Stars Vs. streaming: Can Scarlett Johansson change the new rules of the movie industry game?
The legal battle with Disney for the transmission of the movie "Black Widow" will be a test to measure the weight of the stars in the streaming industry.
Olivia de Havilland, a star of Gone with the Wind, set Hollywood ablaze in the 1940s with a lawsuit against the powerful Warner Bros. studio.
De Havilland struggled to escape an exclusive contract with Warner because she felt she was limiting her to mediocre roles. She won the case, striking out at the binding contracts of the major studios of the time and giving the actors a level of independence that has been maintained to this day.
Similarly, contemporary mega-actress Scarlett Johansson has taken a legal stand against a large studio, claiming that Disney used the movie Black Widow to lure people to its streaming service, squeezing its stock price at the expense of Johansson, who in addition to being the protagonist was an executive producer and whose bonus was linked to box office sales.
Negotiations between actors and studios are often tense. Johansson's battle stands out because it was made public in a spectacular way, sparking dramatic reactions in Hollywood. In fact, one film critic declared: "Cinema will never be the same again."
But while de Havilland legitimately made history, Johansson's chances of taking down the streamers who now control Hollywood seem slimmer.
Change in industry
Over the past seven decades, as actors have been allowed to "go self-employed" in the studios, they have enjoyed considerable influence. The highest echelon of stars began to earn a share of the profits from a movie with artists like Marlon Brando in the 1950s, aligning the interests of both sides. Either they prosper or they sink together.
Streaming has destroyed this model. Disney and Wall Street see subscribers as the metric of success, not box office revenue. And they don't share subscription revenue with actors.
Disney responded to Johansson's lawsuit with poison, surprising onlookers. The company accused the actress of "cruel indifference" to the pandemic, and highlighted her salary of US $ 20 million.
Hollywood is in the midst of a heartbreaking digital revolution and the world continues to fight a pandemic.
One studio executive believes Disney's response was an attempt to "trigger her warning early" on future movie earnings, effectively saying, "You will never get a piece of this."
Warner and Netflix have kept the stars happy by handing out big checks up front, paying them like every movie is a blockbuster. Disney has calculated that it is more powerful than bad publicity or angry actors.
Johansson's lawsuit hinges on the performance of her contract, which promises a "broad theatrical release." Does the big theatrical release prevent transmission? A well-known entertainment industry lawyer calls it "shady." But even if Johansson did win, her battle cry probably wouldn't spark the defining moment the actors are hoping for.
Taylor Swift case
Actors are less influential in the age of streaming for a number of reasons. After its historic consolidation, a handful of large streaming services preside over the entire business. Intellectual property has become the most coveted asset, rather than hiring Tom Cruise or Johansson for a role. Instead, studios want franchises that they can turn into endless movies and TV series to keep subscribers satisfied. (Disney prepares 10 Star Wars-only shows).
The power of the actors is further weakened because they do not even know the success of their films. In the past, box office results assigned a dollar value to a movie, guaranteeing actors a specific bonus or percentage pay. In the broadcast, the owner of the platform is the only party that knows exactly how many people watched a movie or how the subscription numbers changed.
In this new order, Johansson could be more of a Taylor Swift than de Havilland. In 2014, Swift - at the time the most financially successful singer - boycotted Spotify, making a series of statements about her not getting paid to musicians for her work. In three years she gave up, as Spotify grew so big that it became inevitable. Today Swift thanks Spotify as she promotes her new music.
Having gained 104 million subscribers in just a year and a half, Disney + has already secured her place in the streaming market. The superheroification of the movie industry gives Disney even more power; landing a role in a Marvel movie can make an actor's career.
It's unclear if Disney's emotionless approach will shape talent contracts in the future. Hollywood is in the midst of a heartbreaking digital revolution and the world continues to fight a pandemic. However, one thing is for sure: the tug of war between studios and talent will continue whether in private or in public.
