Scarlett Johansson’s CAA agent rips into Disney for their harsh statement

World Premiere Of Marvel Studios' 'Avengers: Endgame'

On Thursday, Scarlett Johansson dropped a lawsuit on Disney for breach of contract. The basic gist is that Scarlett didn’t want Black Widow to be released on Disney’s premiere access subscription service simultaneously with the theatrical release, and ScarJo believes (correctly) that the streaming numbers suppressed the theatrical box office. Scarlett’s profit-sharing backend is based solely on the box office numbers and her lawsuit points out that Disney made tens of millions of dollars from streaming, in addition to signing up new subscribers.

Apparently, Hollywood insiders are supporting Scarlett. Variety quotes one unnamed agent who said: “Good for her. A lot of other actors are cheering for Scarlett and rooting her on. She has a lot of power and that makes this a visible conversation that puts Disney on the spot. By doing all of this in public, she might be able to change the rulebook.” When Warner Bros dumped their new slate on HBO Max, they worked out deals with their talent, providing $250 million in backend deals to people like Denzel Washington, Will Smith and Gal Gadot. Disney did not do that for Scarlett and that’s likely why this has ended up happening in the public sphere. Disney thought they could just shrug off Scarlett’s private complaints and she wouldn’t do anything like this. Disney also thought they could send out this nasty statement:

“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of ‘Black Widow’ on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 [million] she has received to date.”

[Via Variety]

That statement was so harsh, it actually brought more people to Scarlett’s side. Disney has actually laid off 30,000 workers during the pandemic, so it’s pretty rich of them to claim that Scarlett is the one who has a “callous disregard” for the pandemic. Not to mention, it’s pretty f–king rude and sexist to actually tell the world Scarlett’s salary. Disney was attempting to bait sexist a–holes into attacking Scarlett as just another rich bitch complaining about her millions. Which is probably why Scarlett’s CAA agent Bryan Lourd issued his own very harsh statement condemning Disney for what they are trying to do. Here’s Lourd’s statement:

I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.

Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. 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. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.

This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. 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. That’s it, pure and simple. 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.

[From Deadline]

“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.” That’s exactly it. Disney included her salary to weaponize her success, but even more than that, they wanted to tell the world: don’t feel sorry for this rich woman, she’s already making millions. The fact that CAA is calling out Disney is important here too, because it means it’s not just about Scarlett being okay with burning her bridges with Disney. It’s about the most powerful talent agency in Hollywood picking a side, and it will have larger repercussions for CAA’s talent slate and their relationships with the largest and most powerful studio in town. Hollywood is about to go to the mattresses.

Lincoln Center American Songbook Gala in New York

scarjo BW1

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Marvel/Black Widow.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

75 Responses to “Scarlett Johansson’s CAA agent rips into Disney for their harsh statement”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Annie says:

    👏 I hope more people rally against Disney because of that statement and support Scarlett.

  2. Sierra says:

    Although I hate CAA and judge every woman who claims to support Metoo and then still be part of CAA, I agree with this one.

    Disney made a bad move trying to turn this into a poor rich woman complaining saga.

    • josephine says:

      I agree. The statement was a dog whistle, and I’m so, so sick of men trying to invite the world to bash women in order to deflect from their own wrongdoing. Disney was apparently trying to woo the nasty women-bashers with this statement. What a disgusting and callous move.

      • Darla says:

        Your comment made me think…the Marvel fanboys ARE toxic, we just have to look at how they treat Brie for evidence of that. (they consider her too “woke”) Did Disney miscalculate though? The reason why many of us here don’t care for Scarjo is because she’s a man’s girl, not a girl’s girl. This is not a sisters before misters type of woman. She is someone who loves and works for the male approval cookies. She loves herself a problematic man. She will go to bat for them time and again, and to hell with their woman victims. And so, men love her.

        Disney may not get the activation of the toxic marvel bros they were looking for. If this were Brie? They’d already be swarming.

