She was promised bonuses based on theater sales, and told it would be released theater only. They then released it on both Disney+ and in theaters. So unless there's special clauses, they violated the contract to their (Disney's) financial benefit. In theaters, the movie has had less success of any of that era of the MCU.
Don't like either of them, but the context is important. Movie would have still flopped (though somewhat better in theaters than now). Most boring super in the MCU, released long after when the story took place in the MCU, and after the final ending of that era. Also released when USA movie sales suck.
Someone elsewhere suggested it's also being done this way to use the Disney+ numbers to bump up any failing attendance the actual cinema release received.
So it was [maybe] "successful", just not successful enough to warrant paying the lead actress because of contract loopholes.
She was promised bonuses based on theater sales, and told it would be released theater only. They then released it on both Disney+ and in theaters. So unless there's special clauses, they violated the contract to their (Disney's) financial benefit.
Yeah, it made a lot of sense. I was rather glad to hear it.
When I first heard it come down, my reaction was the same as with the Womens Soccer Team. "You took the 'High Risk, High Reward' contract, and now that it bit you in the ass you cant just sue them over it."
But then I heard that the contract said that it was going to be theaters only, and that she had attempted to renegotiate the contract. And instead of even just giving a simple "Sorry, this is your contract. Sucks to be you." Disney reaction was to pull the ancient "New Phone. Who Dis?" tactic when she tried to talk with them.
But overall, win or lose. I dont really care. I am just going to sit back with a bucket of popcorn cheering on the monkey fight.
There's undoubtedly a force majeure clause in the contract that Disney will try to use and blame COVID to weasel their way out of paying up. Scar Jo should have known better because Hollywood accounting is so infamous for screwing people out of money.
the release of 'Black Widow' on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date
She's literally getting paid from both box office AND Disney+ viewings. I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument, but I doubt it would be even remotely in the region of 50 million in damages. This feels like an I'm-hitting-the-wall attention grab to stay relevant.
If she was getting paid for Disney+ viewings, Disney would have a number to back up that claim. This sounds more like Disney's trying to pay her in exposure.
There's not a whole lot of numbers in general. Literally, the only number given are her base pay- $20 million and how much she's seeking in damages- $50 million.
For whatever reason, you guys are devising your own headcanon about what happened without a single relevant statistic. Whether or not Disney have 'numbers' to back up their claim is anybody's guess, but we'll see what the courts decide.
I just don't know why you're simping for ScarJo instead of waiting for the results or hard facts to come out. If anything, sounds to me like she's getting paid significantly more than what she earned them.
If a family of four goes to the movies to see it that’s four ticket sales worth. If they rent on Disney+ that = significantly less. It’s a smaller cut like when they pay the stars a couple of bucks off of dvd sales.
But more 'families' will watch it, period. How many more families or individuals will decide to stick it on since they're subscribed anyway whereas they wouldn't have considered paying movie prices for it? It's likely she got paid more than she would have if it HAD just been theater sales.
I don't want to make excuses for 'the mouse' of all people, but the "they broke contract and underpaid her" angle seems to be entirely fabricated from assumptions.
It’s an extra charge on top of the subscription and it costs less than 4 movie tickets. It’s a deal for the family but she makes less money since they are now paying less. Doesn’t matter how many people see it. It matters how many people buy a ticket. It would be like buying 2 tickets and going to the back fire exits and letting 2 more of your friends in from Scarlets perspective based on her contract.
I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument, but I doubt it would be even remotely in the region of 50 million in damages
I literally addressed your points in the 1st post. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that she would have earned significantly more if she were compensated entirely through theater ticket sales.
I made 2 good points that you ignored:
a greater number of subscribers may have watched the movie than the number lost from theater tickets
there are many people who might watch it on someone elses' subscription but never would have watched the movie otherwise(people like me).
Unless you are privy to some information that nobody else other than Disney lawyers would be, you're talking out your ass, 'cuz there was nothing in the linked article.
The fact that she’s suing them over a same day release on the streaming platform is reason enough to believe that she is making less money off streaming than theaters. Because who the fuck would want to get in a legal battle with the Walt Disney Company if they didn’t think they had a good case. She may be rich but she’s not frivolous lawsuit with one of the largest companies in the world rich.
People watching it off someone else’s subscription does not give her more money.
And her contract stated (according to cnbc) that the film were to receive an exclusive theatrical releases which it did not
Suing someone doesn't mean you are correct. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and she DEFINITELY has the capital to throw around a few frivolous lawsuits if she thinks she can get attention from it.
Your assumption is that she even expects to win. The US womens' footy team sued FIFA or whoever for 'underpaying' them even though they have better contracts than the men for the same money. If they thought they had a chance of succeeding, they were deluded- same as ScarJo is if Disney isn't lying through it's teeth.
I already explained how "people watching off others' subscriptions" doesn't necessarily lose her money- you're just ASSuming. Disney stated that they increased her earning potential by also releasing on Disney+. I assume they actually have some facts and figures to back up what they say, unlike you.
Stop simping for a woman who doesn't even know or care who you are, and worst of all, stop making me defend fucking Disney!
Turns out people don't want to watch movies with a "strong female lead". How strange. Almost like basic fucking human nature dictates people's actions and no matter what faggot world view you have you can't change reality.
Because it would be more like “Iron Bumbling Idiot” who does nothing but derp derp and simp his way through the story while all the eye-rolling women around him bravely save the day and constantly remind him that he’s the biggest dipshit in the multiverse.
Yeah this one was a breach of contract by Disney. Essentially they panicked over the massive drop in ticket sales over the coof and screwed over one of their stars. ScarJo has been playing ball with the agenda so far... but now they've thrown her under the bus she's suing to get hers back. This is on the backs of Warner Bros publicly paying Gal Godot 10 mil for the loss in revenue over WW1984, and you can bet they did that on purpose to allow ScarJo to sue Disney for the exact same thing, being their direct competitor.
She was promised bonuses based on theater sales, and told it would be released theater only. They then released it on both Disney+ and in theaters. So unless there's special clauses, they violated the contract to their (Disney's) financial benefit. In theaters, the movie has had less success of any of that era of the MCU.
Don't like either of them, but the context is important. Movie would have still flopped (though somewhat better in theaters than now). Most boring super in the MCU, released long after when the story took place in the MCU, and after the final ending of that era. Also released when USA movie sales suck.
Someone elsewhere suggested it's also being done this way to use the Disney+ numbers to bump up any failing attendance the actual cinema release received.
So it was [maybe] "successful", just not successful enough to warrant paying the lead actress because of contract loopholes.
Yeah, it made a lot of sense. I was rather glad to hear it.
I am throwing in on her side as well.
When I first heard it come down, my reaction was the same as with the Womens Soccer Team. "You took the 'High Risk, High Reward' contract, and now that it bit you in the ass you cant just sue them over it."
But then I heard that the contract said that it was going to be theaters only, and that she had attempted to renegotiate the contract. And instead of even just giving a simple "Sorry, this is your contract. Sucks to be you." Disney reaction was to pull the ancient "New Phone. Who Dis?" tactic when she tried to talk with them.
But overall, win or lose. I dont really care. I am just going to sit back with a bucket of popcorn cheering on the monkey fight.
There's undoubtedly a force majeure clause in the contract that Disney will try to use and blame COVID to weasel their way out of paying up. Scar Jo should have known better because Hollywood accounting is so infamous for screwing people out of money.
She's literally getting paid from both box office AND Disney+ viewings. I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument, but I doubt it would be even remotely in the region of 50 million in damages. This feels like an I'm-hitting-the-wall attention grab to stay relevant.
If she was getting paid for Disney+ viewings, Disney would have a number to back up that claim. This sounds more like Disney's trying to pay her in exposure.
There's not a whole lot of numbers in general. Literally, the only number given are her base pay- $20 million and how much she's seeking in damages- $50 million.
