BLACK WIDOW Star Scarlett Johansson Fires Back At "Misogynistic" Disney Following Arbitration Motion

BLACK WIDOW Star Scarlett Johansson Fires Back At "Misogynistic" Disney Following Arbitration Motion

Earlier today, we brought you the news that Disney has filed a motion demanding that Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow lawsuit be moved to arbitration. Now, the actress has fired back with a statement...

By MarkCassidy - Aug 21, 2021 09:08 AM EST
Filed Under: Black Widow
Source: Via Deadline

We told you this situation was only going to get nastier!

Earlier today, it came to light that Disney has filed a motion demanding that Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow suit be moved to arbitration, and the actress (via her lawyer John Berlinski) has now fired back.

“After initially responding to this litigation with a misogynistic attack against Scarlett Johansson, Disney is now, predictably, trying to hide its misconduct in a confidential arbitration,” reads the statement. “Why is Disney so afraid of litigating this case in public? Because it knows that Marvel’s promises to give Black Widow a typical theatrical release ‘like its other films’ had everything to do with guaranteeing that Disney wouldn’t cannibalize box office receipts in order to boost Disney+ subscriptions.

Yet that is exactly what happened – and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence that proves it.”

Johansson's lawsuit alleges that her contract was breached when the Marvel Studios movie was released on Disney+ and in theaters at the same time. Apparently, Black Widow had been guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release when the Academy Award-nominee signed on to reprise the role of Natasha Romanoff, and she is now claiming that Disney was aware that making the movie available to stream would dissuade theatre attendance, but "did so anyway, knowingly and intentionally."

However, Disney maintains that the film fulfilled its obligations by playing on more than 9,000 screens in the U.S. and has earned $367M+ at the worldwide box office along with $125M+ on streaming, bringing its collective haul to almost $500M.

Will The Mouse House succeed in moving the case away from the public eye? We'll keep you posted.
Scarlett Johansson Reflects On BLACK WIDOW Legal Battle With Disney: It Felt Very Unprofessional
Related:

Scarlett Johansson Reflects On BLACK WIDOW Legal Battle With Disney: "It Felt Very Unprofessional"

THE FANTASTIC FOUR: First Look At Galactus Revealed During SDCC Drone Show As Marvel Teases Hall H Plans
Recommended For You:

THE FANTASTIC FOUR: First Look At Galactus Revealed During SDCC Drone Show As Marvel Teases Hall H Plans

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2 3 4 5 6
TheShellyMan
TheShellyMan - 8/21/2021, 9:37 AM
Oh, snap!
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 8/21/2021, 9:40 AM
Yes habibi, THE FIRE RISES!!!

Deshi!
Deshi!
Basara!
Basara!
Deshi!
Deshi!
Basara!
Basara!
dracula
dracula - 8/21/2021, 9:44 AM
Get she is mad but how is a company defending itself misogynistic. Not like any male actors are suing them and they are treating then better
SonOfAGif
SonOfAGif - 8/21/2021, 9:55 AM
@dracula - Because Bob Chapek is destroying Disney. He was the one who ultimately decided to use Black Widow as a catalyst to boost Disney+ subscriptions during the Pandemic. He saw that Mulan and Cruella weren't the power house they needed to convince subscribers but Black Widow did it. And in doing so it negated potential Box Office returns for Scarlett. The agreement was for Black Widow to only release in theaters. After they negotiated, Chapek secretly moved forward with a Disney+ release as well so they can keep 100% of Disney+ profits and Scarlett gets whatever scraps the box office gave.
MosquitoFarmer
MosquitoFarmer - 8/21/2021, 10:08 AM
@dracula - To be fair, we didn't technically hear her say misogynistic. Could have been her lawyers word of choice (but obviously she must be behind the statement, so there's that).
Origame
Origame - 8/21/2021, 10:10 AM
@SonOfAGif - while I'm ultimately on Johanssons side on this, what you said is in no way misogynistic.
SonOfAGif
SonOfAGif - 8/21/2021, 10:24 AM
@Origame - In a way it is because during Ike Perlmutters tenure with Marvel he was against female solo films and minority heroes joining. When he was demoted and Bob Iger stepped in, he gave Kevin control over decisions with Marvel Studios properties. Here comes Chapek and decides to use Black Widow as the trump card to push Disney +. He selected Scarlett Johanssons only solo movie and her final film with Marvel as a weapon. They didn't renegotiate with her nor did they even entertain the legal side of it. Robert Downey Jr had this issue with Disney prior with higher pay raises and he won. Do you think they would have pulled this on RDJ or Chris Evans?
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 8/21/2021, 10:47 AM
@SonOfAGif @dracula - The lawyer said Disney's RESPONSE was misogynistic. Which I also don't get. Their response to Scarlett's lawsuit wasn't misogynistic at all lol
Macas
Macas - 8/21/2021, 11:12 AM
@SonOfAGif - It's my understanding she agreed to a cut of Disney+ profits/subscriptions. What it sounds like is that she didn't get enough of a cut to offset the mediocre box office. If Shang Chi & the Eternal knock it out of the park, she is in trouble. Because even with a partial Disney+ release, it is pretty easy to tell how many people watched it on Box Office + Disney+. . So if the combined total doesn't come close to what Shang Chi does in theatrical release, then her argument falls apart. It simply means that no one wanted to go see a story about a dead character who is not getting a sequel nor has any future in the MCU except for filler appearances for historical MCU projects set in the past. This was Marvel's first, and maybe last, one-off anthology movie. She can't only blame Disney for Black Widow bombing. I found it strange that no other Avengers appeared in the movie. They used the "We wanted BW to carry her own movie and show she didn't need the boys to be successful" excuse. Well, guess what; it turns out that she did need one of the boys. Sorry, went off on a tangent.
Origame
Origame - 8/21/2021, 11:19 AM
@SonOfAGif - first, Ike perlmutter has nothing to do with this. Second, black widow was intended to release over a year ago with theaters only now starting to go full swing, and even then they struggle to get full attendance. Getting any amount of money makes sense. Sure, they should've renegotiated the deal, but that doesn't make it misogynistic. You even brought up a similar situation with rdj. If they did it to a guy as well then they're not being misogynistic. They're terrible people, sure. But not misogynistic.
Origame
Origame - 8/21/2021, 11:22 AM
@Macas - considering Shang chi is going straight to theaters for 45 days, Scarlett is banking on that movie knocking it out of the park as it will act as proof black widow would've been much more successful had it been released exclusively in theaters.
SonOfAGif
SonOfAGif - 8/21/2021, 11:35 AM
@Macas - If Shang Chi knocks it out of the park, Disney is in trouble. It only furthers her argument that Disney hindered her royalties by doing a dual release one of which denied her of any form of returns.
DanFlashesShirt
DanFlashesShirt - 8/21/2021, 11:49 AM
@SonOfAGif - yea thats still not ‘misogynistic’. You’re only argument is “they wouldn’t have done this to RDJ or Chris Evans!”

You don’t seem very good at the whole presenting an argument and having points to support it thing.

That said she did get screwed with the D+ thing. Clearly something in there was violated.
Nightwing1015
Nightwing1015 - 8/21/2021, 12:04 PM
@SonOfAGif - "Do you think they would have pulled this on RDJ or Chris Evans?"

That has nothing to do with it. The lawyer called specifically the response sexist, not the situation. I don't think there's a strong argument to say that the statement they issued is sexist.
SonOfAGif
SonOfAGif - 8/21/2021, 12:25 PM
@Nightwing1015 - He said a misogynistic attack to put it in arbitration to keep it quiet. Isn't the whole Me too movement about corporate and Hollywood men keeping women quiet and paying them off behind the scenes to not expose their corruption
?
Drace24
Drace24 - 8/21/2021, 12:32 PM
@SonOfAGif - My god, the drama, it burns!
Dude, it's a pandemic. Disney invested a shit ton into this project and needed to get something out of it. Since movies right now tend to die in their second week, they used Disney+ as a safety net. Whether or not this was a breach of Johansson's contract is for the justice system to decide, but there was nothing mysogynistic or "destructive" about this decision.

If we have to debate this stupid millionair celebrity drama to the death, could we atleast do it on a reasonable level, please?
Deklipz
Deklipz - 8/21/2021, 1:39 PM
@CorndogBurglar - they likely wouldn’t have disclosed financial details of a male costar in her position. They tried to paint her in as bad a light as possible in their response.
Nightwing1015
Nightwing1015 - 8/21/2021, 2:09 PM
@SonOfAGif - Yeah he said the statment was a sexist attack which it wasn't. There was nothing women-hating about that statement. There was nothing sexist about it either. There was plenty wrong with it from a civil perspective, but it was nothing like that.

And no, the me too movement isn't about paying women off, it's about sexually harrassing them
RageDriver2401
RageDriver2401 - 8/21/2021, 9:44 AM
Drace24
Drace24 - 8/21/2021, 12:33 PM
@RageDriver2401 - The "girl" here being a male celebrity lawyer!
MuadDib
MuadDib - 8/21/2021, 9:45 AM
If HBO can pay extra to those who’s movies didn’t premier solely in theaters, Disney should be able to do the same. That’s said, she comes off as greedy. It’s not misogynistic, I’d feel the same if some dude got $20M for a mediocre movie and then sued for $50M more.

I don’t believe Athletes should make $100M to play sports while we have Military Veterans living in the streets, kids go hungry and ppl can’t afford medical care.

But like I said, she should have been compensated to a degree. Nothing wrong w/ arbitration if she gets what she wants. Unless her real objective is publicity and to appear as a righteous champion. That’s just not how she’s coming across
1 2 3 4 5 6
View Recorder