entertainment

Scarlett Johansson sues Disney over ‘Black Widow’ release

25 Comments
By LINDSEY BAHR and ANDREW DALTON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

Not rich enough ?

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

Jonathan PrinToday  07:03 am JST

Not rich enough ?

She herself may not even care. But her shark attorneys smell blood in the water.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Plus the millions lost from very high quality torrents available.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

This is BIGGER negative news against Disney, (buried at 4am) than the non-identity politics, promotional piece shilling for Disney ‘on top’ of the Entertainment section today!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I used to actually like her. She was really great in "Lost in Translation", but then so was everyone in that film.

However, the minute she signed on to that trainwreck that was the live-action-whatever- "Ghost in the Shell", her career was forever tainted. Stand Alone Complex is one of the greatest things ever produced in any medium, so to see the Ghost in the Shell name ruined by a dumbed-down version for foreign markets was pretty grating. Still, I was glad when it bombed and the critics ripped it to pieces.

BTW, "But none have been as public as Johansson’s lawsuit. The actor, who has been in nine Marvel movies going back to 2010’s “Iron Man 2,” 

Is this the new identity politics, or just a typo?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@Jonathan Prin

Not rich enough ?

Black Widow was Scarlett's retirement cash out, since she is unlikely to land a role as high paying as her Black Widow role.

Based on reports, Scarlett had a $20 million upfront fee + 5% box office gross royalty, meaning she was expecting a total pay out of $70 million, but her 5% box office gross royalty will end up less than $20 million based on current box office numbers.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Not rich enough ?

That's not the point. The point is she had a contract. Disney broke the contract.

Anyway, your question could be posed towards Disney, could it not? Disney, are you not rich enough?

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Breach of contract is serious. Disney knows better and obviously thought they could push her around.

All her "people", who get 10-15% of her earnings, are probably the ones pushing the lawsuit. The Avengers series is played out, so her getting out of future, related, projects through a lawsuit could be something she wanted too.

She needs more "mom" and professional women roles at this point in her career. Less killing.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

That's not the point. The point is she had a contract. Disney broke the contract.

Anyway, your question could be posed towards Disney, could it not?  Disney, are you not rich enough?

I agree, as rich as she is it’s not about the money, you cannot break a signed contract and it seems like more and more of these corporations are breaking them with impunity and thinking that they have takeout give them a ride to renege on any signed agreement as a wish and screwing the artist in the end, because they’re thinking about their bottom end. Disney used to be a wholesome company that was built on family values and that put family and happiness above all else especially when the park was designed to be a get away from the every day license struggle and now it has morphed into an ugly and greedy corporate monstrosity that is a geared towards identity politics and political wokeness. The company destroys everything in its path. And good on Scarlett for taking these people on. If Walt Disney were alive today, he would be appalled by what has happened to his company.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

She had a contract which Disney willfully breached. I think she has a good case.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Disney screwing someone over? Shocker i know. Who could have imagine that?

Trying to charge $30 plus a monthly subscription of $8 is just being greedy and shameless.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

She’ll survive, but she’s fighting for principle. Still, it is Disney studios and it’s notorious for its stinginess, so she must’ve been aware of this.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Tristis Quepe:

Have you really not noticed the word “actor” being used for acting persons of both sexes before? I don’t personally like it, but it’s been a thing for maybe a decade now.

And she was rubbish playing the world’s least likely philosophy graduate in Lost In Translation, a racist disgrace of a movie that even Bill Murray phoned in from a distance. That doesn’t mean I think she’s wrong to stand up for herself in this particular dispute.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We enjoyed the movie.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Lots of lawyers commenting on this thread…lol ! Not a single one of you have actually seen the contract yet you think she has a case against Disney. There are lots of fine prints and clauses in contracts which are not clearly interpreted and this might have provided Disney with loopholes to exploit. Either way, by having a legal battle with Disney she has basically ended her career! Used to love her in her prime though!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

She could be using the suit to force a formal arbitration and settlement. Samit Basu’s take is pretty sound, and given the delays in the release of the movie and timing of the suit, one has to think of some type of quiet talks going down and some observations being taken on both sides.

As far as her future is concerned, she will be fine as she hasn’t done anything to embarrass Disney so she can’t really be blackballed without it looking like a “metoo” story. Can see her being funded through Tencent for the foreseeable future though.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JimToday  01:22 pm JST

Either way, by having a legal battle with Disney she has basically ended her career! Used to love her in her prime though!

You don't think she can go to another production company or whatever? Netflix?

isoduckyToday  03:22 pm JST

She could be using the suit to force a formal arbitration and settlement. 

I didn't see any mention of an arbitration clause in her contract; is there? Regardless, arbitration and settlement are two separate mechanisms. Settlement is always an option before going to court (or before a court decision) and also before initiating arbitration though; bit arbitration is not a requirement for a settlement .

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

In my opinion, what we are seeing is an attempt to set legal precedent over what is regarded as revenue when participants are given points as compensation. The industry is in a period of transition regarding how films are distributed and there are many contracts that were signed that will be effected by this transition. It is not about greed as much as it is about a change in how contracts have been constructed in the past and how they will be constructed and interpreted in the future.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

But none have been as public as Johansson’s lawsuit. The actor, who has been in nine Marvel movies going back to 2010’s “Iron Man 2,” 

no such thing as actress anymore. Actor pronounced acter is male. Actor pronounced act-tor is female no word yet for gender fluids performers

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

All contracts/agreementsare signed to be broken… see what Britain does with the Brexit agreement signed 7 months ago

2 ( +2 / -0 )

She will win her case. Disney will pay out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Either way, by having a legal battle with Disney she has basically ended her career!

Well, her Marvel character is dead, there's nowhere else to go with this last movie. Yes, they could revive her somehow in the multiverse, but no need.

But maybe she recognized this and is making a grab now while she can.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@bass4funk

Well said.

Disney used to be a wholesome company that was built on family values and that put family and happiness above all else especially when the park was designed to be a get away from the every day license struggle and now it has morphed into an ugly and greedy corporate monstrosity that is a geared towards identity politics and political wokeness. The company destroys everything in its path.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BigYenJuly 30  12:50 pm JST

Tristis Quepe:

Have you really not noticed the word “actor” being used for acting persons of both sexes before? I don’t personally like it, but it’s been a thing for maybe a decade now.

And she was rubbish playing the world’s least likely philosophy graduate in Lost In Translation, a racist disgrace of a movie that even Bill Murray phoned in from a distance. That doesn’t mean I think she’s wrong to stand up for herself in this particular dispute.

Even the best actors are in movies they disavow.

zichiJuly 30  09:31 pm JST

She will win her case. Disney will pay out.

I think Disney will settle this one quietly. They got caught with their pants down.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No one noticed a global pandemy happening ?

Disney, as mentioned in a previous comment, had to adapt.

No one knows if going in theaters only would have made her cash in more.

It is called greed to look for more while you have been paid already millions and that for sure a new situation has arisen no one could have guessed.

Disney being a for profit company, it is necessarily greedy. And not a person.

Indeed shark lawyers at work, not her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites