|
Can't say I'm all for either side here. If, as a corporation, you're going to make people sign contracts that control their life, you can't break them without facing legal troubles yourself. But... Maybe worrying about your money in a pandemic that's killed millions of people by telling a studio to shove people in a box inadvertantly designed to spread said pandemic isn't what I'd call great either. Also hasn't Scarlet Johansen been kinda weird around social issues?
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
You do not have to give the pop-culture dominating megacorp a free pass to not honour it's contracts when it doesn't feel like it, actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 12:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm with Johannson here. At best, her complaint has merit, and she should certainly enforce the terms of her contract. At worst, she's extracting money from Disney.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Man this thread is bad with legal issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 13:03
|
|
|
site posted:Idgaf about Scarlett but there needs to be a precedent to protect actors and she has the money and high enough profile to do it to make a fuss against Disney's death squad. Hopefully she doesn't cop out and take a settlement (she will) I mean, a settlement is the goal here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
I hope they find in ScarJos favor but a condition of the payout is she has to refund everyone who paid to see Ghost in the Shell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I hope they find in ScarJos favor but a condition of the payout is she has to refund everyone who paid to see Ghost in the Shell. I’m sure she’ll really miss that 50 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
 at Disney saying that ScarJo is the one showing 'callous disregard' when they're the ones who released Black Widow to theatres while the Delta variant of Covid-19 was already making alarm bells go off. There's nothing callous about wanting to get the money you're owed, even if the grounds for your claims are spurious (which I don't think they are). Complete nonsense argument on Disney's part. I doubt they even believe it themselves. Rhyno posted:I hope they find in ScarJos favor but a condition of the payout is she has to refund everyone who paid to see Ghost in the Shell. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 15:14
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:
Her claims are pretty weak based on my read of the complaint. I don’t think she could win on breach of contract. But she’ll probably force a settlement or some concessions for them for this reason - this is such bad PR for Disney and they look so stupid. I don’t know how you put out a response that tone deaf. Just be quiet or just say you believe the claims have no merit and call it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
These two tweets sum it up for me: https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy/status/1420888000750358531
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:loving lol All of this. I wouldnt think twice and pay premiere if it wasnt so expensive (btw it is NOT a saving money situation for me, as I'm the only person who nerds hard on MCU in the family. And the only kid in the family is a hardcore Star Wars fan, he hates superhero movies for whatever reason lol ).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
This is splitting hairs but I don't think Premier Access is technically a rental (at least, the way "rental" is generally used in relation to VOD releases)? You get to watch the movie for as long as you want, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Arist posted:This is splitting hairs but I don't think Premier Access is technically a rental (at least, the way "rental" is generally used in relation to VOD releases)? You get to watch the movie for as long as you want, right? It basically unlocks the movie early for you on D+. You can then watch it just like anything else in the library, then everyone gets it in October.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Arist posted:This is splitting hairs but I don't think Premier Access is technically a rental (at least, the way "rental" is generally used in relation to VOD releases)? You get to watch the movie for as long as you want, right? Ok, I checked on D+ FAQ and yes, you are correct. I mean for a family of 4 or more is wonderful! For a single person? I better wait a couple of months.  Is even worst in my country because we are used to cheap movie tickets in decent theaters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Her claims are pretty weak based on my read of the complaint. I don’t think she could win on breach of contract. But she’ll probably force a settlement or some concessions for them for this reason - this is such bad PR for Disney and they look so stupid. I don’t know how you put out a response that tone deaf. Just be quiet or just say you believe the claims have no merit and call it at that. I'm not sure she'll lose to be honest, seems she had a contractual obligation for a wide theatrical release as the majority of her compensation seems to be from box office receipts and target tied bonuses. I mean they can try to argue they met those requirements but pretty much everyone signing a contract in 2017 for a wide theatrical release would have understood this to implicltly include the industry standard theatrical window, the whole idea of Disney+ day-and-date premiere access being suddenly developed after the contract was finished. Disney would have to say the mutual understanding of a wide theatrical release at the time didn't exclude day-and-date rental which, considering that never happened for any of her previous movies for Marvel, would seem a bit of a punt. They just had to do what Warner did and has been doing for a whole loving year which is go directly to cast and recognize that yes day-and-date is an issue for your terms, here's some money and some more generous bonus conditions please don't go to court. Disney could have completely avoided this through negotiation but hosed up big time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Now Emma Stone is considering filing a similar suit over Cruella, lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I'm not sure she'll lose to be honest, seems she had a contractual obligation for a wide theatrical release as the majority of her compensation seems to be from box office receipts and target tied bonuses. I mean they can try to argue they met those requirements but pretty much everyone signing a contract in 2017 for a wide theatrical release would have understood this to implicltly include the industry standard theatrical window, the whole idea of Disney+ day-and-date premiere access being suddenly developed after the contract was finished. Disney would have to say the mutual understanding of a wide theatrical release at the time didn't exclude day-and-date rental which, considering that never happened for any of her previous movies for Marvel, would seem a bit of a punt. The problem with her case is your statement that "pretty much everyone signing a contract in 2017 for a wide theatrical release would have understood this to implicitly include the industry standard theatrical window." What you're talking about is parol evidence - i.e., evidence of the interpretation of terms of the contract that are outside the four corners of the agreement. You only get to parol evidence if the terms of the contract are determined to be ambiguous. Here, the contractual language states: "For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)." Johansson's argument is that this language was understood by both parties to incorporate two things - exclusive release in theatres and a standard theatre window of 90-120 days. But the plain language of the contract doesn't say either of those things (though you could try and argue the "shall" means that wide theatrical release is the only option, but I don't find that particularly compelling). It says wide theatrical release i.e. 1,500 screens, which Disney did (I think it was in 4,100 theatres?). So Disney's counter is going to be that the plain language of the contract is unambiguous, they met its terms, and there was no prohibition on them also doing a simultaneous Disney+ release. Thus you never go outside the contract to see what the parties "meant" or what the industry would "understand." And if I were taking arguments on this one I'd take Disney's, although it's not a slam dunk. I just think it's stronger, you have to read a lot in there under Johansson's interpretation. Totally agree on your last point though, Disney should have never let this happen. Negotiate with her, give her more money even if you don't believe she should get it under the contract. Do not let her file a lawsuit. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
idgi is the counter argument then that she should have known to put in a clause about terms for a streaming service release years before such a thing existed
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
site posted:idgi is the counter argument then that she should have known to put in a clause about terms for a streaming service release years before such a thing existed Do you mean Disney's counter to her claim? It's not that specific, no. Basically, their argument will be that Johansson is saying this agreement provided for an exclusive release in theatres for a 90-120 day window. Anyone that can read English can see that neither exclusivity nor a 90-120 window (or any window) appears in the contractual term she's relying on. These are sophisticated commercial parties negotiating an agreement, if they wanted it to be exclusive or to provide for the window of time that the movie must remain in theatres, they would have done so. Plain language governs. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jul 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
and that is going to hold up under the circumstances of her and her lawyers trying to renegotiate terms before release because of the d+ release, when warnerbros was having to do the same for the same reasons with their actors, and disney wouldn't even give her a call back?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
site posted:and that is going to hold up under the circumstances of her and her lawyers trying to renegotiate terms before release because of the d+ release, when warnerbros was having to do the same for the same reasons with their actors, and disney wouldn't even give her a call back? Without knowing WB's contact language (which is not likely to come out short of, well, exactly this sort of thing), no one can really answer this. Maybe WB is "nicer" to their talent (it's possible!) or they had more specific contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Yes. That subsequent conduct could only come into play in the scenario where the term is ambiguous. There are two questions to answer really: (1) what did the parties intend with the relevant contractual term and (2) once the meaning of the term is established, did Disney breach that term. On 1, the language of the contract itself always governs. If the language is clear, such that the parties intent can be determined from it, that's the end of the contractual interpretation question. If the Court finds the language to be ambiguous it can then consider evidence outside the contract to determine what the parties meant by the contractual term. It's only in this latter situation that you would even consider things like what the industry understood certain terms to mean, the emails about renegotiation, etc. And on her trying to renegotiate, I would absolutely argue as defense counsel that this helps my position. It's an easy deposition question right there (I wouldn't exactly ask it this way I'm being a little theatrical): "Ms. Johansson, why tell your counsel to try and renegotiate your deal if you thought that the contract already protected you from this?" Edit: Also WB is entirely irrelevant the Court will not consider that whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/culturecrave/status/1421161042013343744?s=10
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
I find it hard to give a poo poo when this is going to in in a settlement in like eight months and everything just keeps going on like it never happened
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:And on her trying to renegotiate, I would absolutely argue as defense counsel that this helps my position. It's an easy deposition question right there (I wouldn't exactly ask it this way I'm being a little theatrical): It looks more like it was Disney seeking to renegotiate, however: Gizmodo posted:Furthermore, the suit notes that Johansson’s representatives had had prior concerns about the film heading to Disney+ as far back as 2019, quoting an email from Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi included in the suit that says Marvel “understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with [Johansson] and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Finally watched Black Widow and you guys weren't kidding, Flo was great as Yelena, she just about made up for the miserably Terminator-like Tasky. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing Olga again though, if they actually give her a personality and something fun to do next time. Really dug the messed up mom & pop coming good in the end too. So yeah, nothing earth-shattering but I enjoyed it and would like to see those guys again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Taskmaster was good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
I said if this was the only version of Taskmaster out there, it would be good. I just like the kinda goofy one that's buddies with Deadpool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
