| Disney paid Scarlett Johansson $20 million to make "Black Widow." Johansson thinks Disney owes her a heck of a lot more. Disney doesn't agree. That's the simplest way to understand Hollywood's biggest drama of the week, in which Johansson, one of the world's biggest movie stars, sued Disney, the world's biggest entertainment company. Disney then called Johansson greedy, prompting her agent, Bryan Lourd, to issue a statement attacking Disney. Pay disputes like this are routine, but this case is notable for a couple reasons. It is the culmination of a months-long battle between Hollywood stars and studios over what they should get paid when movies get released on the internet and in theaters at the same time. When the pandemic shuttered theaters, media companies decided to release some of their movies online instead of (or at the same time as) the movie's release in theaters. This was both a way to get their movies out into the world, and to boost their incipient streaming services. While this was good news for most consumers, it was bad news for a handful of actors and directors who make extra money based on box office sales. In addition to their salary, they get paid a share of the movie's total profits and/or a bonus when a movie eclipses a certain threshold at the box office. This is how Robert Downey Jr. made a reported $75 million from "Avengers: Endgame." But in the streaming model, individual titles don't generate a profit or a loss. Titles are successful if they drive subscriptions to a streaming service. Movie stars don't get a cut of new Disney+ (or HBO Max) subscriptions. Netflix has avoided a war with talent because it pays so much money upfront. It treats most movies as if they were hits. Warner Bros. eventually did the same. Movie stars were furious with the studio at first when they found out their movies would be released on HBO Max. They threatened a lawsuit. They called Warner Bros. the devil. Then Warner Bros. paid them a ton of money, and they piped down. Disney has been handling its titles on a more case-by-case basis, and had avoided any public fights until now. This brings us to the second surprise: You almost never see pay disputes involving stars of this magnitude results in lawsuits. Hollywood prefers to negotiate rather than litigate. Disney could have prevented this headache with a check, but it declined to pay up. It felt that it could pay talent in the same manner that it does on theatrical release. Unlike Netflix or HBO Max, Disney is charging people an additional fee to watch the movie at home, and counting that money towards the movie's overall box office figure. Paying Johansson on top of that box office figure could set a precedent for talent in other streaming movies. Disney will argue "Black Widow" is making more money than it would have with a traditional release. The handful of movies released the old-fashioned way have not done so well because only so many people are willing to go to the theater. Disney is giving customers more ways to pay to see "Black Widow." Yet there's also no question that Disney is dropping "Black Widow" on Disney+ to boost subscribers. And Disney, like Netflix and HBO Max, isn't sharing any of its Disney+ subscription money. And yet, as much coverage as this story has gotten, this is still just a contractual dispute between a conglomerate and a rich person over how to split hundreds of millions of dollars. (In that sense, this case reminds me a little bit of Taylor Swift's fight for her masters.) Had Disney just renegotiated Johansson's deal, there would be no lawsuit. Disney can release movies on streaming going forward without risking a lawsuit. The company is only involved in a legal dispute because it changed plans at the last minute. If Johansson wins, it doesn't help the grip on the movie, or the stunt double. It doesn't mean every movie star will get paid more either. We should hear soon if there's any frustration from the stars of "Jungle Cruise," another blockbuster Disney dropped on Disney+ the same day it appeared in theaters. (Stars of these kinds of Disney movies get both profit-sharing and box office bonuses.) If she loses, it doesn't hurt them either. This is an episode of "Entourage" not a sequel to "Working Girl." Richard Rushfield does a great job outlining why this may not be some watershed moment in the history of Hollywood talent relations. Johansson was at the end of her Marvel contract, giving her more freedom to fight. Few people under a long-term contract with Marvel want to go to court, and there's no world in which Johansson's agency, CAA, stops working with Disney. This case is headed for some kind of settlement. Scarlett Johansson doesn't want Disney to pull "Black Widow" from Disney+. She wants to get paid a fat sum of money for being a guinea pig in this Disney+ experiment. And Disney doesn't want to get sued by five movie stars at the same time. There is one solution that could make everyone look good. Disney could settle with Johansson, and the actress could donate her extra pay to workers who lost their jobs during the pandemic. Just a thought. – Lucas Shaw | 
Post a Comment