馃攳
How Scarlett Johansson鈥檚 Disney Lawsuit Could Change Actor Pay | WSJ - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[0]
- [Paparazzi] Scarlett,
hold that smile for us.
[1]
- [Narrator] Actors are looking
[2]
to renegotiate their contracts
[4]
in big budget movies.
[5]
- Scarlett Johansson, the star
[6]
of Disney's latest Marvel
movie, "Black Widow,"
[9]
has filed a lawsuit today
[11]
in Los Angeles Superior
Court against Disney.
[14]
- [Narrator] Traditional movie contracts
[15]
for A list talent include
sizable upfront payments
[18]
and a lucrative backend deal based mostly
[20]
on box office ticket sales.
[21]
But with more films going straight
[23]
to streaming platforms,
[24]
actors are now looking for a piece
[26]
of the streaming profits.
[27]
- The movie wouldn't exist without actors,
[29]
and especially actors of certain stature
[31]
and with certain names.
[32]
They drive people to those theaters
[34]
or they drive people to download
that subscription service,
[37]
and I do believe that they
should get a portion of that.
[41]
- [Narrator] Paying stars a bigger piece
[42]
of digital sales would upend
[43]
the traditional pay structure for talent.
[46]
And for some, it could
lead to tens of millions
[48]
of dollars in residual pay.
[50]
Money that agents and actors say
[51]
is now being left on the table.
[54]
Here's a look at how the
Scarlett Johansson lawsuit
[56]
against Disney could be a catalyst
[57]
that changes the way
Hollywood stars get paid.
[62]
(paparazzi screaming)
[64]
To understand what's at stake with actors,
[66]
you have to understand how their pay
[67]
is tied to a film's distribution cycle.
[70]
- There are so many
unique and creative ways
[72]
for actors and performers
[74]
to make additional compensation
[76]
for their participation in films.
[78]
- [Narrator] Natasha Matallana,
[79]
who's been representing
actors for over 15 years,
[81]
says depending on the contract,
[83]
backend bonuses in the long run
[85]
can be more lucrative for actors
[86]
than an upfront payment.
[87]
- Some of that compensation
[89]
is creatively carved out
[92]
by way of calling it a production fee
[95]
or a marketing fee or backend points.
[97]
- [Narrator] Those bonuses are tied
[98]
to how well the film does
[99]
at each point of the distribution cycle.
[102]
Traditionally, that cycle looks like this.
[104]
Feature films start their journey
[105]
with a theatrical release
[106]
that can last anywhere from a few weeks
[108]
to a few months, depending
on how well it does
[111]
in the box office.
[112]
At this stage, talent contracts for actors
[114]
can include a cut of the
opening box office sales.
[117]
After its run in the theaters,
[118]
a film would then make its
way onto DVD or pay per view.
[121]
Depending on their contract,
[122]
an actor might make a cut of that as well.
[125]
About six months after that,
[126]
the title would become available
[127]
on streaming services,
like Disney+ or Hulu.
[130]
This gives talent another
opportunity to cash in.
[133]
This time with licensing deals
[134]
with various streaming content providers.
[137]
Eventually, if a film was well received,
[139]
it could also end up
syndicated on television.
[141]
Syndicated films continue to make money
[143]
for studios and talent,
[144]
as long as the broadcaster
continues to license
[147]
and air the film.
[148]
So that's what it looked like before.
[149]
Here's what it's starting
to look like today.
[151]
Studios like Disney and Warner Media
[153]
are releasing films both in
theaters for cinema goers,
[156]
and online for the at-home audience
[158]
at the same time.
[159]
Viewers who watch in theaters
[160]
pay the normal price per ticket
[162]
for admission, and
those who watch at home,
[164]
might pay twice,
[165]
once for a monthly subscription
[167]
and depending on the streaming service,
[169]
again with a surcharge for
early access to the film.
[172]
Unlike box office,
retail DVD and licensing,
[174]
streaming surcharges and subscription fees
[176]
are usually not split with the talent.
[179]
Depending on the actor's contract,
[180]
they many still retain
their backend residuals
[182]
for things like DVD sales, foreign sales
[185]
and pay per views.
[186]
But those have always been
far less lucrative compared
[188]
to box office bonuses.
[190]
With direct to streaming,
[191]
studios have found a promising solution
[193]
for poor box office sales.
[194]
Actors and agents argue
[195]
that same-day streaming
is in direct competition
[198]
with the theatrical release
[199]
and they're taking a huge
loss in backend residuals.
[203]
- Well, Disney says they
made about $60 million
[206]
just from the digital side of that
[208]
when they released "Black Widow."
[210]
- [Narrator] Dan Gallagher,
who's been following the rise
[211]
in popularity of streaming platforms
[213]
for The Wall Street Journal,
[214]
says Disney's stockholders
[215]
really wanted to see them
invest in the streaming future.
[218]
- When you put something
out like "Black Widow"
[220]
where people have a choice on the day of,
[223]
there's always gonna be some number
[224]
that choose that convenience.
[225]
So it really can't help
but to cannibalize some
[228]
of that theatrical return.
[229]
- [Narrator] At least
two million households
[231]
purchased the $30 early access stream
[233]
on the film's opening weekend.
[234]
Johansson's lawsuit
argues that her contract
[236]
with Disney's Marvel Entertainment
[238]
guaranteed an exclusive
theatrical release,
[241]
and her salary was tied to
the box office performance
[243]
of the film.
[244]
However, the film was released in theaters
[246]
and on Disney+ at the same time,
[248]
a decision that a person
familiar with the details
[250]
of her contract said would
cost her more than $50 million.
[254]
Disney said it fully compiled
with Johansson's contract
[257]
and that the release of "Black Widow"
[258]
on Disney+ has significantly
enhanced the actor's ability
[261]
to earn additional compensation.
[263]
Digital film releases are
happening more and more.
[266]
According to Reelgood,
[267]
straight-to-video
on-demand movie premieres
[269]
have more than tripled
in Q4 year over year.
[272]
In 2020, 228 film titles
[274]
went straight to subscription
videos on demand.
[276]
The pandemic played a large part
[278]
in accelerating the shift
to premiering films online
[280]
but that option was already in motion
[282]
before theaters began to close.
[284]
- I definitely think that this is a path
[286]
that perhaps we were always headed down.
[289]
I just think that it
might have been a couple
[291]
of years down the road,
[293]
and now because of COVID,
it made it go fast.
[295]
- [Narrator] So what are contracts going
[297]
to look like moving forward?
[298]
Matallana says that actors will need
[300]
to negotiate contracts
[301]
that focus far less on
box office ticket sales,
[304]
and A list actors will
likely try to negotiate a cut
[306]
of any surcharge fees
[308]
for early access to their new films.
[310]
Actors with enough star power
[311]
may even be entitled to revenue
[313]
from new subscribers
during a film's release.
[315]
- 2020 was a very ideal environment
[318]
for streaming because people
didn't have a lot of options.
[320]
In a world that people have
more entertainment options,
[324]
it's gonna normalize to something.
[325]
I think bigger than it
was prior to the pandemic.
[329]
- [Narrator] Streaming new movies at home
[331]
is convenient for viewers,
[332]
and for streaming
platforms, very profitable.
[335]
Agents and actors know this,
[336]
and experts say that moving forward,
[338]
they'll start looking for new
[339]
and creative ways to negotiate their way
[341]
into contracts that cut themselves in
[343]
on the streaming profits.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage