Black Widow, the latest entrant in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the first since 2019, has set records for a pandemic opening weekend, raking in $80,366,312, the largest opening since Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. It's also made a big splash by being available to simultaneously purchase for a premium price at home, via Disney+, and has garnered pretty favorable responses from critics and audiences. Another homerun for the company, right?

Well, things have been complicated thoroughly by an announcement from the film's star Scarlett Johansson that Disney had breached a clause in their contract, economically disadvantaging her, whilst favoring the higher ups with large stock in the performance of Disney+. In order to unpack the implications of this lawsuit on the world of blockbuster filmmaking, we must first explain how Disney may have crippled Johansson's earnings. Many big names for Marvel, as well as Disney productions in general, bank on the high grosses of their releases to earn a significant percentage of box office. When cash rolls in from theatres, the actors receive a previously agreed upon cut of the profits. As such, contracts are negotiated to ensure a lengthy theatrical window, meaning the film has ample time to draw in audiences physically, before being placed on streaming services, so as to ensure that a maximum amount of viewers, unlikely to wait, pay to see it. By placing Black Widow on Disney+ premiere access, Johansson alleges her contract has been breached and that she has been deprived of a significant portion of what her salary would have been, had Disney not diverted audiences' revenue to the stay-at-home option. Some media reports suggest that Johansson has lost around $50 million dollars.

Following Johansson's lawyer's first statement, Disney launched a woefully misguided response, attempting to not so subtly shame Johansson for launching the suit. The company alleged that the premium access premiere had “significantly enhanced [Johansson's] ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20m she has received to date". Outside of this point having nothing to do with whether the terms of Johansson's contract had been violated, Disney was making an attempt to highlight how well off their star already was, basically insinuating that she should pipe down and be grateful. They echoed the sentiment later on in their most blatant attack: “[Johansson's lawsuit is] especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic".

Scarlett's agent Brian Lourd swiftly denounced Disney's actions and response, backed up by various organisations and public support. "Scarlett has been Disney's partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Disney's direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades.” Her lawyer, John Berlinski of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, concluded; “It's no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney+ to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price – and that it's hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so.”

It's clear that Disney has curried no favor in their dealings with Johansson. Whether or not the case is robust is another question entirely. The breach is supposedly confined to the implications of a single sentence of her contract. “For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer [Marvel] in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens)”. The dispute comes down to whether or not this sentence implies that the release may only be a wide theatrical release (as per Johansson's legal team, thereby making the Disney+ release a breach) or that in the event of a theatrical release, that this release must constitute a wide release (as per Disney, who would then have made good on providing such a release, regardless of the simultaneous streaming release). It's worth noting that Johansson's suit does not claim that Disney has committed a straight breach of contract, but rather tortious interference, meaning someone has damaged the contractual relationship between Scarlett and Disney, causing economic harm. As such, Johansson's chances of beating Disney at their own game are likely slim.

What is of more concern, however, is that Disney has made a serious error in letting the situation deteriorate so thoroughly, compared to how other conglomerates have managed the transition to a hybrid release strategy. In the wake of Johansson's announcement, public personalities and organisations have been slamming Disney, and the suit could make stars a little bit more distrustful of the company, and more likely to demand guaranteed salaries, or a greater share of streaming profits. Companies have been settling scores with disgruntled talent since the pandemic first began, most famously the debacle between Warner Brothers and Christopher Nolan. In a bid to reignite interest in their freshly launched streaming service HBO Max, which had netted a dismal subscriber base of just over 8 million viewers, Warner demolished their theatrical window, and opted to release films simultaneously in theatres and on the service. None of their talent had been informed before the decision was finalized, and outrage was strong. Nolan left it all on the table in a quote for the film history books: “Some of our industry's biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service.” With concerns over piracy, percentage gross, etc., Nolan is unlikely to return, but aside from this, Warner got their act together and managed to quietly assuage the nerves of their talent. That Disney did not learn as witnesses to this speaks either to their callousness or their confidence.

And so, as the lawsuit moves to inevitably conclude behind closed doors, stars will look to see how they can protect their grosses, CEOs will look to see what their shareholders can abide by, and studios will look to see how they can renegotiate their talent's terms to avoid a similar public falling out.