Disney Seeking Private Arbitration With Scarlett Johansson
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Watch John's new documentary, "Movie Trailers: A Love Story" available now worldwide at www.vimeo.com/o... and also available in the US and UK on Amazon Video.
Watch the full episode this clip is from here:
• Eternals Final Trailer...
Support or submit your question for the current or next show 24/7 here:
streamelements...
Viewer Question:
Eric Finden - It looks like Disney is moving forward with arbitration which if I'm correct, basically means that Disney is going to settle with Scarlett Johanson. Am I correct in assuming this? Thanks and have a great time at Cinemacon!
Leave a question when you tip at streamelements... and it will be answered on the show, or the next show we do. (Remember, you are submitting a TIP to support the channel. You are not "buying" a question to be on the show. We're happy to answer the questions or comments you submit with your tips, but we reserve the right to not air any question or comment if we consider it inappropriate, unconstructive or disruptive to the flow of the show).
Support John on Patreon! / johncampea
JOHN’S GEAR LINKS
Main Cameras
Sony A6400 - amzn.to/2VsMMyx
Sony A6600 - amzn.to/3bbfivl
Canon XC15 - amzn.to/3abgZY8
Mic pre-amps
Cloudlifter - amzn.to/3ckgvRa
Good Cheaper Cameras John Uses
Canon Vixia R800 - amzn.to/2yfa8zI
Logitech c920 Webcam - amzn.to/3eiul8m
Main Microphones
Rode Procaster - amzn.to/3cum1AT
Good Cheaper Mics John Uses Sometimes
Audio-Technica ATR2100x (usb and xlr) - amzn.to/34FSIID
Blue Yeti (usb) - amzn.to/2XyVZb8
Lapel Mic
FiFine (usb) - amzn.to/2VvzocW
Shotgun Mics
Rode VideoMic GO (small on camera mic) - amzn.to/34A3YX0
Rode NTG2 (main Studio mic) - amzn.to/2REkH6d
Sennheiser MKE 600 (main Studio mic) - amzn.to/3eo5boY
Soundboard/Mixer
RODEcaster Pro (main) (usb) - amzn.to/2RzozFC
Behringer Xenyx 1204USB (backup board) - amzn.to/2yf8VZn
Streaming Software
Wirecast Pro
Wirecast Control Surface - amzn.to/34DzjrG
Lights
Nanlite Lumipad 25 (main studio lights) - amzn.to/2XAeVXd
Neewer Ring Light (secondary lights) - amzn.to/2RDRoAP
FalconEyes F7 Pocketlite (background color lights) - amzn.to/3emBgNT
Selfie Ring - (guest light) - amzn.to/3a6esOZ
Show Notes Computer
iPad Pro 2020 - amzn.to/34ALhCA
Submit your topic or question for The John Campea Show here:
www.thejohncamp...
Follow John on Instagram:
/ johncampea
John really needs a Campea Classroom graphic.
Emily D Baker, an attorney, went through the lawsuit on her channel. It was interesting and she explained it well. I understand Scarlets reason for suing.
But believes the whole Disney schedule for movies/tv should have been moved to next year and that a 120 release it still an option
She’s gonna get more than she did but not as much as she was expecting. Sounds like a true negotiation, both sides not exactly happy.
Others claim that she'll basically get what would she have gotten without the lawsuit. Hence, a bad move on her part.
@@doc8013 Yes, I know that. I am not talking about already being paid for her role. She won't get much gravy (gravy that she would have received without the lawsuit).
So that’s why Rob is in Portland! HE STOLE YOUR PIZZA!
I don’t agree with all of John’s analysis but I love that he’s doing this. Thanks John.
Damn, everyone stay away from John when you see him at a restaurant!!! Do Not Steal His Pizza! Wow that is a lot to ask for pizza settlement & that is for emotional damage of getting his pizza taken🤣!!!
This is what Scarlett Johansson's lawyers wanted all along, for the dispute to go to arbitration. It's their best chance of getting some money from Disney, as it avoids them running the risk of losing the case in the event if went to court. All the statements made by her lawyers were all about bringing Disney to the negotiating table, and now they've got them there.
Is it possible they want to keep things private because they don’t want to set a dangerous precedent? Like, if Scarlet sues Disney because of their streaming practices, and WINS, would it then encourage other actors to sue the people they work for if they feel like their pay was undercut by a day-and-date release?
EXACTLY. It would set precedent and a good one at that. She executive produced this movie but isn't getting paid her more than fair share. This can happen to any actor and it needs to stop.
50 million for stolen pizza? Damn, cant imagine what the cost would be for stolen car. 😳
Hey John! Hawaiian (pineapple and ham) pizza is not only amazballs but also was invented by a good Canadian Kid!
Pineapple + pickled jalapenos + anchovies on pizza is great with harmony and balance between the sweet, heat, and salty.
Preach, Lucas! Pineapple on pizza is one of the best pizzas!
I like traditional Hawaiian but I usually get pepperoni and pineapple! It’s the bee’s knees
Actually by a Greek Canadian
Disney has to put forth a good faith offer in arbitration/mediation. Disney cut the check!
I really want to take a look at the contract and arbitration provision before making any assumptions. Too bad it's not attached to the complaint and unavailable to the public.
It's a motion to compel arbitration not a motion to settle the lawsuit. If there's a settlement you file a notice of settlement. The misinformation out there is mind boggling. You can arbitrate the case and a private arbitrator can decide the outcome. There are plenty of cases in arbitration that don't settle and a final judgment is issued by the arbitrator. CZcamsrs should stick to youtube. Leave the lawyering to lawyers. 🤦🏿♂️
@@shameless5444 exactly! Are you a lawyer or a star law student? I deal with arbitrations a lot and have opposed a lot of these types of motions.
You can tell John just wants Disney to pay. He's making it seem like her case is a done deal. I think ScarJo will loose more than she wins.
I think the point he's trying to make is, Disney does not want this information made public. Arbitration will fix that.
disney also concerned how it looks...someone who worked with them for a longtime suing them.
Disney Seeks Private Arbitration because actor's contract states disputes will go through Private Arbitration.
True. But it's a preemptive strike against any and all Disney actors who have legitimate grievances with the company. Scarlett and her team were smart for suing publicly because it exposed the true nature of Disney.
How much you wanna bet Scarlett is gonna show up in a DC movie in the near future?
My brother just said the same thing to me today randomly lmaooo. It might truly happen. I think she still has an itch for superhero movie role even though she's a great actor in a variety of movies so I do think her going to DC might be a thing.
YES!!
I don't blame her. She never wanted to leave, she was told they were killing Natasha off and just had to deal with it. I'd love it simply for the pettiness 😂
@@easywhitechocolate lmao 🤣 right
Disney violated her contract... she wants to get paid. She wants her money.
How long should she get ? Until the fantasy 120 days is up and as of last week it is now 45 days ansd she is getting her money but not Endgame money as a solo film never makes that much
8:37 THIS Face Expression
John,
Love your show.
I called this next phase in in my lengthy analysis to your original CZcams excerpt on ScarJo lawsuit. Disney had a right to private arbitration, and ScarJo was the one who made it nasty by taking it to the court without going to arbitration first, as was proper under the contract. ScarJo did not publish her contract appended to the lawsuit, as is typical in contract disputes. This whole lawsuit is 1) to cover the ass of her agents and representation that could have but failed to foresee day-and-date releases; and 2) to protect her ego/future dealings with other studios, to establish her view that she could have/would have had more box office. I would venture she wanted a bigger first week box office in large part because it affects what she can demand on future movies, regardless of her actual back-end loss on the theatrical release. I still maintain she got what she bargained for. She got wide release--almost as wide release as Endgame. There is no world in which premium on-demand cut into ScarJo's theatrical money to a very large level because....COVID. Moreover, we do not know what her representation negotiated for as a percentage of theatrical versus pay-per-view versus BlueRay versus airline, cable, etc. Finally, courts do not award speculative or consequential damages in contract cases. -MDM JD MBA
PS: Your analysis of extra costs after rejection of settlement is not common. That is not an automatic provision of arbitration. You are thinking maybe of a CCP 998 offer.
@@brandononbrand It is doubtful that there was a definition that excluded day-and-date. They probably spent an extra $30 million on P&A on the second release, so Disney would have had to have seen $60 million more in gross sales to recoup their costs. My guess is they offered her $10 million like Gal Godot reportedly got, then she countered and asked for $100 million, and they settled around $20 million.
I suppose part of what I don't understand about this new development is this: Disney is the one that broke whatever contractual agreement was in place, even if they're thinking they fulfilled their side of the contract. So why now do they suddenly get to exercise the ability to get an arbitrator, just because it's a clause in the same contract the two sides are disputing?
I think its because its a dispute over if the contract was breached. Contracts usually have a mechanism for dealing with this disputes so that's really the first mechanism before suing
The big guy decision-maker in Disney finally realizes that the aftereffect of public lawsuits will be bad press for them, many people at Disney including Kevin Feige probably already want Disney to settle with ScarJoo since the beginning behind closed door but the big guy probably doesn't want it until now.
@John Campea if it does go to arbitration, does that mean that neither party would be allowed to give out the information of the agreement? Although, in this case I know disney wouldn't.
Just like a court case, a lot depends on who is the arbitrator or Judge. Does a arbitration create a precedent (since it is not a legal court) that the industry is looking for? Read Disney financial statements to fine out what Disney paid?
So I’m nearsighted and I’m not wearing my glasses. So when I saw the thumbnail on my TV, I thought it said Disney vs Sicario, and I was like WTF!! lol
John, what is the chair you're using? Where can I get it?
I just want to make sure that we are on the same page. Disney seeking arbitration, is simply Disney looking to give Scarlett Johansson something but, not $50 Million. Is that about right?
I just hope Scarlett Johansson gets what she want if that's uncovering this Disney's darkest secrets or getting what she deserves which is the money she signed for.. w.e it is.. she is phenomenal in her role and it's about time she finally got a solo film. 👊👊
I that what she wants?
That mean two things they just want this to go away or think they might lose
yep ☝🏼
I think this kind of settlement happend to the USFL. They won against the NFL but was awarded only $3. They went out of business after that.
Well, after having dealt with a couple mediators in something I've been involved with a while now, I think I'd rather have Kimberly instead of Erin mediate
Beyond the trailer has a really good discussion about this as well
Disney doesn’t want to go to court because they don’t want to be deposed.
Ok I'm in arbitration with Campea about the shot at the pineapple on pizza...😂😂😂🤷
I think John should represent scarjoe against Disney cause he also hates Disney LOL
but what about ttaxes or payments from the money you get when you accept a settlement??
or if you win and get paid more in court than in the settlement??
ScarJo to Disney, "B***h better have my money"
I think they owe her a public apology and she should demand it then they need to figure out the pay day.
Why is that? How do you know she is in the right? Supposedly the contract said nothing about Disney plus. Only that it had be released in a certain number of theaters. And it was.
I still don't understand WHY BW was killed off and Hawk gets a series... other way around would have given Hawkeye a reason to go after BW and/or BW's sister or go rogue and create a new ALIAS vibed series maybe with one of them joining the 10Rings
I forgot u use to do law campea
Good to know that .
An arbitrator will decide who gets what
Are your pizzas made of solid gold topped with diamonds and rubies? Must be hard on the teeth.
This is the same kind of thing most doctor offices require - arbitration vs court. It is standard in many contracts, so I don't read anything into Disney filing for an arbitrator as agreed.
So stoke for Shang Chi !
Too busy looking at the Spider-Man No Way Home trailer too care 😆
Common practice is these arbitrators are chosen by Disney.
@@plumbingscam2667 I haven't seen the contract. Many high dollar contracts are written to protect the business doing the hiring. In many cases, a judge would rule at the beginning that the case has no merit since arbitration was specified in the contract. These contracts are written to give the business the power to assign the arbitrator, who is often a retired judge but now has their own business-arbitration. Unless Johansen's lawyers got the contract to read any arbitrator must be approved by her as well as by Disney, then Disney is hiring the arbitrator. It is also possible that the contract was made to read that a court would assign the arbitrator. Disney built their empire on lawsuits, both as defendant and as plaintiff. A former boss of mine had 3 Lawyers show up with a cease and desist order, threatening to have his business shuttered the next morning, because he had put Donald Duck stickers on his carpet company vans. He had been ignoring letters and phone calls for about 3 weeks. We spent the rest of the afternoon scraping stickers off of vans.
Hear me out;
Pineapple on tacos.
pineapple on pizza is good
For the record, Scarlett Johansson hates being called Scarjo. It’s not her name.
Ok, so there WAS an arbitration clause. Still doesn't change the fact whoever that rookie lawyer is should be fired for drafting this weak ass contract. It's a 20 million dollar+ contract, which can have endless PR ramifications - you slap those with an obligatory arbitration clause, an NDA and a massive penalty payments if you are in breach, so that these things NEVER see the public light.
Hey Disney, you looking to hire?
You can still sue based on a breach of contract claim even if there's an NDA and a massive penalty clause may be unenforceable depending on the type of penalty and provision as well as jurisdiction. I doubt it was a rookie lawyer that drafted and finalized that contract.
@@WUSTL7
Not if there's an obligatory arbitration clause. Well, at least not in Europe. Might be that the U.S has different laws in place that would allow to bring a claim in public court despite an arbitration clause, which would subsequently be thrown out due to the arbitration clause. However, that would defeat the purpose of keeping it secret as the material would be made public as soon as it's filed.
So, maybe it's my bad for assuming arbitration had universal rules - but if you say it's so, I'll believe you. I'll retract my harsh words against that poor lawyer :)
I'm curious. How did you get a copy of the contract? It wasn't attached to the complaint. Have you even reviewed the contract or are you just speculating? If you're speculating then that's poor lawyering.
@@ScrubNigel oh I see. I'm unfamiliar with how the law works in Europe. Yeah I'm a California lawyer. The scarjo case is filed in LA Superior Court where I practice regularly. I deal with motions to compel arbitration all the time. The information in this video and the article is incorrect just fyi.
@@WUSTL7
I'm clearly speculating, based on the information given in the video. Gave my impression, not a legal memo. Anyway, I'm not too proud to admit I might have jumped the gun. Cheers
Why did Emma Stone get a make-good check, Rock got a new deal, but ScarJo got nothing? It seems really personal. Who did she refuse to sleep with?
Nobody . She amongst the rest of them was offered the chance to renegotiate pre-Christmas but she wanted it to go straight to the cinema and Disney were happy to go with that until they had to put the film back again in May and at that point they went with the cinema/D+ way of doing it . And as far as I can see she wanted to delay is again which did not work for Marvel/Disney as they had another 2 films to come out this year ,a TV series with her co-star in it who already had to be cut out of Falcoln because the film had not been released and another 4 films next year
And as far as I know she gets a cut of the DAP /box office that is not nothing
@@findlaythompson609 Her team has stated they tried numerous times to renegotiate but were ignored by Disney. She is not against streaming, it just wasn't in her contract for the film to be put on D+, that's all.
@@easywhitechocolate They were willing to renegotiate at Christmas (as they did with everyone else) but gave it every chance to go to the cinema but then when it was moved futher so they went the duel way .What she was wanting was for Disney to move thing back even further messing up the release of a whole stream of things that come after as they have a TV series with Flo in it( after she was removed from Falcoln because BW was postponed again ) and 6 other Marvel films due out in the next 18 months .Cutting the cinema time down by 2 thirds
The reason D+ was not in her contract was it did not exist when she signed it in 2017
@@findlaythompson609 Where are you finding this information? I haven't seen anywhere that she wanted to push it back. Her team stated they'd been trying to renegotiate since they heard about the streaming service and in interviews, she sounded a bit annoyed (understandably) that it had been delayed. I did know her contract was signed in 2017 before D+ and the pandemic, so Disney definitely should have accounted for those changes.
No one has seen the contract so it's hard to know who's right or wrong but I doubt she'd sue them to be petty. Also, Disney has a history of screwing people over with contacts so they really must have fucked her over 😂
@@easywhitechocolate She the chance to renegotiate pre New Year but they tried to hold off for a cinema release and ran out of time
And her managers said they should have kept holding the film ,pushing the rest off to god knows when . And fucking up Flo who is at the same agency - but $300 k to a share of $50 m guess that screwing Flo was worth it to them
John keeps trying to make this look entirely in ScarJo's favor but it's not and even if wins it will be a quite black list on her. Good luck to her.
@@barry2349 why wouldn't they? Other movie companies can't wait for ScarJo to leave Disney so they can sign her....just like how Christopher Nolan is in high demand after the HBO Max/WB fiasco. When u have a contract BOTH parties must agree to said contract so how would other companies would NOT want to work with her and blacklist her if both parties follow the contract. If you are an actor thats always difficult to work with amongst peers, directors other actors etc...and always causing problems on the set THATS WHEN you should be BLACKLISTED. ScarJo is NOT that person.
That’s funny because she has a new movie coming out soon Sing 2, then she has three more. She has a movie with Apple TV+ so for the people that were saying she was suing Disney because she has a problem with streaming, well no 👎.. the other movie she signed on after the whole Disney thing so again, no 👎. She has been the business since the age of 10 and she’s not just an actress she also produces, i wouldn’t be surprised if WB called her up although i wouldn’t want that.
I agree that Campea is jumping the gun, but Scarlett is the highest paid movie actress in Hollywood with plenty of awards to backup her talent. She won't be blacklisted. She's too profitable.
she won't be blacklisted. she just got cast in a Wes Anderson movie last week. I think she's done with blockbusters though and will go back to her roots with indie movies. she got nominated for 2 Oscars in 2019... she's definitely someone you want to hire.
Mayo AND pineapple on a pizza for me. 😁🍕
Can she overturn the blacklisting in this or is that a different kettle of fish, altogether?