      • josephine says:

        @ Darla – I don’t need to like Scarjo to dislike the tactic Disney is using here. I’ve really disliked many of her comments and positions but am not about to reduce her to someone who is only after male approval and is anti-women when there is so much misdirection and misinformation in Hollywood. She may well be 100% awful but I’m always hesitant to completely write off a successful woman in Hollywood given how murky the info is.

      • Arpeggi says:

        100% agree with you @Josephine! Likability doesn’t matter, ScarJo is right and Disney know it

      • Maria says:

        There is nothing murky about her support of a child rapist.
        She deserves to win this suit (as far as I can tell anyway, without seeing her contract, as others have stated) but let’s not pretend that even though she’s right in this instance that she is unfairly slandered when it comes to her dismissive attitudes about abuse victims.
        Likeability absolutely does not matter in this instance, I agree; so let’s not pretend about hers. It doesn’t mean Disney shouldn’t pay her.

        I think Darla is agreeing with you in that yes, this is a misogynist tactic Disney is using. Which may well backfire.

      • Darla says:

        Yes Maria I was agreeing. :) Thank you. lol

      • JT says:

        CAA is only going hard because this effects the agents as well. Less money for Scarlett, or other actors, means less money for them too. Maybe I’m just not understanding everything’s out this lawsuit but we are in a pandemic. There isn’t as much money going around especially for those involved in the arts which heavily dependent on audiences to sustain them. Since audiences aren’t willing to go out in droves during a deadly virus, less money is being made. Sooner or later, the people at the top of the food chain were going to start feeling those effects. I guess all of the actors spouting all those “we’re all in this together” nonsense are singing a different tune now that they are making less.

      • thecookingpan says:


  3. cassandra says:

    I like that they referred to her as Disney’s partner in the statement.

    And yeah, they definitely effed up by going so hard in that original statement.

  4. EnormousCoat says:

    How did her team not address the streaming part though? Like, I would be pissed at Disney but I think I would be upset with my lawyer and manager if my contract didn’t have that sorted.
    As for Disney reaching for COVID, I suspected that’s where they would go as soon as I saw this headline. But COVID isn’t the issue: the issue is being compensated fairly for your work through all of its channels. Disney should have worked this out once it was raised so I don’t get the strategy. A PR war with talent won’t net them anything.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Her team tried to address it repeatedly over the past year and was rebuffed. All of that is explained in the paperwork filed in court and in the statement she released when they filed.

    • Izzy says:

      This contract would have been done several years ago, before simultaneous release on streaming was a thing. No one thought it would happen so quickly – a pandemic changed that. Her team didn’t screw up the contract.

    • North of Boston says:

      There’s a difference between “the streaming part” in a normal film release schedule and doing a same day and date opening release premium streaming offer that is effectively siphoning off revenue from the box office throughout the first part of the theatrical release.

      She likely had sweeteners/bonuses that would have paid out if BO hit particular targets during the initial run AND a theatrical release exclusivity (for x period of time) clause in the contract. And Disney’s decision to both release it through Disney + the same date of theatrical release AND fail to even attempt to renegotiate the contract to account for that and fairly compensate SJ was a greedy 100 lb gorilla (or Mouse) move.

      Their public statement was just the cherry turd on top of a crappy sundae.

      Glad her named CAA rep and others are calling Disney out.

    • Delilah says:

      Thank you for underscoring the value of being compensated fairly and equitably for your work. I’m going through this with my job. They are trying to scapegoat COVID for their blatant violations of fair labor standards. Essentially, classes of employees ended up performing work outside their original job description. Moreover, some, more than others—like myself and my unit—handled significantly bigger projects that easily fell under other units’ jurisdiction. Now, the company is dismissing those of us with out-of-title grievances with the party lines, “oh, but the work you did in lieu of the pandemic doesn’t count and is in the past.”

