We stand with Scarlett!
Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:01PM by Nathaniel R
As you may have heard, Scarlett Johansson has sued Disney for breach of contract. She may have lost up to $50 million in bonuses on Black Widow. The very simplest way to explain it is that expensive movie stars (and some key directors) tend to earn "points" based on box office performance. A-listers like Johansson can reap hefty sums each time a movie passes certain agreed-upon thresholds. Disney, eager to beef up their Disney+ service, didn't regenotiate with her about her Black Widow contract before opting to place it on their streaming service for $30, thereby undermining its traditional box office and cutting Scarlett out of the significant $ of Disney+ purchases...
This is the same legally icky area Warner Bros dove right into when they suddenly announced that their movies would stream on HBOMax the same day they hit theaters; Filmmakers were not happy about their contracts not being regenotiated and, as Variety reminds us, Warner Bros paid out many of the biggest stars (presumably to avoid just this kind of lawsuit). Alas, Disney wasn't as smart as Warner Bros and has said that this lawsuit has no merit and tries to blame Scarlett for being insensitve about COVID-19 reality. That's playing dirty.
Though Black Widow opened well (for the pandemic era) it quickly dropped off. It's likely to become the second worst performer in MCU's history. The previous lowest grossers were The Incredible Hulk ($264 million) and Captain America The First Avenger ($370 million) both a decade ago long before Marvel had perfected their formula and half a billion globally was not just a game-changing sensation (2008's Iron Man got there but didn't do much more) but on the low end of the typical performance.
The MCU Box Office Rank (Domestic/Global)
* denotes movies Scarlett is in so it's not like she hasn't been working for the $
Disney is the Hulk in this equation picking on a much smaller creature.
- * Avengers Endgame (2019) $858/2.7 billion
- * Avengers: Infinity War (2018) $700/2 billion
- * Avengers (2012) $623/1.5 billion
- * Age of Ultron (2015) $459/1.4 billion
- Black Panther (2018) $700/1.3 billion
- Iron Man 3 (2013) $409/1.2 billion
- * Captain America: Civil War (2016) $408/1.1 billion
- Spider-Man Far From Home (2019) $390/1.1 billion
- Captain Marvel (2019) $427/1.1 billion
- Spider-Man Homecoming (2017) $334/880
- Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (2017) $389/863
- Thor: Ragnarok (2017) $315/853
- Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) $333/773
- * Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014) $259/714
- Doctor Strange (2016) $233/677
- Thor: The Dark World (2013) $206/644
- * Iron Man 2 (2010) $312/623
- Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) $217/622
- Iron Man (2008) $319/585
- Ant-Man (2015) $180/519
- Thor (2011) $181/449
- Captain America The First Avenger (2011) $176/370
- 🔺 * Black Widow (2021) $135/318
- The Incredible Hulk (2009) $135/264
We hope Scarlett lawyered up well.
— Liam Miller (@liammiller87) July 29, 2021
She deserves the money and she's setting an important precedent here that will help other filmmakers. If massive billion dollar corporations can do whatever they want and reneg on contracts with their most valuable players, what's to stop them from doing it all over the place and to people without the means to fight back? Depressingly many on the internet are calling her "greedy" and suggesting that the movie wouldn't have done well even if the pandemic hadn't been on. Both arguments are silly since the only greed is Disney's for not meeting to regenotiate and assuming that they could just keep all the Disney+ money for themselves (since that wasn't in the original contract). Plus, there's no way that Black Widow wouldn't have performed at least in the average low Marvel range of say $500 million. She's a more popular character than Ant-Man after all. What's more Captain Marvel (and non-Marvel film Wonder Woman) both very recently proved that the argument that women couldn't lead superhero pictures to financial success was just corporate anxiety combined with unimaginative sexism.
The real mystery is why Disney didn't meet about regenotiating her salary once they decided to put Black Widow on Disney Plus.
Black Widow, Disney, MCU, Scarlett Johansson, superheroes
Reader Comments (41)
I'm actually surprised Disney didn't see something like this coming, if not from Scarlett Johansson that from someone eventually in this weird transition to streaming as a more dominant entertainment medium.
Hollywood is one of the very few industries in America where labor unions still hold a lot of sway. Which means Hollywood is largely run on paperwork; lots and lots and lots of paperwork on who gets credit for what and how much they're compensated based on x, y, and z factors. That this studio didn't think renegotiating contracts would be a necessary step in dramatically changing their theatrical distribution plans is pretty shocking to me.
