Black Widow News and Speculation Thread

[Mysteryman]

Chapek def seems to be a lot less creator friendly than Iger.

I was at an online forum yesterday.
The topic was the Black Widow lawsuit.
I suggested that if Iger were still in charge, this would not be happening.
I was told that Chapek was acting on Iger's behalf.
(An assumption not a fact,obviously)
I was practically speechless after they suggested that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I was at an online forum yesterday.
The topic was the Black Widow lawsuit.
I suggested that if Iger were still in charge, this would not be happening.
I was told that Chapek was acting on Iger's behalf.
(An assumption not a fact,obviously)
I was practically speechless after they suggested that.

Yeah, that def isnt a thing. Iger is on his way out and I have seen plenty of rumors about Iger and Chapek not getting along. So that def doesn't pass the smell test

 

[Asharad]

they feel that Disney wouldn't be treating her male co-stars the same way.

They aren't wrong.

 

[Web-Head]

 

[The Caped Knight]

Pandora’s box has been opened lol

literately. And the worst part is Black Widow the film suffers. ScarJo finally gets a solo film and it’s met with all this tension and drama.

 

[psylockolussus]

For a second I thought that was serious.

 

[Mysteryman]

For a second I thought that was serious.

I did, too, until I saw the last line!

 

[Prison Mike]

I would watch that movie with them as the Angels

 

[psylockolussus]

I would watch that movie with them as the Angels

Which would instantly be better than the reboot angels, and potentially top the trio of Cameron/Lucy/Drew.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Which would instantly be better than the reboot angels, and potentially top the trio of Cameron/Lucy/Drew.

How dare you. No one can top the Charisma of CLD.

 

[metaphysician]

Yes. Its frankly bizarre to see people portraying Disney as the innocent victims of Scarlett Johansson's rapacious greed.

In general, I'd say it comes from two sources:

1. An envious desire to see "rich people" screwed, that doesn't care who or what provides the screwing. As long as someone with more than some arbitrary amount of money suffers, they enjoy it.

2. A fallacious belief that ethics and morals depend on who the victim is, rather than the actual deed done. I.E., "its not a crime to rob and defraud if the victim is rich".

 

[Zarex]

Chapek could have three of the most high profile actresses in Hollywood suing the Mouse for breach of contract.

 

[psylockolussus]

How dare you. No one can top the Charisma of CLD.

Yeah well. I'm not quite sure if Emma, Scarlett and Emily would have a good chemistry on screen as angels. But their star power could draw a lot of people.

 

[Fosterson]

In general, I'd say it comes from two sources:

1. An envious desire to see "rich people" screwed, that doesn't care who or what provides the screwing. As long as someone with more than some arbitrary amount of money suffers, they enjoy it.

Because if there's anyone fit to lead the proletarian class struggle against the oppressive bourgeoisie, it's definitely *checks notes* the Walt Disney Corporation.

 

[Fosterson]

Chapek could have three of the most high profile actresses in Hollywood suing the Mouse for breach of contract.

And no doubt potentially many more to come if Chapek doesn't get his head out of his a**.

 

[Zarex]

It absolutely ASTOUNDS me that Disney didn't get ahead of this mess after seeing what AT&T went through after putting their entire slate onto MAX. Even if Disney ends up winning the lawsuit(s) the company loses.

 

[Fosterson]

It absolutely ASTOUNDS me that Disney didn't get ahead of this mess after seeing what AT&T went through after putting their entire slate onto MAX. Even if Disney ends up winning the lawsuit(s) the company loses.

As John Campea has said, they obviously had the attitude of: "We're Disney and we can do whatever the f**k we want!"

That arrogance has come back to bite them.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

It absolutely ASTOUNDS me that Disney didn't get ahead of this mess after seeing what AT&T went through after putting their entire slate onto MAX. Even if Disney ends up winning the lawsuit(s) the company loses.

Not only did they not get ahead of it, they also refused to renegotiate when ScarJo asked them nicely.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

As John Campea has said, they obviously had the attitude of: "We're Disney and we can do whatever the f**k we want!"

That arrogance has come back to bite them.

Bob Chapek:

 

[Zarex]

Disney should have kept these films in the Disney Vault until they came to an arrangement with all of the actors that had gross points written into their contracts. With the pandemic showing no signs of leaving - Thanks Anti Vaxxers! - it was in the best interest of both sides to get these films released, and they should have been relatively pain free negotiations. Playing hardball after the fact was absolutely the wrong move.

 

[Mysteryman]

Disney should have kept these films in the Disney Vault until they came to an arrangement with all of the actors that had gross points written into their contracts. With the pandemic showing no signs of leaving - Thanks Anti Vaxxers! - it was in the best interest of both sides to get these films released, and they should have been relatively pain free negotiations. Playing hardball after the fact was absolutely the wrong move.

Well, the hardball tactics didn't work.
So, they will go the Way of the DoDo, as will Bob Chapek.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Where Disney has really failed thus far is being so defensive and trying to paint ScarJo as an unsympathetic human being because of COVID and revealing how much she made for the film already.

 

[metaphysician]

There isn't really an easy answer to that because we are dealing with hypothetical numbers in this case. But Disney and Scarjo will find that number

Relatively straightforward option: take the amount its earned on Premium Streaming, add it to the box office. Calculate residuals and bonus from there. That should at least land you in a defensible ballpark, since its not working off hypothetical "would have should have" numbers, but on an actual concrete dollar amount of revenue that it actually *did* draw in.

 

[metaphysician]

No I care about those people as well, the difference is scale and publicity. Companies cannot break agreements with you. I don't care if you are a nobody or a millionaire. I have zero sympathy for mega corporations when they try to screw their employees and get caught doing it.

Also, something that shouldn't be overlooked: if people with enough money and fame and lawyers to get this kind of attention can't be assured of fair handling of their contracts and rights, then how much protection do you think people will get who *don't* have those resources? One should care about cases like this because if someone can't get justice in the best case scenario, they sure as hell aren't going to be getting it in the worst case scenario. And "this precedent only counts if the victim has a ton of money" is not a thing that actually exists in law; the precedent that a contract is not a contract and your employer can screw you *absolutely* applies to J Random Gas Station Attendant, even if the precedent was set by a legal fight involving rich actors.

 

[metaphysician]

Because if there's anyone fit to lead the proletarian class struggle against the oppressive bourgeoisie, it's definitely *checks notes* the Walt Disney Corporation.

That's what makes envy so toxic. Doesn't matter who or what benefits from the circumstances, all that matters is getting that jolt of pleasure from someone suffering.