https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22600396/scarlett-johansson-suing-disney-black-widow-release This is what happens when people don't read and have no understanding about the English language anymore. Last time I checked, the word "wide" means "largely", "over a vast area"... wide adjective Save Word To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In \ ˈwīd \ wider; widest Definition of wide (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: having great extent : VASTa wide area b: extending over a vast area : EXTENSIVEa wide reputation c: extending throughout a specified area or scope —usually used in combinationnationwideindustry-wide d: COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUSIVEa wide assortment 2a: having a specified extension from side to side3 feet wide b: having much extent between the sides : BROADa wide doorway c: fully openedwide-eyed d: LAX sense 4 3a: extending or fluctuating considerably between limitsa wide variation b: straying or deviating from something specified —used with ofthe accusation was wide of the truth 4of an animal ration : relatively rich in carbohydrate as compared with protein This is the definition of "wide" from the Webster dictionary online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wide. In nowhere does it say "exclusive" or "excluding others and only", "nothing else". This is the definition of "exclusive" from the same webster dictionary online https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive: exclusive adjective Save Word To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In ex·clu·sive | \ ik-ˈsklü-siv , -ziv \ Definition of exclusive (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: excluding or having power to exclude b: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group 2a: excluding others from participation b: snobbishly aloof 3a: accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class) b: STYLISH, FASHIONABLE c: restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense 4a: SINGLE, SOLEexclusive jurisdiction b: WHOLE, UNDIVIDEDhis exclusive attention None of that is included in the definition of "wide". How can she and her lawyer interpret the "wide theatrical release" to be "exclusive theatrical release and no other publishing venues"??? I don't give a crap of what is generally understood, you go by what's written in the freaking contract!! The words in the freaking contract said "wide release" means release over a wide range of theatres but nowhere it said it would be exclusively released to theatres only meaning released exclusively or only or solely to theatres and nowhere else. I blame her lawyer. Scarlett Johansson is an actress; she has no training in law and it's not her job to scrutinize a contract and go over all of the disclaimers, super-fine prints with a microscope and definitions and understand everything that's written there and make sure that it's reflecting exactly what is agreed upon by all parties involved and is in her best interest. That's her lawyer's job. This is what she paid big money to the lawyer for. If the difference between "wide release" and "exclusive release" is understood by some layperson like me, how can it not be picked up by her lawyer? How can her lawyer not question this and seek clarification from Disney about what's "wide release" and "exclusive release" before the contract is signed and instead have to have her to try to renegotiate after the fact when the movie is going to be released in streaming services? By that time, it's already too late. Disney is not going to cough up the money when it sees it's theirs. Her lawyer totally dropped the ball on her. They are either incompetent or were bought by Disney. I hope it's not the latter because that's grounds for disbarment if Johansson is able to prove this. I feel bad for her. Everybody that I know that saw the movie all loved it and said she was great in it as usual. She really deserves what she should've gotten if they had exclusively released the movie to the theatre and not Disney+ which they created to steal movies from NetFlix. I hope she wins and gets rightly compensated but I have a bad feeling that she's going to lose because in the court of contract law, it's what's written in the contract, no matter how fine the print that counts not what's "generally understood" especially when Disney, like stated in the article, is trying to establish the fact that it's the norm that movies by Disney released during the pandemic are released to both theatres and over streaming services. Can't believe Disney is using an unfortunate maladie to try to redefine what's "generally understood". The only ways that she might be able to win is 1) if she can establish that Disney has always released movies exclusively to theatres even when it's stipulated in the contract that it's "wide release to theatres" BEFORE the advent of streaming services (the legal term for it is called modus operandi I believe. I stand to be corrected by anybody who is of the legal profession) It has to be BEFORE, that's very important because Disney can turn around and say well we released movies exclusively to theatres before because there was no streaming services back then so this is due to change of circumstances. and/or 2) if she can provide evidence that somebody in the position of authority from Disney has stated to her somehow, in any confirmed form that the movie is to be released exclusively to theatres only despite what the contract says and if it's ever released over streaming services, she's entitled to extra compensation. Either way it's a long shot. And her lawyer(s) better put in everything that they got to help her win her case in court otherwise they owe her $50 million for not having vetted her contract properly. But whether they win or lose the case, if I were Johansson, I would fire them and have nothing to do with them.
She expected to make millions more with the release of the movie in the theaters due to her back end deal. Disney used the movie to stream on Disney + (with that being their intent from the beginning) to increase subscriptions and earnings. COVID still have put a damper on movie going audiences so it was released in theaters but not in the way it would have if it were 2019 Summer. Without specific language in any contract I don't see a case here. I dont know when the contracts were signed because if they were signed in 2018 or 2019 then it would be understood that it was going to be a theater only release which is why Scarlett signed the back end deal. But no one could have predicted COVID and unique circumstances. She would have to argue some intent to mislead or that Disney could have released it in movies but chose to go the streaming route despite any promises made. But as you point out in contract law, no one gives a shit what you promised or thought, only matters what is in the document that you signed... Disney is all about the feels and image so I could see them working out an arrangement for additional compensation given the success of the movie. The case though will change the nature of back end deals being signed with so many streaming services.
The problem is the term theatrical release means to make particular Digital Entertainment Content commercially available to consumers in a cinema or theater on a basis other than for test purposes. The lawyers have a point. Online streaming is not covered by that definition.
That's why I say her lawyer totally dropped the ball on her. They shouldn't have relied on what is "generally understood" to represent contract terms. That is why you have a contract. If everybody just goes by what's "generally understood" in everybody's mind and believes that's sufficient, then why would you need a contract in a written form with words spelling out everything? That's why I say unless she and her lawyer can demonstrate in court with overwhelming evidence that the term "wide release in theatres" are well understood to be exclusive theatrical release and nowhere else in light of the existence of streaming services such as movies by Disney that also had contract terms "wide release in theatres" were exclusively released to theatres only despite the presence of streaming services, or that Disney promised her exclusive theatrical release in any other way besides what's written contract covid or non-covid, her case is going to be thrown out. Covid really has nothing to do with it; Disney is just using that as a smokescreen and an excuse to further legitimize the practice of simultaneous release of movies to both theatres and streaming services in case if the "generally understood" general practice or the spirit of the law is what dictates the entertainment industry. Seriously, to increase subscriptions and earnings for their streaming service, they would've used any excuses possible for the simulataneous release. And Disney better compensates her for what she's contributed to their bottom line. No matter how much Johansson makes, Disney is still the bigger winner always. Yup for sure. Now the contract would need to be more specific: Exclusive release to theatres only or wide release to theatres which may entail release also to available streaming services and specific compensation arrangement in all scenarios.
If they are smart, they would keep the same actress who's been laying the golden eggs for them unless they want the rest of the Marvel series involving Black Widow to end up to be like the Transformers franchise when they got rid of Megan Fox.
I'm no entertainment expert, but it seems like the disparity between what a movie ticket costs and what it costs to watch that same movie on a streaming service is vastly different. I live 12 minutes from Disney Springs here in Orlando, which is sort of like an outside mall where anyone can go to shop, eat, watch movies, attend concerts, etc without having to actually pay for a ticket to go into the main theme park. For a family of four to see Black Widow at Disney Springs, the grand total is about $64. Factor in the price for concessions at the theatre, and that total would easily jump to over $100. For that same family, streaming the movie on Disney+ at home cost about $30. The family destroys a large bag of Doritos and a 2-Liter pepsi in the process, so we'll factor in another $5, so the grand total is $35, or roughly 1/3rd of the price of going to the theater. So by making the value proposition so much better for a family of four, or even more so for a group of 5 or more friends to just watch the movie at someone's home, I can see how the star actor or actress would lose a significant portion of any backend royalties based solely on theatre ticket sales. And it appears that this is probably not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon until the industry FINALLY starts releasing all films on the same day to all delivery channels and stops with the century-old legacy of catering to outdated movie venues like AMC, Regal, Cinemark, etc.
Well they already killed her in Endgame so this was most likely a one off individual movie that was a few years too late in the storyline...