 and 4 together really open it up and then you're on the home stretch. It's, honestly, opened my eyes to how pacing choices completely change a presentation


    Edit: it's actually reminded me of Star Trek Enterprise season 3. During the original airing I was constantly just hoping they'd get on with it. Recent Netflix run through and it's a tight, tense, and claustrophobic (in a good way) season



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,682 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    ScarJo would have had publicity obligations under her contract, so she can't go damaging the film's box office prospects while simultaneously claiming she's entitled to greater compensation. That would her hurt lawsuit as well as her pocket. Other factors may be at play too. ScarJo has another Disney film in the works at the moment. She may be trying to get out of it or negotiate a better deal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,555 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Pretty sure she's going to lose.

    Kind of hard to argue what the definition of "wide theatrical release" is when it's defined in the actual contract you've signed; 1500+ screens.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    Doesn't have a leg to stand on - was definitely playing on over 4,000 screens

    Ironic that any poster "virtue signalling" for SJ that have pirated the movie instead of going to the cinema was doing her out of money 😂



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain


    "Superhero fatigue!"


    Black Widow has made almost 500 million dollars worldwide with 125 million being from Disney Plus. I'm not sure why Disney felt releasing those numbers helped their case. If anything it just goes to show that they cheated her out of what she was worth.

    On a side note, movie probably would have made about 800 million minimum pre pandemic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,882 ✭✭✭✭McDermotX


    Possibly, but the other argument needs to be put forward, that the world has changed considerably over the last 18 months or so and the likes of Hollywood and the acting classes have to adapt in the same way most others business and people have had to.

    Black Widow may have made more if this had never happened, but I'm certainly more certain that it wouldn't have made a significant dent if it was still delayed and not released till 'things were back to normal'. We still don't know what the new 'normal' is after all. Casual glance at the UK box-office shows a level half of what it was pre-pandemic, in what is technically a more or less unrestricted and highly vaccinated market. US box-office outlook already indicates revenue damage for the next 4 years, worse than earlier predictions.

    If they'd opened theatrical-only earlier, it would have flatlined, if they delayed for, say, next Spring, it would have had middling returns IMO. Not to mention the impact to other plans. Oft-forgotten is the fact that once a movie is in the can, it's losing money until it sells tickets, whether that's down to investor deadlines, legal obligations, contract disputes etc. It cannot just sit there in the backroom for years.

    I don't know the ins and outs of the details of Johansson/Disney's contract, but I suspect she would have liked her vehicle to have been motoring in the cinemas years ago, which is probably more to the heart of the problem, and while I've no sympathy for Disney at all, both parties need to sit back and re-assess their positions. I suspect a compromise down the line, best case.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Thing is, I think there's room for all angles to be correct. There possibly is an element of superhero fatigue, in the sense that if it isn't MCU or DC there's a creeping broad apathy from audiences. The appetite isn't infinite, nor without preferences. Look at how hard Jupiter's Legacy flopped on Netflix, presumably giving the service pause about that big cheque they signed for Mark Milar's work. OK, The Boys on Amazon has done well, but I think it has traded on its inherent violent transgression of the tropes, rather than an embrace of them.

    If Hollywood truly is the race to be second, then it stands to reason the properties most resistant to audience disinterest or fatigue would the one(s) that caused the gold rush in the first place. The MCU created a very stable, long-term product that other studios have singularly failed to replicate (mostly cos they keep ballsing it up, cough cough DC), and I would speculate while broad audiences might tire of capes in general, the MCU might tick onwards within its own realm.



  • Posts: 8,385 [Deleted User]


    Is Jupiter's Legacy any good?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Truthfully? I didn't watch it myself, but mostly because the consensus from opinions I'd value were a series of gigantic shoulder-shrugs. That it wasn't terrible, just very inessential and lacking spark. Lazy almost, perhaps symptomatic of that gold rush. Netflix agreeing, 'cos they cancelled it fairly soon after release?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain


    Well, as someone who actually watched the series... It was good but had problems that are understandably off-putting. Like Arrow, it relies on flashbacks except here the flashbacks are by far and away the best thing about the show as its unravelling the mystery of how the main cast got their powers. The present day story picks up by the end of the season with some interesting reveals but by then it's too little too late.

