Jump to content

Kalo

Black Widow | July 9 2021 | ScarJo secures the bag from Disney

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JWR said:

Will Chapek biting the bullet and settling with Scarlett Johansson do anything to effect his standing within the company?

It might buy him a bit of time, but his mismangement of this crisis...and that he has turned powerful figure in the company against him will do permanent damage.

Reall thing is will Chapek leave Feige alone and stop trying to interfere with Marvel Studios and maybe kill the goose that lays the Golden Eggs?

And Chapek's position is not nearly as strong as Eisner's was when he was forced out when it became clear the choice was between him and PIxar...Pixar being the biggest  money maker for Disney at the time.

Of course, Pixar..at that time...was a indepedent company who had a finaincing releasing contract with Disney. When it was up Steve

Jobs was free to take Pixar to any studio in town..and every studio would have been happy to let him write his own terms.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



20 minutes ago, dudalb said:

It might buy him a bit of time, but his mismangement of this crisis...and that he has turned powerful figure in the company against him will do permanent damage.

Reall thing is will Chapek leave Feige alone and stop trying to interfere with Marvel Studios and maybe kill the goose that lays the Golden Eggs?

And Chapek's position is not nearly as strong as Eisner's was when he was forced out when it became clear the choice was between him and PIxar...Pixar being the biggest  money maker for Disney at the time.

Of course, Pixar..at that time...was a indepedent company who had a finaincing releasing contract with Disney. When it was up Steve

Jobs was free to take Pixar to any studio in town..and every studio would have been happy to let him write his own terms.

 

 

I think feel like the Board would remove Chapek if they suspected that he was trying to oust Feige. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The person who isn’t getting the blame? Outgoing chairman Bob Iger. “Somebody’s playing it like an amateur,” says one former Disney executive. “Iger’s no amateur.” A top executive at a rival studio agrees, adding that the whole confrontation seems ill-advised and avoidable. “It’s insane to me — insane,” he says. “Do you think on Bob Iger’s watch he would ever have allowed a piece of talent to sue them?” (This executive notes that it’s possible to settle such disputes by finding creative ways to pay stars without setting undesirable compensation precedents.)

 

A Disney insider says that blame for the statement is being placed unfairly at Chapek’s feet and “this was not a unilateral decision nor an edict” from him. (It is difficult, however, to discern who, if anyone, on the studio side was informed in advance.)

 

Disney’s posture is being read in Hollywood as Chapek signaling his indifference to star talent. But however indifferent he may be, there is the one star Chapek and Disney absolutely, unequivocally need: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, who is known to be very unhappy with the studio’s attack on one of his superheroes.

 

We have seen before what happens when Feige gets unhappy. After myriad clashes with star-unfriendly Marvel Entertainment chairman Ike Perlmutter (including over Feige’s wish to diversify the universe by making Black Panther and Captain Marvel), Perlmutter vanished from the equation amid a 2015 reporting structure change by Iger. “My sense was that the strained relationship … was threatening [Feige’s] continued success,” Iger wrote in his memoir. And any threat to Feige and his success is simply not something that any Disney fiduciary could allow.


 

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-vs-scarlett-johansson-lawsuits-next-1234992368/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 8/3/2021 at 3:43 PM, JWR said:

 

I think feel like the Board would remove Chapek if they suspected that he was trying to oust Feige. 

Yep. They made Feige CCO of all Marvel to settle his stuff with Perlmutter. Feige has more value than anyone at Disney with how much he brings in

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



19 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Yep. They made Feige CCO of all Marvel to settle his stuff with Perlmutter. Feige has more value than anyone at Disney with how much he brings in

 

Under Chapek, Feige now has less power and final say over Marvel projects, which is going to cause problems in the future if nothing changes. As this unforced error continues to exacerbate, I become more convinced that the Board will vote on removing Chapek just to stop the fire from spreading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, JWR said:

 

Under Chapek, Feige now has less power and final say over Marvel projects, which is going to cause problems in the future if nothing changes. As this unforced error continues to exacerbate, I become more convinced that the Board will vote on removing Chapek just to stop the fire from spreading.

Yep. Feige is worth more now to Disney than the total amount Disney originally paid for to buy Marvel in the first place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JWR said:

Under Chapek, Feige now has less power and final say over Marvel projects,

Is that speculation ?

 

Feige-Marvel did seem to have giant power versus juggernaut of powerful entity like Pixar or even Disney Animation since Chapek came in, with all is project getting a very nice push back release (all 3 of them) wise versus them. With 2015 John Lasseter it would have been quite different.

 

If we go by how well the press, talent and studio treated him during the coverage of the latest crisis, he seem to have giant power over everyone, I am pretty sure he got is giant gross points coming in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 8/4/2021 at 9:55 PM, Alligator Zatt said:


 

But having been offered such deals, this person says, “It doesn’t matter to me whether [my movie] is a huge hit or not. The pressure’s off.” He doesn’t want to embarrass himself, but a project just needs to be good enough to get the next deal. This may help explain why so many movies made for streamers seem to lack luster.

This person must make films for Netflix.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JWR said:

That misguided press statement did more damage than anything else.


It really did. I’m guessing ScarJo’s team were hoping for a press reply from Disney where they’d shit the bed and thats exactly what they did. 
 

Increases chances of settling out of court. Bad press for Disney. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Long story short, Disney will pay Scarlett and most will forget about this in a few months, like the Predator writers trying to get the rights back from Disney. At least, this time, the Disney Lawyer's words are more.......vaguely carefully chosen.

 

With that said, Black Widow hits digital purchase streaming services Tuesday.

 

Edited by Yandereprime101189
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





6 hours ago, JWR said:

 

Seem like there was talks before release:

We treated Disney Premier Access (revenue) like box office for the purposes of the bonus requirements in the contract.

 

Would be interesting to see if Johansson had home ent and TV point and if they count D+ revenues in them and just put the amount twice for pure threshold counting, the way it seem to be phrase seem to be a x every y millions WW is achieved more than point on a CB0

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, SpiderByte said:

Oh they were never going to settle in court. This is not something any of the studios will want a legal precedent on.

 

Could be, but I am not sure what the precedent that would matter be, is a 1,500 screens release meant an exclusive theatrical run on a contract signed before 2020 ? Well maybe considering that question could be a recurrent one in the next months, but long term it is not like there will ever be a contract that do not specify it explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



51 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Could be, but I am not sure what the precedent that would matter be, is a 1,500 screens release meant an exclusive theatrical run on a contract signed before 2020 ? Well maybe considering that question could be a recurrent one in the next months, but long term it is not like there will ever be a contract that do not specify it explicitly.

The precedent they are desperate not to be a legal thing is anything that would definitively say that day and date releases hurts theatrical releases. Which is why this Scarjo thing will definitely resolve with a quiet settlement, since that's exactly what she's arguing.

 

Edited by SpiderByte
Link to comment
Share on other sites







Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.