Why ‘a ton of lawsuits’ could be the next step – The Hollywood Reporter

Let’s put aside for a moment the question of whether Scarlett Johansson has a legal leg to stand on in her fight with Disney over her compensation for Black Widow. Let’s even say no, and that she is – as Disney has publicly argued – greedy and indifferent to the horrors of the pandemic.

It’s not serious.

Because while all of this was true, industry insiders agree, attacking Johansson so personally was a pretty dramatic unforced error. And many observers put this at the feet of CEO Bob Chapek (with the help of Zenia Mucha, head of communications by vindictive reflex and with the approval of the lawyers).

The person who is not blamed? Past President Bob Iger. “Someone is playing it like an amateur,” says a former Disney executive. “Iger is not an amateur. A senior executive at a rival studio agrees, adding that the whole confrontation seems misguided and avoidable. “It’s crazy to me – crazy,” he said. “Do you think that under Bob Iger’s watch he would ever have allowed a talent to sue them?” (This executive notes that it is possible to resolve such disputes by finding creative ways to pay the stars without setting unwanted compensation precedents.)

A Disney insider said responsibility for the statement was unfairly placed at Chapek’s feet and that “it was not a unilateral decision or edict” on his part. (It is, however, difficult to discern who, if any, on the studio side was notified in advance.)

Disney’s posture is read in Hollywood as Chapek signals his indifference to star talent. But as indifferent as it is, there is the one star that Chapek and Disney absolutely, unequivocally have: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, who is known to be very unhappy with the studio’s attack on one. of his superheroes.

We’ve already seen what happens when Feige becomes unhappy. After a myriad of clashes with star-hostile Marvel Entertainment president Ike Perlmutter (including over Feige’s desire to diversify the universe by making Black Panther and Captain marvel), Perlmutter disappeared from the equation during a change in reporting structure in 2015 by Iger. “My feeling was that the relationship strained … was threatening [Feige’s] continued success, ”Iger wrote in his memoir. And any threat to Feige and his success is just not something a Disney Trustee could allow.

It’s hard to imagine anyone else on the creative side – Content Manager Alan Horn, Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy, Pixar’s Pete Docter – happier dealing with talent who saw the studio is going after a star who, as CAA Bryan Lourd pointed out in his unusual public statement, “has partnered with Disney on nine films, which have brought billions to Disney and its shareholders.”

It seems clear that Chapek, who was – as stated in Johansson’s lawsuit – awarded on Wall Street for his focus on building Disney +, thinks it’s time to establish that the days of epic profit sharing at eight or nine digits are gone. . He’s not the only one who believes this – other media giants are also all on the upfront and one-time payment. And these profit sharing may not seem reasonable to most people. But the talent and their representatives fought for them and won them, and obviously now they’re going to fight to keep them.

In time, Johansson will likely have company on the battle lines. “It’s a much bigger existential fight than she really is,” says producer Jason Blum. “It’s a very difficult thing to do, it’s really brave to do and she fights for all talents.” Financially, Blum is slated for multiple lifetimes, but still wants streamers to share their income with talent. (He acknowledges his hypocrisy in that he just signed a rich deal with Universal to make three Exorcist films for a large but fixed upfront amount – a model he hopes will not be sustainable.) the alternative To paying the talent, he notes, is paying the society — and how, he asks, is it better?

Disney has positioned itself as the chief adversary for many months. Chapek, who made a stint in home video before moving on to consumer products and then theme parks, relied on the numbers while leaving messy talent relationships to studio executives. It was not an easy task as it took the helm in times of crisis, with theme parks and cinemas closed.

In late 2020, as studios began to move films that had been put into production pending exclusive theatrical release on their streaming services, agents began to complain that Disney was standing out – and not in a good way – in negotiations with key talents. . “Disney is by far the most ridiculous of offers,” said a senior agent at the time. Another added: “Their initial offers and offers were dog crap. Terrible, for first dollar gross players.

In December, WarnerMedia had a moment of wait when it moved its 2021 slate to HBO Max without warning. Hollywood hit back and Warners got the memo, writing high-value checks to important talent and committing to an exclusive theatrical release for its 2022 films. If that hadn’t happened, it wouldn’t. there is no doubt that the studio would have been taken to court in front of Disney.

Now Hollywood can focus its anger on the Chapek regime. Not to suggest that the agencies would one day get along, that would be illegal! – but it would hardly be surprising to see Disney facing a dispute with a client represented by a different agency – perhaps Emma Stone and WME? Industry insiders say that at this point, with the battle started, a lot of people want to sue a lot of people.

“What streamers are betting on is that in the next three to five years, there will only be three or four. [of them] left to pump content into homes, and they will be so powerful that they will be able to lower the price of production, pay talent, pay producers, pay writers, directors, ”said Blum. “Personally, I don’t think they’ll be able to do it, but that’s what they’re betting on.”

Another top producer thinks he will be able to do it, but doesn’t think it will be good for the industry. “From now on, it will just be work to hire,” he says. “It’s a huge change for everyone. You will always receive a huge payment up front. It just won’t be huge home runs anymore. And over time, these costs will decrease. But after being offered such offers, this person says, “I don’t care if [my movie] is a huge success or not. The pressure has dropped. He doesn’t want to embarrass himself, but a draft just has to be good enough to get the next deal. This may help explain why so many movies made for streamers seem to lack luster.

Blum agrees. “On a streaming movie, [if] you don’t participate in the upside or the downside, I think it compromises the creative process. Blum says he’s counting on “a ton of lawsuits” in the hope that “eventually there will be streaming sharing – as there has been for 50 years in the business.”

This story appeared in the August 4 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.