For whatever reason, you guys are devising your own headcanon about what happened without a single relevant statistic. Whether or not Disney have 'numbers' to back up their claim is anybody's guess, but we'll see what the courts decide.
I just don't know why you're simping for ScarJo instead of waiting for the results or hard facts to come out. If anything, sounds to me like she's getting paid significantly more than what she earned them.
If a family of four goes to the movies to see it that’s four ticket sales worth. If they rent on Disney+ that = significantly less. It’s a smaller cut like when they pay the stars a couple of bucks off of dvd sales.
But more 'families' will watch it, period. How many more families or individuals will decide to stick it on since they're subscribed anyway whereas they wouldn't have considered paying movie prices for it? It's likely she got paid more than she would have if it HAD just been theater sales.
I don't want to make excuses for 'the mouse' of all people, but the "they broke contract and underpaid her" angle seems to be entirely fabricated from assumptions.
It’s an extra charge on top of the subscription and it costs less than 4 movie tickets. It’s a deal for the family but she makes less money since they are now paying less. Doesn’t matter how many people see it. It matters how many people buy a ticket. It would be like buying 2 tickets and going to the back fire exits and letting 2 more of your friends in from Scarlets perspective based on her contract.
I literally addressed your points in the 1st post. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that she would have earned significantly more if she were compensated entirely through theater ticket sales.
I made 2 good points that you ignored:
Unless you are privy to some information that nobody else other than Disney lawyers would be, you're talking out your ass, 'cuz there was nothing in the linked article.
The fact that she’s suing them over a same day release on the streaming platform is reason enough to believe that she is making less money off streaming than theaters. Because who the fuck would want to get in a legal battle with the Walt Disney Company if they didn’t think they had a good case. She may be rich but she’s not frivolous lawsuit with one of the largest companies in the world rich.
People watching it off someone else’s subscription does not give her more money.
And her contract stated (according to cnbc) that the film were to receive an exclusive theatrical releases which it did not
Suing someone doesn't mean you are correct. Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and she DEFINITELY has the capital to throw around a few frivolous lawsuits if she thinks she can get attention from it.
Your assumption is that she even expects to win. The US womens' footy team sued FIFA or whoever for 'underpaying' them even though they have better contracts than the men for the same money. If they thought they had a chance of succeeding, they were deluded- same as ScarJo is if Disney isn't lying through it's teeth.
I already explained how "people watching off others' subscriptions" doesn't necessarily lose her money- you're just ASSuming. Disney stated that they increased her earning potential by also releasing on Disney+. I assume they actually have some facts and figures to back up what they say, unlike you.
Stop simping for a woman who doesn't even know or care who you are, and worst of all, stop making me defend fucking Disney!
Good. Let them eat each other, let the movie (= propaganda) industry become less profitable.
Turns out people don't want to watch movies with a "strong female lead". How strange. Almost like basic fucking human nature dictates people's actions and no matter what faggot world view you have you can't change reality.
Stupid goyim. Smh.
Or you know a character who spoilers is dead in all future movies in the overall story
Oh God no.
Because it would be more like “Iron Bumbling Idiot” who does nothing but derp derp and simp his way through the story while all the eye-rolling women around him bravely save the day and constantly remind him that he’s the biggest dipshit in the multiverse.
Pass
They'd introduce Riri.
Yeah this one was a breach of contract by Disney. Essentially they panicked over the massive drop in ticket sales over the coof and screwed over one of their stars. ScarJo has been playing ball with the agenda so far... but now they've thrown her under the bus she's suing to get hers back. This is on the backs of Warner Bros publicly paying Gal Godot 10 mil for the loss in revenue over WW1984, and you can bet they did that on purpose to allow ScarJo to sue Disney for the exact same thing, being their direct competitor.
TL;DR Let them fight.
lul she didnt negotiate for a piece of the gross, wonder if her agent was paid off by mouse agents
Whoever wins, we lose (but also we win)