On 2021-07-29 22:47:41 +0000, RichA said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.
:-\

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ted Nolan

Ed Stasiak

Disney is basically telling her; “fuck your contract, we’ll see you in court”...

The bigger question is whether it is wise to piss off one of their big stars,
and given the Widow is dead they probably figure "why not", even if it's
not "we saw the body" dead.

Exactly, they killed off Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow in the Avengers movie
and replaced her in the BW movie with the character’s sister for future flicks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Your Name

RichA

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.
:-\

As opposed to the selfish and greedy mega-bazillion dollar corporation
that makes $2.8 BILLION per year?

I saw that Scarlett Johansson's estimated net worth is $160 million
and one can say "well, she's got enough money" but if she loses the
$50 million from the movie, that’s a 30% cut in her total income.

You'd bitch up a storm if your boss tried pulling that shit with you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2021-07-29 22:47:41 +0000, RichA said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.
:-\

Wow. You got it absurdly and obviously wrong. She anticipated streaming.
In her contract, she specified that she was making a movie to be
distributed in theaters, not streaming. The studio agreed to it. After
the fact, it was released as streaming. Both parties agreed to the
contract. It's not selfish and greedy to expect the studio to honor the contract it agreed to, just like it's not selfish and greedy to expect
the actress to cooperate in the production of the movie as contracted
for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-07-31 14:23:58 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:

Your Name

RichA

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html>>

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.
:-\

As opposed to the selfish and greedy mega-bazillion dollar corporation
that makes $2.8 BILLION per year?

I never said big business wasn't greedy too. In fact I'm always saying
they are.

I saw that Scarlett Johansson's estimated net worth is $160 million
and one can say "well, she's got enough money" but if she loses the
$50 million from the movie, that's a 30% cut in her total income.

You'd bitch up a storm if your boss tried pulling that shit with you.

"Scarlett Johansson is one of the highest paid actresses
in the world"

Yet she still wants more ... that is simply pure greed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 31 July 2021 at 02:56:17 UTC-4, Your Name wrote:

On 2021-07-29 22:47:41 +0000, RichA said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.
:-\

I'd like to see it when some executive says, "Frankly, your movie stunk and wouldn't be best for release solely in-theatres."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-07-30 at 15:36:37 MDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 15:07:38 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Seems like the Widow has a pretty good case here. If her contract said
'theatrical release', then Disney giving it a streaming release is a
material breach of the contract.

Not unless it forbade a streamed release at the same time.

Yes, it sounds like she should be suing her agent or lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Your Name

Ed Stasiak

I saw that Scarlett Johansson's estimated net worth is $160 million
and one can say "well, she's got enough money" but if she loses the
$50 million from the movie, that's a 30% cut in her total income.

You'd bitch up a storm if your boss tried pulling that shit with you.

"Scarlett Johansson is one of the highest paid actresses in the world"

Again; would YOU take a 30% cut in pay just because your boss decided
he'd rather keep that money for himself?

Yet she still wants more ... that is simply pure greed.

No, she wants what she and Disney AGREED to. Disney is straight-up
breaking the contract they signed with Johansson, that she’s already
rich doesn’t somehow make that OK.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Neill Massello

RichA

Not unless it forbade a streamed release at the same time.

Yes, it sounds like she should be suing her agent or lawyer.

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

Somebody is lying, that's for sure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RichA

Your Name

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump
on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.

Why shouldn't the actors (and others involved in the production) also profit off the streaming of their labor?

I'd like to see it when some executive says, "Frankly, your movie stunk and wouldn't be best for release solely in-theatres."

And Scarlett would reply, “That may be, but you signed a contract to pay me
X regardless of how shitty the flick turned out to be”.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/1/2021 8:25 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

Neill Massello

RichA

Not unless it forbade a streamed release at the same time.

Yes, it sounds like she should be suing her agent or lawyer.

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

Somebody is lying, that's for sure.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviepig

Ed Stasiak

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

The contract with the no streaming clause was signed before the
movie went into production and after covid hit and the movie was
delayed, Disney sent the email to her saying that they'd renegotiate
the contract if they had to stream.

Except Disney just threw the contract out the window and streamed
the movie anyways, costing Scarlett Johansson millions she would
have gotten from the theatrical showings and cutting her completely
out of the streaming profits.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-01 12:21:30 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:

Your Name

Ed Stasiak

I saw that Scarlett Johansson's estimated net worth is $160 million> >
and one can say "well, she's got enough money" but if she loses the> >
$50 million from the movie, that's a 30% cut in her total income.> >> >
You'd bitch up a storm if your boss tried pulling that shit with you.>

"Scarlett Johansson is one of the highest paid actresses in the world"

Again; would YOU take a 30% cut in pay just because your boss decided
he'd rather keep that money for himself?

Not even remotely the same thing, but even if it was, if I had signed a contract agreeing to that, then yes, that's my tough luck.