Nathaniel, not to be that guy, but you spelled "renegotiate" wrong a few times (you switched the "n" and the "g" in different conjugations of the word).
I do agree though that this is a conversation worth having about the financial ramifications of streaming.
This is a great moment in her career to do it, too—she already has fuck-you Marvel money, she can afford to burn this bridge financially and artistically. It’s not like filmmakers won’t still want her in their (better, less blockbustery) movies.
I know you will rip me for this but I just think it’s such a bad look to squabble over millions when people are literally losing their homes right now. Like ok you get 20 million instead of 40 million. Oh no how will you ever survive? She needs to read the room
Brevity -- so it's okay for Disney (a multi-billion dollar company) to reneg on contracts but it's not okay for their employees to complain about it?
Brevity, it's not about the pandemic. A contract is a contract. It has to be honored. Otherwise, what is the use of a contract? Would you be happy if it happens to you? I bet you will fight tooh and nail. Just saying.
It’s the precedent she’s setting here Brevity - taking the stand for those who can’t. And she’s probably got a huge team of people that she needs to fight for as well.
Go to Twitter if you want to find similar views to yours, we stand with Scarlett - and good on her I have to say!
You go girl!
It's pretty sad that people have more sympathy for a gigantic corporation (basically a bunch of gazillionaire CEOs who haven't had to break a sweat on the job since they got their MBAs) than a talented actor who busted her butt on the set for years as Black Widow. Sure, Scar Jo isn't in a sweatshop, but actors break bones on these sets, they work 18 hour days six or sometimes seven days a week for three months.
Oh, and Disney's stock has gone up 54.2% in the last, COVID wracked 12 months (from 115.66 as share to 178.35 a share). Their stock has actually done better since COVID hit than it did in the year BEFORE COVID hit (in 2019 it only went up 35.8%), so... yeah. Shitty move, Disney. I wonder, would Disney have done this to Robert Downey Jr. or even Chris Evans. Maybe they think Colin Jost should be supporting his wife. People need to stop sympathizing with the people who suck in the profits and get 100 million dollar bonuses and start supporting the people who actually create the goods that people want and pay for. In this case, the artists themselves.
IT'S TIME FOR NOW SCAR-JO 3:16 TO STOMP A MUDHOLE ON THESE DISNEY PARASITES. BUSINESS IS ABOUT TO PICK UP BECAUSE SCAR-JO 3:16 IS GOING TO BE CARRYING FACTORY-LOADS OF WHOOP-ASS! SCAR-JO STUNNA TO THIS MOTHERFUCKER! AND ANOTHER ONE TO THAT MOTHERFUCKER!!!! THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE CAUSE SCAR-JO 3:16 SAYS SO BITCH!!!!!!
Trying to do my best pro wrestling promo for Scar-Jo 3:16. She needs to get that money!!!!!
Fuck Disney and Marvel, in that order.
More important than the 18 hour days and 7 day weeks is the fact that Johansson could have devoted all that time she spent acting opposite a mop with eye glued on it in front of a green screen actually acting in something good. She could have made another VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA or UNDER THE SKIN instead of this Marvel crap. When people like Glenn Close and Robert Redford pop up in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or CAPTAIN AMERICA, it's for the money, much of which, as MorhanB points out, goes to their hard working teams, teams which have stuck with them from the beginnings of their careers. Beyond that, even with the millions they take home, most of these stars are giving bigger percentages of their pay checks to charity than you or I, so maybe we should stop calling them greedy.
I don't think her lawsuit has merit. Her film flopped in theatrical release, partially due to COVID-19 and due to the fact that people were not drawn to her or the film. It's all conjecture on her part about how much more money she could have made if there was no streaming. I don't know why Disney did not pay her off, but maybe they knew that the film was not going to be a big moneymaker (compared to cost) and also determined that $20M was enough for her compensation.
@Carlyle. EXACTLY. I actually have some Disney stock in my retirement portfolio, which is why I know how well it's been performing of late (I check on it every week or so). Considering how well I'm making out as a Disney stockholder (my Disney stock is doing MUCH better than, say, my Sony stock), I'm like, "pay the woman. Jesus."
Go Scarlett!
Completely agree with you, Nathaniel. While it's hard for me to cry about ScarJo not getting millions of dollars when she already has one, this is an important precedent to set. Is it the biggest or most altruistic thing for us to solve? No. Should Disney be held accountable for agreements they made with their key player? Yes.
