Black Widow (July 9, 2021)
- Thread starter Chakor
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,935
- Reaction score
- 4,831
While her level of wealth enters the realm of abstraction for me, I think if Disney's being shady she should have at them. It's not like that company deserves leeway or the benefit of the doubt. F*** 'em.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Remember how expensive those custom Ledger Joker socks were the wealthy need their 1/6 socks to be perfect lol
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 28,004
- Reaction score
- 31,987
Isn't the legal filing by Scarlett's company available online for reading? The clause in contention on the contract per their filing is:
For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)
Disney fulfilled that. From my understanding of what people say that work on legal matters, Scarlett's team believes wide theatrical release means exclusive to theaters but that's not how the courts decide based on what the one thinks or believes but rather what is explicitly written. So
For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)
Disney fulfilled that. From my understanding of what people say that work on legal matters, Scarlett's team believes wide theatrical release means exclusive to theaters but that's not how the courts decide based on what the one thinks or believes but rather what is explicitly written. So
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Screw Scarjo the movie that she produced sucked.
Shang > BW
Shang > BW
Those were the days. Still have a pair.
Eh, they weren’t that much. I have socks I wear that cost more.
If you don't mind, I prefer financially secure eccentric.
I wonder what Feige is thinking. As I recall for the longest time there was never a plan to do this movie in any MCU phase. I like ScarJo but she's lucky to be earning any $ at all from a solo Black Widow movie. If it wasn't for Feige figuring out a way to make it happen and Disney implicitly okaying it (via giving Feige full discretion/creative control), she'd be $20 Million poorer right now.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 28,004
- Reaction score
- 31,987
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,935
- Reaction score
- 4,831
loki2371
Super Freak
Yeah, I only think she's right because Disney are showing themselves to be the greedy corp they are. Trying to use a loophole to not have to pay her.
Compare this to being an author from back before there was digital media and only printed media. Your given a contract to write a book for a company. Your paid x amount now, and x amount on completion. And in your contract is the agreement to make a % of printed book sales. Your deadline to hand in the final draft is 3 years. In that 3 years after/under your contract, printed media starts to wane, and a new distribution method of online digital downloads emerges. Upon release, your company decides to offer the book in print media and online digital sales for tablets/book readers and any other way to be able to read digital books. After the initial run of your book, they pull it off the shelves and decide to sell it digital only as sales of print media have extremely diminished. Your book becomes popular and digital sales are booming. But, you get 0 money because your contract didn't include digital download sales........
D+ most likely wasn't a thing when her contract to make Black Widow was written years before. And definitely not the idea of Premium content (movies released simultaneously) being streamed in the home. If it was, I'm sure her and her people (Managers, agents, lawyers) were all smart enough to make sure they included in her contract that she would also be entitled to the same % of Box office AND D+ premium sales. Some of them (Agents & Managers) make money off of her earnings. The more she makes, the more they make..
As others have said, WB renegotiated contracts with actors when they decided to do HBOMax. Disney knowingly did not full well realizing they would make more money and not have to pay as D+ didn't exist, or rather the idea for premium content that subscribers have to pay to see, and wasn't in the previously written contracts . And then they use Covid as well as a reason to not have to pay.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,935
- Reaction score
- 4,831
@loki2371 the whole 'COVID ate my homework' excuse is starting to wear thin from sizable companies. It's been a year and a half and I still see it being used to justify cash grabs and delayed/poor service.
Yet I'm in no way entitled to pay for said services and products when and what I feel like because COVID. I get the shipping delays but when it gets rolled out for everything under the blanket term 'challenging times' I get hostile.
Yet I'm in no way entitled to pay for said services and products when and what I feel like because COVID. I get the shipping delays but when it gets rolled out for everything under the blanket term 'challenging times' I get hostile.
generalszabo
Super Freak
All of the above doesn't mean she's entitled to any more money though
She shouldn't get more millions just because you don't like Disney, that's not how things work
She shouldn't get more millions just because you don't like Disney, that's not how things work
Sure it is. People get fired and lose their entire life every day now thanks to mobs on the internet.
generalszabo
Super Freak
What a world we live in
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,935
- Reaction score
- 4,831
Well, I did say "if Disney's being shady" -- that includes trying to exploit a loophole. I don't think these things should go unanswered.
Ropen
Super Freak
He’s basically siding with Scarlet because he has to protect his baby the MCU, maybe he had a roadmap where BW came back thanks to the multiverse but Daddy Disney burned that bridge now.
I usually try to be open minded about stuff but reading Michael Ovitz’s Autobiography Called Who is Michael Ovitz, one of the founders of the famous Hollywood Agent company CAA goes in depth a lot behind the scenes on how they negotiate with studios, Disney from his perspective hated them(Agency’s) with a passion, This is from Page 269 in regards to how Eisner at the time treated Robin, but at the end of the day different CEO literally SAME exact company:
“When Disney was making Aladdin, Robin Williams was slotted to do three days of voice-over work as the Genie. But his ad-libbing was so wildly funny and prolific that Michael Eisner tossed the script aside and rebuilt the movie around Robin—without revising his compensation. Afterward, Robin asked me to come by his apartment in New York to discuss the issue. He began telling me about it in character, as the Genie. He was a troubled but lovable man, and he’d often take refuge in the voice of some character or other. I said, “Talk to me as you, Robin,” and he finally did, very quietly. We spoke for two hours, and I told him I’d fix it. I called Eisner, who tried the usual “Your client had a contract, and he got paid.” I told him Robin didn’t want any more money, but that he deserved a significant gesture of recognition for what he’d done for Disney—the movie would gross more than half a billion dollars. Michael finally agreed to give Robin a showpiece painting, such as a Picasso. I went and found a suitable Picasso at the Pace Gallery, and told Disney to send Arne Glimcher a check for $4 million. I knew that, expensive as the painting was, it was worth much more. At that point Eisner declared that the painting would remain a Disney property, but that he’d lend it to Robin. I got mad and said, “If I didn’t have a client as nice as Robin, I’d demand fifteen million dollars.” Robin got his Picasso.”
Same stuff different day
Last edited:
Ovitz ruined the industry far more than Eisner. Both are brutal.
Similar threads
