Thread by @Variety

While there has been speculation that other stars will file lawsuits against Disney, it’s just as likely, if not more so, that Scarlett Johansson will stand alone. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

“This may be an outlier case,” says an attorney who handles many profit participation disputes. “How many major stars are going to be willing to sign on for a case like this? Our experience is talent is resistant.” bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

In striking a blow against the largest entertainment company on the planet, Johansson has been likened to Olivia de Havilland, whose 1943 lawsuit against Warner Bros. challenged the studio system. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

The case prompted California to bar studios from locking actors into contracts that were longer than seven years. But if the Johansson case sets any precedent, it will be limited to disputes that arise out of this transitional period. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

When her contract was written, in 2017, Disney Plus did not exist and it did not seem important to specify that a “theatrical” release would also be “exclusively theatrical.” No one writing a contract now would make that mistake. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

“It should have said ‘exclusively in theaters.’ It could have said that, and it didn’t,” says an entertainment law expert. “This is the start of people paying way more attention to this issue in their contracts.” bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

Other players are going back through past deals to see if they can amend them before cameras start rolling. “We’re all reconsidering our contracts,” says Uri Singer, a producer on Noah Baumbach’s upcoming adaptation of #WhiteNoise for Netflix. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

“It’s not like it was two years ago, where there was a set definition of a back end,” says the producer. “Now, you’re not even sure there will be a theatrical release, and that changes things completely.” bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

Such transitions keep lawyers employed for decades arguing about how to interpret old contracts. But most of those disputes will take place out of the public eye, in front of arbitrators. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

Johansson’s suit seeks to avoid arbitration by going after parent company Disney rather than Marvel—which has an arbitration provision in her contract. Arbitrators are seen as being more favorable to employers and such clauses are generally nonnegotiable. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

It can be easy, however, to place too much emphasis on the weak position of talent during this transition. Streaming deals do not offer as much of a back-end payout, but that payout now typically comes upfront—whether a project is a hit or not. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

And in an era when Wall Street is more interested in subscriber growth than profits, studios are not as constrained in bestowing lavish compensation packages. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

Of course, the kind of payday that Johansson is seeking is usually out of reach for even the most powerful stars. In a typical year, studios dole out profit participation on only three or four of their films. Most movies lose money. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

And yet, some veterans sound wistful about the old days, when they would know if their movie was a hit and if they were poised to enjoy a big payday by whether a studio chief called them with the grosses or if they gave that job to a lesser executive. bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

“It was all about how high the person calling you was in the pecking order,” remembers producer David Permut. “When it was the studio gate guard calling, you knew you were screwed.” bit.ly/3yXJ6aw

“Even though you make more money with the streamers, we’re gamblers in the film business,” says Permut. “We live by rolling the dice. When that goes away, some of the fun does too.” bit.ly/3yXJ6aw