5:52 unsub
i think it sucks
I’m on the fence-who’s with me ?
Scarjo holds the cards. She'll get the 50 mil, otherwise why wouldn't she take them to court?
They will claim force majeure and she wil get nothing above what was agreed
And she was never going to get 90/120 days when they put back the release again and and Shang-Chi is getting it's release on the 3rd of Sept and from then on its a 45 day windoe for evrything
No way Disney will give her $50M and she knows that.
@@findlaythompson609 They have a contract and cinemas are open, so they can't really.
@@sharmakeaden392 The film has taken the best part of $500m without having a release date in China/India . So it has made exactly the same as the rest of the solo films minus the Asian market
Disney have too much money to fight this in court. Its easier for them to settle out of court. Bad PR is way more powerful and important to Disney. They rather look squeaky clean then to have a bad outlook in the public eyes.
I want Scarlett's loss to be loud and public. She comes of so entitled in this lawsuit.
Usually I'm always down with big corporations getting a lashing but this lawsuit seems extremely frivolous to me.
@@jeromemaida4933 As know as much as anyone else not ScarJo or Disney 🤷🏾
@@jboogie45213 so what are you saying that you will be to to get less money for you than you negotiated? got it
@@MoviesAndTvShowsAreSubjective .. but she didn't. She got less than she anticipated. There's a difference
@@jboogie45213 Wrong. Disney BROKE HER CONTRACT and then wouldn't negotiate before her filing the suit... this has been explained over and over again. BTW ScarJo is backed by SAG, Kevin Fiege, and Bob Iger.
@@BoardsportsGroup You nor I know that to be true. From everything I gather that does not seem to be accurate but that is what the courts are for.
Pineapple on pizza is delicious, don't @ me just try it!
Disney just give the bit..c her da..n money.
Binding Arbitration means: that upon an argument, disagreement or dispute, you WILL go through arbitration (where disputes are settled through third parties and out of the public view). A Binding arbitration is a contract stipulation, so by suing Disney, Scarlett Johansson broke her contract with Disney lol. Where she agreed to settled any disputes she has with Disney through a non public arbiter.
Except that you seem to have missed previous videos where John indicated, quiet clearly, that not only was Disney the instigator in all this, but also that ScarJo's lawyers tried, repeatedly, to get Disney to renegotiate the contract. Disney straight up ignored her. This lawsuit was the last option.
@@GBRyker61 no, I didn't. I'm just stating that it's a revolving door. He said she said. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? I have binding arbitration agreements at our work, and I have to legally go over everything line for line with our clients before they sign making sure they understand that if they sue us outside of arbitration that you can potentially forfeit your claim because your contractually obligated to go through an arbiter. Now it doesn't stop Scarlett from suing, but Disney can go to a judge to try to nick the case if there is a binding arbitration agreement. Johansson now has to brove she tried arbitration to keep her case sound.
@@TheCubert120 apparently you haven't been paying attention to John's videos.
Disney did the same thing to Jungle Cruise that they did to Black Widow. Only with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, they renegotiated the contract. ScarJo's lawyers tried to get Disney to renegotiate her contract, and they straight up ignored her.
Disney violated whatever the terms of the conteact are. Period. ScarJo has every right to sue them for breach.
@@GBRyker61 a renegotiation is not going through arbitration. If Scarlett Johansson filed for arbitration motion and Disney did not respond to it, then Johansson can sue. If there is a binding arbitration and Johansson did not previously file for arbitration before she sued then Johansson cannot sue. Just because she said she tried to renegotiate does not mean she went through the arbitration process. However if her lawyers have proof she attempted arbitration before the suit then she's fine. BUT it all comes down to the wording of the actual contract which nobody knows as it's not been made public. All I know is, if she did not attempt arbitration before suing, and it says in her contract she has a binding arbitration agreement, Disney could very well go to a judge and try to get the suit thrown out if court, which is what they seem to be doing. But if Scarlets lawyers can prove they attempted arbitration and Disney would not settle, then Scarlett gets nothing but net. But like I said, all depends on the wording of her actual contract and if arbitration was actually attempted.
She needs another private jet... Cry me and river!
So you are saying you will accept less money than you negotiate.
@@MoviesAndTvShowsAreSubjective the contract is not public so we don't know what's in mane. If it is in the contract then yes that's cool in all but still she did get an hefty amount of money and the movie was not good and the word of wouf caused it to bomb... Make a better movie then it may not have bombed mane!
@@yungc9050 that's totally irrevelant
Pineapple makes any pizza better.