• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release

RoboFu

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Nobody_Important said:
No the core issue is that Disney releasing the movie on Disney+ reduced the amount of box office the movie received. And due to the way her contract is worded that means that Disney directly affected how much money they had to pay her.
Click to expand...
you cant say that.. you can easily say more poeple saw the movie becaus eit was on disney+ that otherwise were unwilling to go to the movies.

I mean the whole deal is so she can get part of the Disney+ profits for the move and thats how it should be under that deal, but if it wasnt tanking in the box office i doubt whe would care as much .
 
Last edited:
Azurro

Azurro

Banned
So, I want to get the comment from our resident shilling centipede, sol_bad sol_bad . Who are you going to bat for here? Your woke Scarlett Johansson? Or your woke Disney? :p
 
Turnt

Turnt

Member
Azurro said:
So, I want to get the comment from our resident shilling centipede, sol_bad sol_bad . Who are you going to bat for here? Your woke Scarlett Johansson? Or your woke Disney? :p
Click to expand...
Seems like they already commented about it? You really think people are being paid to post about movies on GAF?
 
Omega Supreme Holopsicon

Omega Supreme Holopsicon

Banned
EviLore said:
What's the box office delta if you put another actress in the place of ScarJo for this film? -$100 million? -$200 million?

She's worth at least as much as she's being paid.
Click to expand...
I think she's worth the price, but we need to also take care of those less fortunate by providing UBI, not beg for scraps with constant paperwork. And regulate reproduction for Christ's sake.

Having children born in abysmal environments in abject poverty with psychologically damaged parents who grow up to be horrible persons or criminals, is a big no no. Society is allowing for vast child abuse, and this is ignoring the millions of child sex slaves stats suggest exist.


And people think it is just kidnapped sex slaves, uber wealthy nor their servants need appear in public, nor have birth in public. A drug addict servant can have a baby in private within a mansion, no birth record, easy sex slave and cannibal food. You could have entire farms of humans producing sex slaves in private, that is the power of privacy and wealth.
strange headache said:
817646a51efcfc684248e2447ed21b9a.jpg


No piece of meat is worth 100mio.
Click to expand...


Perfect skin future genetically engineered super humans synthesized by the computer and 3d bioprinted are worth far far more, their flesh is worth trillions. With such and AI you can replace all human workers and take over the entire global economy.
 
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon

Omega Supreme Holopsicon

Banned
oagboghi2 said:
The other is a girl you will never fuck.

Or even see naked
Click to expand...
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
 
Last edited:
ManaByte

ManaByte

Gold Member
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
Having children born in abysmal environments in abject poverty with psychologically damaged parents who grow up to be horrible persons or criminals, is a big no no. Society is allowing for vast child abuse, and this is ignoring the millions of child sex slaves stats suggest exist.

And people think it is just kidnapped sex slaves, uber wealthy nor their servants need appear in public, nor have birth in public. A drug addict servant can have a baby in private within a mansion, no birth record, easy sex slave and cannibal food. You could have entire farms of humans producing sex slaves in private, that is the power of privacy and wealth.
Click to expand...

What the flying fuck does this have to do with the topic.
 
ArtemisClydeFrog

ArtemisClydeFrog

Banned
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
Click to expand...

Animated GIF
 
ManaByte

ManaByte

Gold Member
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
Click to expand...
ZOPp7xY.gif
 
RoadHazard

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Read she only got $20M for the movie, so yeah, she's barely scraping by.

But the contract should be honored of course.
 
Last edited:
Soodanim

Soodanim

Member
dr_octagon said:
why is gamora?
Click to expand...
Outside of anything I’ve forced out of memory from Guardians 2, this is hands down the shittest joke in the entire MCU.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I think she's worth the price, but we need to also take care of those less fortunate by providing UBI, not beg for scraps with constant paperwork. And regulate reproduction for Christ's sake.