      I applaud Scarjo for this. It truly underscores how critical it is to fight for your rights when a company tries to gaslight you into submission and compliance. I wish I could say why they don’t level with employees and give them their dues is beyond me. But it isn’t. Corporations especially big ones are very bottom line oriented. They don’t serve their conscience. It’s about power. They know they will set a dangerous precedent in compensating employees just because it’s the right thing to do. Then they’d have to do it in each instance, for each employee and thereby fail to line their pockets with ill gotten gains as I’ m sure is the custom—to steal from the poor and give to the rich. Scarjo may not be poor but in this scenario she is the victim whose rights have been violated. Scarjo is not just taking it lying down by using her power and I’m inspired. 👏🏾 👏🏾 👏🏾

      • Kath says:

        I so understand what you mean by companies using COVID as an excuse to increase their bottom-line in favor of their employees. Last year the Irish government allowed companies to cut salaries by 20% for a few months because of the pandemic and my company did it even though we were positively affected by the pandemic (we had a big sales growth due to people being stuck at home). It was so bloody unfair and everyone knew what they were doing. They also lost employees and instead of hiring replacements , they just gave their work to those that remained. Me and everyone else is doing the work of three departments each pretty much.
        Most companies just want to get as much as they can and give their employees as little as possible and that is exactly what Disney is doing as well.

    • superashes says:

      I think they did address the streaming part. Her contract with Marvel (a Disney subsidiary) stated it would be a “wide theatrical release” and follow-up e-mails from Marvel’s chief counsel confirmed that they “totally [understood]… her whole deal [was] based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like [their] other pictures…. [and that] should the plan change, [they] would need to discuss it with [her] and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.” It is clear everyone (in 2017, well after streaming services became a concern, when she negotiated the contract) understood what that meant, and that it meant the film would be exclusively in theaters for a period of a few months, before any alternative release would occur.

      I’m a transactional attorney, and my view is that if the best Disney can do is to bait misogynists and hide behind the pandemic in their public response, to me it says they 100 believe they breached the agreement, as both parties understood it, and they are trying to send a warning shot to everyone else with similar terms in their contract to be wary of filing anything (in other words, not to be a difficult partner).

      • ElleE says:

        @Superashes I am a transactional attorney too and we think alike. When the best that corporate attorneys billing over $1000 an hour can do is to advise their client to lean into misogynistic comments and focus on COVID-19 in public statements? That means you got nuthin’

        Flip side: Disney wins this and everyone’s contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printing on. That can’t be the outcome CAA wants.

  5. Sofia says:

    I agree. She deserves what she’s due and Disney should not have gone so hard against her. And Disney, if they weren’t hit with a lawsuit, could have done this to other people who don’t have Scarlett’s money, name recognition and lawyers so if she manages to set a precedent, it could help so many people

    • Golly Gee says:

      And if Disney wants to go the money shaming route, I love that Scarlett’s agent pointed out that Disney made $$ BILLIONS off of her. Quite the disproportionate ratio but not an ounce of contrition on their part, I’m sure.

      • Delilah says:

        ^^^ THIS!!! Billions to millions. Lol

      • superashes says:

        Her pleading notes that that the current Disney CEO earned 3.8 times his $2.5M base salary (i.e. close to $10M) in equity grants for working to build up Disney+, and that Bob Iger also received just over $16.5M for successfully launching and driving subscriber growth to Disney+. Funny how that $25M is missing from the discourse.

      • Truthiness says:

        Disney has been problematic since the 60′s, I don’t trust them as far as I could throw Bob Iger. I support Scarlett and any other woman or POC that they figure out ways to underpay. Weasels.

  6. sa says:

    It’s probably too small stakes to bother with, but she could probably add Disney disclosing her salary on to her lawsuit, most states have some version of publicly disclosing private information as a cause of action.

    I said the other day, that if this was just about releasing on streaming, I wouldn’t be on SJ’s side, because unprecedented global pandemic. But there is no defense for Disney not to negotiate her compensation for the streaming. That’s just bad faith on their part.

    • Duch says:

      It could be a breach of the confidentiality provision in the contract, too. The other legal angle is whether it attracts govt agency attention. If Disney’s actions affect a lot of employees, it might.

  7. Case says:

    I’m glad they hit back at Disney’s awful statement. It was so unprofessional and disrespectful, ESPECIALLY since they have a long-term working relationship with Scarlett.

    I’m not a fan of hers at all but I totally support her on this, and I’m glad she’s using her power and influence so that Disney won’t do this to lesser-known actors in the future.

