上周四，斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）提起了关于迪士尼的重磅炸弹诉讼，指控违反了合同。该诉讼声称约翰逊在她的合同中拥有戏剧性的保证黑寡妇—which would not be unusual for an actor of her stature—and that by putting黑寡妇在Disney+ day-and-date with the theatrical release, Disney not only violated her contract, but they reduced her overall compensation because her deal was structured to include back-end profit participation (probably in the form of benchmark bonuses, again, another standard for top-tier talent), as putting the movie on streaming cuts into ticket sales. Disney thenfired back with an uncharacteristically classless response这相当于：坐下来闭嘴，您已经得到了2000万美元的薪水，您是否会想到这个大流行中的所有苦难，您忘恩负义的bit子。约翰逊的经纪人布莱恩·卢德（Bryan Lourd），比利（Billie）的父亲和Uber-Powerful CAA的联合主席，为捍卫客户的回应，指出迪斯尼实质上是与迪斯尼+的自我交流，这是目前尚未纳入人才合同的收入来源。这里有很多事情发生，让我们将其分解。
First, I don’t give a sh-t if you don’t like Scarlett Johansson, or黑寡妇，或一般的漫威电影。这是一个比任何一个人，电影或工作室更大的问题。从本质上讲，这是一个劳动问题。约翰逊碰巧有时间和金钱来与第一场重大战斗作斗争，但毫无疑问，这场战斗总是来了。这样的诉讼可能是不可避免的，我们可能会在未来几年内看到更多的西装（的确，Emma Stone是据报道考虑它，以及约翰·克拉辛斯基（John Krasinski），艾米丽·布朗特（Emily Blunt）和其他利益相关者A Quiet Place Part IIare dealing with Paramount over收入可能会因早期转移到派拉蒙+的速度而损失。我了解听到有关百万富翁在法庭上更多的故事的挫败感，并且有关于财富差异和演员薪水的有效对话，但这不是我们进行对话的地方。这个。是。A.劳动。问题。像她与否一样，斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）是劳动，迪士尼是管理层。
接下来，约翰逊的主张有多有效？显然，我们谁都没有读过她的合同，但是我发现如果她的律师不认为自己有一些事情要继续前进，我很难相信她的律师会提起诉讼。此外，投诉包括2019年3月与Marvel的首席顾问的电子邮件，在Covid甚至是一件事之前，这表明Johansson的合同是戏剧性的，并且“应该改变计划，我们需要与您讨论这一点，并了解这一交易是基于一系列（非常大的）票房奖金的。”这听起来有些讨论黑寡妇going to streaming even before there were pandemic-led issues. Further, when a simultaneous streaming release solidified, Johansson’s team attempted to renegotiate her compensation but were “rebuffed”. Apparently, Disney just didn’t reply.
我问了一位在一家大型制作公司工作的交易律师，并为与斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）相提并论的演员书面合同就此事提供了意见，她说，她承认她与迪士尼，漫威或约翰逊没有任何隶属关系，她也没有隶属关系。尚未看到有关合同，这是最强基础的案件的一部分。2019年的电子邮件表明，理解约翰逊的薪酬是根据独家票房收据的假设而结构的，而漫威知道发行计划是否更改，他们将需要重新谈判这些条款。问题是，合同与漫威，而不是迪士尼本身。然后，问题变成了，迪士尼欠其子公司什么？这之所以模糊，仅仅是因为还没有人确定这些流媒体收入如何使人才受益，而在法律上，分销商将电影转移到自己的流媒体平台上会变得自我交流。这是一个很大的法律问题，不仅仅是约翰逊的个人诉讼，它将具有更广泛的影响。对于迪士尼来说，这并不是陌生的理由，迪斯尼一直在使用“我们没有写这份合同”的封面（据称）扣留特许权使用费from authors of novels tying into Fox’s外星人franchise and Lucasfilm’s星球大战franchise. Disney’s stance seems to be, “we didn’t write that contract, therefore, we are not beholden to it”. Johansson’s lawsuit might determine that once and for all.
