Marvel Media (Spoiler Thread)

Stengah wrote:

Hopefully Disney will cave, it seems like a pretty clear case. Not sure why they didn't respond to her request to renegotiate (other than the obvious answer of "because money").

I can only assume they didn't think she would actually sue and/or her demands were exceptionally high, because typically once these things get all the way to a lawsuit it winds up being more expensive for everyone due to legal fees then if they'd all just renegotiated in the first place.

Considering that the film seemed very much intended to be the character's last hurrah, maybe everyone involved is playing extra hardball figuring there's no percentage in trying to keep the other party happy any more, and things escalated.

hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Hopefully Disney will cave, it seems like a pretty clear case. Not sure why they didn't respond to her request to renegotiate (other than the obvious answer of "because money").

I can only assume they didn't think she would actually sue and/or her demands were exceptionally high, because typically once these things get all the way to a lawsuit it winds up being more expensive for everyone due to legal fees then if they'd all just renegotiated in the first place.

Considering that the film seemed very much intended to be the character's last hurrah, maybe everyone involved is playing extra hardball figuring there's no percentage in trying to keep the other party happy any more, and things escalated.

Would seem very short-sighted, as the Avengers cast appear to be very good friends, and pissing off your past cash cows is a bad way to get future cash cows. I'm going to assume they couldn't come to an agreement, and this lawsuit is basically another negotiating tactic and they will likely settle.

According to Scarlett's lawyer, Disney was unresponsive to their request to renegotiate. It sounds like they just refused outright, and Disney didn't even try to come to an agreement.

That seems really weird if true. I could take or leave ScarJo as an actress, but the narrative that we're getting of her as a businesswoman is that she was reasonable and did all the right things and Disney just stonewalled leaving her with no other recourse than suing. If there's another narrative that casts Disney in a better light, they're not sharing it.

Also it was just announced a few weeks ago that her and Colin Jost are having a baby. So yeah, Disney forgot a big rule: don't mess with a pregnant woman.

It is weird. They're trying to paint her lawsuit as somehow being callous and disrespectful to people that suffered due to Covid. It seems they hope to convince people that her prior opposition to it being on D+ didn't change in response to covid and that she wanted people to have to go to a movie theater during a global pandemic just so she could earn more money. That she was just another one of those rich jerks trying to force people back to work in unsafe conditions.

According to the suit, she sought reassurance in 2019 that it'd be theatrical only, was told that it would be, but was also told that if the plan changed they would have a conversation with her and come to an understanding. The plan (understandably) changed due to covid, but the conversation never occurred and a new understanding was never arrived at, Disney wanted to use the old terms for the new plan.

Disney's story seems to be that she's suing them for changing the plan, and hers is that she's suing them for not coming to a new understanding after changing the plan.

The unmitigated f*cking gall of the Disney ghouls to try to take the moral high ground on the unprecedented suffering of Covid. Did they ever offer their workers anything but being furloughed?

Stengah wrote:

It is weird. They're trying to paint her lawsuit as somehow being callous and disrespectful to people that suffered due to Covid. It seems they hope to convince people that her prior opposition to it being on D+ didn't change in response to covid and that she wanted people to have to go to a movie theater during a global pandemic just so she could earn more money. That she was just another one of those rich jerks trying to force people back to work in unsafe conditions.

Although I certainly agree Disney are being hypocritical about it, I have to admit I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this line of argument.

Stengah wrote:

Hopefully Disney will cave, it seems like a pretty clear case.

Law Twitter disagrees. It seems a lot will rest on whether or not the court looks at outside communications or just the contract itself.

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/stat...

This is all going to be critical, because if ScarJo can get the Court to consider the communications *outside* the contract, she's going to win (and it won't be close)

Interesting. Seems like ScarJo pretty clearly has the spirit of the law on her side, whereas Disney might (but only might) have the letter of the law.

Also interesting to note that ScarJo is skipping the middleman and suing Disney directly, not their wholly-owned subsidiary Marvel, which is who her contract is actually with.