    • SarahCS says:

      Same on both counts, I was ready to back her on the basis of not assuming you could move the goalposts on a woman’s contract and get away with it (after you FINALLY make and release a movie you should have made years ago) but the statement was shocking.

      Wow, I did not have 2021 down as the year that I agree with Scarlett Johannson on anything. She’s still an awful person but I’m backing her here.

    • lucy2 says:

      Completely agree. That statement hopefully will cost them.

      It looks like WB did right by their deals, Disney should have done the same. Now they’re going to have a lot of actors suing and being much more cautious in their contracts, not to mention all the bad publicity.
      I own a very small amount of Disney stock, and it’s gone up something like 40% in the past year. They’ve been making serious bank all this time, and I think thought they could cheat people they had contracts with and then cry pandemic.

    • observer says:

      ScarJo is one of my most disliked A-list actresses and yet even I’m fully rooting for her on this one. The Mouse is The Devil.

  8. Darla says:

    I’m impressed WB avoided this. I remember all the stories about actors being furious about them going direct to streaming, WW being a huge example. But they took care of it. I just don’t understand why Disney decided to go in the 100% opposite direction? They must have gotten the idea they could be “smarter” than WB and more ruthless. This is not gonna work out the way they assumed. Disney got way too big, I was never for them taking over Marvel. They own too much now.

    • Sigmund says:

      Disney does this a lot, I just don’t think they’ve ever tried it with someone as big as SJ (that we know). When they bought the SW franchise, they stopped paying royalties to a lot of authors, even as they’ve adapted those same stories into the new canon.

      They have more money than God, and they’ll happily screw over anyone.

      • Darla says:

        Yeah I read about that but I hadn’t known before now. I’m not rooting for them, that is for sure.

  9. Desdenova says:

    Disney’s statement was awful and i was sorry to see it worked.

    But also, rubbed a lot of people in the wrong way, and it’s good to see people are over looking for the perfect victim. A breach is a breach, no matter who got screwed.

    And I would be sooo happy if this was all planned and Scarlett wasn’t the only one suing.

  10. Vera says:

    It’s also inane that Disney would bring up Covid in attacking her when Disney films are showing in theaters amidst the pandemic in the first place. The company cares more about profit than public health… something about glass houses and stones.

  11. Justjj says:

    It was awful and sexist to publish her salary. And all these people make way too much money. Both of these things are true. Every time these numbers are casually thrown around, it just seems gross to me, but I mean, she stands up for a lot of others I’m sure.

  12. Snuffles says:

    I watched Grace Randolph discuss this on her YouTube channel. Scarlet is just the first person in what will probably be multiple lawsuits. It’s not just big names like her that gets affected by streaming services and how they pay out to talent, it’s everyone.

    I used to work in the independent film industry and figuring out how to pay and do collections for film and TV on the constantly evolving new ways to consume entertainment is a constant struggle.

    The pandemic just brought the streaming services situation to head. Because it turns out that the consumers LOVE having the option of streaming at home as well as going to movie theaters. And it is driving up subscriptions which is what these services want.

    So if that’s the future, then these studios need to figure out how to pay the talent and the agents, managers and lawyer need to figure out how to negotiate new deals to match the new reality.

  13. Scal says:

    Also the point is they violated the contracts of the little people that can’t fight either. She’s stepping up for all of them as well because they don’t have the $$ to argue they are getting ripped off.

  14. BusyLizzy says:

    Not a fan of ScarJo but go get that money girl! Her lawsuit is anything but baseless (I have a limited understanding of contract / entertainment law but still, seems like a breach of contrat though) and moreover will pave the way for others in the future

  15. Beth says:

    I don’t know how anyone could look at this situation and root for the corporation that rakes in billions of dollars a year. They broke their contract, plain and simple, and if it were the other way around the Disney Corporation would nail her to the wall, not say “it’s a pandemic, oh well!” They absolutely knew what they were doing was a breach of contract, they just don’t care, which is why they didn’t renegotiate a different contract with Scarlett in light of the changed circumstances. I hope she wins or it will set a bad precedent.

