Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

She is right. The theatrical model has to be protected at all costs.

Jonah Jameson - You Serious ? Spiderman - YouTube

They are using a hybrid box office scheme until normally returns to theaters. Live with it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Jonah Jameson - You Serious ? Spiderman - YouTube

They are using a hybrid box office scheme until normally returns to theaters. Live with it.

How can theatres attract customers when streaming services are offering the same film at home. They are working against each other.

[rui no onna]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

The only thing that is negotiable is adding the addition of like percentage of premiere access revenue against Black Widow. There is nothing else about D+ that she as a actor is entitled to as a hybrid box office sales model.

Arguments about reneging on the theatrical exclusivity clause are moot with COVID 19 scenario. Likely her contract was written well before Covid 19 started and theaters shut down. I am sure Disney will amend the contract for what I mentioned but nothing more.

It will likely be settled out of court with a confidentiality clause definitely for much less than $50 million.

However, I expect D+ subs would be part of the discussion particularly if D+ saw subscriber growth with the release of Black Widow. Either her lawyers argue for a bigger cut of the PA revenue or same box office cut on PA plus a small cut of D+. I mean, $5-10 million is just a tiny portion of one month's D+ revenue.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by rui no onna

It will likely be settled out of court with a confidentiality clause definitely for much less than $50 million.

However, I expect D+ subs would be part of the discussion particularly if D+ saw subscriber growth with the release of Black Widow. Either her lawyers argue for a bigger cut of the PA revenue or same box office cut on PA plus a small cut of D+. I mean, $5-10 million is just a tiny portion of one month's D+ revenue.

The problem with discussing subscriber growth is that encompasses a longer period then a subscriber paying for premier access. One could argue some gains attributed to Black Widow being available, but D+ is a mature streaming service now, so it could be more to do with WandaVision, Falcon and Winter Warrior and Loki limited series that people joined. In other words good luck saying a film delayed well over a year suddenly brought people on as subscribers.

But yes your first statement is the likely outcome.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How can theatres attract customers when streaming services are offering the same film at home. They are working against each other.

Disney never said Premiere Access was permanent, it's only a arrangement to offset the theaters inadequacies of their present circumstances. Besides even before theaters had covid 19 they use to pitch ads in the states about using Fandango for buying tickets and watching content as a example. They all use the internet now a days

[cheez avenger]

Disney has fired back:

“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of ‘Black Widow’ on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date,” a Walt Disney Company spokesperson said.

https://www.thewrap.com/disney-to-bl...ion-is-plenty/

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Disney has fired back:

Sounds like that was already planned in then, a jury trial attempt to achieve more. It was her last film. Her net worth is $165 million, anyone think she is hurting?

A lot more of the details is in this article including this present grudge.
Marvel at Her Millions! Find Out All About ScarJo's Net Worth—And the Disney Lawsuit That Could Earn Her $50M More - Parade 7/29

[rui no onna]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Sounds like that was already planned in then, a jury trial attempt to achieve more. It was her last film. Her net worth is $165 million, anyone think she is hurting?

I think streaming is generally part of contracts nowadays but they're considered residuals so they get a much, much smaller share compared to box office. I think it might have been Nolan who mentioned that when WB started putting films on HBO Max.

If studios are gonna do first run releases on streaming though, then I think it's fair that talent should get the same percentage as they would've gotten from box office or at least the percentage they get from streaming should be increased at least for the first few months.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Disney never said Premiere Access was permanent, it's only a arrangement to offset the theaters inadequacies of their present circumstances. Besides even before theaters had covid 19 they use to pitch ads in the states about using Fandango for buying tickets and watching content as a example. They all use the internet now a days

Come on John, we both know it’s not that simple.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Sounds like that was already planned in then, a jury trial attempt to achieve more. It was her last film. Her net worth is $165 million, anyone think she is hurting?

A lot more of the details is in this article including this present grudge.
Marvel at Her Millions! Find Out All About ScarJo's Net Worth—And the Disney Lawsuit That Could Earn Her $50M More - Parade 7/29

Her net worth and whether or not she is "hurting" is just as irrelevant as Disney's net worth and whether or not they are hurting. What is relevant are the terms of her contract.

If those terms were violated, then she deserves whatever compensation that entails. If they were not, she deserves squat and she should have to reimburse Disney for all legal costs resulting from her bringing this lawsuit.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Come on John, we both know it’s not that simple.

I like simple.