This also definitely plays into one of the major things we learned during the #metoo movement, many A-list female stars were getting paid significantly less than their male costars (think Michelle Williams v Mark Wahlberg in All the Money in the World). It is hard to see Disney doing the same to Robert Downey Jr.
Robert is right about the labor unions. I did extra work for a few years. Extras are very low on the industry totem pole, but I had to sign a bunch of paperwork each time I worked. We always knew when we would be going on break and how much overtime we were making. If anyone got promoted to a speaking role, even just one word, they had to spend 30 minutes filling out more paperwork. And we all talked. We all knew which studio or show was the best to be working on and which ones treated us well and which did not. Everyone talks in Hollywood. If the talk is on Scarlet's side, Disney will have to change it or else they will have to keep dealing with lawsuits. Getting constantly sued just isn't a good look for any company.
Scarlett, girl, how much money do you need? Please go back to indies. It's your natural habitat.
P.S. Can you please keep the Judi Dench gif forever?
I see no Judi Dench gif in this article. What is she talking about?
For everybody's sake, I hope Nathaniel has no issue with removing Margo Channing's comment.
It's quite obvious that BLACK WIDOW would've done much better. Every movie that has opened well has plummetted in week 2. I don't exactly know how Scarlett's team goes about *proving* that, but it's preposterous to think CAPTAIN MARVEL makes one billion and BLACK WIDOW doesn't even make half of that. While I don't necessarily have sympathy for her bank balance, Disney definitely could use a slap on the wrist (and anything *would* be a slap on the wrist for Disney, which makes their apparent refusal to renegotiate even more bizarre). People's weird Disney obsession is just so bizarre and the negative response from many towards Scarlett here prove they have little interest in the people, just the machine.
Eggy -- the Judi Dench gif is in the sidebar advertising the Supporting Actress Smackdown
Get the money you deserve, girl!
The issue is not money here. It's respecting a contract. What did they think? That she wouldn't complain, that she had to be grateful to be working for them? Contract is contract. What is written and signed must be respected.
By “greedy bitch,” I hope Miss Channing means Disney Corp. Because that’s the real greedy bitch, right there.
Oh boy, there appears to be quite a bit of blatant sexism and (internalized?) misogy, even around these parts. Which is a damn shame because, personal feelings (of envy, jealousy, etc.) about ScarJo aside, she *does* deserve to have the terms of her contract honored. It’s that simple—a fundamental breach of contract. How wild that there are those who claim this lawsuit has no merit, as if it were just some capricious, petulant legal maneuver and not, you know, contractual. But that’s the state of the world (of social media) for you.
P.S, Disney can go get fucked for its ridiculous statement which alleges, among other misstatements and half-truths, that ScarJo somehow stands to make out handsomely from the Disney+ PVOD release of Black Widow (which is *not* guaranteed in her contract) so…should be grateful for Disney’s lip-service (“ability to earn additional compensation”)…charity? Fuuuuuccckkkk off.
I am not a Scarlett Johansson fan. I'm not a fan of her acting in general, though I do think she was excellent in Lost in Translation, Her, Under the Skin, Don Jon, and Marriage Story. Been absolutely bored or have loathed the entirety of the Marvel work she has done that I've seen. I don't think I can ever really forget her comments about playing Asian people, trans people, and trees. The way my group of Asian friends jokingly consider her Asian will always be very funny to us and causes uproarious laughter each and every time someone brings it up unexpectedly.
That being said, GO SCARLETT! Sue them for all they are worth. I don't think streaming is the Death of Cinema as many do, but that it upends what people could have earned is the principle worth defending here. For that matter, go Emily Blunt and John Krasinski as well!
I need to be more alert. Thank you, Nathaniel.
I hope she wins the case. That being said, and while just average... Black Widow was a 100 times better film than Marriage Story (in which only the actors kept me interested... but the story was completely dishonest and a revenge of the director to his ex). I still think that the best in show was Julie Hagerty, not Dern, in Supporting Actress.
This whole comment thread boggles my mind! First off Scarlett is not dumb, no way she filed this suit with out knowing she had some standing here. Most importantly she built her career to this point…she deserves to be paid. The time and effort she gives up to be in these movies deserve compensation. Cameron Diaz made over 40 million for Bad Teacher and then retired. Guess what the studio honored it. And good for her and Scarlett deserves the same respect.
They have enough money each of them so this is a bit gauling,I agree with her stance,no one wants to be duped but it does rankle that they are moaning about not a few dollars but millions that most of us would never likely see in our lifetime.
1000% behind Scarlett.
And I totally agree with MorhanB. It's the precedent that matters.
If Disney feels like they can screw over a world-famous, Oscar-nominated actress with infinite professional and financial resources, how do you think they treat their employees with not even a 1/10th of her industry clout? A contract is a contract, and she deserves to be paid what was promised according to the terms of the agreement.
And that stupid ass press release is so patronizing and reeks of sexism and misogyny. It's the equivalent of "just smile and be grateful". They would not be treating Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Pratt this way.
There is a legal doctrine called rebus sic stantibus. Clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is the legal doctrine allowing for a contract or a treaty to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. In public international law the doctrine essentially serves an "escape clause" to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept). In other words, when there is a great change in circumstances (like Covid), a contract might not be completely enforceable. The court can even change the terms of the contract. I suppose Disney would allege this as part of their defense.
Having said this, I also support this law suit. It is more than the money; it will establish precedent on how to pay with the new model of theater/streaming. I would expect that the parties will negotiate and reach an agreement before trial.
Yup. ScarJo hardly needs the money but that’s why she has the ability to put up a fight. Disney could easily blackball her for life. Most actors (and directors, screenwriters, etc etc) wouldn’t dare push back on these kind of shenanigans. We should be glad she is calling them to account.
The pandemic disrupted everything. And nothing could be business as usual despite the efforts to continue on like semi normal in 2020. I don't see how battling Disney over a couple of dollars is the righteous cause everyone who supports ScarJo is making it out to be. They own the entire 20th Century Fox library. Also, the long term fallout of battling the studios and corporations that still distribute movies isn't going to radicalize the system but encourage less appetizing contracts going forward for marquee players.
@Glenn, of course no issue or second thoughts about deleting comments, while on other threads a so-called person is allowed to write down that he wants to kill an actress for speaking out her mind…what a fascinating, sanctimonious display of hypocritical bullshit… btw, that ‘greedy bitch’comment is not mine but from a lame impostor
Wow, you're really turning this into a David v. Goliath thing. Woke culture keeps surprising me.
/3rtful & Mark -- the "couple of dollars" "few dollars" is kind of a funny way to describe it when it's $50 million. That maybe chump change for a multi-billion corporation like Disney but it's a lot of money even for Scarlett Johansson.
Aaron -- you're so right and not only would they not treat Robert Downey Jr or Chris Evans this way but the internet would rise up to support a male star if they did ... because they are male. Ugh the blatant sexism against working women lives on decades and decades and decades and decades past working women being the norm.
Give our trans tree actress goddess more money!
FYI: It appears Emma Stone may be following suit (no pun intended). 🙌🏼
#TeamScarlett here
A deal is a deal and people shouldn't be discussing if she's greedy or not. She had a deal, she made her part, she must be paid for that.
I guess someone will not be attached to star "Tower of Terror" movie anymore... Good! I hope she goes for some good auteur indies instead of another Disney money-making project
I hope she wins over Greedy Disney!
A) Here's something similar the Disney pulled
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/28/disneymustpay-authors-form-task-force-missing-payments-star-wars-alien-buffy
In short, Disney refused to pay author's royalties on Star Wars novelizations after they bought Lucasfilm, arguing they had bought the rights to <B>profit from the work but they weren't obligated to pay the contract.
B) Honestly, Nathaniel, I think Disney WANTED the lawsuit. I think they specifically didn't renegotiate because they think they can win, and if they do, the precedent is established. Warner Bros renegotiating with the Wonder Woman team is different because they didn't want to lose them for the (presumed) third movie. So even if they win the lawsuit, they've burnt that bridge. Whereas Marvel is just too dominant, with so many avenues (is Scarlett Johansson even slated for more movies?).
C) I'm generally quite startled at how people started to STAN corporations. I wonder when it started. Geek culture has taken over the cinema planet but people are pretending it's still the underdog. Full disclosure: I think Johansson is terrific and I don't give a shit about Marvel movies.
I do think that sexism plays a part in the reaction to Johansson's (and potentially Emma Stone's) actions, but I do think if they jerked around a male star, people's fealty to this corporation means that basically any "attack" on it urges them to defend it beyond reason (see how they responded to Martin Scorsese's comments).