    • Sigmund says:

      @Beth But it’s not simple. It depends on the language of her contract. If it doesn’t specify a theater ONLY release (and tbh, chances are that it doesn’t, considering how long she’s been in the Marvel franchise, and streaming releases are a fairly new development), it’s going to be an issue for the lawyers to figure out.

      I’m NOT rooting for Disney, but too many people are making assumptions.

      • Algernon says:

        But it’s not assumptions. The initial report on this included excerpts from emails in 2019 between SJ’s team and Disney lawyers in which they acknowledged that her contract was for an exclusive theatrical release. It’s also not unusual for actors to have those exclusivity clauses in their contracts, which is why WB ended up paying hundreds of millions to satisfy their actors when they decided to put all their movies on HBO Max this year. They paid out to avoid these lawsuits because that move was in violation of those contracts.

        Also, the contract for BW was made in like 2017/18. SJ’s original Marvel contract ended with Captain America 2. They’ve had to do new deals with her all along, not unlike RDJ. It’s well within the time that lawyers would be looking out for streaming in contracts.

    • The lady legit says:

      I am rooting for the big man but technically they did not breach the contract.

    • The lady legit says:

      I am rooting for the big man but technically they did not breach the contract. I know the timing was before COVID but I do blame her agents in part. It is like Taylor swift signing a bad deal all over again.

  16. Merricat says:

    I am not unhappy to watch the giant step in a hole and fall. Disney got too big for its boots.

  17. Mia4s says:

    Children! Children! Calm down, you’re ALL awful people. Scarlett, Disney, CAA, Bryan Lourd (tried to facilitate any meetings between Harvey Weinstein and reporters looking for justice recently? F**k you.)..awful! Don’t fight, you’re all terrible! 😂

    • Darla says:

      I didn’t know that about Bryan Lourd.

      I mean, I agree, but I do believe Disney screws over a lot of little people who can’t fight back, and if she can set a precedent they can use to get what’s due them, I am all for it. I hope she wins. Doesn’t mean I will ever like her, I don’t. I don’t think she’s a good person. Sounds like Lourd isn’t it either.

      • Mia4s says:

        Disney is gonna Disney, no doubt, but at the end of the day this will all get decided on contract law, not moral high ground in the slightest.

        And yeah if even half the stories about Lourd and the CAA crew are true?…..let’s just say that any of these parties calling each other out on “integrity” is HILARIOUS.

  18. PlayItAgain says:

    Makes me feel better that I decided to wait until October to see it. I was excited to see it on Disney + because I’m not quite ready to go into theaters yet. But then I saw I had to pay for their premiere access package on top of the Disney+ fee, and I figured I could wait until it hits Disney + in October.

  19. Oopygoopy says:

    Darla- I wanted to clarify that for me, its not bc shes a mans woman- its because she is a self righteous fartsniffer who puts her own dollars before human rights (oxford and soda stream controversy), along with all the dumb things she confidently says in interviews. But otherwise yes ita with ya!

    • Darla says:

      no you’re right, a man’s woman was bad wording on my part, I thought about that after I posted it.

  20. Nancy says:

    I am a Marvel fan who normally would have seen this the second it was released. But I am not comfortable sitting in a theatre right now (even though I am fully vaccinated) with the Delta variant in play . Nor am I willing to pay $30 to sit in my own living room to watch a movie. I bet I’m not the only one who feels this way. So I’d expect earnings to be down. I also find it hard to work up any kind of pity for people making these insane amounts of money whining about not making even more insane amounts of money.

    • Snuffles says:

      You would be surprised. $30 is a bargain if you’ve got multiple people in your household. I didn’t pay it for Black Widow but I did for Cruella and watched it multiple times and felt I got my money’s worth because watching it multiple times in the theater would have cost me more money.

      And I will definitely pay when Shang Chi drops and SpiderMan 3.

  21. Gk says:

    The Disney comment about her not caring about Covid went too far. FYI its too far also if they mention her 3 marriages….I guess they couldn’t sneak that in.

