https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22600396/scarlett-johansson-suing-disney-black-widow-release
This is what happens when people don't read and have no understanding about the English language anymore. Last time I checked, the word "wide" means "largely", "over a vast area"...
wide
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈwīd \
wider; widest
Definition of wide
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: having great extent : VASTa wide area
b: extending over a vast area : EXTENSIVEa wide reputation
c: extending throughout a specified area or scope —usually used in combinationnationwideindustry-wide
d: COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUSIVEa wide assortment
2a: having a specified extension from side to side3 feet wide
b: having much extent between the sides : BROADa wide doorway
c: fully openedwide-eyed
d: LAX sense 4
3a: extending or fluctuating considerably between limitsa wide variation
b: straying or deviating from something specified —used with ofthe accusation was wide of the truth
4of an animal ration : relatively rich in carbohydrate as compared with protein
This is the definition of "wide" from the Webster dictionary online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wide. In nowhere does it say "exclusive" or "excluding others and only", "nothing else". This is the definition of "exclusive" from the same webster dictionary online https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive:
exclusive
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
ex·clu·sive | \ ik-ˈsklü-siv , -ziv \
Definition of exclusive
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: excluding or having power to exclude
b: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2a: excluding others from participation
b: snobbishly aloof
3a: accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class)
b: STYLISH, FASHIONABLE
c: restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4a: SINGLE, SOLEexclusive jurisdiction
b: WHOLE, UNDIVIDEDhis exclusive attention
None of that is included in the definition of "wide". How can she and her lawyer interpret the "wide theatrical release" to be "exclusive theatrical release and no other publishing venues"??? I don't give a crap of what is generally understood, you go by what's written in the freaking contract!! The words in the freaking contract said "wide release" means release over a wide range of theatres but nowhere it said it would be exclusively released to theatres only meaning released exclusively or only or solely to theatres and nowhere else.
I blame her lawyer. Scarlett Johansson is an actress; she has no training in law and it's not her job to scrutinize a contract and go over all of the disclaimers, super-fine prints with a microscope and definitions and understand everything that's written there and make sure that it's reflecting exactly what is agreed upon by all parties involved and is in her best interest. That's her lawyer's job. This is what she paid big money to the lawyer for. If the difference between "wide release" and "exclusive release" is understood by some layperson like me, how can it not be picked up by her lawyer? How can her lawyer not question this and seek clarification from Disney about what's "wide release" and "exclusive release" before the contract is signed and instead have to have her to try to renegotiate after the fact when the movie is going to be released in streaming services? By that time, it's already too late. Disney is not going to cough up the money when it sees it's theirs. Her lawyer totally dropped the ball on her. They are either incompetent or were bought by Disney. I hope it's not the latter because that's grounds for disbarment if Johansson is able to prove this.
I feel bad for her. Everybody that I know that saw the movie all loved it and said she was great in it as usual. She really deserves what she should've gotten if they had exclusively released the movie to the theatre and not Disney+ which they created to steal movies from NetFlix. I hope she wins and gets rightly compensated but I have a bad feeling that she's going to lose because in the court of contract law, it's what's written in the contract, no matter how fine the print that counts not what's "generally understood" especially when Disney, like stated in the article, is trying to establish the fact that it's the norm that movies by Disney released during the pandemic are released to both theatres and over streaming services. Can't believe Disney is using an unfortunate maladie to try to redefine what's "generally understood".
The only ways that she might be able to win is 1) if she can establish that Disney has always released movies exclusively to theatres even when it's stipulated in the contract that it's "wide release to theatres" BEFORE the advent of streaming services (the legal term for it is called modus operandi I believe. I stand to be corrected by anybody who is of the legal profession) It has to be BEFORE, that's very important because Disney can turn around and say well we released movies exclusively to theatres before because there was no streaming services back then so this is due to change of circumstances. and/or 2) if she can provide evidence that somebody in the position of authority from Disney has stated to her somehow, in any confirmed form that the movie is to be released exclusively to theatres only despite what the contract says and if it's ever released over streaming services, she's entitled to extra compensation.
Either way it's a long shot. And her lawyer(s) better put in everything that they got to help her win her case in court otherwise they owe her $50 million for not having vetted her contract properly. But whether they win or lose the case, if I were Johansson, I would fire them and have nothing to do with them.
