- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So Disney has cancelled Scarlett Johansson led Tower of Terror film? Ouch!
Posted on 8/12/21 at 4:36 pm to teke184
Posted on 8/12/21 at 4:36 pm to teke184
quote:How many have read the contract, yet they have a definitive opinion on the legal intricacies of it?
I believe the contract called for an exclusivity window on theatrical release of X days before streaming, home video, etc.
Releasing the film concurrently in theaters and on D+, even as a $30 premium, is still a violation of contract and arguably any money received from that premium should count toward her gross points rather than a separate revenue stream.
1
Posted on 8/12/21 at 4:47 pm to League Champs
quote:
I'm giving them the edge that somewhere in that contract, the official release window was voided by theater closures. And since BW sat in a can for a year, my guess is Disney had no restrictions on streaming it at that point.
I dont think you are right.
2019 contracts arent going to have escape clauses for theatres being closed.
And i doubt there is a clause where disney is allowed to unilaterally void compensation provisions by self deferring the release date.
As this thread has referenced, other studios paid out for compensations before digitally releasing movies.
Mickey is going to hide behind lawyers but is going to have to settle to save face.
And Johansson sounds free to go to other studios to expand her career with franchises better than tower of terror.
This post was edited on 8/12/21 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 8/12/21 at 4:49 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
How many have read the contract, yet they have a definitive opinion on the legal intricacies of it?
The initial reports of thr lawsuit laid her claims out clearly.
That is 1 side of the story. But the suit is moving forward. Is it not? A judge hasnt kicked it out because of intricacies?
Posted on 8/12/21 at 4:53 pm to meansonny
quote:
And Johansson sounds free to go to other studios to expand her career with franchises better than tower of terror.
She's damned near 40. She's going to be playing grandmothers soon.
"Franchises" - 
Posted on 8/12/21 at 6:25 pm to Grievous Angel
quote:
basically crowding out anything a grown up might want to see...
You do realize you are talking about the House of Mouse and not Warner Brothers or some art house studio right?
Posted on 8/12/21 at 8:41 pm to Bard
I do find it interesting people are taking Disney side here without a grain of thought.
Hollywood aside, just think about this in laymen terms.
Imagine you got hired to lead/contribute to a product with a base salary and a commission percentage of gross sales of said product.
And then the company decides to sell the product through a different party to circumvent your commission.
I'm fairly certain most people would be pissed AF.
Hollywood aside, just think about this in laymen terms.
Imagine you got hired to lead/contribute to a product with a base salary and a commission percentage of gross sales of said product.
And then the company decides to sell the product through a different party to circumvent your commission.
I'm fairly certain most people would be pissed AF.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 9:17 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
She's damned near 40. She's going to be playing grandmothers soon. "Franchises" -
She's hot in a skin tight suit.
If there is a market for hot 40 year olds, she could pull it off.
There are plenty of middle age women who can "move the needle". She could easily be at the top of that list.
You dont think there could be a franchise as big as game of thrones or sopranos out of a nondisney studio?
Posted on 8/12/21 at 9:26 pm to meansonny
quote:
You dont think there could be a franchise as big as game of thrones or sopranos out of a nondisney studio?
I'm saying she's now used to Marvel/Disney money. That's gone, forever.
The franchises that can pay her Marvel/Disney money are few and far between and now they get her at a discount because they're not competing with Marvel/Disney.
I said this a little while back when the news broke - she's probably in the right here, but she's dumb to sue Disney. She should have worked it out, quietly, behind the scenes. Rolled it into the next picture and made the money back on a longer payout.
You just can't sue the organization that will pay you more than anyone else will unless you don't want that anymore. I don't know what else to tell you ScarJo baws.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 9:50 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:This is conjecture, but I imagine her team tried and Disney resisted.
but she's dumb to sue Disney. She should have worked it out, quietly, behind the scenes. Rolled it into the next picture and made the money back on a longer payout.
quote:Which may be more to the point?
You just can't sue the organization that will pay you more than anyone else will unless you don't want that anymore.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 9:50 pm to meansonny
And what’s funny is you are just thinking about her looks when she has had at least 3 voice roles in the last decade and has a 4 on the way this winter. Mark Hamill made it 20 some odd years in Hollywood after Return just doing voice roles for animated movies/tv shows. I’m sure Scarlett will be just fine.
