Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney

[ShayCristoforo 10,223]

2 hours ago, RAMROD said:

 

 

It's about Disney being shady with contracts. Contracts are legal and all party involved have to respect it, regardless social standing and wealth. When one of them didn't, the other can rightfully sue them.

Oh for sure, I get that. I'm just saying- I'm not sitting here like "oh poor her" -- no.

Most of us are so removed from dynamics like this, it's kinda funny lol. Literally "can't relate"
It's also not surprising that Disney is sneaky, seeing as it's one of the biggest companies of all time. 

[ShayCristoforo 10,223]

9 minutes ago, justhislife said:

It's not just passive income but her quite literally actively investing her time in order to ensure the success of the movie. 

I know. But even if she works an average of 8 hours a day on it, 365 days a year, that's no different from the rest of us, grinding in these streets. It's not special. And she makes much more $$$. 
But I get the idea of holding companies accountable, and the importance of legality.

Tbh some of the reason I don't care is just piggybacking on what @PunkTheFunk is alluding to, in their hilarious 1st page comment lmao. 

[Wolf Boy 2,931]

2 hours ago, mr.peter said:

good for her, Disney would do the same but damn it man I feel like this is gonna burn some bridges for her

Well i imagine she only did this because she is done with the character, otherwise yeah…..not good to sue who pays you. 

[Jill 25,280]

14 minutes ago, ShayCristoforo said:

it's one of the biggest companies of all time. 

Not defending Disney but it's nowhere near the biggest companies in history. Not even a chance.

[Joaco95 1,631]

6 minutes ago, Wolf Boy said:

Well i imagine she only did this because she is done with the character, otherwise yeah…..not good to sue who pays you. 

[Aleks 3,871]

But, I don’t get it?

It’s part of the “premier access” thing, which means people have to pay extra money apart from the subscription to be able to watch the movie, which would be the exact same as buying a cinema ticket?

That access costs 29$ here in Switzerland, which is the same as 2 cinema tickets

[ShayCristoforo 10,223]

15 minutes ago, Jill said:

Not defending Disney but it's nowhere near the biggest companies in history. Not even a chance.

Yeah it is huge though. The longevity and growth, international impact, being a household name. 

[Space Cowboy 11,664]

Good for her

[mr.peter 3,515]

49 minutes ago, justhislife said:

It's her last movie in the contract I believe. 

Same response as what I said above, but also  she spends a lot of time promoting the movie. They don't get to just film and be done, and her reward for promoting is a cut of box office profits, which she's losing out on when they circumvent to their streaming platform. It's not just passive income but her quite literally actively investing her time in order to ensure the success of the movie. 

I believe it's her last film in the contract. 

But Disney is so powerful now, they are not just Disney. They are Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, 20th Century Fox, Hulu ECT... this is what I meant by burning possible bridges for her as an actor/ producer.

She was already in talks to star in a upcoming Tower of Terror film based of the Disney Parks attractions.

Still on her side. If Disney was cheated out of money because of a contract breach they would go after their money. Hoping they come to a fair settlement

[TortureMeOnReplay 5,030]

1 hour ago, ShayCristoforo said:

I know. But even if she works an average of 8 hours a day on it, 365 days a year, that's no different from the rest of us, grinding in these streets. It's not special. And she makes much more $$$. 
But I get the idea of holding companies accountable, and the importance of legality.

Tbh some of the reason I don't care is just piggybacking on what @PunkTheFunk is alluding to, in their hilarious 1st page comment lmao. 

Yes but imagine what that time would be worth. Especially now having to take the time to appear in court if it makes it that far. Yes you can say "boohoo" she has a lot of money and it happens to "everyday people" but why does she not get the same respect as people who make less than her?  Furthermore, she has entire teams that also depend on that money. Not just publicists or her management, but any sort of Glam team, designers, housekeepers, etc who are much more ordinary people. At the end of the day the $50 million is much better for people in her pockets than one of Disney's offshore bank accounts. 

24 minutes ago, mr.peter said:

But Disney is so powerful now, they are not just Disney. They are Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, 20th Century Fox, Hulu ECT... this is what I meant by burning possible bridges for her as an actor/ producer.

She was already in talks to star in a upcoming Tower of Terror film based of the Disney Parks attractions.

Still on her side. If Disney was cheated out of money because of a contract breach they would go after their money. Hoping they come to a fair settlement

I think if she's ready to depart Marvel and she's willing to sue there's a lot going on behind the scenes and it's possible that she doesn't like the way Disney structures it's contracts, and there are stipulations that probably overlap among their properties. Or just simply does business. Aside from that $50 million is an insane amount and it could be tied to a lot of her future plans. 

[IllusionLover 6,194]

2 hours ago, Lona Delery said:

 the f do you mean with "other countried dont even have vaccines". what kind of europe & china erasure aka the 2 biggest markets after the US is this

She obviously expected the movie to be shown in theaters? its no stretch to assume part of her salary is tied to the box office performance, so she has every right to sue them

yeah but the world isn't just the US, Europe and Asia, here in Latin America there are countries where we don't have access to vaccines and MCU movies are big here too, even if they don't represent a big part of the WW box office, Disney would never do a partial release with an MCU movie so the deal was to release it like this or not release it at all. And still the movie was called a "flop" even with a WW release.

1 hour ago, Will Graham said:

This is a Ghost in the Shell reference, isn't it ?

well natasha is Russian so they're part Asians too , right?

[LaLa 18,569]

59 minutes ago, Aleks said:

But, I don’t get it?

It’s part of the “premier access” thing, which means people have to pay extra money apart from the subscription to be able to watch the movie, which would be the exact same as buying a cinema ticket?

That access costs 29$ here in Switzerland, which is the same as 2 cinema tickets

But if Disney is contractually obligated to pay her a percent of box office revenue only, they probably didn't give her any part of the "premier access" money, which is her argument as well -- she was promised this would be a theatre-only movie, it wasn't, thus they are depriving her of her due pay. 

[LG2008 2,263]

What a mess... I guess Natasha won't come back even with the multiverse storyline on board now 

I thought she was a producer too so she must have had some sort of conversation with Marvel and Disney about this before they made the decision to release it in theaters and with Premier Access... If I remember correctly even Rachel Weisz said in an interview that they had several meetings about the release of the film before making the final decision 

[StarstruckIllusion 41,998]

first time I’m on scarJo’s side plsss. Disney/Marvel is being so gross with this. she tried playing nice…

[River 91,093]

Her relationship with Disney will not end lol

It's a common practice when there is a breach in the contract.. it most likely end up with her getting money from Disney and that's it.. she's just moving a muscle, it's the article who makes it big because it's Scarlett and Disney..

She's just asking what she deserves, nothing serious, nothing has been burnt..