It all makes me wonder who actually made the decision not to go back to the negotiating table with her. Every story I can find just says "Disney," but there's a person who made that call, and whether Disney wins or loses in a court of law, whoever that person is just made their company look really bad in the court of public opinion (and, not for nothing, in the eyes of other big-name talent they might want to continue working with, right as Marvel is announcing its new strategy of relying on actor goodwill instead of long-term contracts to keep that talent coming back).

Disney using Covid as a weapon like that against her is a low blow. She is trying to protect her investment just like Disney is. From what I have read it sounds to me that Scarjo should have the law on her side. An agreement was reached and Disney didn't follow through.

And her wanting Black Widow as a theatrical release only does not put anyone in harms way, it's a false narrative. The government's decide when theatres are safe to be open, and Disney decides when the right time for the release is, and people get to choose if and when they go see the movie in the theatres. None of those decisions are on her.

I am sure this will all get settled out of court. But as someone who works in the film industry I am glad she is taking on the company. I have no sympathy for production companies. The amount of bullsh*t the local companies try to get away with on damn near every movie I work on is ridiculous and the only way they stop is if someone stands up to them, and not everyone has the power to do so.

She deserves to get paid.

Pay her Disney.

Yeah, this isn't a Christopher Nolan situation where he insisted on a theatrical-exclusive release come hell or high water because mah art tho. It sounds like-- and she's got the records of conversations to prove it if the courts will admit evidence outside the original contract-- when circumstances changed to where the original agreement for an exclusive theatrical release didn't make sense any more, she was fine with that happening, she just wanted the deal renegotiated to reflect the change in circumstances. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Hopefully Disney will cave, it seems like a pretty clear case.

Law Twitter disagrees. It seems a lot will rest on whether or not the court looks at outside communications or just the contract itself.

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/stat...

This is all going to be critical, because if ScarJo can get the Court to consider the communications *outside* the contract, she's going to win (and it won't be close)

I'd imagine the age of the contract would convince them to include the outside communications. Discussions for a standalone film started in 2010. Work on the movie started in 2017 and filming happened from May to October 2019. Somehwhere between those times the contract was written and signed. Disney+ launched in late 2019 and didn't do their first major streaming release until 2020 with Mulan. It wouldn't make much sense to require her contact to specifically preclude a concurrent streaming release that wasn't a thing when it was written. The term "wide theatrical release" should be interpreted as it was understood at the time it was written, not how it could be interpreted now.

hbi2k wrote:

Yeah, this isn't a Christopher Nolan situation where he insisted on a theatrical-exclusive release come hell or high water because mah art tho. It sounds like-- and she's got the records of conversations to prove it if the courts will admit evidence outside the original contract-- when circumstances changed to where the original agreement for an exclusive theatrical release didn't make sense any more, she was fine with that happening, she just wanted the deal renegotiated to reflect the change in circumstances. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

And notably because the share of profits actors get from streaming is so different. She would undoubtedly have negotiated less money, but more than she made from the current arrangement.

hbi2k wrote:

Yeah, this isn't a Christopher Nolan situation where he insisted on a theatrical-exclusive release come hell or high water because mah art tho. It sounds like-- and she's got the records of conversations to prove it if the courts will admit evidence outside the original contract-- when circumstances changed to where the original agreement for an exclusive theatrical release didn't make sense any more, she was fine with that happening, she just wanted the deal renegotiated to reflect the change in circumstances. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

It all depends on how they are required to interpret the contract according to the jurisprudence in the state it is being contested in.

Kevin Feige is reportedly angry and embarrassed about the whole thing. He was opposed to the D+ release, especially that they didn't renegotiate, but was overruled by Disney. When Scarlett's team first threatened litigation, he wanted to immediately make things right by her and is very upset at how Disney has chosen to respond. Seems like a monumentally bad decision by Disney.

Stengah wrote:

Kevin Feige is reportedly angry and embarrassed about the whole thing. He was opposed to the D+ release, especially that they didn't renegotiate, but was overruled by Disney. When Scarlett's team first threatened litigation, he wanted to immediately make things right by her and is very upset at how Disney has chosen to respond. Seems like a monumentally bad decision by Disney.