Having children born in abysmal environments in abject poverty with psychologically damaged parents who grow up to be horrible persons or criminals, is a big no no. Society is allowing for vast child abuse, and this is ignoring the millions of child sex slaves stats suggest exist.


And people think it is just kidnapped sex slaves, uber wealthy nor their servants need appear in public, nor have birth in public. A drug addict servant can have a baby in private within a mansion, no birth record, easy sex slave and cannibal food. You could have entire farms of humans producing sex slaves in private, that is the power of privacy and wealth.



Perfect skin future genetically engineered super humans synthesized by the computer and 3d bioprinted are worth far far more, their flesh is worth trillions. With such and AI you can replace all human workers and take over the entire global economy.
Click to expand...

I’ve started to recognise your posts without looking at the name, there’s a certain je nais se quois to them.
 
fran.fernandez

fran.fernandez

Member
Contract should aways be honored. Nobody would like to be paid less after signing a contract with X amount, just because the company think you already had enough.

One day company will call us, we already paid 9 months, why u need more??? Free now vacationnnnnn! (Chinese voice)
 
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs

TheThreadsThatBindUs

Member
Disney isn't too big to get away with breaches of contract. No company should be.

If the suit forces them to renegotiate her earning from the movie then that's fine.

It's shitty as hell to tie her earnings to an exclusive box office launch, then turn around and dishonour that by simultaneously launching on the streaming service.

You've gotta assume they absolutely knew it would result in this suit. Quite how Disney and Marvel's entire army of legal folks couldn't have foreseen that making the decision to launch simultaneously on Disney+ would open them up to liability due to breach of contract with the actors/actresses in the movie, is beyond belief.
 
Last edited:
ManaByte

ManaByte

Gold Member
TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
You've gotta assume they absolutely knew it would result in this suit. Quite how Disney and Marvel's entire army of legal folks couldn't have foreseen that making the decision to launch simultaneously on Disney+ would open them up to liability due to breach of contract with the actors/actresses in the movie, is beyond belief.
Click to expand...

No, Disney knew that which is why they completely reorganized their company around streaming and how contracts are written. In terms of Marvel, starting with Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (which is filming now) contracts do not guarantee a theatrical release so they have the freedom to put the movie wherever they want without something like this happening.

www.cnbc.com

Disney says its 'primary focus' for entertainment is streaming — announces a major reorg

Disney is restructuring its media and entertainment divisions, as streaming becomes the most important facet of the company's business.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
TheThreadsThatBindUs

TheThreadsThatBindUs

Member
ManaByte said:
No, Disney knew that which is why they completely reorganized their company around streaming and how contracts are written. In terms of Marvel, starting with Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (which is filming now) contracts do not guarantee a theatrical release so they have the freedom to put the movie wherever they want without something like this happening.

www.cnbc.com

Disney says its 'primary focus' for entertainment is streaming — announces a major reorg

Disney is restructuring its media and entertainment divisions, as streaming becomes the most important facet of the company's business.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...

So they knew it in the case of Black Widow and just bit the bullet anyway. Well I guess they fully expected this lawsuit and I'm sure they'll just end up settling out of court.
 
M

mortal

Banned
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
Click to expand...
FfySNtX.gif
 
Nobody_Important

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
Click to expand...
fyVz.gif
 
mansoor1980

mansoor1980

Gold Member
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
I mean sure you won't find out if she has a mole somewhere hidden or a bit of excess skin somewhere. But guess what the female body of all ages and sizes is public domain. As is the perfect no excess skin pussy. Similar happens with men, sure you can have a bunch of excess skin that looks weird, but there's the skinless depiction as well. Size a few more inches a few less matter not.

