Scarlett Johansson Was Reportedly "Emboldened" To Sue Disney Because She's Done Playing BLACK WIDOW

@colonel179

**After seeing her agent, it's totally obvious that he is the one responsible of convincing Scarlett Johansson to sue Disney.**

You garnered all of this from a picture

@regularmovieguy - he’s clearly an X Man

@colonel179 - Exactly. Makes no sense.

@colonel179 - You act like people streaming are taking advantage of a free service. They're paying $30 for it, so Disney has essentially evaded their deal and gets to keep a significant portion of the profits to themselves.

@colonel179 - black widow would have definitely made more money without synchronized release. Covid has nothing to do with contract violation. Disney has every right to alter their release format and any actor who's contract is violated by that change deserves compensation for the alteration.

@Hulkh8liars - cool I'll keep this comment in mind when I do get around to watching it.

@colonel179 - The mental leap it takes to assume that everyone who paid for PVOD wouldn't have seen it in theaters is astounding. I can only assume you're either biased in favor of Disney or against Scarlett Johansson, because this line of reasoning is truly absurd.

The comment section on this site has seemed right-leaning in the past, so is this some sort of "women who speak out are crazy" thing, or is it a "hail our corporate overlords" thing?

@JamesPunn - I never said everyone, but it would've been the minority. Like I said, in many countries theaters are still closed or most of them are closed. In my country, many people don't want to go to the cinema just yet. I have friends that paid for the Disney+ access, but wouldn't have gone to the movies, so if they didn't have the chance to watch in on Disney+, they would've missed it until much later. They also won't go to see Suicide Squad, Shang Chi or Eternals.

I'm not bias in favor of anything. Why would I be in favor of one or the other? I'm just a guy competing in the internet. Also, this has nothing to do with women speaking out. I'm giving my opinions based on the situation regardless of who the actress is and the company involved. It could've been Sony and Tony Hawk, and I'd still have the same opinion.

@IronSpider101 - @IronSpider101 - Oof! Where to start here...

"They had contractually stated the release would be a certain way"

Yes, they contractually stated that the movie would release in theatres. (According to the wording in Johansson's lawsuit.) Which it did. Does that mean "ONLY theatres"? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I only know that according to Legal Eagle on Youtube, Disney might actually be in the right.

"And to top that off they're trying to use "But Covid!" as a way to make Scarjo look bad and demonize her in the public eye."

Hold on! It was Johansson's attorney who accused Disney of abusing the pandemic to enrich themselfs first. Disney pushed back at that, which I find equally yucky, but even more so that than Johansson's attorney clutched his pearls at that. That's just a scummy tactic. I don't like Disney's response either. But it was Johansson's side that set that tone. They went for a mudfight here, trying to win through drama. Which I find more than a little ironic.

"When really, THEY are the greedy and apathetic ones."


Lol. Who's trying to cloud the issue now?
I just think that accusing anyone of greed here is incredibly childish and hypocritical. Disney has earned that money as much as Johansson does. They have invested a shit ton into a project and obviously now they want their profit, especially now that they have fallen on difficult times in an unprecedented era.
I totally understand that Johansson would think that the specific way they did that broke her contract and it's in her right to sue. But the jury is still out whether or not Disney actually did that. We have a justice system to figure that out. Why people choose to turn this disagreement between an employer and an employee into such an infantile mudfight is beyond me.

"I honestly have NO idea how you can look at a situation like this and come out on Disney's side. "

I honestly have NO idea why anyone even needs to pick a side. You can't even really look at the situation, as you say, because you don't have all the information that you would need to have a truly informed image.

Let's face it. The only reason you have your opinion is ALSO because Disney is a big famous company, which in your mind equals greedy and evil. You are one of the enlightened ones, aren't you? The 99% that sticks it to the man. You talk truth to power and stuff, so you root for the poor little underdog.

Newsflash: Scarlett Johansson is the best paid actress in Hollywood. Probably one of the richest artists in the world. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to her money. She obviously does, she worked for it after all. But she can easily afford just as good attorneys as Disney and has absolutely nothing to fear if she loses.
Not saying that that already makes her greedy or evil, just that it's weird to see her get depicted as some kind of hero of the working class fighting the regime.


"Nevermind the fact that they are absolute scumbags even at the absolute best of times."

Now I really want you to specify who "they" is. I know it's easy to depict Disney as some kind of rich hivemind and not a complex organization of hundreds of thousends of people, most of which just wanting to stay employed in order to pay their rents. And even the execs, including Bob Chapek and Bob Iger, passed on a total of billions in salary las year, just to keep more of their workers employed during COVID and park closings. Especially compared to the things that are shockingly common place among equally huge conglomerates in Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tech, the gun industry, the car industry and so many ACTUAL monopolies that people don't even know.
But who gives a shit, cuz holding those accountable is not as fun and self-rightous as trashing Mickey Mouse, I guess. That hypocrisy is really annoying to me.

Aaaanyway... I may have argued a lot for Disney here, but as I said, I also understand Johansson's position and the only side I really root for is that of civil debate and mutual respect.
At the end of the day, this is a super rich celebrity and a super rich company having a petty argument over millions. Both parties for some reason decided to turn this into a mud fight and both behave like jerks here. That's it.

@IronSpider101 - Again! I'm not siding with Disney! I'm saying this situation doesn't make sense. Scarlet Johansson sues as if Disney made triple the amount of money. No one is the winner here! Disney is making a fraction of money they would've done without COVID. It doesn't matter if Disney took advantage of the situation or not.

Let's say the movie was targeted to make 1 Billion dollars. With COVID is making 400-500 million (just inventing). Scarlett Johansson is suing because she wants to earn as if the movie made 1 Billion! It's not possible! Also, if Disney had made the movie exclusive to theaters there's not much money they would've made anyway. Either they made the same or less.

I don't care who is taking advantage of who or who's right! I'm just saying that this is stupid because they are fighting about a money they didn't win because of COVID!

@colonel179 - The problem is that they made an arragnement and when circumstances made that arrangement impossible, rather than renegotiate, they just did whatever they thought was best without consulting the people they were contractually obligated to. That's the principle at stake here, legally speaking. Maybe had they discussed it, Scarjo would've been just fine with it releasing the way it did if they could offer her something else or present her some change to the deal, let her maybe make some suggestions. Stuff like that. But they didn't. It's the lack of negotiation in their decision that's the problem.

And rather than own up to it, they're trying to villify her. Because of course they are, that's Disney.