The actress, who has given life to Natasha Romanoff for a decade at the UCM, has responded to the study's demand that the case be submitted to arbitration
Scarlett Johansson has received the first public support from one of her companions from the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the interpreter sued Disney for the streaming premiere of Black Widow. It has been Elizabeth Olsen, the person in charge of giving life to Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch in the franchise, who has spoken about what happened with Johansson.
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Olsen commented on her concerns regarding studio strategies for releasing films during the coronavirus pandemic. "I'm worried about a lot of things. I'm not worried on Scarlett's behalf," she begins. "But she worries me that small movies have a chance to be seen in theaters. That was already a pre-COVID thing. I like going to the movies and I don't necessarily want to see an Oscar nominee or a blockbuster," she adds.
At the moment, Olsen is the only member of the Marvel Cinematic Universe who has spoken about the legal actions taken by Johansson. According to the actress's lawsuit, Disney is profiting at the expense of her work by showing Black Widow in theaters and on Disney+ (through Premium Access at an additional cost) simultaneously. The interpreter's contract was made before the coronavirus crisis and only reflected the release of the film in theaters. Mickey Mouse House didn't budge when it made the decision for a hybrid release, and Johansson alleges that the $20 million salary he received was on the condition that the film be released exclusively in theaters.
In addition to Olsen's words, Johansson - through her legal team - has responded to Disney's demand that the case be submitted to arbitration. According to THR, the studio's lawyers have filed a motion through the Los Angeles Superior Court for the claims of the association handling Johansson's case (Periwinkle Entertainment) to be heard confidentially. The day for arbitration could take place on October 15. With this movement, the study hopes that the resolution of the lawsuit will be carried out privately. Disney has also indicated that Johansson has sued Disney and not Marvel for misrepresenting the facts.
Mickey Mouse's house, for its part, is firm when it comes to determining that there have been no irregularities. "In a futile effort to sidestep this inevitable end (and generate publicity through a public lawsuit), Johansson's team excluded Marvel as part of the complaint and substituted Disney's management company citing contract interference theories... But established principles do not allow this misrepresentation of the facts."
On the other hand, the study also points out that there was no obligation for the premiere to be made exclusively in theaters. "The contract expressly states that any theatrical distribution obligation is satisfied by distribution on 'not less than 1,500 screens.' Although the release of Black Widow coincided with a global public health crisis, Marvel kept its promises."
"While Marvel and Disney share Periwinkle's frustration regarding the challenges associated with releasing films during an ever-changing public health crisis, Periwinkle's assertions that Marvel violated the agreement and Disney induced that breach or interfered have no bearing. There is nothing in the agreement that requires a 'general theatrical release' to also be an 'exclusive theatrical release'.
The response from the actress's lawyers was as follows: "After initially responding to this lawsuit with an M attack on Scarlett Johansson, Disney is predictably trying to hide its misconduct in confidential arbitration. Why is Disney so Scared to litigate this case in public? Because she knows that Marvel's promises to give Black Widow a mainstream theatrical release "like its other movies" had a lot to do with ensuring that Disney cannibalized box office revenue to boost subscriptions to Disney+. That is exactly what happened and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence to prove it."