  22. JT says:

    I’m kind of confused on the nuts and bolts of this case. We’re people expecting Disney to hold on to Black Widow indefinitely, until the pandemic gets under control? That could be well into next year. What could’ve been done in that regard? They are a business and their bottom line counts. I think Disney did the right thing by releasing the movie in theaters and PA, however they should have worked with Scarlett to ensure she was fairly compensated. With that being said, there is no way she could’ve earned her typical backend salary with an exclusive theater run during a pandemic. Attendance is down overall for theaters, as many people aren’t comfortable yet.

    • Algernon says:

      They should have just paid her like WB paid Gal Gadot for WW84. I don’t think anyone expected them to hold the movie forever, but making some effort to come to terms with SJ would have been smart.

  23. dawnchild says:

    Saw it in a drive in…fun to see it on the big screen and sound. And tho SJ’s behavior is very problematic, glad this movie got my first theater bucks since January 2020. It was good

  24. Jules says:

    Disney is a monolith in how much of the media it controls. I’m here for the takedown.

  25. Nicole says:

    Incidentally, I paid the 30 bucks to watch Black Widow on Disney Plus. I really enjoyed it. Probably one of Marvel’s best.

  26. Lena says:

    They did weaponize her success and it worked. Twitter was all ‘’I’m a feminist but really twenty million and she should be happy with that’’ sentiments all over the place. It would really help if the Rock got on board & sued. He should since the Jungle Cruise would have made more than it did without it being released on streaming. This is going to take more than one person sticking their neck out.

    • Duch says:

      I would be surprised if Rock’s contract didn’t mention streaming, as presumably that deal is more recent. All speculation, though.

    • Robert says:

      You can’t prove that it would make more money with a theatrical release. That’s also Scarlets problem with this lawsuit. You can’t sue for something that might have happened. Unless her contract said it had to show only in theatres for a certain amount of time, they will lose. Plus I’m sure in all Disney contract there’s some provision for acts of God. And the pandemic falls under that.

  27. Kelly says:

    I love this. For Disney of all companies to call out someone for being callous and greedy! No way would they have done this to male star like Bruce Willis or Tom Cruise. I’m sure they thought she would be happy to take her money regardless of the contract.

    Here’s hoping that Emma Stone and others throw down too.

  28. Veronica S. says:

    Even if she is callous and greedy, what does that matter? Am I supposed to think Disney isn’t lol? You signed the contract and broke the terms. That’s all I care about. If they think they can get away with it with her, imagine what they are doing to people with less socioeconomic power.

  29. #facts says:

    CAA IS FULL OF SHAT. ScarJo is being led by her agents who probably didn’t get a huge payday. So….

  30. cheche says:

    Yeah Disney’s statement really turned me off. They could have issued a standard, neutral statement (We feel that we honored the contract as best we could in these unusual times.) but they went all “Scarlet WANTS you to DIE while she counts her MILLIONS!”. The misdirection and bullying have a strong whiff of the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case. They’re trying to shame her and turn her into a joke to get her to back down as well as warn others not to file similar suits. Go Scarlet and hopefully the others.

  31. Ari says:

    The price tag for the movie on Disney + was $30 freaking dollars. So is the point that she is not getting any of that money? Please explain to me like I am a child. Thank you lol

  32. KBeth says:

    Bad look for Disney, I hope this bites them in the ass.

  33. DCLite says:

    “Your honor, she’s already made a a boatload of money, so we don’t want to give her the rest of what we promised her.”

  34. Monica says:

    —Disney included her salary to weaponize her success, but even more than that, they wanted to tell the world: don’t feel sorry for this rich woman, she’s already making millions.—

    How much are you raking in, Disney?

  35. Otaku fairy says:

    I dislike her too, for reasons that were already mostly covered here, but we don’t have to suddenly think she’s a great person. That was just low of them to basically appeal to the “Today’s bitches are ungrateful” crowd because they don’t like her point.

  36. Feros Ferio says:

    It’s even richer that Brian Lourd made that statement – he’s Carrie Fisher’s ex and the father of her daughter, Billie, who is herself a working actress. That the ex-husband of Princess Leia, one of the stars (no pun intended) of the company’s massive franchises, is taking Disney to task, is a level of meta that I’m very much enjoying.