Yet she still wants more ... that is simply pure greed.

No, she wants what she and Disney AGREED to. Disney is straight-up
breaking the contract they signed with Johansson, that she's already
rich doesn't somehow make that OK.

She (or her agent) negotiated and signed a contract to be paid
$20million up front, a portion of the box office take, and little or
nothing of the streaming take ... now she's suddenly realised that
because the Covid issues it meant the box office take was much lower
than she expected. Being American, she greedily tries to sue to get
more money. (As if $20million isn't far more than any sane person
should expect to be paid or ever need.)

She had a choice, she agreed and signed the contract. Same as the fools
who signed over the Star Wars merchandise rights to George Lucas.

She simply needs to deal with the fact that she made a mistake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-01 12:29:49 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:

RichA

Your Name

Now other selfish and greedy actors and actresses are looking to jump>

on the same bandwagon and sue their movies' makers for streaming them.

Why shouldn't the actors (and others involved in the production) also profit off the streaming of their labor?

Depending on the contract, they already do, same as they get box office
and TV royalties. If she decided to sign a contract that had much lower
portion / left out streaming royalties, then that was her choice ...
tough luck.

I'd like to see it when some executive says, "Frankly, your movie stunk and >> wouldn't be best for release solely in-theatres."

And Scarlett would reply, "That may be, but you signed a contract to pay me
X regardless of how shitty the flick turned out to be".

She's already been paid "X" (reportedly $20million) plus probably a
portion of the box office take.

There are polenty of movies that have been made for cinema release, but
were decided so awful that they went straight to DVD instead. Where are
all those actors lining up to sue ... nowhere, because they either
weren't as greedily selfish or simply had a brain to understand they
signed a contract.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Your Name

Ed Stasiak

Again; would YOU take a 30% cut in pay just because your boss decided
he'd rather keep that money for himself?

Not even remotely the same thing, but even if it was, if I had signed a contract agreeing to that, then yes, that's my tough luck.

It's exactly the same thing, Disney agreed to NO STREAMING then streamed
the movie anyway, costing Scarlett millions of dollars and that's not her fault..

No, she wants what she and Disney AGREED to. Disney is straight-up
breaking the contract they signed with Johansson, that she's already
rich doesn't somehow make that OK.

She (or her agent) negotiated and signed a contract to be paid
$20million up front, a portion of the box office take, and little or
nothing of the streaming take ... now she's suddenly realised that
because the Covid issues it meant the box office take was much lower
than she expected.

Disney signed a contract agreeing to NO STREAMING then streamed the flick anyway and on top of this, told her they'd renegotiate the contract to include profits from streaming if it was needed due to covid.

Unless her lawyers are flat-out lying, Disney broke the contract.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/1/2021 5:27 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviepig

Ed Stasiak

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

The contract with the no streaming clause was signed before the
movie went into production and after covid hit and the movie was
delayed, Disney sent the email to her saying that they'd renegotiate
the contract if they had to stream.

That description sounds as though streaming might have been picked up
off the floor and put back on the table -- unless her documented
response to Disney's eMail was, "You will over my dead stunt-double!".

Except Disney just threw the contract out the window and streamed
the movie anyways, costing Scarlett Johansson millions she would
have gotten from the theatrical showings and cutting her completely
out of the streaming profits.

Okay, if that's what a judge decides happened, then it'll all come down
to 1) proving damages, and 2) punitive compensation. Fwiw, regarding
#1, expect Disney to parade a compendium of mediocre reviews...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-01 at 15:27:21 MDT, "Ed Stasiak" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

moviepig

Ed Stasiak

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

The contract with the no streaming clause was signed before the
movie went into production and after covid hit and the movie was
delayed, Disney sent the email to her saying that they'd renegotiate
the contract if they had to stream.

Seems unlikely that Disney would have promised *never* to stream the movie without a renegotiation. More likely is that the (probably very long and very detailed) contract had time limits or other conditions relating to when streaming could occur, and Disney will claim that the pandemic triggered those provisions.

Name of Disney's next superhero franchise: Force Majeure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

In article <b27a9757-1db4-49c7-acf5-008b2f457e07n@googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

BTR1701

RichA

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/media/scarlett-johansson-disney-lawsuit/index.html

Seems like the Widow has a pretty good case here. If her contract said
'theatrical release', then Disney giving it a streaming release is a material
breach of the contract.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Scarlett Johansson lost out on an
estimated
$50 million by Disney going to streaming and furthermore, her contract clearly
stipulated a theatrical release with _no streaming_ and her lawyers even have an
email from Disney executives saying that because of covid, if they
decide to stream
the movie they will renegotiate the contract with her and on top of
that, her lawyers
say Disney’s top two executives have multi-bazillion dollar bonuses
that are tied to
the success of the Disney+ streaming service.

Disney is basically telling her; “fuck your contract, we’ll see you
in court”...

