Scarlett Johansson, Disney’s Explosive ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit the settlement ends
Scarlett Johansson and Disney have settled a breach of contract lawsuit over the star’s Black Widow payday, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
“I am happy to have resolved our differences with Disney,” Johansson said. “I am incredibly proud of the work we have done together over the years and have enjoyed my creative relationship with the team. I look forward to continuing our partnership in the years to come.”
Disney Studios President Alan Bergman added: “I am delighted that we were able to reach a mutual agreement with Scarlett Johansson on Black Widow. We appreciate her contributions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and look forward to working together on several upcoming projects, including Disney’s Tower of Terror.”
The explosive lawsuit filed by the actress in July in Los Angeles Superior Court claims that the studio sacrificed the film’s box office potential to grow its fledgling Disney+ streaming service . Disney countered that Johansson was paid $20 million for the film.
The settlement ends a back-and-forth PR war between the CAA-represented star and Disney and is poised to have profound implications for all of Hollywood’s major studios. Johansson’s career has received support in the industry, with talent and executives — including Jamie Lee Curtis, Marvel’s WandaVision star Elizabeth Olsen and mogul Jason Blum — speaking out on her behalf.
In her complaint, Johansson said the hit Marvel movie was guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release when she signed the contract. She alleges that her contract was breached when the film was simultaneously released on Disney+.
As the coronavirus pandemic ravaged Hollywood over the past 18 months, Black Widow was one of many big-budget films, including Warner Bros.’ Wonder Woman 1984. and Disney’s Cruella and the Jungle Cruise, both in theaters and streaming. But so far, Johansson is the only major movie star to sue.
“Why would Disney give up hundreds of millions of dollars in box office revenue by releasing the Movie in theaters at a time when they knew the theatrical market was ‘weak,’ instead of waiting several months for that market to recover? ” the complaint asked. “In terms of information and belief, the decision to do so was at least partly due to Disney seeing an opportunity to promote its flagship subscription service using Picture and Ms. Johansson, thereby attracting new monthly subscribers, retaining existing subscribers and establishing Disney+ as a must-have service in an increasingly competitive market.”
According to the complaint, this move by Disney “not only increased the value of Disney+ but also intentionally saved Marvel (and thus itself) which Marvel itself called
Johansson vs. Disney marked the latest iteration of a profit-participation dispute that is all too common in Hollywood, with actors fighting studios over their backend compensation or the definition of “net profit.” Very few of these battles percolate to the surface; they often come to a resolution before lawyers get involved, or the actor’s contract contains an arbitration provision and the whole process remains confidential. (A source familiar with Johansson’s suit provision says her contract does have an arbitration, but her lawyers were willing to test it.)
“The exception is when there’s so much money involved or if there’s a level of acrimony that has reached a point of no return, and people are going to stand on principle,” attorney James Sammataro tells THR. “That statement by Disney confirms the latter, but it is still a shocking statement to make — to paint someone as being insensitive and playing the whole, ‘You’re so out of touch’ card. You could probably make the same argument about Disney; ‘Yeah. You’ve been generating millions, if not billions, during the pandemic.’”
In the wake of Johansson’s suit, more than a handful of other A-listers were said to be considering filing similar suits. (Jungle Cruise star Dwayne Johnson was not one of them, given that he has a different compensation structure than Johansson.) But that has not come to fruition yet. Cruella’s Emma Stone closed a deal two weeks after Johansson’s suit to star in a sequel to Disney’s live-action film, offering a sign that Disney was working to secure and mollify talent amid the charged atmosphere.
While Disney has faced criticism for its handling of talent deals during the pandemic, WarnerMedia took a different approach by proactively doling out as much as $200 million to pay a long list of stars whose Warner Bros. films were simultaneously opening in theaters and on its HBO Max streaming service, including Patty Jenkins, Gal Gadot and Will Smith.
Johansson is represented by Kasowitz partner John Berlinski, while Daniel Petrocelli has been repped by Disney.