But it’s the principle. You said I would get a cut of the box office gross from this movie and it would only be exclusively in theaters for a set period of time. Disney decided to change that exclusive window and did not update her contract. They broke the contract, it cost her money, she spoke to them, they said tough shite, she said okay well we’re going to court.
Pretty cut and dry. You sign a contract, you honor the contract. You can’t pull the “well we didn’t know Corona was coming when we signed that deal”. 1. That’s not Scarlett’s problem, that’s yours. 2. Other studios realized that the situation with theatrical releases had changed so that sat down and worked out new contracts for their stars with gross points in their contracts. 3. She’s not the only star that Disney is having this issue with because Emma Stone was going to be their next “it” woman, but she got screwed over too. 4. This can have ripple effects because those 2 alone have worked with and befriended other stars both currently in the Disney family and not yet. That and their agents represent other big names and they will tell them to steer clear of the Mouse or demand significantly higher on the front end.
Any company worth a damn knows that you don’t frick with your talent. The worst way to frick with your talent is by fricking with their compensation.
Do I have a personal stake in this? Nope. ScarJo won’t go to bed hungry tonight and the Mouse won’t lose his cheddar either. They’ll work something out because neither party wants to see it drag on and on.
But it’s the principle. You said I would get a cut of the box office gross from this movie and it would only be exclusively in theaters for a set period of time. Disney decided to change that exclusive window and did not update her contract. They broke the contract, it cost her money, she spoke to them, they said tough shite, she said okay well we’re going to court.
Pretty cut and dry. You sign a contract, you honor the contract. You can’t pull the “well we didn’t know Corona was coming when we signed that deal”. 1. That’s not Scarlett’s problem, that’s yours. 2. Other studios realized that the situation with theatrical releases had changed so that sat down and worked out new contracts for their stars with gross points in their contracts. 3. She’s not the only star that Disney is having this issue with because Emma Stone was going to be their next “it” woman, but she got screwed over too. 4. This can have ripple effects because those 2 alone have worked with and befriended other stars both currently in the Disney family and not yet. That and their agents represent other big names and they will tell them to steer clear of the Mouse or demand significantly higher on the front end.
Any company worth a damn knows that you don’t frick with your talent. The worst way to frick with your talent is by fricking with their compensation.
Do I have a personal stake in this? Nope. ScarJo won’t go to bed hungry tonight and the Mouse won’t lose his cheddar either. They’ll work something out because neither party wants to see it drag on and on.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 10:19 pm to meansonny
quote:
2019 contracts arent going to have escape clauses for theatres being closed.
That's the point, there was no clause to keep Disney from streaming a year old movie that had no means by which they could release it. Her restricted window between release date and streaming date had expired, Her lawyers wanted Disney to honor it anyway.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 10:22 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
They’ll work something out because neither party wants to see it drag on and on.
Thats where im at, too.
Disney is going to end up paying more than if they renegotiated.
Disney is going to pay more than they would have needed to settle before her lawsuit was filed.
And as you said, this is going to cost disney in future contracts as talent agencies are going to need more up front knowing that disney is hostile to actors/actresses.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 10:25 pm to League Champs
quote:
there was no clause to keep Disney from streaming a year old movie that had no means by which they could release it.
Wrong.
It isnt a year old movie if it hasnt been released.
The contract stipulated theatres first for a minimum of 90 days. Disney unilaterally delaying the release does not allow disney to unilaterally void the stipulation.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 10:32 pm to meansonny
quote:
The contract stipulated theatres first for a minimum of 90 days.
You haven't seen the contract, so ...
Posted on 8/12/21 at 11:23 pm to Broski
quote:yes, it's called being cheap. Disney was already paying a lot of their Marvel stars except for Downey Jr of course, paying them cheaply when compared to other studios, and they just got even cheaper. Smh Lol
You mean they did something that every company in the world is doing?
This post was edited on 8/12/21 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 8/12/21 at 11:53 pm to League Champs
quote:
quote:
The contract stipulated theatres first for a minimum of 90 days.
You haven't seen the contract, so ...