I feel that whatever her share of the box office is should be her share of the Premier Access revenue that this specific movie generated. However, actual contract law will determine the outcome here and not what I feel is right.

A lot of people do not feel comfortable attending the theater in the midst of another Covid 19 surge; the Delta variant is particularly nasty and more transmissible than all previous forms of this virus. I am among those who should not go out in public anymore than I must due to all of my recent medical drama. As children are not being vaccinated yet, I can easily understand why parents might not want to expose their kids to such an unnecessary risk.

Premier access, or premium video on demand for that matter, is a great alternative to jeopardizing one's health just to see a movie. It is certainly cheaper for a family to pay a flat fee than it is to buy a theater ticket for each family member. As I understand it, those that opt for this method can watch the movie as many times as they like within a certain time frame. Add in the comfort of watching at home and the savings on concessions, premium video on demand is a safer, cheaper, and more comfortable way to enjoy a first run movie.

When this pandemic ends, this option to watch at home instead of going to the theater may not make as much financial sense for the studios and if that is the case they will revert to their traditional release tactics. Right now they want to get what money they can however they can get it. People like being able to choose between public and private in-home exhibition of first run movies especially during a resurgent global pandemic making this a win-win for both fans and studios.

[Vilya]

Now, I am off to find "a quiet place" of my own for a few hours.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I like simple.

I feel that whatever her share of the box office is should be her share of the Premier Access revenue that this specific movie generated. However, actual contract law will determine the outcome here and not what I feel is right.

A lot of people do not feel comfortable attending the theater in the midst of another Covid 19 surge; the Delta variant is particularly nasty and more transmissible than all previous forms of this virus. I am among those who should not go out in public anymore than I must due to all of my recent medical drama. As children are not being vaccinated yet, I can easily understand why parents might not want to expose their kids to such an unnecessary risk.

Premier access, or premium video on demand for that matter, is a great alternative to jeopardizing one's health just to see a movie. It is certainly cheaper for a family to pay a flat fee than it is to buy a theater ticket for each family member. As I understand it, those that opt for this method can watch the movie as many times as they like within a certain time frame. Add in the comfort of watching at home and the savings on concessions, premium video on demand is a safer, cheaper, and more comfortable way to enjoy a first run movie.

When this pandemic ends, this option to watch at home instead of going to the theater may not make as much financial sense for the studios and if that is the case they will revert to their traditional release tactics. Right now they want to get what money they can however they can get it. People like being able to choose between public and private in-home exhibition of first run movies especially during a resurgent global pandemic making this a win-win for both fans and studios.

It’s not a win win for box office and that’s what keeps the lights on, well that and takings from refreshments.

[Lee A Stewart]

Snacks are about 40% of a movie theater's revenue, according to New York University professor Charles Schreger, who focuses on the business of entertainment. “Theaters make money by your buying a ticket. And then they have to give a lot of that money, usually about 50%, back to the studios.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Snacks are about 40% of a movie theater's revenue, according to New York University professor Charles Schreger, who focuses on the business of entertainment. “Theaters make money by your buying a ticket. And then they have to give a lot of that money, usually about 50%, back to the studios.

Yeah, not surprising if true.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I had to laugh when I noticed that your first link to the Geic G5800 4K disc player includes a $1 off coupon for an item with a $1398.75 price tag. Anyone wanting to use that great coupon might want to act fast.

I had never heard of this brand before; anyone here know anything about it?

I am always on the lookout for a player that that will allow me to skip locked trailers, warnings, etc. I have asked at AVS if the Reavon will do this but no one has replied. If the Geic will do this then I will purchase one. FWIW, the jailbreak firmware will not defeat this on the Oppo 203 so I never installed it.

[bhampton]

I wasn't going to upgrade my GI Joe discs from 3D to 4K but they were cheap at Walmart.

I'm glad I can still buy movies !!! It's my favorite thing to do.

Rise of the Cobra on 4K with Blu Ray and digital copy costs less than the Digital Copy alone.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Her net worth and whether or not she is "hurting" is just as irrelevant as Disney's net worth and whether or not they are hurting. What is relevant are the terms of her contract.

If those terms were violated, then she deserves whatever compensation that entails. If they were not, she deserves squat and she should have to reimburse Disney for all legal costs resulting from her bringing this lawsuit.

Arguing that contracts should be tied to exclusive theater releases during a pandemic that shut down NATO theaters worldwide is nonsense. Look at how NATO lost face trying to demand that from the studios doing the pandemic. What the lawsuit is trying to imply is that Disney is at fault rather the the pandemic circumstances.

From the As Marvel’s epics get bigger, Black Widow’s stakes feel too small - Verge 7/9

Black Widow was released at the wrong time, in multiple ways. The new Marvel prequel was one of the most high-profile films to be displaced by the constantly shifting theatrical release schedule caused by the shuttering of theaters due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But Black Widow — a film set between Captain America: Civil War’s superhero dust-up and Avengers: Infinity War’s cosmos-spanning epic — feels like a movie that should have been released when it’s actually set, instead of as a belated prequel.

From the plaintiffs paperwork filed with Los Angeles Superior Court.

INTRODUCTION

1. Over the past decade, Scarlett Johansson’s work has generated billions of dollars for Marvel Studios, and, by extension, its parent company, Disney. In recognition of and reliance on this impressive track record, Marvel1 and Ms. Johansson agreed that her compensation for starring in the latest motion picture addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (“MCU”), Black Widow (the “Picture”), would be based largely on “box office” receipts generated by the Picture. To maximize these receipts, and thereby protect her financial interests, Ms. Johansson extracted a promise from Marvel that the release of the Picture would be a “theatrical release.” As Ms. Johansson, Disney, Marvel, and most everyone else in Hollywood knows, a “theatrical release” is a release that is exclusive to movie theatres. Disney was well aware of this promise, but nonetheless directed Marvel to violate its pledge and instead release the Picture on the Disney+ streaming service the very same day it was released in movie theatres.

2. The reasons for this were twofold. First, Disney wanted to lure the Picture’s audience away from movie theatres and towards its owned streaming service, where it could keep the revenues for itself while simultaneously growing the Disney+ subscriber base, a proven way to boost Disney’s stock price. Second, Disney wanted to substantially devalue Ms. Johansson’s agreement and thereby enrich itself. In the months leading up to this lawsuit, Ms. Johansson gave Disney and Marvel every opportunity to right their wrong and make good on Marvel’s promise. Unlike numerous other movie studios, however – including Warner Brothers who, on information and belief, settled with its talent on films such as Wonder Woman after it released those films “day-and-date” to its streaming service HBO Max last year – Disney and Marvel largely ignored Ms. Johansson, essentially forcing her to file this action.

This takes this opinion way too far.

11. Of course, this was Disney’s plan all along. Disney knew that a “day-and-date” release on Disney+ would drive up the total number of Disney+ subscribers—a key metric impacting Disney’s stock price—both by luring new subscribers to Disney+ and by giving existing ones reasons to keep paying their monthly fees, thus reducing subscriber “churn.” Disney also knew that having such a well-known film as the Picture debut on Disney+ would help it justify future price increases to the Disney+ monthly subscription fees. Moreover, Disney knew that its ability to deliver blockbuster content like Black Widow to its subscribers would perpetuate the view of many investors—as reflected in Disney’s share price—that Disney+ is the only streaming platform that has a chance to one day compete with rival streaming giant Netflix, providing another way to bolster Disney’s market valuation. In short, Disney chose to placate Wall Street investors and pad its bottom line, rather than allow its subsidiary Marvel to comply with the Agreement.

The agreement was signed in 2017 before Disney brought Disney + into reality and well before the pandemic.

As one poster commented "I don’t see how she can win an argument that boils down to her being mad it was streamed during a pandemic."

If Disney agrees or has already implemented that Premere Access revenue was treated like box office revenue which is likely, then this lawsuit based about not being able to get a exclusive theater release during pandemic conditions will fail.

Given that many many actors are being paid from revenue derived from partial streaming releases as well as shown in theaters where possible there is nothing new here except wishful thinking of some lawyers. There is also the sad fact that the movie was released well past its time that would have maximized revenue.

ref https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...lack-widow.pdf

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Arguing that contracts should be tied to exclusive theater releases during a pandemic that shut down NATO theaters worldwide is nonsense.

Seems like all of this is nonsense unless one knows the content of the contract. If breached then Disney needs to own up to the contract, if not then the suit should be dismissed.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Seems like all of this is nonsense unless one knows the content of the contract. If breached then Disney needs to own up to the contract, if not then the suit should be dismissed.

Which is exactly what I said. You did it more succinctly.

Her contract terms either were, or were not, violated. That's what the court will care about.