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.
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.