It was in the article that reported the lawsuit.
The lawsuit that is moving forward in court right now. And hasnt been thrown out for being groundless.
Posted on 8/13/21 at 1:13 am to meansonny
quote:
The lawsuit that is moving forward in court right now. And hasnt been thrown out for being groundless.
Well then, from people that have seen the contract:
LINK
quote:
Why is the legal case potentially weak? That’s certainly not the assessment that many in the talent community wish to hear.
Johansson has an arbitration clause in her deal with Marvel. She’s not formally asserting breach of contract as a cause of action in her lawsuit. To do so would almost certainly mean a straight ticket to arbitration. Instead, Johansson is making the sideways legal claim that Disney, as parent company, caused Marvel, its subsidiary, to breach contractual obligations.
quote:
Unfortunately for Johansson, it also highlights how there’s not much guarantee it will stick there. Disney’s first move in this case is very likely to be a motion to compel arbitration on the argument that gamesmanship can’t evade an agreement to privately litigate this type of dispute.
And the death knell ...
quote:
According to the suit filed by the actress, “At the time the Agreement was entered, it was well understood by the parties and Disney that a ‘theatrical release’ referred to an exclusive release in theatres for an extended period of time that was roughly 90-120 days.
The problem is that the contract doesn’t explicitly say “exclusive”
LINK
quote:
Longtime Disney attorney Daniel Petrocelli told Variety that the demands in Johansson’s litigation are far out of the bounds of the actor’s contract with the studio. He characterized it as an attempt to force Disney to write a check that backfired.
quote:
“No amount of public pressure can change or obscure the explicit contractual commitments. The written contract is clear as a bell.”
Posted on 8/13/21 at 6:42 am to League Champs
quote:
Why is the legal case potentially weak? That’s certainly not the assessment that many in the talent community wish to hear.
Johansson has an arbitration clause in her deal with Marvel. She’s not formally asserting breach of contract as a cause of action in her lawsuit. To do so would almost certainly mean a straight ticket to arbitration. Instead, Johansson is making the sideways legal claim that Disney, as parent company, caused Marvel, its subsidiary, to breach contractual obligations.
quote:
Unfortunately for Johansson, it also highlights how there’s not much guarantee it will stick there. Disney’s first move in this case is very likely to be a motion to compel arbitration on the argument that gamesmanship can’t evade an agreement to privately litigate this type of dispute.
Great points. Sounds like the motion to file suit is moving forward, but it will be interesting to see if it can be redirected to arbitration.
quote:
And the death knell ...
quote:
According to the suit filed by the actress, “At the time the Agreement was entered, it was well understood by the parties and Disney that a ‘theatrical release’ referred to an exclusive release in theatres for an extended period of time that was roughly 90-120 days.
The problem is that the contract doesn’t explicitly say “exclusive”
Another point. Thanks for sharing.
Disney provides her a contract for about 1% of ticket sales with a 90 day theatrical release. Why should they pay her the 1% of ticket sales? The contract clearly never says that she will be paid "all" of the 1% of the ticket sales. Without clear language for "all" of the 1%, Disney's good lawyers have their loophole to not pay her "all" of the 1%. Same goes for the 90 day theatrical release never saying "exclusive". /s
Posted on 8/13/21 at 7:48 am to League Champs
quote:
You haven't seen the contract, so
Neither have you. But Scarlett, her agents, and her lawyers have, and they wouldn’t be wasting their time if they didn’t have a case.
Posted on 8/13/21 at 11:17 am to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
and they wouldn’t be wasting their time if they didn’t have a case.
If you read the links I posted, they don't have a case. Her contract is with Marvel, but they are suing Disney. Her contract requires arbitration, which would mean with Marvel (who did nothing wrong). So they are, as the article noted, using gamesmanship to get Disney to write them a check.
It backfired (also in the article linked), and Disney is cutting all ties with her now, as a result.
quote:
One oddity of the complaint is that Johansson sued Disney, and not Marvel, its subsidiary. Though the suit states that Marvel breached her contract, it does not assert a breach of contract claim against Marvel.
A possible explanation is that the Marvel contract includes an arbitration provision, which would require any claims against Marvel to be handled privately. So these issues may not get very far in court.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News