The Marvel blockbuster “Black Widow” has just been released, but Scarlett Johansson, the lead actor, took the studio Disney to court, arousing public opinion.
The logic behind this lawsuit lies in labor disputes.
That is, Disney privately let the “Black Widow” hospital network release model simultaneously weakened Scarlett Johansson’s box office dividends.
Behind this, it involves the distribution of benefits in the streaming media era, the transformation of major studios’ development strategies, and the bargaining power of different market players.
How to pronounce a labor dispute between a top star and a major studio will have a major impact on Hollywood’s salary structure.
In any case, the butterfly effect caused by streaming media is far from stopping.
The Marvel blockbuster “Black Widow“, which has been repeatedly postponed due to the epidemic, will be released simultaneously on streaming media and North American theaters on July 9.
According to Disney’s announcement, the film’s first weekend global revenue reached 215 million U.S. dollars.
These include US$80 million in North American box office, US$78 million in overseas box office and US$60 million in streaming media revenue.
Just as the enthusiasm of global movie fans was mobilized, starring Scarlett Johansson filed a lawsuit in court on July 30, accusing Disney of breach of contract.
Related Post: “Dune” director Denis Villeneuve supports Scarlett Johansson.
Scarlett Johansson has been playing the role of “Black Widow” in Marvel movies since 2009, and has been on the top of the global actress income list for many times.
She also broke the Guinness record with an average box office revenue of $8.484 million per movie and is the most attractive actress in Hollywood.
What caused the top superstar to go to court with the old club?
To put it bluntly, it is a labor issue.
As the starring and executive producer of “Black Widow“, Scarlett Johansson’s income is divided into fixed salary and box office share.
It is reported that according to the price level, Hollywood first-line actors and directors can get no more than 25% of the box office share.
Under this salary structure, the better the box office performance, the smaller the proportion of fixed salary.
However, Disney directly “stole” Scarlett’s dividends by adopting the simultaneous release of the theater network.
After the first weekend, the box office of “Black Widow” dropped sharply, and the next weekend dropped by as much as 67%.
This is exactly why the popular pay-on-demand on streaming media has greatly diverted theater audiences.
In addition, the inability to effectively control the spread of piracy on streaming media has also led to the loss of the box office.
It’s hard to ask for a salary, and superheroes are no exception.
Disney first denied the breach of contract, saying that it had paid the agreed $20 million in remuneration.
Subsequently, there were rumors that Disney would no longer cooperate with Scarlett, causing public opinion.
Two weeks later, Disney CEO Bob Chapek said that he realized the importance of respecting talents and decided to launch the streaming media platform after a 45-day window.
The first movie released under this rule will be “Shang-Chi“.
Scarlett’s salary request is not the first salary dispute in the film and television industry, but it is indeed rare to get into court.
Behind this is not just the simple salary.
Related Post: Disney fired Scarlett Johansson!
The Problem of Benefit Distribution in the Era of Streaming Media
In the post-epidemic era, especially with the rapid expansion of Disney+, the power of streaming media has grown exceptionally.
Previously, Hollywood’s interest chain was based on the distribution of movies in theaters as the locomotive, and with the huge exposure of theaters, the development of subsequent pay TV, discs, cable TV, streaming media and other windows and derivative products was driven and enlarged.
In this set of value realization chain, in order to maximize the profit of each window, the exclusive period of different windows for movies is stipulated, that is, the window period.
Profits are continuously generated in different windows, and the salary of the main creator is also related to this.
Among them, the remuneration of Hollywood first-line actors has formed a “fixed remuneration + box office share” model, and the latter box office share is their main source of income.
But the strength of streaming media broke this set of rules step by step.
In April 2020, Universal Pictures’ “Trolls World Tour” was released simultaneously on the test water network for the first time.
Immediately, AMC, the largest theater chain in North America, announced that it would no longer show films from NBC Universal. Another theater giant Regal also expressed its intention to boycott films produced by Universal.
But “Trolls World Tour” has accumulated more than 100 million U.S. dollars in on-demand revenue is really tempting.
In September, Disney’s “Mulan” joined the ranks, and the on-demand price of $29.9 refreshed the monolithic pricing of this model.
In December, after a successful mixed release trial of “Wonder Woman 1984“, Warner announced that it would adopt the same distribution method for the 17 cinema movies in 2021.
This year, the simultaneous distribution of hospitals and networks has become more popular.
This model weakened the economic value originally brought by the exclusive period of theaters, and at the same time shifted part of the demand to streaming media, which dealt a great blow to theaters.
Under this model, the film party does not have to split the accounts with the theater or pay high box office dividends for the income generated on streaming media, which can be described as killing three birds with one stone.
This quietly transfers the interests that originally needed to be distributed between the theater and the main creative to the hands of the producer.
This is also the reason why this model has triggered many wars of words.
But does the mixed distribution model of hospitals and networks really look so good?
It weakened the strong early screening box office, and the lasting performance of all other windows, the cannibalism of the two windows led to a reduction in overall revenue.
The harm of online piracy is also more serious.
In addition, there are statistical problems.
At present, the success of a movie is mainly measured by box office revenue.
After turning to mixed distribution, does the commercial success of a movie depend on the movie box office or the number of streaming media subscriptions?
But the purpose of big studios is not only the number of streaming media subscriptions, but also the growth rate and stock price!
Changes in the development strategy of major studios
In the past, Netflix, the barbarian, constantly robbed major Hollywood companies in terms of channels, art, and creative talents.
Before the epidemic, major studios were boycotting streaming media on the one hand, and on the other hand they were also stepping up preparations for their own platforms.
