Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff

Firstly, ignoring the obvious straw-man about the general consumer market (at no point did I mention the general consumer market), you know very well that the general consensus amongst those who are aware of the situation, i.e. movie fans and professionals in the industry, was that Disney was in the wrong so stop the revision of the very recent history. I shouldn’t even bother posting any statements because you’re obviously using this as a deflective tactic from the topic at hand but seeing as I’m right I might as well prove it:

Following this, major Hollywood figures and organizations weighed in, including SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris (“Disney should be ashamed of themselves for resorting to tired tactics of gender-shaming and bullying.) Women In Film, ReFrame and Time’s Up also offered a joint statement, while industry insiders questioned if other lawsuits would follow.

Did you even watch Erin Cummings’ segment (Spartacus, King Richard) in the video breaking it down why it's blatant sexism or did you just listen to the two blokes and call it day? To say it's a, "giant leap" as if this is something we don't already know the industry does is beyond ignorant. Taken from Deadline's report:

"Disney incurred the wrath of many, including Johansson’s CAA main man Bryan Lourd, for not only telling the world that the actor got paid $20 million upfront for the film, but also tried to make their longtime collaborator look out and out cruel for standing up for herself."

Disney & Scarlett Johansson Resolve Bitter ‘Black Widow’ Profits Lawsuit; Big $$$ Win For Oscar Nominee

In the same Deadline report, it's said that Scarlett Johansson got 40 million dollars which, according to John Campea, is 20 million more than what Scarlett Johansson was initially suing for, hence the “pricey” line from Deadline.

Secondly, whoever is the “bigger star” in this case is completely and utterly irrelevant. Disney had a contract and they violated it. It doesn’t matter, “who the bigger star is”. The contract does not say, "you're not bigger than Dwayne Johnson therefore we get to screw you over as and when we want." Star power matters in terms of how much of the box office receipts an actor or actress gets, yes, but that’s not what Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit was about. Bringing up “star power” shows you either don’t understand what the contract was or you’re derailing the issue at hand.

Stick to the facts. Both Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson and Scarlett Johansson’s contract stipulated that they receive a cut of the box office sales which did not include Disney plus premium access. Let me say that again: Both Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson and Scarlett Johansson’s contract stipulated that they receive a cut of the box office sales which did not include Disney plus premium access. As for Emily Blunt, no, it hasn’t been confirmed whether or not Disney renegotiated her contract and that’s the reason why it’s so suspicious. If Blunt had renegotiated her deal you would bet Disney’s PR team would have used that as damage control to ward off the accusations of misogyny they were getting. The fact that they haven’t announced anything of the sort with Emily Blunt means we can at least assume that they didn’t which only proves my point.

Now, this is where your entire argument completely falls apart:

“Thirdly and most importantly, Scarlett had an option in her contract to go to arbitration to do exactly what you are asking for and renegotiate the deal. Rather than doing that she chose to take a very legally questionable route and try to go around arbitration and take a swing at big bad Disney in public via a lawsuit “

I’m highlighting this section of your post because either this is a blatant lie about what Scarlett Johansson did or, again, you don’t actually understand what happened. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here so let me break it down: after Disney sent Black Widow to Disney Plus, Scarlett Johansson's legal team DID try to renegotiate the deal with them, which could have included arbitration, but Disney ignored her. Let me say that again: Johansson's team tried to prevent this going to court by reaching out to Disney for a settlement but Disney never even took their calls. In other words, though it may or may not stipulate this in the contract Disney never actually adhered to this when Scarlett Johansson's legal team tried.

This is how I know you didn’t watch Erin Cummings segment of the video which covers exactly the aforementioned problem with how Disney handled the situation: This wasn’t a case where Disney FIRST tried to reach a private agreement with Scarlett Johansson but her team were not satisfied and then decided to sue; Disney didn’t even discuss it. In response, Scarlett Johansson was then FORCED to sue and Disney retaliated (after dragging her name) by filing for private arbitration (which they likely would have been denied) because they knew very well that if it goes to court everything would be public record – which would have shown that Johansson and her team were right. In other words, Disney was trying to hide the fact that they violated their contract and Johansson’s people knew it. From John Berlinski, Johansson's lawyer:

"After initially responding to this litigation with a misogynistic attack against Scarlett Johansson, Disney is now, predictably, trying to hide its misconduct in a confidential arbitration," Berlinski said in a statement to ET. "Why is Disney so afraid of litigating this case in public? Because it knows that Marvel’s promises to give Black Widow a typical theatrical release ‘like its other films’ had everything to do with guaranteeing that Disney wouldn’t cannibalize box office receipts in order to boost Disney Plus subscriptions. Yet that is exactly what happened -- and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence that proves it."

So again, in case it is still not clear: Disney never attempted to renegotiate the deal prior to Johansson filing to sue; they ignored her team when theyr eached out for a settlement which THEN forced Johansson to sue Disney. It’s not "legally questionable", it’s legally sensible.

You are denying the obvious misogyny because it's a subject matter that, understandably, makes you feel uncomfortable but when misogyny or any form of discrimination is happening we need to call it out. Just denying sexism exists does not foster change. This is a massive win for Scarlett Johansson and sends a powerful message to all women in the industry who were no doubt watching how this case would unfold with baited breath: know your worth and do not settle when you’re blatantly being treated unfairly.

For anyone who wants a simplified breakdown of Johansson’s recent win I’ve posted John Campea’s coverage of it below (Campea used to work in law and has done many episodes where he breaks down the legalities in the industry):