Covid-19 weaponised as Scarlett Johansson sues Disney
The star's case has raised a sticky problem for the relationship between actors and studios in the streaming era
As the pandemic engenders fundamental changes in the way studios distribute their tent-pole blockbusters, actress Scarlett Johansson is the latest star to take a major studio to court over money.
As other stars whose recent films have been affected by new video on demand (VOD) release strategies keenly watch proceedings, the case is shaping up to be a potentially significant moment for the relationship between stars and studios in the streaming age.
Johansson is suing Disney, owner of Marvel Cinematic Universe, with whom she signed a contract in 2017 for the just-released Marvel blockbuster Black Widow. She claims she was promised an exclusive theatrical release and a share of profits from ticket sales for a film that's part of a franchise whose titles under non-Covid-restricted conditions rake in $1bn (14.8bn) and more at the box office.
But, in these pandemic times, Disney released the film simultaneously in theatres and on its Disney+ streaming service, leading to significant losses for its star. She asserts that this decision has cost her an estimated $50m.
Disney, which is usually thin-lipped about releasing public details of payments, profits and anything to do with the distasteful subject of money, has hit back hard, revealing in responding papers that Johansson was paid a $20m fee for her work and that the film, available on Disney+ for $30, grossed $60m in its opening weekend on the streaming platform.
It's also grossed a far less than expected $319m at theatres thus far, with US cinema owners claiming this poor showing is the direct result of its concurrent release on VOD.
Johansson feels she's getting stiffed at the expense of Disney's concern with its stock price, which rose 4% on the increased streaming numbers it released for Black Widow. You would think that in the light of the devastation and death the pandemic has left in its wake, neither Disney nor Johansson would be keen to use Covid-19 as a weapon in their arsenal for this potentially messy court case.
You'd be wrong. Johansson's attorney, John Berlinski, made a statement in which he claims: "It's no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney+ to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price — and that it's hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so."
Disney for its part has hit back at Johansson's suit, calling it "sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic".
Other companies, such as Warner Brothers - which recently announced that all its releases will appear on VOD platforms at the same time as in theatres - have made behind-the-scenes arrangements with stars and directors to pay them more to help overcome potential theatrical profit losses. Disney seems to have no such agreements.
While it's possible the studio may well offer Johansson a behind-closed-doors settlement to keep her happy and avoid any further public scrutiny, the case has already drawn interest from other stars who believe their promised windfall pay cheques have been a little light because of streaming deals.
Emma Stone is reportedly mulling a similar case for Cruella, which the studio also released on VOD due to the pandemic, and Emily Blunt, star of Jungle Cruise, is said to be considering her options. Blunt's co-star Dwayne Johnson, though, has publicly said he won't be suing Disney and believes that streaming is good for the future of cinema.
Whatever happens, it's clear Johansson's case has raised a sticky problem for the relationship between actors and studios in the streaming era, and as long as there's a threat to purses you can bet that if some sort of strategy is not put in place to deal with it, there'll be plenty more handbags-at-dawn challenges to come.