That's what having a high-powered permanent legal staff lets you do. The worst thing that can happen is that they lose and have to cough up the bucks with maybe some damages. More likely is they settle for some amount that
is meaningless accounting noise to them.

The bigger question is whether it is wise to piss off one of their big stars, and given the Widow is dead they probably figure "why not", even if it's
not "we saw the body" dead.

We did see the body.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-01 21:41:43 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:

Your Name

Ed Stasiak

Again; would YOU take a 30% cut in pay just because your boss decided
he'd rather keep that money for himself?

Not even remotely the same thing, but even if it was, if I had signed a
contract agreeing to that, then yes, that's my tough luck.

It's exactly the same thing, Disney agreed to NO STREAMING then streamed
the movie anyway,

Yes, and Disney also said they were happy to renegotiate. Both assume
you believe lawyers, but we all know they're simply selfish scumbags
anyway.

costing Scarlett millions of dollars and that's not her fault..

It's not the studios fault that cinemas were forced to close / have
lower viewer numbers either.

The facts remain, she signed a contract and now simply wants more money.

No, she wants what she and Disney AGREED to. Disney is straight-up
breaking the contract they signed with Johansson, that she's already
rich doesn't somehow make that OK.

She (or her agent) negotiated and signed a contract to be paid
$20million up front, a portion of the box office take, and little or
nothing of the streaming take ... now she's suddenly realised that
because the Covid issues it meant the box office take was much lower
than she expected.

Disney signed a contract agreeing to NO STREAMING then streamed the flick anyway and on top of this, told her they'd renegotiate the contract to include
profits from streaming if it was needed due to covid.

Unless her lawyers are flat-out lying, Disney broke the contract.

All lawyers are lying scumbags. They're only interested in filling
their own pockets and have absolutely zero interest in justice.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

On 8/1/2021 5:27 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviepig

Ed Stasiak

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

The contract with the no streaming clause was signed before the
movie went into production and after covid hit and the movie was
delayed, Disney sent the email to her saying that they'd renegotiate
the contract if they had to stream.

That description sounds as though streaming might have been picked up
off the floor and put back on the table -- unless her documented
response to Disney's eMail was, "You will over my dead stunt-double!".

Except Disney just threw the contract out the window and streamed
the movie anyways, costing Scarlett Johansson millions she would
have gotten from the theatrical showings and cutting her completely
out of the streaming profits.

Okay, if that's what a judge decides happened, then it'll all come down
to 1) proving damages, and 2) punitive compensation. Fwiw, regarding
#1, expect Disney to parade a compendium of mediocre reviews...

They may try but reviews are utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether
Disney breached the contract.

I can't imagine why any judge would allow such a parade.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2021-08-01 21:41:43 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:

Your Name

Ed Stasiak

Again; would YOU take a 30% cut in pay just because your boss decided
he'd rather keep that money for himself?

Not even remotely the same thing, but even if it was, if I had signed a
contract agreeing to that, then yes, that's my tough luck.

It's exactly the same thing, Disney agreed to NO STREAMING then streamed
the movie anyway,

Yes, and Disney also said they were happy to renegotiate. Both assume
you believe lawyers, but we all know they're simply selfish scumbags
anyway.

costing Scarlett millions of dollars and that's not her fault..

It's not the studios fault that cinemas were forced to close / have
lower viewer numbers either.

Maybe not, but it also doesn't allow Disney to ignore all their contracts
with employees without repercussion.

The facts remain, she signed a contract and now simply wants more money.

She signed a contract FOR that more money. Why can't you get this through
your head? It's been explained to you a half dozen times now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/1/2021 10:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

On 8/1/2021 5:27 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviepig

Ed Stasiak

As I mentioned up-thread, her lawyers say she has a rock-solid
contract that clearly stipulated NO STREAMING and furthermore,
she has emails from Disney stating they would renegotiate the
contract with her if they did want to do streaming.

That pair of claims by her lawyers is a bit self-contradictory...

The contract with the no streaming clause was signed before the
movie went into production and after covid hit and the movie was
delayed, Disney sent the email to her saying that they'd renegotiate
the contract if they had to stream.

That description sounds as though streaming might have been picked up
off the floor and put back on the table -- unless her documented
response to Disney's eMail was, "You will over my dead stunt-double!".

Except Disney just threw the contract out the window and streamed
the movie anyways, costing Scarlett Johansson millions she would
have gotten from the theatrical showings and cutting her completely
out of the streaming profits.

Okay, if that's what a judge decides happened, then it'll all come down
to 1) proving damages, and 2) punitive compensation. Fwiw, regarding
#1, expect Disney to parade a compendium of mediocre reviews...

They may try but reviews are utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Disney breached the contract.

I can't imagine why any judge would allow such a parade.

Upon being found at fault, Disney may argue that her actual damages due
to lost box-office are minimal because reviews show the movie sucked.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)