Image via Marvel Studios
In a shocking move, it was announced on July 29 that Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney over the release of Marvel Studios’ Black Widow. Initially detailed in a report by the Wall Street Journal, Johansson filed a lawsuit, alleging her contract was breached when Disney released the newest MCU installment on Disney+ alongside its traditional theater debut.
The fact that an actor of Johansson’s caliber would go up against a major media conglomerate like Disney is undoubtedly worth digging into, but furthermore, it certainly appears as if she has a legitimate case. THere’s definitely some prior precedent regarding how companies like Universal and WarnerMedia have handled the changes in releasing films during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this in mind, we’ve put together a handy explainer of how Johansson, her team, and Disney all ended up here in the first place and what the future may bring as this lawsuit continues to unfold.
How did we get here?
During the middle of the pandemic, a variety of studios moved to distribute their titles digitally. The first was Universal, with their debut of Trolls World Tour on premium video-on-demand (PVOD). The next big studio to follow in Universal’s wake was Disney, leveraging the strength of their streaming service, Disney+, to debut movies both theatrically and digitally, beginning with their live-action Mulan remake. Disney called their dual-platforming “Disney Premier Access,” which charged viewers a $30 fee to watch the movies at home. After Mulan, a handful of other titles followed, including animated feature Raya and the Last Dragon, villain origin story Cruella, Black Widow, and the new Dwayne Johnson-Emily Blunt film Jungle Cruise. A few months later, WarnerMedia followed suit, announcing all Warner Bros. movies in 2021 would debut both in theaters and for free on HBO Max.
These paradigm-shifting decisions prompted a considerable backlash amongst diehard fans of the theatrical movie experience, as there was concern about these decisions cannibalizing the audience. Yet as the theatrical experience roared back to life earlier this year, viewers made it clear they wanted to go back to cinemas to see movies on the biggest screen possible. Black Widow, Marvel’s first theatrical release since 2019, led the way in terms of box office performance during the pandemic, where it garnered $80M at the domestic box office. Disney came out, guns blazing, after its first-weekend performance, boasting about its $80M haul at the box office and its $60M take in from Premier Access.
The worm turned rather quickly, however, as the second-weekend numbers dropped considerably—down 67 percent to $26.3 million. Disney was reluctant to share Premier Access numbers in week two, seemingly indicating a similarly precipitous decline. The key takeaway? If there’s universal access to a new film, it’s not going to hold massive attention week-over-week. The tradeoff for instant satisfaction meant a dip in long-term attention, as Disney stole from Peter to pay Paul.
Why is Scarlett Johansson upset?
Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit seemingly hinges around compensation—or lack thereof, in this case—around points on Black Widow. The idea of points is something that’s become somewhat of a common practice for studios and major actors. For a reduced initial salary, an actor can then decide to receive a share of the profits of the movie’s box office gross or a point. For example, Robert Downey Jr was paid $20M for Avengers: Endgame but received eight percent in back-end points. With Endgame’s domestic profit, Downey received a reported $55M in points, bringing his total payday to around $75M. As you can see, points become a great incentive to actors because they stand to take home a considerable amount of cash if the movie is successful.
In Johansson’s case, Black Widow’s dual-release handicapped box office performance—and therefore limited the possible amount of her point-based earnings. The suit includes a 2019 email between her team and Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi, in which he promised a traditional theater release. Critically, Galluzzi further stated that “should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.” Turns out, Disney didn’t do this—the suit goes on to state that, “Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel.” Most damning of all, the suit says when Johansson attempted to contact Marvel and Disney about a potential rework of the contract, neither of the two responded.
However, the claim clarifies that the Premier Access release is not the fault of Marvel but rather Disney. “Marvel’s decision to release the Picture simultaneously in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access—if it can be called Marvel’s decision at all—was the direct result of Disney’s tortious interference with the Agreement.” Industry insiders seemingly agree with this being a Disney-based decision, as former Hollywood Reporter editor Matthew Belloni wrote in his newsletter that Marvel head Kevin Feige is “angry and embarrassed” about the situation and “lobbied Disney against the day-and-date plan for Black Widow, preferring the big screen exclusivity and not wanting to upset his talent.” It sounds like those issues fell on deaf ears, as the studio moved forward regardless.
What's next?
As pointed out by folks online, the suit is likely more about trying to leverage the importance of Hollywood talent than it is anything else. However, Johansson’s case seems to have scared Disney enough to fire back, saying she’s received an additional $20M to her salary based on the returns of Black Widow thus far and that “There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” But this suit may be the crack that causes the levee to break. Johansson isn’t the first person to take on a studio over back-end payments; earlier this year, both Emily Blunt and John Krasinski reportedly sought additional financial compensation from Paramount in the wake of the studio’s decision to bring A Quiet Place Part II to Paramount+ 45 days after its May 28 opening. A Bloomberg report specifically stated, “The stars are worried that many potential theater fans might wait for the film to be available for home viewing, reducing the box-office receipts.”
Disney will likely look to settle this out of court, as a ruling here could set a legal precedent that would or could be extremely dangerous for all Hollywood studios in the future should they lose the case. No matter what ends up happening, Disney going after a woman to make her accept less than what she was contracted to get (which is already lower than her male colleagues) is an extremely tough look.
As for the future of Premier Access on Disney+? The last title—for now at least—will be this week’s Jungle Cruise, so the likelihood of another suit against the House of Mouse is low. However, if Cruise performs well enough on Premier Access, we may see Blunt or Dwayne Johnson make a similar play. There’s even a report that Emma Stone, the star of Cruella, may consider her options too. If Disney decides to move forward with any further future plans for Premier Access, we may see more of these kinds of suits if deals aren’t adjusted beforehand. But for now, an already ill-convinced move feels like even more of a bad idea—and Disney may pay the price for trying to have their cake and eat it too.