After the epidemic, they not only accelerated the construction of streaming media platforms, but also took the development of streaming media as their main strategy.
Take Disney as an example.
Its family-friendly streaming media platform Disney+ was launched in November 2019, and the number of subscriptions exceeded the 100 million mark on March 10, 2021.
It only took 16 months, much higher than Netflix, HBO MAX, Peacock and other platforms.
As of Q2 this year, its number of subscriptions has reached 116 million. Together with the group’s other two major streaming media Hulu and ESPN+, Disney’s total streaming media subscriptions reached 170 million.
This surpasses Amazon Prime Video and is slightly lower than Netflix.
The surge in subscribers directly stimulated the stock price. In the past two years, Disney’s market value has continued to reach new highs, reaching 350 billion US dollars at one time.
Before Disney+ went online, its market value was hovering around 200 billion, and it was surpassed by Netflix many times.
Streaming media has brought strong growth to Disney, and it can also offset the losses incurred by the parks and theaters that are most affected by the epidemic. Streaming media business has become its most important business sector.
In October last year, Disney announced a major adjustment to its organizational structure centered on the development of streaming media.
The strategy of giving priority to streaming media has allowed major manufacturers to increasingly put the most attractive content on streaming media.
Still take Disney as an example. In order to increase the competitiveness of Disney+, intensively launch original content to attract users.
In the first half of this year alone, three blockbuster Marvel spinoff series of “Wanda Vision“, “Falcon and the Winter Soldier” and “Loki” were launched, as well as two theatrical blockbusters “Cruella” and “Black Widow“. There is almost no window period for new content.
This transformation makes Hollywood’s biggest beneficiaries, which have opened up the closed loop of content production and distribution.
But this has a huge financial impact on actors, producers and other major creators.
In the original salary structure, their income is being eroded by the growth of streaming media.
War of words reflects the strength of bargaining power
Disputes over interests caused by streaming media are not unique to Disney.
As mentioned above, in April last year, AMC announced a boycott of films produced by Universal.
In July, the two parties reached a new agreement: to maintain a 17-day window period, in exchange, AMC will share 10% of the US PVOD on-demand revenue.
Also last year, in order to obtain support from the creator for the mixed release of “Wonder Woman 1984“, Warner Bros. compensated the director and heroine of the film with an “additional pay” of US$10 million each.
A benefit compensation agreement was reached with Legend Pictures to ensure that “Godzilla vs. Kong” and “Dune” can be mixed and distributed.
This year, Warner Bros. also reached a new window period agreement with AMC, which is to resume 45 days in 2022.
For studios, talents and cinema chains are the most important collaborative forces that need to be wooed in the industry.
While major studios such as Warner and Universal are feeding their own streaming media, they also pay attention to maintaining relationships with creative talents and theater chains. Why is Disney so tough?
First, as an industry leader, Disney has strong bargaining power.
- After completing the acquisition of 21st Century Fox, Disney has become the world’s largest content producer, and the popularity of Marvel movies around the world has also made it a well-deserved overlord.
- As an industry leader, he has a natural advantage in negotiation.
Second, Marvel is changing generations, and the black widow is about to be unemployed.
- At present, the first stage of Marvel has ended, and the black widow, one of the veterans, is also sacrificed in “Avengers 4: Endgame”, not the main role of the next stage of the plot.
Third, Disney’s production capacity.
- In the Marvel universe, there are too many superheroes who can make origin movies.
- In addition, in single hero movies, the market performance of “Black Widow” is not very good.
- Top stars like Scarlett Johansson are still weak in front of big companies.
Who will win the lawsuit in the end?
Scarlett Johansson has the advantage of public opinion in the Hollywood environment where feminism is rising and streaming media is condemning the rules.
But the core of the court’s decision is still how to judge the impact of streaming media on the box office.
According to analysis, the main reason for the 67% drop in box office of “Black Widow” during the weekend was the simultaneous launch of Disney+.
This weakened the strong early box office and lasting performance of the screenings, and led to the outflow of piracy.
As a result, theater audiences are diverted and paid genuine consumption declines.
The CEO’s statement also shows Disney’s concerns from the side.
Binding top actors and producers has always been the key to high-quality content production. As tough as Disney, you must also consider the relationship with the creator in the end.
There is a high probability that Disney will compromise or seek an out-of-court settlement to quell this turmoil.
But Pandora’s Box was opened.
Inspired by Scarlett, more actors began to express their dissatisfaction and even considered rights protection.
After Disney announced that “Shang-Chi” will adopt theatrical priority release.
The male protagonist Simu Liu ranted on his personal social media, “We are not experimental products, now we are weak and underestimated…”
In addition, the judicial results will have a profound impact on movies released in streaming media, especially how the new salary system should take into account streaming media distribution variables.
Scarlett’s salary case will always come to light, but the disputes over streaming media are far from stopping.
As a playback window, streaming media has long surpassed theater audiences due to its convenient, massive, fragmented, and interactive viewing characteristics.
But streaming media is more than just a distribution window. The distribution of cinema audiences and the entry of original content production are continuously affecting the production structure, business model and even the art evaluation system of the film. The impact on the entire film industry is no less than that. The television industry of the year.
The few verbal battles after the epidemic are the most intuitive response to this impact, and Scarlett’s salary proposal made this contradiction public.
After all, the film and television industry is a problem of funds and talents. When the contradiction between the two cannot be adjusted, it is the most difficult thing in the industry.
Related Post: Why Scarlett Johansson sued Disney？