If we, the audience, become vocal enough, we could get a second James Gunn moment.

Stengah wrote:

Kevin Feige is reportedly angry and embarrassed about the whole thing. He was opposed to the D+ release, especially that they didn't renegotiate, but was overruled by Disney. When Scarlett's team first threatened litigation, he wanted to immediately make things right by her and is very upset at how Disney has chosen to respond. Seems like a monumentally bad decision by Disney.

I guess this explains why she's suing Disney and not Marvel.

The lawsuit charges that Disney forced Marvel to break the contract. Kevin Feige was still opposed to the D+ release according to a Feb 2021 article from Variety, and a month later Disney's CEO told Bloomberg Television that they would be the ones making the call about how the release would go.

Other studios that did a simultaneous streaming release all voluntarily renegotiated when they decided to do it, so it's really puzzling why Disney refused to. This is going to cost them far more in reputation damage than renegotiating would have.

Remember when a Disney company being accused of meddling in college football conferences was the worst thing that was going on with them?

Stengah wrote:

This is going to cost them far more in reputation damage than renegotiating would have.

What does that really mean though? Does anyone really think people won't line up to see the next Star Wars? The next phase Marvel movies?

I wonder if they are big enough and if people just don't care enough that their "reputation" is kind of unimportant.

farley3k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

This is going to cost them far more in reputation damage than renegotiating would have.

What does that really mean though? Does anyone really think people won't line up to see the next Star Wars? The next phase Marvel movies?

I wonder if they are big enough and if people just don't care enough that their "reputation" is kind of unimportant.

I would expect, in Feige and others' POV, it has much more to do with who they're able to get to be in their future projects than anything to do with selling tickets and getting viewers.

If they screw over ScarJo, they will certainly screw over an actor with less fame and industry weight to throw around. They'll probably screw over pretty much anyone.

They'll still get some, who will roll the dice, but those times they aim for bigger actors...

If this had happened sooner, would they have gotten half those actors for The Eternals? Or would they have struggled with casting?

I don't know. But it's possible.

Corporations for a decade have been having layoffs on profitable years because they didn't make enough profit.

We won't make them not profitable but we can curb interest enough that they don't meet their projections. That is all we have to do to get their attention.

But their are much more important causes like climate change and voting rights. As much as I like me some ScarJo, her financial considerations are not on top of mind.

Part of the lore of the core actors in the first few phases of the MCU was that RDJ stood up to the studio to get the other guys paid. So this is clawing some of that back, and they're obviously replacing all the expensive older talent with a new wave of replacements. Disney is going wider with their MCU stuff while trying to control the costs from some of it's biggest stars at the same time.

I find it interesting that Disney immediately came back to the public laying out how much she was getting paid. I think they expected to get public opinion on their side with all the classism that's been going on. But it's not playing from what I can tell. People already thought she should have had this movie years ago, and if it's truly her last stint in the MCU, she should get paid for it.

Hopefully this is just pubicpublic posturing, and they can come together somewhere in the middle.

fangblackbone wrote:

But their are much more important causes like climate change and voting rights. As much as I like me some ScarJo, her financial considerations are not on top of mind.

I don't like her much at all honestly.

But also f*ck Disney.

MannishBoy wrote:

Hopefully this is just pubic posturing, and they can come together somewhere in the middle.

Freudian slip? Or very clever burn?

Thin_J wrote:

I don't like her much at all honestly.
But also f*ck Disney.

It takes a lot to get me to side with a white-washing, millionaire, defender of Woody Allen and Joss Whedon, and Disney has achieved that.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

Hopefully this is just pubic posturing, and they can come together somewhere in the middle.

Freudian slip? Or very clever burn?

Ha! That truly made me laugh. I'm going to fix it but that's great.

fangblackbone wrote:

But their are much more important causes like climate change and voting rights. As much as I like me some ScarJo, her financial considerations are not on top of mind.

I think we're all more or less agreed that this isn't some direly important labor rights issue that's worth getting passionate about. It's just interesting to play Monday-morning quarterback, that's all.

Meh, even rich, problematic workers deserve some solidarity when the Man is trying to screw them.