|
Neubauer Artists LLC Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
Johansson claims that her salary was based on the film’s box office performance, which opened strong in the United States with $80million. However, the second week saw a sharp 67% decline, the steepest second-week decline of any Marvel Cinematic Universe release. Exhibitors have blamed the simultaneous release of Black Widow on Disney+ for the drop.
According to Johansson’s complaint, her lawyers reached out to Disney back in 2019 with concerns about the plan to give Black Widow a multi-platform release. After the release strategy was changed, they then attempted to renegotiate Johansson’s contract.
John Berlinski, an attorney at Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, said that it is unlikely that this will be the last case where Hollywood talent stands up to Disney and that, no matter what Disney may pretend, it has a legal obligation to honour its contracts with actors.
Back in May, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek defended the company’s release strategy, stating that flexibility was important and that Disney was attempting to offer greater choice to its customers. In a recent statement, the company fired back at Johansson, claiming that there is no merit to the filing.
Scarlett Johansson‘s lawyer, John Berlinski, hit back at the Walt Disney Company after it filed to move the ongoing Black Widow lawsuit behind closed doors, calling the move predictable and the company’s initial response as “misogynistic.”
“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,” the Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP attorney said, adding, “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,” Berlinski continued. “Yet that is exactly what happened – and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence that proves it.”
According to Deadline, the House of Mouse filed to move the lawsuit to arbitration in New York. “Periwinkle agreed that all claims ‘arising out of, in connection with, or relating to’ Scarlett Johansson’s acting services for Black Widow would be submitted to confidential, binding arbitration in New York,” the motion, filed by Disney’s lawyers Daniel Petrocelli, Leah Godesky and Tim Heafner of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, read.
“Whether Periwinkle’s claims against Disney fall within the scope of that agreement is not a close call: Periwinkle’s interference and inducement claims are premised on Periwinkle’s allegation that Marvel breached the contract’s requirement that any release of Black Widow include a ‘wide theatrical release’ on ‘no less than 1,500 screens,” it continued. “The plain and expansive language of the arbitration agreement easily encompasses Periwinkle’s Complaint.”
“In a futile effort to evade this unavoidable result (and generate publicity through a public filing), Periwinkle excluded Marvel as a party to this lawsuit––substituting instead its parent company Disney under contract-interference theories,” the legal team added. “But longstanding principles do not permit such gamesmanship.”
Johansson’s lawsuit claims her contract with Disney’s Marvel Entertainment promised an exclusive theatrical release, and that her salary was largely based on the film’s performance at the box office. She argues that her contract was breached when the company released Black Widow on its streaming platform Disney+ at the same time it was released in theaters.
About The Author
