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

[Vilya]

Like it or not, Disney is under no obligation to "renegotiate" her contract. Both parties are bound by the contract that they signed. Wanting a different deal after the fact, and not getting it, is really just too damn bad for her.

Unless Disney has violated her existing contract, what "promises" did they break exactly? They sure did not make, yet alone break, any promises to the consumer. We are not in any way a party to this contract.

Increasingly, it appears that both parties are looking to try this case in the court of public opinion more than in a court of law. The attempt to cast the consumer as a victim of big bad Disney in this dispute demonstrates that tactic; the consumer was not wronged in any way here.

A rich actress sues a rich company because she wants more than her contract provides; that is all this is about. I won't be shedding any tears for either one of them.

[bhampton]

My understanding is the contract specifically stated it would be in theaters only initially.

"She says in court documents that the deal guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release and that her salary for the film was largely tied to box office performance"


That's pretty dern clear. There is no question the contract was violated it's more a question of what happens next.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by bhampton

My understanding is the contract specifically stated it would be in theaters only initially.

"She says in court documents that the deal guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release and that her salary for the film was largely tied to box office performance"


That's pretty dern clear. There is no question the contract was violated it's more a question of what happens next.

If true, then she will prevail. If not, then she should have to reimburse Disney for all of their legal expenses defending against her frivolous lawsuit. You need not worry whether or not the rich will obtain justice.

As a consumer, what promises did Disney break to me in this deal? Should we "lawyer up" and get our class action lawsuit going?

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by bhampton

My understanding is the contract specifically stated it would be in theaters only initially.

"She says in court documents that the deal guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release and that her salary for the film was largely tied to box office performance"


That's pretty dern clear. There is no question the contract was violated it's more a question of what happens next.

According to the court documents the agreement states that BW would receive a "wide theatrical release". The question of exclusivity centers around "Both parties (SJ and Marvel), as well as Disney, understood this meant that the Picture would initially be released exclusively in movie theatres".

There's a big difference between a stated contractual provision and an unstated abstract "understanding" related to a provision.

The contract states "no less than 1,500 screens" constitutes a wide release. Looking around, the Associated Press reports BW was featured on 4,100, so, assuming that is an accurate number, this was complied with.

B. The Agreement

21. The Agreement, dated May 9, 2017, sets forth the understanding between

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. (referred to therein as “Lender”) and Marvel (referred to therein as
“Producer”) concerning Ms. Johansson’s (referred to therein as “Artist”) services in connection
with the Picture. Paragraph 2, titled “ENGAGEMENT,” states:

Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the
role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical
motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). 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).

I really couldn't give a rat's butt on who is "right" or "wrong" (contractually) here, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as you make out.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

According to the court documents the agreement states that BW would receive a "wide theatrical release". The question of exclusivity centers around "Both parties (SJ and Marvel), as well as Disney, understood this meant that the Picture would initially be released exclusively in movie theatres".

There's a big difference between a stated contractual provision and an unstated abstract "understanding" related to a provision.

The contract states "no less than 1,500 screens" constitutes a wide release. Looking around, the Associated Press reports BW was featured on 4,100, so, assuming that is an accurate number, this was complied with.

I really couldn't give a rat's butt on who is "right" or "wrong" (contractually) here, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as you make out.

Big difference as in potentially Mt. Everest big.

What a contract actually states and what you think it means can be two very different things.

I don't care who wins here, either, but I am confident that both parties can easily afford expert legal representation. The court will sort it all out.

[bhampton]

I don't see why the notion of her being wealthy is relevant.

I just don't see that as relevant at all.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by bhampton

The issue is was her contract honored.

And I don't see where anyone here has suggested it is anything otherwise.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Vilya

A rich actress sues a rich company because she wants more than her contract provides; that is all this is about. I won't be shedding any tears for either one of them.

here

The wealth of anyone is only relative to another and has no relevance here.

I guess Vilya's point is none of us know that type of wealth so we don't need to think much about it. I can see that, kind of. I mean if she makes 20 milliion or 200 million it truely makes zero differnce to me and I understand that.

However, the affect of releasing movies directly on home video does have something to do with my lifestyle so while she's perhaps just looking for cash the system hopefully is looking for justice. Maybe Di$ney did cheat her and that actually could be something I would care about slightly.

I would want things to be fair even though it doesn't really affect me.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I would want things to be fair even though it doesn't really affect me.

And I heartily agree with this - I put great stock in fairness and justice prevailing for whoever.

Based upon what is in the court document (and as is mentioned), I believe that Good Faith will end up playing a large part in this. Obviously there is no mention of the sums involved in the filed documents, or the structure of the box office % provisions.

One observation I would have is that if there was a chance that I would end up potentially leaving a bajillion $ on the table, I would be kicking myself for signing off against flimsy, ambiguous language. Everyone knows Disney are bulldogs in all matters of their bank balance.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by bhampton

My understanding is the contract specifically stated it would be in theaters only initially.

"She says in court documents that the deal guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release and that her salary for the film was largely tied to box office performance"

That's pretty dern clear. There is no question the contract was violated it's more a question of what happens next.

Look the article from Inc is penned from a technology author.

Jason Aten writes the Tech Inc. column about the intersection of technology and business. He regularly writes about big tech companies, the coolest new gadgets, cybersecurity and digital privacy, e-commerce, and the streaming wars.

Most of this type tend to sensationalize topics based from rumors.

[Lee A Stewart]

Disney Will Seek Arbitration in Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit

In the Wall Street Journal, Disney released figures touting that Johansson had already earned $20 million from her deal. Previously, Disney attorney Daniel Petrocelli had called the lawsuit a lost cause because the contract is iron clad. “We treated Disney Premier Access (revenue) like box office for the purposes of the bonus requirements in the contract,” Petrocelli told Variety. “No amount of public pressure can change or obscure the explicit contractual commitments. The written contract is clear as a bell.”