And guess what right now DNN can do picture clothes removal, and soon it will do video and interactive video clothes removal. With smart glasses you will have her voice synthesized words speaking and singing and saying whatever you tell her to say, while she strip-dances like a hologram in front of you, with perfect nipples and perfect pussy deep faked.

edit: And while not technically her, by publishing her image her body is basically public domain unless fundamental privacy rights are annulated. Further into the future a 3d bioprinter can print a pretty good copy of her body, to be controlled by ai in the computer or remotely by others. with vr suits or neural interfaces.
Click to expand...
LightheartedCaringAiredale-size_restricted.gif
 
RoboFu

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Jungle cruise is #1 at the box office and launch on d+ at the same time. Just saying 🤷‍♂️
 
K

KAL2006

Banned
Did the contract say it has to be a exclusive theatrical release. If it didn't say anything about exclusivity then she has no claim
 
ManaByte

ManaByte

Gold Member
KAL2006 said:
Did the contract say it has to be a exclusive theatrical release. If it didn't say anything about exclusivity then she has no claim
Click to expand...
Ms. Johansson said in the suit that her agreement with Disney’s Marvel Entertainment guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release, and her salary was based in large part on the box-office performance of the film.
Click to expand...
 
Kev Kev

Kev Kev

Member
lmfao at disney taking the covid shaming route. what a bunch of pathetic cunts.

i hope she wins big. if what they are claiming is true, disney needs to be taught a hard lesson here. i want that judge to be an asshole about it too. just throw the book at them, they fucking deserve it.
 
K

KAL2006

Banned
Okay so contract said exclusive theatrical release and not just theatrical release. If that's the case what a dumb oversight from Disney. All they had to do is release in theatres exclusively for 2 days then release on Disney Plus. They are a billionaire company and they don't have people looking at contracts to make sure contracts are met.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
All the posturing on Twitter is ignoring the basic point: It's a breach of contract lawsuit. If The Mouse breached the contract, then she will win. If they did not, then she will lose. Everything else is just trying to win the court of public opinion and no one gives a fuck. The Mouse is the world's most powerful and influential media company but they are still not above honoring contracts they sign.
 
IntentionalPun

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I don't know why anyone in this thread is even discussing this as if it isn't something going on between agencies... it's not SarJo alone standing up in court to sue Disney.

She's represented by agents/an agency who get a cut of her pay too. They'd likely demand a lawsuit whether she cared enough or not.

But in general.. you don't let someone break a contract. Some of you are ridiculous lol
 
Last edited:
mcjmetroid

mcjmetroid

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
All the posturing on Twitter is ignoring the basic point: It's a breach of contract lawsuit. If The Mouse breached the contract, then she will win. If they did not, then she will lose. Everything else is just trying to win the court of public opinion and no one gives a fuck. The Mouse is the world's most powerful and influential media company but they are still not above honoring contracts they sign.
Click to expand...
Agreed.. it really is that simple. It's one of the most cut and dry things to argue about on a forum ever.

Did they break her contract.. yes or no.

Eveything else...does...not.. matter.
 
dr_octagon

dr_octagon

Banned
Kev Kev said:
lmfao at disney taking the covid shaming route. what a bunch of pathetic cunts.

i hope she wins big. if what they are claiming is true, disney needs to be taught a hard lesson here. i want that judge to be an asshole about it too. just throw the book at them, they fucking deserve it.
Click to expand...
Disney's logic is 'covid means all complaints are suspended cos fuck you and look over there, don't criticise us'

sol_bad said:
The weirdest thing about this thread is the Disney haters backing Disney. Really weird.
Click to expand...
Actress should have been non-white to garner sympathy or some CCP shilling happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scarlett Johansson Reportedly Asked Disney for $100M Due to Black Widow's Day and Date Release
2
72
5K
hemo memo replied
Disney May Still Release Black Widow on Disney+ (Despite Denying it)
19
2K
GeorgPrime replied
Disney reorganizes the company to focus on streaming, content development separated from distribution
29
2K
Kayoba replied
The State of Xbox Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks: A breakdown of all the Confirmed Projects, Leaks, and Rumors
Opinion News Rumor 2
84
12K
Ozriel replied
How Ms. Marvel became Marvel’s most important superhero
Clickbait Cringe
38
5K
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom