Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit has had Hollywood on edge for the past few weeks. It all happened because the actress was going to receive a share of the Black Widow box office proceeds – 87%, but feel, like some chains of cinemas, that their performance at the box office was affected by their simultaneous premiere on Disney Plus. From this it follows that they will not give him part of the profits generated by his premiere on the mouse streaming service. And that’s what motivated her to sue.
Subscribe here to Disney Plus
There are those who have taken their side, and those who are on the side of Disney. While it is true that it is okay for her to assert her rights, we cannot ignore that, like other celebrities and studios in the pandemic, we can interpret her complaint as a sign that she would have preferred people to fill the movie theaters, despite that the pandemic is not over and doing so is still a health risk. In that sense, it can be interpreted that she thought something along the lines that maybe some were going to die, but it was a sacrifice that she was willing to take in order to have more profits. Of course, we are not going to say that Disney launched the movie on Disney Plus with the public’s health in mind; most likely he did it thinking about getting as much money as possible.
There are many ways to interpret the whole situation. One of them is that the actress is not someone one should take lightly. It is easy to see what happened as that Disney tried to be smart with the actress because they did not imagine that he was going to respond that way. It is from this perspective that Jamie Lee Curtis has been observing this conflict. Time has been putting out a series of reports on the 100 Most Influential People of 2021. They commissioned Jamie Lee Curtis to do a piece about the actress who brings Black Widow to life (via .). Of course, the whole lawsuit thing is a central part of Curtis’s text. For her there is a certain parallelism between the actions of Johansson and those of Black Widow; both the actress and her character are people who are going to defend themselves from attacks against them perpetrated by patriarchal entities. In other words, it’s a bad idea to mess with the actress:
Also read: What If… ?: Black Widow doesn’t look like Scarlett Johansson for legal reasons
I recently saw her take over the screen as Black Widow, who takes revenge on a powerful figure who manipulates, with an emphasis on “man”, women to fight for him. And then I saw her brilliant response to a real-life manipulation (same emphasis), when she filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the studio, claiming that her decision to release the film simultaneously in streaming and cinema caused her to lose an amount. substantial money. Whether as a killer with a conscience, an actress with an emotional core, or having given birth to her second child, a feisty mother, the message is clear: Don’t fuck with the mother bear.
On the other hand, for Benedict Cumberbatch, the whole thing is a disaster. This is what he said in an interview for The Hollywood Reporter:
It is sad what is happening between lawyers. Just the verbiage and accusations of “Put it in the context of a global pandemic.” The whole thing is a bit of a mess. We are trying to understand what should be the sources of income for the artists who contribute to the multi-million dollar business that is Disney. And it has to have a precedent in contract. How does the normal compensation of an artist with box office bonuses work, how does it work? It is a new paradigm and it is a very complex one.
Before you go, you should read: Black Widow: Scarlett Johansson would have asked $ 100 million for its streaming premiere