This is what happens when people don't read and have no understanding about the English language anymore. Last time I checked, the word "wide" means "largely", "over a vast area"...
wide
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈwīd \
wider; widest
Definition of wide
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: having great extent : VASTa wide area
b: extending over a vast area : EXTENSIVEa wide reputation
c: extending throughout a specified area or scope —usually used in combinationnationwideindustry-wide
d: COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUSIVEa wide assortment
2a: having a specified extension from side to side3 feet wide
b: having much extent between the sides : BROADa wide doorway
c: fully openedwide-eyed
d: LAX sense 4
3a: extending or fluctuating considerably between limitsa wide variation
b: straying or deviating from something specified —used with ofthe accusation was wide of the truth
4of an animal ration : relatively rich in carbohydrate as compared with protein
This is the definition of "wide" from the Webster dictionary online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wide. In nowhere does it say "exclusive" or "excluding others and only", "nothing else". This is the definition of "exclusive" from the same webster dictionary online https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive:
exclusive
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
ex·clu·sive | \ ik-ˈsklü-siv , -ziv \
Definition of exclusive
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: excluding or having power to exclude
b: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2a: excluding others from participation
b: snobbishly aloof
3a: accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class)
b: STYLISH, FASHIONABLE
c: restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4a: SINGLE, SOLEexclusive jurisdiction
b: WHOLE, UNDIVIDEDhis exclusive attention
None of that is included in the definition of "wide". How can she and her lawyer interpret the "wide theatrical release" to be "exclusive theatrical release and no other publishing venues"??? I don't give a crap of what is generally understood, you go by what's written in the freaking contract!! The words in the freaking contract said "wide release" means release over a wide range of theatres but nowhere it said it would be exclusively released to theatres only meaning released exclusively or only or solely to theatres and nowhere else.
I blame her lawyer. Scarlett Johansson is an actress; she has no training in law and it's not her job to scrutinize a contract and go over all of the disclaimers, super-fine prints with a microscope and definitions and understand everything that's written there and make sure that it's reflecting exactly what is agreed upon by all parties involved and is in her best interest. That's her lawyer's job. This is what she paid big money to the lawyer for. If the difference between "wide release" and "exclusive release" is understood by some layperson like me, how can it not be picked up by her lawyer? How can her lawyer not question this and seek clarification from Disney about what's "wide release" and "exclusive release" before the contract is signed and instead have to have her to try to renegotiate after the fact when the movie is going to be released in streaming services? By that time, it's already too late. Disney is not going to cough up the money when it sees it's theirs. Her lawyer totally dropped the ball on her. They are either incompetent or were bought by Disney. I hope it's not the latter because that's grounds for disbarment if Johansson is able to prove this.
I feel bad for her. Everybody that I know that saw the movie all loved it and said she was great in it as usual. She really deserves what she should've gotten if they had exclusively released the movie to the theatre and not Disney+ which they created to steal movies from NetFlix. I hope she wins and gets rightly compensated but I have a bad feeling that she's going to lose because in the court of contract law, it's what's written in the contract, no matter how fine the print that counts not what's "generally understood" especially when Disney, like stated in the article, is trying to establish the fact that it's the norm that movies by Disney released during the pandemic are released to both theatres and over streaming services. Can't believe Disney is using an unfortunate maladie to try to redefine what's "generally understood".
The only ways that she might be able to win is 1) if she can establish that Disney has always released movies exclusively to theatres even when it's stipulated in the contract that it's "wide release to theatres" BEFORE the advent of streaming services (the legal term for it is called modus operandi I believe. I stand to be corrected by anybody who is of the legal profession) It has to be BEFORE, that's very important because Disney can turn around and say well we released movies exclusively to theatres before because there was no streaming services back then so this is due to change of circumstances. and/or 2) if she can provide evidence that somebody in the position of authority from Disney has stated to her somehow, in any confirmed form that the movie is to be released exclusively to theatres only despite what the contract says and if it's ever released over streaming services, she's entitled to extra compensation.
Either way it's a long shot. And her lawyer(s) better put in everything that they got to help her win her case in court otherwise they owe her $50 million for not having vetted her contract properly. But whether they win or lose the case, if I were Johansson, I would fire them and have nothing to do with them.
