The article you quoted does not state that she was to receive a "percentage of profits." For many decades, well known actors have repeatedly joked that "no film ever shows a profit". Actors would be deceived into making those contracts, only to find that bonuses and intercompany billings would eliminate any profits.

Smart professionals would make a contract for a percentage of the gross receipts, with presumably the right to have an accountant look at the books, to prove that they were not cheated.

It sounds like Scarlett J had an agreement for bonuses based on a percentage of the gross. The specific details of her contract are not disclosed in her lawsuit, but her attorneys imply that this is the case, with the details to be presented at trial. Industry practices about a "wide release" are going to favor her arguments and this is a Marvel film.

Business Insider wrote about this lawsuit yesterday: Business Insider article and the actual Complaint filed in court is reproduced: Scarlett Johansson's lawsuit against Disney

Scarlett's basic argument is that the Disney-Plus "$30 watch from home" change meant that families and groups paid less than they would have spent, had they gone to a movie theater. The lawsuit specifically recounts how the many repeat viewings in theaters of other Marvel films would add much more to box office receipts.

If you read the lawsuit link above, her attorneys also point out how Disney executives personally profited, by about $16 million, by driving up Disney's stock value. Changing Black Widow's release to include Disney Plus on Day One was done at her expense.

I suspect that, despite Disney's whining, Scarlett will win this lawsuit, and that Disney will settle to avoid or limit punitive (punishment) damages. The judge will have to use some formula to estimate how much the box office might have been if Disney had not changed the terms of the film's release.

I suspect that directors, producers and other actors will applaud and support Scarlett for taking on Disney this way. Future contracts will have to be very specific about this sort of thing.

@Mon-Star said:

If you read the lawsuit link above, her attorneys also point out how Disney executives personally profited, by about $16 million, by driving up Disney's stock value. Changing Black Widow's release to include Disney Plus on Day One was done at her expense.

There's the key right there!!! The Evil Mouse pocketed every single penny of that money since it "wasn't in the contract" to pay her anything. Say what you will about Warner Bros, but they paid several filmmakers & production companies extra $$ to offset the potential box office loss from streaming on HBOMax...Disney didn't do any of that!

I'm sure you heard Emma Stone also might join the party and sue Disney also

f*ckthemouse

@jorgito2001 said:

@Mon-Star said:

If you read the lawsuit link above, her attorneys also point out how Disney executives personally profited, by about $16 million, by driving up Disney's stock value. Changing Black Widow's release to include Disney Plus on Day One was done at her expense.

There's the key right there!!! The Evil Mouse pocketed every single penny of that money since it "wasn't in the contract" to pay her anything. Say what you will about Warner Bros, but they paid several filmmakers & production companies extra $$ to offset the potential box office loss from streaming on HBOMax...Disney didn't do any of that!

I'm sure you heard Emma Stone also might join the party and sue Disney also

f*ckthemouse

And, according to the article you posted, there's more - Emily Blunt might also get in on the action. So, clearly, Johansson isn't totally nuts, there's something to this that's apparently bigger than her.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@jorgito2001 said:

@Mon-Star said:

If you read the lawsuit link above, her attorneys also point out how Disney executives personally profited, by about $16 million, by driving up Disney's stock value. Changing Black Widow's release to include Disney Plus on Day One was done at her expense.

There's the key right there!!! The Evil Mouse pocketed every single penny of that money since it "wasn't in the contract" to pay her anything. Say what you will about Warner Bros, but they paid several filmmakers & production companies extra $$ to offset the potential box office loss from streaming on HBOMax...Disney didn't do any of that!

I'm sure you heard Emma Stone also might join the party and sue Disney also

f*ckthemouse

And, according to the article you posted, there's more - Emily Blunt might also get in on the action. So, clearly, Johansson isn't totally nuts, there's something to this that's apparently bigger than her.

GOOD! F**k Disney! Only reason Dwayne Johnson doesn't join the party is because he has a show on the streamer he's producing and wants to keep things "amicable" (he's too nice!). Factor in their treatment of PIXAR films (straight to streamer/no pay wall), Disney is garbage in my eyes!

Emma Stone is reportedly considering suing Disney for the same reason, regarding Cruella.
Another lawsuit?

The article quotes Scarlett Johanssen's agent, who responded to the crass comments by Disney about the lawsuit: ">Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.

This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company, leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple."

Disney seeks arbitration regarding Black Widow lawsuit. Disney seeks arbitration

The article notes that they settled with Emma Stone over this same issue, and plan to pay her $10 million or more for a Cruella sequel.

That indicates to me that Disney is worried about losing a lawsuit to Scarlet Johansson, and might have to pay her punitive damages. The actual Disney court filing is here: Disney filing

Settled out of court. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/media/disney-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit/index.html

"Johansson vs. Disney has been a flashpoint in an evolving Hollywood. The lawsuit came at a pivotal moment as the industry faces questions about how audiences will consume entertainment in the future, and how those who create it will be compensated."

Okay, so, how are they answering these questions?

"Terms of the agreement were not disclosed."

FFS. Is there anything of value to glean from this? Anything that informs the industry going forward?

"Johansson said in a statement on Thursday that she was 'happy to have resolved our differences. I'm incredibly proud of the work we've done together over the years and have greatly enjoyed my creative relationship with the team," she said. I look forward to continuing our collaboration in years to come.' "

She's happy. This was about money, so she must've gotten more money. If that says anything, it's saying studios, actors, agents and lawyers should be clearer in their contract language to ensure all parties understand how the money is going to flow - and, once clear, stick to it, actors shouldn't be duped out of whatever share they're expecting according to the contract.

Which is fine. More often than not, it's the story that drives people to see a movie; then the actors; then, perhaps, the studio (in the case of Disney, parents will flock to anything with Disney Pixar on it for a few hours respite from their brood of snot-nosed kids). But beyond Disney, consider how Predator 2 did without Arnold, or Fast & Furious Tokyo Drift without Vin, Paul, Michele, or Dwayne - actors are a big part of what makes a movie make money, so they are worthy of their hire.

Does that mean studios are getting ripped off? Hardly - those who write the cheques are usually doing plenty better than those who cash cheques.

Sorry but I have very little sympathy for SJ here she already received an alleged 25 -35 million upfront from Disney and her getting that 50 million bonus was probably if this movie broke the 800-900 million mark in earnings alas it didn't make that money nor was it going to earn that money even in ideal conditions with a full theater release and no streaming on Disney+ .One could even argue that releasing it on Disney earned some extra cash because now at least they reached an audience that wasn't going to see BW in the theaters anyway. And I highly doubt that her contract included a theater release only clause because Disney+ wasn't even around when this movies was made(2018-2019).The only reason why SJ made the claim was because of Gal Gadot getting 35 million last year from Warner as compensation for WW 84 not getting a full theater release and partial compensation for streaming WW 84 on HBO Max

.And the whole reason for her suing Disney actually has very little to do with her getting the 50 million bonus but rather as a behind the scenes powerplay between Bob Chapek and Kevin Feige .This move was initiated by Feige and SJ Agent to make Bob Chapek look bad and to undermine his position as CEO of Disney because Chapek is not a member of the SJW club of Feige ,Kennedy etc and not an Hollywood insider. Chapek is a numbers guy and he is actually wanting Disney to make a profit(so he is supported by Disney shareholders) and Chapek is not a fan of the current woke direction Marvel has gone into and therefor he is a danger to the likes of Feige who feel their position is weakening after the pro woke creative Bob Iger stood down as CEO of Disney.Only this action by Feige and Co has now backfired and it turns out Feige and Co underestimated Bob Chapek who currently is on the offensive with articles being released being highly critical of Feige and his decisions about the current direction of Marvel.

@Nexus71 said:

Sorry but I have very little sympathy for SJ here

This is business. We're not gossipping about who stole whose boyfriend.

This is about an industry at odds over contracts and contractual obligations. It's about law and economics and good- vs. bad-faith dealings.

So, you don't neet to apologize for not having sympathy for Scarlett. It's not about sympathy, it about what is right according to the contracts they signed and the intentions for hoe they'd fulfill those contractual obligations.

Great comparison between the film industry & the music industry, DRD. I suppose everyone should’ve seen it coming. So many great musicians got screwed out of their percentage when physical album sales turned to digital bits with no real accountability. The epic Napster lawsuit in the 90s seemed to draw the lines, but I confess I never really paid attention to the outcome except to note that Napster lost.

Back to film, perhaps Scarjo’s lawsuit will become the defining Napster moment for film, and moving forward things will be ironed out. The problem, as with music, is what happens to the contracts of the past, where sketchy vague wording allows the studios to screw the artists out of new market distribution (like Scarjo I presume).

The other day I was horrified to learn that George Martin, the “5th Beatle” who produced, engineered, wrote parts, orchestrated and often played piano on the Beatles’ best records never received any percentage as a creative contributor. He just received his regular salary which was as low as £3000/year in 1965. There’s a dude who certainly deserved a cut of the billion dollar Beatles empire, but in interviews toward the end of his life he said as much as he regrets not getting a fair contract, he wasn’t going to chase it in court.

The bottom line being, I’m sure Scarjo deserves her fair cut just like George Martin & countless other artists who didn’t nail down the unforeseeable details when they signed the contract. But they’ll each have to go through the ordeal of filing a lawsuit. Would be great if 1 court ruling would make it right for everybody, retroactively. But the sad truth is you have to be a big star to afford to fight for what’s right.

@rooprect said:

Great comparison between the film industry & the music industry, DRD. I suppose everyone should’ve seen it coming. So many great musicians got screwed out of their percentage when physical album sales turned to digital bits with no real accountability.

Keen, as usual, my friend. The producers/studios/labels take as much advantage of the talent, while the talent often gets the short ens of the stick. Capitalism presumes entitlement to exploit.

Back to film, perhaps Scarjo’s lawsuit will become the defining Napster moment for film, and moving forward things will be ironed out. The problem, as with music, is what happens to the contracts of the past, where sketchy vague wording allows the studios to screw the artists out of new market distribution (like Scarjo I presume).

Yep.

The other day I was horrified to learn that George Martin, the “5th Beatle” who produced, engineered, wrote parts, orchestrated and often played piano on the Beatles’ best records never received any percentage as a creative contributor. He just received his regular salary which was as low as £3000/year in 1965. There’s a dude who certainly deserved a cut of the billion dollar Beatles empire, but in interviews toward the end of his life he said as much as he regrets not getting a fair contract, he wasn’t going to chase it in court.

And that's what they aim for. Too many just don't bother to pursue them legally, and they get away with ill-gotten gain.

The bottom line being, I’m sure Scarjo deserves her fair cut just like George Martin & countless other artists who didn’t nail down the unforeseeable details when they signed the contract. But they’ll each have to go through the ordeal of filing a lawsuit. Would be great if 1 court ruling would make it right for everybody, retroactively.

See how this works?! Screw people over. Some just leave it at that. Others sue... But if you can setrle out of court, then

A) you can "keep the terms of the settlement private" which means

B) there is no court ruling on the public record to set a precesent

C) you can keep playing the screw over game (hence TSG recently suing Disney, they at it again).

But the sad truth is you have to be a big star to afford to fight for what’s right.

And that creates a truing tendency. From Mary Pickford and friends first unionizing to actors making money who can afford to fight back, litigation is as American as apple pie.