案件较弱的地方是声称迪士尼应该进一步推迟释放黑寡妇。我交谈的律师认为这一趋势不可抗力领土并提出一个论点，他们应该等待一个更强大的市场成为一种猜测游戏，没有人真正知道会发生什么。该诉讼声称，约翰逊预计将从传统的，良好的时光，唯一的剧院发行中赚取约5000万美元，但这是一个投影。No one really knows what would have happened. I, for one, never thought黑寡妇was a billion-dollar movie. It’s possible even under ideal circumstances, Johansson would have fallen short of the projected bonuses. The attorney is of the opinion Johansson is better off sticking to the Marvel email and the point that Disney is self-dealing and forced a breach of her contract. However, she also thinks the initial complaint could be intentionally “overwritten” simply to give the attorneys plenty of room to maneuver.
至于迪士尼的阿西丁·反应，我对此感到震惊，因为它是如此的燃烧室，是的，故意厌恶女性。The whole point of Disney’s statement is to turn people against Johansson because damn, isn’t she rich enough? And isn’t this pandemic terrible, and aren’t you all suffering, and isn’t she The Worst for trying to get more millions at a time like this? Never mind that Disney’s concern for the suffering of the masses In These Trying Times has not even once extended to their own employees, who they数以万计的去年，以及暂停工资甚至更多，迫使其余的主题公园员工重新接触with the public. What was that again about the “callous disregard for thehorrific and prolonged global effects” of the pandemic? Apropos of nothing, Zenia Mucha, Disney’s long-time PR chief,在她出门的路上。She has a lot to do with Disney’s image as a drama-free company, and though she has a reputation for ruthless image maintenance, it’s hard to see this tactless statement coming from her people. One wonders if this kind of turbulence might become more common now that Bob Iger and his top lieutenants, like Mucha, are gone/leaving.
这一切都是如此避免。华纳兄弟（Warner Brothers）已经展示了通过前流的合同处理这些混合流媒体发行版的方法。他们每件超过1000万美元to Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins for《神力女超人》 1984年为了满足那种后端利润共享的约翰逊的目标。在决定将整个2021板岩倒入HBO Max之后，他们又支付了数亿美元to satisfy their creative partners这些类型的交易。迪士尼所要做的就是在约翰逊（Johansson）汇一些钱，没有问题，没有公共诉讼，没有潜在的潜力与一位不仅是他们最成功的特许经营的明星，而且没有潜力准备为他们制作更多电影in the future. There was no need to burn this bridge! Perhaps they think the “we didn’t write it, it’s not OUR contract” is solid enough to withstand suit, but…it’s probably not. They’re the parent company, the buck stops with them. Further, Marvel is making these deals with the understanding that Disney, who distributes their films,will honor them。有传言说，凯文·费格（Kevin Feige）也对这种情况非常不满意。迪士尼正在危害他的创造性伙伴关系。如果他们认为迪士尼可以随时破坏合同，谁会想与Marvel合作？
可以疯狂lucrative-RDJ这些后端交易,for instance, made one fortune on his exorbitant salaries, and an entire second fortune from his back-end bonuses—but even day players get residuals, and those residuals depend on the long afterlife films have on secondary and tertiary outlets like rental/VOD and television syndication. With streaming, though, there is no afterlife. There is just the stream. Residuals are being GUTTED in the streaming era, and so far, nothing has come along to replace that loss of revenue. Sure, for someone like Johansson it’s just more millions on top of the millions she already has. But for gigging actors, those residuals can be the difference between making rent or not. Residuals are meant to keep actors afloat between jobs, and no one knows what the landscape looks like without them.
流媒体和自我交流的问题比任何一位演员的合同都要大得多，这将是一场丑陋的战斗，危及了很多钱。战斗首先是作家房间，现在已经到达了演员拖车。下一站是机组帐篷。每个人都将争取他们的收缩馅饼，因为流媒体挖掘了几十年来弥补薪酬套餐的后端付款。有很多理由不喜欢斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson），但是在劳动与管理方面，总是与劳动有关。如果您是出于某种不可思议的原因，在管理方面，我邀请您听一些伍迪·古斯里（Woody Guthrie）and fix your heart on the side of labor, because management is certainly never on您的边。
