9 ms·

Disney's Covid shade in S Johansson lawsuit is darkly comical and flawed

2 points by graderjs 5y ago

graderjs 5y ago
I agree that Disney showed their below-the-belt, muckraking, get-dirty fighting words with the response that Scarlett was being "callous" by suing for lost earnings as a result of the dual-release during the pandemic when so many had suffered. "Love in the time of Covid" this was not... But one could equally say that Disney was being just as "callous" (or more) to the very same masses with whose suffering they were trying to beat Johansson, by a cynical exploitation of that same misfortune to enrich themselves via dual-release at the time of the pandemic, then trying to deflect judgement away from themselves and toward her, via the "callous" misuse the pandemic as vector of attack on Scarlett. But I also think Johansson's lawsuit was misadvised strategically. Without making regard to whether she was "right" or not to do so, she's misadvised strategically because: 1) Scarlett didn't seem to anticipate the immediate and vitriolic response from Disney that would try to paint her as bad for raising this issue, because I think that if she had anticipated it, she wouldn't have framed her initial statements about this so neutrally in tone, but would instead have "come out swinging"--anticipating Disney's malevolent response and striking first to paint them as being the bad ones--but morals or naivety probably held her back from this Machiavellian win; 2) her stance seems to fail to grasp the context she operates in within the studio system--again, not making regard to whether this is "right" or not, simply speaking pragmatically--namely that she had already achieved at or near-parity with male leads in some of her films, a significant win and one of the first to do so, and had also achieved her own spin-off film, and has been the highest paid woman lead for a couple years running, all of which translates into her achieving significantly more than any other female lead, but not only that, significantly more than other players in the Marvel films, and all of that has come as a result of her persistent negotiation--in short, Johansson was already well ahead of where any other woman could expect to be, and many other A-list actors, and the studios had already "given" her, or she had already negotiated for herself, all these things--which had secured many concessions from the studios, so in this context, she demands for yet more, and does so, so publicly and aggressively just a week after concluding her virtual promo tour for the Black Widow film the suit is about? This is how the studios will see it, as a betrayal, and so her tactic is unlikely to be effective; and, 3) as I understand it her contract did not specifically cover her in the case of a dual-release, and contained no specific overriding provision against such, which she identified early on but failed to secure a contractual assurance of theatre release only, and instead it seems she was satisfied with verbal and email assurances that the situation she feared to come to pass (and which is now occurring) would "not be a problem". To me the last point is just amatuerish. She didn't get it in the contract. And now it's happening, and she's not happy because the company broke its word but stuck to its contract. She lost and I think she failed in this bid to rectify it. If I was her I'd get it in the contract, anticipate a "dirty" response, be conscious of how much she already achieved before pushing for more (especially if doing so on shaky legal ground), empathize with the feelings of the people across the table from her, and not try to resolve it in public via this channel, and certainly not at this time. Surely there's other leverage she can wield against studios than a law suit? But especially if she did commit to this path, then not go silent once the studio hit back, but up the game and hit back even harder with a public statement highlighting the studio's hypocrisy and pretense. I feel for her in this but I am surprised that she made this choice, because it seems so unlike her: poor tactics. Which makes me think that there must be something else going on either in her life or in the situation with the studio that is hidden so far but nevertheless influencing the situation.

2 points by graderjs 5y ago

I agree that Disney showed their below-the-belt, muckraking, get-dirty fighting words with the response that Scarlett was being "callous" by suing for lost earnings as a result of the dual-release during the pandemic when so many had suffered. "Love in the time of Covid" this was not... But one could equally say that Disney was being just as "callous" (or more) to the very same masses with whose suffering they were trying to beat Johansson, by a cynical exploitation of that same misfortune to enrich themselves via dual-release at the time of the pandemic, then trying to deflect judgement away from themselves and toward her, via the "callous" misuse the pandemic as vector of attack on Scarlett. But I also think Johansson's lawsuit was misadvised strategically. Without making regard to whether she was "right" or not to do so, she's misadvised strategically because: 1) Scarlett didn't seem to anticipate the immediate and vitriolic response from Disney that would try to paint her as bad for raising this issue, because I think that if she had anticipated it, she wouldn't have framed her initial statements about this so neutrally in tone, but would instead have "come out swinging"--anticipating Disney's malevolent response and striking first to paint them as being the bad ones--but morals or naivety probably held her back from this Machiavellian win; 2) her stance seems to fail to grasp the context she operates in within the studio system--again, not making regard to whether this is "right" or not, simply speaking pragmatically--namely that she had already achieved at or near-parity with male leads in some of her films, a significant win and one of the first to do so, and had also achieved her own spin-off film, and has been the highest paid woman lead for a couple years running, all of which translates into her achieving significantly more than any other female lead, but not only that, significantly more than other players in the Marvel films, and all of that has come as a result of her persistent negotiation--in short, Johansson was already well ahead of where any other woman could expect to be, and many other A-list actors, and the studios had already "given" her, or she had already negotiated for herself, all these things--which had secured many concessions from the studios, so in this context, she demands for yet more, and does so, so publicly and aggressively just a week after concluding her virtual promo tour for the Black Widow film the suit is about? This is how the studios will see it, as a betrayal, and so her tactic is unlikely to be effective; and, 3) as I understand it her contract did not specifically cover her in the case of a dual-release, and contained no specific overriding provision against such, which she identified early on but failed to secure a contractual assurance of theatre release only, and instead it seems she was satisfied with verbal and email assurances that the situation she feared to come to pass (and which is now occurring) would "not be a problem". To me the last point is just amatuerish. She didn't get it in the contract. And now it's happening, and she's not happy because the company broke its word but stuck to its contract. She lost and I think she failed in this bid to rectify it. If I was her I'd get it in the contract, anticipate a "dirty" response, be conscious of how much she already achieved before pushing for more (especially if doing so on shaky legal ground), empathize with the feelings of the people across the table from her, and not try to resolve it in public via this channel, and certainly not at this time. Surely there's other leverage she can wield against studios than a law suit? But especially if she did commit to this path, then not go silent once the studio hit back, but up the game and hit back even harder with a public statement highlighting the studio's hypocrisy and pretense. I feel for her in this but I am surprised that she made this choice, because it seems so unlike her: poor tactics. Which makes me think that there must be something else going on either in her life or in the situation with the studio that is hidden so far but nevertheless influencing the situation.