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

[Maggie]

Disney is playing dirty by releasing her salary. I hope Scarlett wins!

[TalismanRing]

5 minutes ago, Maggie said:

Disney is playing dirty by releasing her salary. I hope Scarlett wins!

 

Her salary was released as $20m+ awhile ago.  Probably by her own agent.

[TalismanRing]

9 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

IDK why these deals are made on WWBO basis. A $300M in China, studio only get $60M themselves, and after release cost and stuff that will be even lower. Any % deal should be on STUDIO revenue not GROSS.

 

I really doubt it was made just on gross.  RDJ reportedly had an 8% back end deal on AEG = he did not get $240m

[Maggie]

I think the bigger issue here is that A-listers like Scarlett are terrified of streaming. They won't get paid from the tickets sold, who knows how they'll calculate their salary from streaming minutes watched.

[charlie Jatinder]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I really doubt it was made just on gross.  RDJ reportedly had an 8% back end deal on AEG = he did not get $240m

Yeah 8% of profits after allowing studio distribution fees will make sense. As in famous Harry Potter loss 

 

 

 

 

[Maggie]

Streaming is happening for a number of years. Has Netflix made any A-lister? Crickets...

 

Scarlett worked hard to get where she is. She's been acting making her resume since she was a child.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Maggie

[Saul Goodman]

Man Disney keeps looking worse in this whole thing.

[WittyUsername]

Not that I’m defending Disney, but between a hybrid release or delaying this movie again, I prefer that they went with the former. This movie really isn’t worth holding up the rest of the Phase 4 lineup. 

[imbruglia]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/

 

so...

[imbruglia]

there're lots of popular acts coming from Netflix works. you're too old or living under rock if you don't know that.

 

 

 

[Porthos]

Whole lot of non-lawyers on this thread, so it's instructive to look at what one lawyer thinks of it:

 

 

That's toward the end of the chain, as there are some key bits before and after it.  If folks actually care about the merits of the case and how it pertains to the US legal system (both in theory and in practice), I'd suggest reading it in full.

 

Now is only one lawyer's opinion, but he's a fairly well regarded one.

 

(also as he notes, this might drag on for a while as seen by the controversy over Disney not paying royalties to book authors when it bought various properties)

[Saul Goodman]

 

 

[Joel M]

26 minutes ago, imbruglia said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/

 

so...

 

Hmmm giant media conglomerates try to fuck talent out of the new media monopoly they 're building for themselves, and when said talent fights back totally spontaneous articles from totally unbiased industry trades pop up to inform us that talent is being selfish and acting out and should just shut up and no make a hustle because they re gonna lose.

 

Did we jump into the Hot Tub Time Machine and end back on 2008 Writer's strike? cause I have flashbacks.

 

 

In other words, Johansson can point to industry custom, but this moment in Hollywood’s history is truly unprecedented. Does that excuse the $50 million in box office bonuses she expected? We’ll see, but surely Johansson is not the only one facing disappointing financial returns during this pandemic and Disney should and does get some discretion on the best way to leverage its content.

 

Disney just hassle to put some food on the table in these trying covid times you guys.

 

 

 

[Last Man Standing]

The pull Disney has with the press compared to every other studio is insane, from strangely favorable reviews to glowing coverage regardless of the shit they try to pull.

[imbruglia]

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/black-widow-scarlett-johansson-disney-fallout-1235031315/

[4815162342]

48 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Whole lot of non-lawyers on this thread, so it's instructive to look at what one lawyer thinks of it:

 

 

That's toward the end of the chain, as there are some key bits before and after it.  If folks actually care about the merits of the case and how it pertains to the US legal system (both in theory and in practice), I'd suggest reading it in full.

 

Now is only one lawyer's opinion, but he's a fairly well regarded one.

 

(also as he notes, this might drag on for a while as seen by the controversy over Disney not paying royalties to book authors when it bought various properties)

 

I read this earlier today and it's a very good analysis. This is definitely a case tailor-made for law school contract classes because of the interpretation aspect

[titanic2187]

Luckily EG was in 2019, just few months before whole crisis breakout. Can you imagine a whole bunch of superhero actor and actress assemble to sue Disney for putting EG on Disney+?

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Why would they give her that deal when they didn't even give it to RDJ?  He reportedly made $50m on IM3 with a back end deal.  His reported deal for Endgame was $20m upfront and 8% on the movies break even back end points.

 

10% of gross would have meant giving her $100m on a a $1b film.  No way was that happening - especially if they were paying her $25m up front

 

Even so, there's no way that BW would have made $500m more during a Pandemic release with a 90 day window.  That $50m potential loss is pie in the sky numbers.

1) We do not know RDH deal (compare the reported deal here of 25M + very little bonus with what seem to transpire, 20M upfront with the vast majority of the expected pay being in bonus structure).

 

2) Movie compensation deal are usually quite pie like, it is common for half of the profit or so to go on the big name, the more name you have the lesser they get (i.e. Pitt-Dicaprio-Tarantino could have accepted a bit less than when they are just 2 big name involved then when they worked the 3 together, they cannot each get an usual 17M+10% for Pitt and 20M+15 or 20 for the other 2), for a movie like Endgame when you have to share with many people, you would take less than on Iron Man 3 and so on. A clear headliner can make more on a movie than a giant star on an assemble movie with big name producers, writer and director. For a giant franchise movie it could be more in the 25% of the revenues going to the big names than 50%, in that case if Feige-writer/director get 8%, RDJ get 8% that leave just an other 8% for everyone else, Disney has spent around 1375 millions USD of the last 2 avengers movie at least using grossly pound to usd, if both movie budget was kept under 750millions combined, that going over 600m in bonus having been distributed for the 2 movie, if RDJ is getting about third of the bonus he is around $200m.

