Jump to content
society

Disney Responds to Scarlett Johansson


Jill

Featured Posts

flyaway
15 hours ago, Economy said:

This dispute isnt affecting anyone outside Disney or Scarlet anyway so let them figure it out :emma:

I'll have to disagree on this because there may be a bigger issue with this lawsuit. Disney is this big corporation that profits from literally everything and everyone involved in their projects. They show no remorse and have created this big empire out of many people's work.

I know Scarlett Johansson is a rich celebrity and she wouldn't have the need to do this for financial reasons, but at least (in a way) she's making a point for those who don't even have the money to face a lawsuit against a giant like disney. We could compare it to the Spotify-Taylor Swift situation, but I don't know Scarjo's true intentions behind this lawsuit.

What could come up is that other people (Like Emma Stone maybe) will start asking for a part of their revenue as streaming has become the norm these days. This will hugely affect the way streaming works because it's less money for the big corporations :bear:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Economy
7 minutes ago, flyaway said:

I'll have to disagree on this because there may be a bigger issue with this lawsuit. Disney is this big corporation that profits from literally everything and everyone involved in their projects. They show no remorse and have created this big empire out of many people's work.

I know Scarlett Johansson is a rich celebrity and she wouldn't have the need to do this for financial reasons, but at least (in a way) she's making a point for those who don't even have the money to face a lawsuit against a giant like disney. We could compare it to the Spotify-Taylor Swift situation, but I don't know Scarjo's true intentions behind this lawsuit.

What could come up is that other people (Like Emma Stone maybe) will start asking for a part of their revenue as streaming has become the norm these days. This will hugely affect the way streaming works because it's less money for the big corporations :bear:

Meh i dont know. Still dont see it that way...

 

If a poor or even average persons contract got affected by covid and a rich company didnt offer to just take some of the loss and let the employee or employees keep a bigger piece of the pie to make up for it i might agree

 

But covid affected many ppls earnings and companies earnings. I dont see why circumstances that forced Disney to alter plans and may hurt revenue why Scarlett should somehow be exempt from this

 

Companies got affected by covid, individuals got affected and guess what that can include entertainers too...

 

Im just not too inclined to side with a rich woman expecting to be shielded by covids impacts on her paycheck :huh:

 

Like its a bummer for her i dont blame her for being pressed i woukd too, but if im understanding the circumstances and contract properly, shes screwed over in the sense she expected to receive more with a regular release than the streaming. Shes a victim of covids impacts which affected disney too. Its not like like shes struggling, feels a little petty to me that she expects no impact on her pay even tho everyone else does :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

gagaisitalian
On 7/29/2021 at 9:05 PM, justhislife said:

 

Why?

As they said, she's already made $20 million. She's pathetic and greedy. Maybe if she pledged to donate her *extra* earning *if* she won the lawsuit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALGAYDO
3 minutes ago, gagaisitalian said:

As they said, she's already made $20 million. She's pathetic and greedy. Maybe if she pledged to donate her *extra* earning *if* she won the lawsuit. 

Just because she’s rich doesn’t mean she should let herself be screwed of her deal 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pennywise

Not some of you trying to defend Disney of all things :billie:

 

It's the principle of the thing. Not one of you can tell me that you wouldn't sue if you were cheated out of millions of dollars EVEN IF you earned a lot already. 

 

Like, the hypocrisy of it all :billie:

 

And Disney, the biggest monopoly in film, doesn't need you to defend them. In fact, you have more in common with Scarlett than Disney, even when she's THAT rich:laughga:

So long ggd, it was nice while it lasted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

luckyanderson

Disney cannot get away with taking advantage of an LGBTQ2IA+ person of color like Scarlett Johansson!

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmytimestep
23 hours ago, Economy said:

Like its a bummer for her i dont blame her for being pressed i woukd too, but if im understanding the circumstances and contract properly, shes screwed over in the sense she expected to receive more with a regular release than the streaming. Shes a victim of covids impacts which affected disney too. Its not like like shes struggling, feels a little petty to me that she expects no impact on her pay even tho everyone else does :shrug:

I think the issue at hand is that she knew what Disney's new release strategy would be in order to maximize profits, she knew how it would affect her deal, she reached out to renegotiate her deal so that she would not see as much of a loss, and they ghosted her. She gave them an opportunity in good faith to renegotiate and they refused. THAT is the problem here. Therefore, she should fully expect to recieve what she negotiated pre-COVID. They had a binding contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ronk

Disney is in callous disregard for the law (contractual agreements).

I live outside the space time continuum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
1 hour ago, jimmytimestep said:

I think the issue at hand is that she knew what Disney's new release strategy would be in order to maximize profits, she knew how it would affect her deal, she reached out to renegotiate her deal so that she would not see as much of a loss, and they ghosted her. She gave them an opportunity in good faith to renegotiate and they refused. THAT is the problem here. Therefore, she should fully expect to recieve what she negotiated pre-COVID. They had a binding contract.

But was she promised a specific total amount or a comission percentage? Because if she wasnt promised any minimum total amount then i dont see any breaking of contract here

 

Its seems more to me like they adjusted release plans to mitigate losses as much as possible and those adjustments hurt her potential earnings but again so many ppl and industries potential earnings have suffered from covid. I just dont get why she has to feel like she has to be an exeption to that. Disney is probably taking their losses too despite this change vs if they stuck with their original release plan in a no covid world

 

I think if we were talking about a flurashing business screwing over a low income single mom employee struggling to put food on the table then theres ethics of being humaine that would come into play  beyond just business contracts or what is legal or not...

 

Given Scarlet is a wealthy woman herself I dont see some ethical obligation of charity here for a company to increase their losses even more so that she doesnt have any out of some need, i see this more as a change in business approach to adapt to covid circumstances and reduce losses... a business change that happens to be less lucrative for her than she was originally hoping for. But again, so many ppl and businesses have had paychecks hurt including disney and stuff not going to plan or what they were expecting. Dont see why she expects to be the exeption and be fully shielded while everyone else doesnt :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
2 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

Just because she’s rich doesn’t mean she should let herself be screwed of her deal 

Was she tho? Was she promised any specific amount? This is the part im trying to figure out if theres something im missing

 

Cuz from what im gathering streaming makes less and her comission earnings with it being released that way are lower so shes making less than she was anticipating under this contract

 

But like many other businesses plans had to change given covid and for film industry that includes more emphasis on streaming even if it means less earnings...

 

This makes her earnings a victim of changed business circumstances from covid just like a lot of peoples plans or expected earnings got hurt

 

Seems to me more like she was screwed by covid more than disney as if disney didnt release it this way the losses would be even bigger. 

 

If shes trying to suggest Disney is obligated to take on all the losses so she has none and can earn what she innitially imagine shed earn pre-covid, i dont see why Disney is suppostu be responsible for that on a comission based contract where raw earnings fall :huh:

 

Now if the contract was suppostu garantee some minimum that they are trying to take away thats another story. Its shady and illegal and she has a case if thats the case

Link to post
Share on other sites

gagaisitalian
9 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

Just because she’s rich doesn’t mean she should let herself be screwed of her deal 

ok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helxig

Oh get fuct Disney. Trying to play the sympathy card yet they were the ones disregarding the dangers of the pandemic so they could open up and make more money. It's all about money for them. Don't let this multi-billion dollar company fool you into thinking they have any heart

I'll be myself until they fūcking close the coffin.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...