Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

Pretty damning email:

> In a March 2019 email included in the suit, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi said the release would be according to a traditional theatrical model, adding, “We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”

UPDATE: just realized that she's suing Disney and this quote is from a Marvel exec. Still bad, but it would be much worse if it had been a Disney exec.

View on HN

Oof. A clear statement like that from a lawyer... and then not doing the thing they themselves said they would need to do?

Someone had an unfortunate day when that email surfaced in court filings.

> But for Disney, “Black Widow” has been seen as a success, given that the company also released the picture on its Disney+ streaming service for a $30 surcharge. Disney says the movie generated more than $60 million in digital sales this way, reflecting viewership of at least two million households over the opening weekend.

Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?

Disney: Hype, take advantage of brand loyalty to make a quick buck, no substance

https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-widow-enters-a-gray-area-...

I've been loving theaters currently (post(?) pandemic). Mostly still empty in my town, all seating is comfy heated recliners these days. Bring it.

> Why would streamers pay $30 for premiere access, when you can go to theaters (pre-covid) for ~$12 with a better experience?

$30 for the household, a one-time cost. For one person it's a no-brainer, theater is cheaper unless it's a long drive away. With 2 people it's probably cheaper to go to the theater depending on distance and whether you get concessions. With 3 it's break even depending on theater costs in your area and assuming you don't get concessions. With 4 or more, the $30 price is definitely better outside of a few lower cost of living areas (if they even have a theater nearby). And you can rewatch it throughout that premier access period. Though that's less applicable to Black Widow, versus movies aimed more at small kids.

We have a new born and as such, banned from theaters for 3-4-5 years. Glad streaming is an option now.

Also a good reason to prefer streaming. My wife and I don't have kids (yet), but fortunately we also like different movies so when the time comes we'll probably trade off kid duties so the other can go see a movie and get away for a bit (when we go to theaters now, half the time we're not seeing the same movie anyways).

There you go.

"Said". Good luck with "said" in the court.

Movie was bad nevertheless.

It's in an email. Why would that be problematic for court?

Because it's not a contract. If emails were contracts, every email that comes later would supersede it. You can't run things that way. If you agree to it, put it in a contract. But if you wanted to allow emails as contracts, then the last email on a subject would always be the final contract for instance. It would be too unfair and difficult to sort out.

For instance, was the highlighted email the last email on the subject? If not, do those subsequent emails also represent contracts? What was in the last email? The game could go on and on. Whereas with a properly executed contract, everyone knows what everyone signed.

Now it can influence legal proceedings, but only insofar as it illustrates where a negotiation was going. And again, subsequent emails would point to where those negotiations landed in the end.

In some jurisdictions, courts use a "four corners of the document" test, and nothing outside of the document can be used to interpret the meaning of the contract.

Other jurisdictions allow extrinsic evidence (like this email) to help interpret the language of the contract. We would need to know what the governing jurisdiction is for this contract in order to know how much an outside email would matter in court.

But in the court of public opinion (which matters somewhat for famous people and well-known companies), these legal technicalities won't matter. The headline will be that a Marvel exec said that they would need to revisit the compensation if they didn't do a standard theatrical release.

"said" referring to something written in this case, in an email. It's not hearsay (if that's what you're implying) but a statement by someone with some degree of authority/responsibility.

This can actually become important in legal proceedings. It's one reason to be careful with what people say in meetings or write in communications with customers or others, as it can become legally binding if they're perceived to have sufficient authority/responsibility to back the statement.

If naked promises are taken seriously and suddenly recognized by courts, everything will burst in flames. This is simply absurd.

I didn't say naked promises, where I've seen this have a real world consequence was when the speaker seemed to have authority they did not, or made a statement that conveyed an intent they did not mean. Like "We're ready to start on the project" being taken by a contractor to mean, "Get dev work started today" and then billing the work when the speaker wasn't actually authorizing the start at that time. It's about whether there's a potential good faith misunderstanding of the statement. The contractor didn't take the statement and run with it to bill hours they shouldn't have billed, they legitimately took the statement to be the go ahead to get started and billed accordingly.

But that doesn't make for a good contractor now, does it? If they're so naive to run after every stick thrown at them and lose on that, no real court should help them.

That is the whole reason for the "invention" of contracts, where everything is finalized, official, set in stone, and unbreakable.

Problem with Scarlet is that in no way she could have foreseen 2020 and didn't think any of it. Now that stuff happened, she's just angry at her misfortune and is reaching for straws. It's unfortunate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com