 

3) 10% of the gross is not giving her $100m on a $1b film, if the studio movie rental WW average is say 50%, that would have gave her 1,000 * .5 *.1 = $5M, gross point are not gross box office point, but gross from what the studio get, usually a bit less with some form of off the top being removed from it.

 

To give an example of what they mean by gross (Defined gross receipt), a standard on a contract that is point on the profit could look like this:

 

Application of Defined Gross Receipts. Subject to Paragraph 9.2, below and any other rights and remedies of SPWA as set forth in this Agreement, SPWA shall, on an ongoing and continuing basis, deduct the following from Defined Gross Receipts (in order of priority):

9.1.1. Distribution Fee.

9.1.2. Distribution Expenses.

9.1.3. Interest at a rate of Two Percent (2%) over the prime interest rate, as announced from time to time by Bank of America at its home office (“Interest”), on the Minimum Guarantee.

9.1.4. The Minimum Guarantee.

9.1.5. Any amounts remaining shall be allocated 2/3 to Licensor (“Licensor Share”) and 1/3 to SPWA 9.2. SPWA shall have the right to cross-collateralize the Defined Gross Receipts (after SPWA deducts its Distribution Fee) derived from SPWA’s exploitation of the Rights throughout the Territory with respect to the Picture for purposes of collecting Interest, recouping the Distribution Expenses and the Minimum Guarantee, and calculating the Licensor Share.

 

 

When you have point before reaching profit you can remove the 9.1.2, 9.1.4 but not all of it, it is rarely directly on the rental. That why it is $50M and not more.

 

3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

Even so, there's no way that BW would have made $500m more during a Pandemic release with a 90 day window.  That $50m potential loss is pie in the sky numbers.

That $50m is maybe a starting negotiating figure that I would imagine, that is not on the claim, but someone familiar with the contract claimed to the wsj, we do know the structure of the bonus she had (it could have been an escalator that goes up to 15-20% past a point, the highest I ever saw was Will Smith getting about 50% past a certain point on Concussion , but Fate of the furious with Johnson did less than Captain Marvel in theatrical rental, so I could see them try to argue that this should have done better than the latest Fast movie, even if that is pushing it speculation wise. If they settle with that movie would have made $400m more and with the escalator deal structure that would have turned out in 22.5M more with some punitive added in, I would not be surprise, or they will go on with it and win in court that it was some act of God situation mixed with a nice access to the revenues (I could see Disney having opened up the D+ at a near 100% in her pool of revenues in her contract) making it fair and best that was available to the court and win.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Barnack

[SpiderByte]

1 hour ago, Last Man Standing said:

The pull Disney has with the press compared to every other studio is insane, from strangely favorable reviews to glowing coverage regardless of the shit they try to pull.

People keep saying this but theres no real evidence of it. Otherwise explain John Carter, Lone Ranger, Rise of Skywalker, New Mutants, any number of movies that critically tanked.

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, charlie Jatinder said:

IDK why these deals are made on WWBO basis. A $300M in China, studio only get $60M themselves, and after release cost and stuff that will be even lower. Any % deal should be on STUDIO revenue not GROSS.

When it is not a deal on profit, There is 2 major type of deal, point or benchmark (sometime a mix with escalation)

 

You get point on the studio revenues (something on a percentage of said revenues, say 20 or 30% of DVD revenues was the norm on gross point).

 

Or you have a $500K bonus if the movie reach each of those benchmark 100m, 120m, 140m, 160m, 180m, 200m domestic or a WW threashold.

 

That was Jennifer Aniston compensation for her cameo on Horrible Bosses 2 for an example.

$3.5MM fee (15 days over schedule of PP; includes post days)

+

Bo bonuses:

$500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM

$500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM

$500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM

$500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM

v.

Participation: 5% of SG @ CB 0%. 5% DG @ CB 0% until artist has eraned an amount equal to $2.25MM there from

+

On screen, single card and in billing block grouped with the “with” credits

+

Perqs: Didn’t have a perq fund but NLC agreed to engage certain members of her personal crew ( stylist, makeup, wardrobe, costume designer, assistant, and security guard)

 

On we're the millers:

$4.5MM fee (schedule of PP)

v.

bo bonuses:

$250k @ DBO $70MM or WWBO $140MM

$375k @ DBO $80MM or WWBO $160MM

$375k @ DBO $90MM or WWBO $180MM

$500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM

$500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM

(non applic)

$500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM

$500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM

$500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM

$500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM

+

Credit: on screen, main titles in first position; paid ads

+

Perqs: $500K covered travel, personnel, housing, food, transportation and security

 

 

When there is a V it is one or the other, you get the biggest of the 2 amount, often calculated in a way that you start to get more once the movie goes into profit territory.

 

Mark Wahlberg on Transformer deal was an escalating, point that growth like tax rate:

Wahlberg received $15M for Transformers, but has options in place for 2 sequels, at $19M and $20M respectively.  Sounds like maybe this film and the first optional picture were averaged to come up with the $17M.  Sounds like there may have been a $1M hold, but the assumption is that it was applicable.

 

Because of all the players (Hasbro, Lorenzo, Bay, Spielberg, etc) and a 25 point first dollar cap, Wahlberg received 4%GP starting at $225M ww AGR, then escalated to 5% @ $425M ww AGR, 6% @ $725M ww AGR, and 7.5% @ $825M ww AGR.

 

So I'm still feeling good about the $12M with 12%GP for purposes of the pool conversion.  Wahlberg did have a 30% HV royalty, but we've been running the pool at 35%HV for payout and I don't expect we'll try to roll him back — but just one more favorable thing for him in our proposal, potentially.