    There's a great philosophical theme throughout the show about whether it's morally just to kill a bad person to save the lives of many. Some interesting characters but the lead character is immensely unlikeable and miscast to boot resulting in bad wigs and fake beards. This is coupled with some terrible costumes that make the whole show look cheaper than it actually is.

    The comic its based on is actually about the main character's daughter but Netflix decided to make the show a prequel about her father instead which may or may not have been a mistake. In the series the daughter is a cliched coked up model but she has super powers that when she puts to use makes her more interesting, so you can see the potential of what the show could have been if they had followed the comics. Overall, it was OK. Not great but not the train-wreck some said it was either IMO.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain


    "I don't know the ins and outs of the details of Johansson/Disney's contract, but I suspect she would have liked her vehicle to have been motoring in the cinemas years ago, which is probably more to the heart of the problem, and while I've no sympathy for Disney at all, both parties need to sit back and re-assess their positions. I suspect a compromise down the line, best case."

    That's irrelevant. Whether the film was released earlier or later is besides the point. Disney agreed that they would pay Scarlett Johansson what she is owed from the box office ticket sales which they compromised by doing a day and date Disney plus release. Disney violated the contract, didn't answer ScarJo's team's calls when they tried to contact them about it and then put out a daft statement outing the woman's salary to make her look spoiled. They then tried to make out she's some cold and heartless witch for having the audacity to not be treated like trash by the company she has made money for for the past 10 years. To make matters worse they never did this to Dwayne Johnson for Jungle Cruise. Now they're trying to keep the case out of the public eye because they realise how bad they look.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    How is it irrelevant? The contract details are key, if they had no wording in the deal that stopped a duel release then Johansson it'll be a tough case to make.

    'Compromising' box office ticket sales seems like a stretch when Disney can say they actually saved Johansson far more money by pushing the original release date from peak pandemic to when it was eventually released (not that Disney didn't also gain from it).

    Both sides come out of this looking poorly by not dealing with it behind the scenes - sure Disney made money from Johansson for years but she's also made an absolute fortune from them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain



    Please do your research. If you want, you can actually listen to a lawyer on the matter below. Rather than "if-ing" and "but-ing" you can view, for yourself, why and how Disney clearly violated the contract :



    You can also listen to John Campea's take who used to work in law:



    '"Compromising' box office ticket sales seems like a stretch when Disney can say they actually saved Johansson far more money by pushing the original release date from peak pandemic to when it was eventually released (not that Disney didn't also gain from it)."

    So? They pushed the release date back... and then proceeded to undermine the box office ticket sales by doing a day and date release. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Also, again that has nothing to do with the fact that Disney violated their agreement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    That first video is a bit of a joke, she just reads Johannsson's side and nods her head without any effort of thinking what the Disney response could be. The second video has even less substance, just a load of bile from two guys shouting how mean Disney are.

    Here's a pretty short article looking from a legal perspective at the case from both sides and it comes to the conclusion that her case is pretty weak. As discussed here previously, it points out how she had nothing in her contract that it had to be exclusively in theatres - the only explicit element was 1500 screens in the US and they released in 9000. We only have sight of the elements of contract and communications that Johannsson's team has chosen to put into the public domain and they aren't anything close to slam dunks.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/

    A big takeaway is why this was always headed to arbitration - given that it is part of her deal that she very weakly tried to get around and the route she could have gone to from day 1 rather than go public with a lawsuit of Disney. Instead of going this route she agreed to take to resolve contract differences with 'the big bully' she instead took a swing and now her team and many others are trying to paint her as some poor victim after the big bully responded like big bullies do - again both sides coming off really bad.



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    It's generally accepted in the industry that WarnerMedia and HBO overpaid actors for streaming compensation deals on movies

    Hence why there are a few entries on the highest paid roles of all-time by them over the last year and in pandemic times of all times

    https://www.businessinsider.com/16-of-the-highest-paid-movie-roles-of-all-time-2018-5?r=US&IR=T



  • Advertisement
Advertisement