I finally watched Midsomar and now understand why everyone in this thread was speaking so highly of Pugh. She is pretty drat good, I've been meaning to see Little Women so I guess that's next.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:The problem with her case is your statement that "pretty much everyone signing a contract in 2017 for a wide theatrical release would have understood this to implicitly include the industry standard theatrical window." If Disney had released the film in 4100 theatres, as you say, and additionally released it on day one blu-ray home video release, instead of Disney+ streaming, do you think that would have been considered a fulfillment of the contractual terms? Genuine question, I'm not being rhetorical here. It sounds like that would have been ok. It feels odd, it doesn't match our "common sense" expectations, but then, I guess that's the whole point of contracts... so you don't just have to run your business dealings based on unstated assumptions and gut instinct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
I feel like for the MCU it's fine if Taskmaster isn't around much. Like we saw Taskmaster do the highlight reel of moves from previous films but then what? Seeing it once was awesome, subsequent appearances don't seem like they'd measure up until new MCU movies add more moves from mostly human fighters to the repertoire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:If Disney had released the film in 4100 theatres, as you say, and additionally released it on day one blu-ray home video release, instead of Disney+ streaming, do you think that would have been considered a fulfillment of the contractual terms? Genuine question, I'm not being rhetorical here. It sounds like that would have been ok. It probably would given the snippet of the contract we're looking at. It would depend on the remaining language of the contract. All it stipulates is that there shall (which legally is to say there must be) a wide theatrical release on at least 1500 screens. That happened. Simple as that. Contract fulfilled. Common sense doesn't modify the text as signed. If the contract allows for a home video release and doesn't limit when, then Disney could drop the blu-rays the same day. It would happen whenever the company decides it would be most profitable. The rest of the contract remains to be seen in this case. If it stipulates the time and manner of the streaming release, then that is where the violation would lie. If Disney has retains sole discretion for when the film is released to Disney+, then I doubt she'll win on the merits of the case. A settlement is still a distinct possibility to make the PR problem go away, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Astribulus posted:It probably would given the snippet of the contract we're looking at. It would depend on the remaining language of the contract. All it stipulates is that there shall (which legally is to say there must be) a wide theatrical release on at least 1500 screens. That happened. Simple as that. Contract fulfilled. Common sense doesn't modify the text as signed. If the contract allows for a home video release and doesn't limit when, then Disney could drop the blu-rays the same day. It would happen whenever the company decides it would be most profitable. If there was other language to hang their hat on in the contract I think they’d point to it in the complaint. They don’t, just to some language that says Disney has to discuss the release with her in good faith (not going to get into it but that provision won’t get her anywhere). So I think this is all they got which is why I said it was a weak case and I don’t think Disney actually breached. They’re just assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I feel like for the MCU it's fine if Taskmaster isn't around much. Like we saw Taskmaster do the highlight reel of moves from previous films but then what? Seeing it once was awesome, subsequent appearances don't seem like they'd measure up until new MCU movies add more moves from mostly human fighters to the repertoire. The circular pan from Avengers, but every character is Taskmaster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I said if this was the only version of Taskmaster out there, it would be good. I just like the kinda goofy one that's buddies with Deadpool. This was also my take. I like Taskmaster as a character and a concept. He's a favorite of mine. A guy who can perfectly copy the moves of anything he sees, including video recordings. That's potentially super deep if you explore it. And it could be a lot of fun if you play around with it. "I saw a guy in a movie do this once" ought to be a more common superpower. But taken on it's own, MCU Taskmaster is also an interesting interpretation. We get to see them do all the cool copycat stuff I do miss that we didn't get comic book personality Taskmaster, the working class mercenary goofball who is just there to fulfill a contract. But on the flip side, having a Taskmaster that you can't negotiate with, or buy off, and who is, yes, basically the MCU version of Amazo is a completely valid take. It kind of makes Taskmaster more intimidating if he's programmed like a Terminator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I find it hard to give a poo poo when this is going to in in a settlement in like eight months and everything just keeps going on like it never happened I mean it probably will but it'll help to set a precedent for future actors to make sure their contracts account for money from Disney (and WB and every other studio that's gonna do simul-releases like this in the future), which will be good for not just ScarJo and the multi-millionaire megastars but also smaller actors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
There's nothing stopping BW Taskmaster from coming back as comics Taskmaster who has now watched all of Netflix's standup shows and possibly the Deadpool movies and is basically a master of standup with a very confused set of jokes. Just some goofy amoral weirdo with a skull mask. Also Steve-Cap fought Red Guardian in the 80s after he time-travelled in IW. Steve was on vacation in Madripoor and cold-war shenanigans occurred with RG which made Steve pull out the suit and shield for One Last Ride but no one knows about it or believes RG because what happens in Madripoor stays in Madripoor. Zachack fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
I don't really understand how you can call the depiction of Taskmaster good on its own merits. It's honestly fine, but even wholly divorced from comics context it really just does nothing with the gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Arist posted:I don't really understand how you can call the depiction of Taskmaster good on its own merits. It's honestly fine, but even wholly divorced from comics context it really just does nothing with the gimmick. It's like three total scenes. The other Black Widows have more screen time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Lobok posted:I feel like for the MCU it's fine if Taskmaster isn't around much. Like we saw Taskmaster do the highlight reel of moves from previous films but then what? Seeing it once was awesome, subsequent appearances don't seem like they'd measure up until new MCU movies add more moves from mostly human fighters to the repertoire. Taskmaster didn't excitedly say "JUST LIKE CAP" after doing a shield bash like in Marvel vs. Capcom 3, so there is still ground that needs treading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2021 21:20
|
|