Disney’s arbitration would make the case confidential and the details would not become publicly available even after the case ends, which Johansson’s lawyer John Berlinski decried as Disney’s attempt to “hide its misconduct from the public in a confidential arbitration,” according to the Wall Street Journal article.

https://wdwnt.com/2021/08/disney-wil...nsson-lawsuit/

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Increasingly, it appears that both parties are looking to try this case in the court of public opinion more than in a court of law. The attempt to cast the consumer as a victim of big bad Disney in this dispute demonstrates that tactic; the consumer was not wronged in any way here.

We tend to have too much of a social media newsfeed where peoples spreading this news show preconceived bias. Any wealthy company is a instant target, it’s a reason her rep is commenting openly on Disney being in the wrong irregardless of contract terms. It should go to arbitration and be done with it. The publicity is not helping anyone.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Disney Will Seek Arbitration in Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit

https://wdwnt.com/2021/08/disney-wil...nsson-lawsuit/

Not much wiggle room, income from Premier Access treated as like box office. Got nothing to complain about except streaming is evil.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by bhampton

here

The wealth of anyone is only relative to another and has no relevance here.

I guess Vilya's point is none of us know that type of wealth so we don't need to think much about it. I can see that, kind of. I mean if she makes 20 milliion or 200 million it truely makes zero differnce to me and I understand that.

However, the affect of releasing movies directly on home video does have something to do with my lifestyle so while she's perhaps just looking for cash the system hopefully is looking for justice. Maybe Di$ney did cheat her and that actually could be something I would care about slightly.

I would want things to be fair even though it doesn't really affect me.

The wealth of both parties is mainly relevant in that it means that they both can afford excellent legal representation; they will both get a fair shake in court.

If Disney wronged her, she will be compensated. If she brought a frivolous lawsuit, she should have to pay everyone's legal expenses.

The only other relevance of their wealth is that I have trouble sympathizing with either of them, especially when both sides are trying to litigate their case in the court of public opinion. One rich party or the other will wind up a little bit richer; that's very hard for me to care about.

How the movie studios choose to distribute their intellectual property is entirely their prerogative. How I feel about their choices are irrelevant. I don't have to like it; I just have to live with it.

I am still waiting to hear how the consumer was wronged by any of this. How were we harmed? This was suggested in your first post today about this lawsuit. How did Disney's alleged contract violation with what's her name harm any of us?

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am still waiting to hear how the consumer was wronged by any of this. How were we harmed? This was suggested in your first post today about this lawsuit. How did Disney's alleged contract violation with what's her name harm any of us?

I think I can help .... The article was suggesting Disney may have treated her wrongly and therefore can't be trusted to treat anyone well.... That was just a quote from the article, I don't actually think it's realistic.

"The way you keep your promises to the people who work for you says a lot about whether you'll keep the promises you make to your customers. By lashing out at Johansson, and using the pandemic in an attempt to shame her, Disney has essentially broken its promise not only to her, but also to all of us. That's something no company should ever do."

I don't remember Disney ever promising me anything personally. I've seen a lot of kids crying at the "happiest place on earth"

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I think I can help .... The article was suggesting Disney may have treated her wrongly and therefore can't be trusted to treat anyone well.... That was just a quote from the article, I don't actually think it's realistic.

"The way you keep your promises to the people who work for you says a lot about whether you'll keep the promises you make to your customers. By lashing out at Johansson, and using the pandemic in an attempt to shame her, Disney has essentially broken its promise not only to her, but also to all of us. That's something no company should ever do."

I don't remember Disney ever promising me anything personally. I've seen a lot of kids crying at the "happiest place on earth"

Yeah, that's a reach. The "if they're bad to someone, they must be bad to everyone" logic, eh?

Does anyone here really think that any large corporation has their best interests at heart?

[kfbkfb]

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/2...battle-hbo-max
^^^
This looks like the end of HBO Max doing simultaneous releases


Kirk Bayne

[Lee A Stewart]

Day-And-Date Streaming Is “Winning Strategy”, But Consumer Bond With Movies Is “Greater Now Than Its Ever Been”, WarnerMedia & Universal Execs Say

https://deadline.com/2021/08/warnerm...id-1234812482/

[veritas]

Originally Posted by bhampton

My understanding is the contract specifically stated it would be in theaters only initially.

"She says in court documents that the deal guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release and that her salary for the film was largely tied to box office performance"


That's pretty dern clear. There is no question the contract was violated it's more a question of what happens next.

From what I have read it never uses the word exclusive. The contract promised her a wide theatrical release which it got. Shes basically saying that a wide theatrical release in the contract implies exclusivity. This contract was made back in 2017 before Disney plus was even a thing.

I don't think Disney broke the contract. They even treated the Disney plus premier access money as part of the box office which probably wasnt required in the contract.


Overall this still sounds like a dumb lawsuit. She made a film she was going to be payed a nice figure on the back end assuming success. She assumed some risk that the film would not be a sucesss and due to covid she made less money. Disney made her as much money as the film possibly could and actually delayed the thing a year to make the best of a bad situation.


The thing I don't get is why she even made this lawsuit. she was about to make Tower of terror with Disney. This lawsuit probably cost her millions (perhaps 10s to 100s of millions if you factor in damage to her career and its likely payout is minimal since Disney already treated premier access like box office.

The only one who wins starting this whole thing is her lawyer. Perhaps she should sue him next for the terrible legal work he did for her on this thing.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by kfbkfb

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/2...battle-hbo-max
^^^
This looks like the end of HBO Max doing simultaneous releases


Kirk Bayne

Good!