Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News and Guts)   The Empire Strikes Back   (newsandguts.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Scarlett Johansson, Black Widow, Scarlett Johansson Thursday, release of Black Widow, Ms. Johansson's contract, Iron Man 2, Disney, Marvel actress  
•       •       •

2171 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Jul 2021 at 2:35 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



48 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-07-30 2:40:59 AM  
They'll either litigate forever or settle.

That's it.
 
2021-07-30 2:42:54 AM  
I don't know. Disney is a pretty small player in Hollywood. I'm sure ScarJo will be just fine and find other work.
 
2021-07-30 2:48:38 AM  
I have no idea what this is about, and I am supporting ScarJo 100% in this matter.
 
2021-07-30 2:50:22 AM  
Multiverse exists.

Russian Rhodey time coming up, if need be.

/same for antivax Black Panther actress
 
2021-07-30 3:08:35 AM  
On the surface it sounds simple. Either she has it in her contract that the movie gets released in theaters only, or she doesn't. I think the 'only' part is important. She wouldn't be the first person to hear only the part she wants to hear and not realize it's not binding in the way she thinks it is. Example:

If Disney told her "It will be released first to theaters" that means they can put it on their streaming service too as long as it goes to theaters first. It wouldn't have to be shown in theaters first, since that's not what the wording says. It just would need to be sent to them first. It's a 'net profits vs the gross' thing.
 
2021-07-30 3:12:22 AM  

Practical_Draconian: Multiverse exists.

Russian Rhodey time coming up, if need be.

/same for antivax Black Panther actress


I'm sure Letitia Wright has had some very serious conversations with Disney and her agent about the importance of not oversharing personal views on Twitter. She's one pro-Trump post away from spending the rest of her career co-starring with Gina Carano in buddy comedies based on the Left Behind series.
 
2021-07-30 3:27:37 AM  
I took my son to the theater to see it last week, haven't been to a big screen in a year and a half. We made up half of the audience. It was great, but weird. ScarJo can have my $12.50, which equates to 125 dimes with which to call me.
 
2021-07-30 3:39:54 AM  

Stud Gerbil: I have no idea what this is about, and I am supporting ScarJo 100% in this matter.


It's about a deal they had under contract where Scarlett Johansson would get a piece of the box office take for Black Widow, only the deal didn't factor in people renting the movie on Disney+, so she's missing out on an untold sum of money because Disney are a bunch of greed-coonts.
 
2021-07-30 3:41:40 AM  
They sound defensive and desperate.
 
2021-07-30 4:27:45 AM  

EdgeRunner: Practical_Draconian: Multiverse exists.

Russian Rhodey time coming up, if need be.

/same for antivax Black Panther actress

I'm sure Letitia Wright has had some very serious conversations with Disney and her agent about the importance of not oversharing personal views on Twitter. She's one pro-Trump post away from spending the rest of her career co-starring with Gina Carano in buddy comedies based on the Left Behind series.


I was not aware of this. Fark her, give it to Lupita.
 
2021-07-30 5:11:51 AM  
Well this thread certainly is full of the "feels."
 
2021-07-30 5:16:06 AM  

BafflerMeal: Well this thread certainly is full of the "feels."


As opposed to all the other Fark threads that are full of researched and footnoted solid data, unemotionally laid out in a cold, logical manner?

Don't look in the Politics tab. You'd be in for a very rude shock.
 
2021-07-30 5:23:08 AM  

EdgeRunner: BafflerMeal: Well this thread certainly is full of the "feels."

As opposed to all the other Fark threads that are full of researched and footnoted solid data, unemotionally laid out in a cold, logical manner?

Don't look in the Politics tab. You'd be in for a very rude shock.


Does the shock have to be rude, or could it be playful and erotic?
 
2021-07-30 5:36:22 AM  

BafflerMeal: EdgeRunner: BafflerMeal: Well this thread certainly is full of the "feels."

As opposed to all the other Fark threads that are full of researched and footnoted solid data, unemotionally laid out in a cold, logical manner?

Don't look in the Politics tab. You'd be in for a very rude shock.

Does the shock have to be rude, or could it be playful and erotic?


I'm sure the Politics tab is somebody's fetish, but to hell with not kink-shaming. If this is you, seek help. You're on a very unhealthy path.

Also a very unsexy one. Shop around the Internet. There's a wealth of better, hotter fetishes you could consider.
 
2021-07-30 6:01:48 AM  
Theaters are pretty much an obsolete anachronism anyway these days. Time to send them and their price-gouged popcorn to the place where we dumped our buggy whips and whale oil.
 
2021-07-30 6:06:36 AM  
Down with The Mouse
 
2021-07-30 6:39:27 AM  
Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.
 
2021-07-30 6:58:18 AM  

Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.


She got  paid, but a contract is a contract and, according to her, Disney is costing her money by streaming it before theatrical release.  Disney owns MCU and other entities like Star Wars and wants their cut up front instead of waiting for a COVID-reduced theatrical take.
 
2021-07-30 7:01:57 AM  

Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.


Disney and Johannson negotiated a contract that promised her a certain amount of the initial profits. Then Disney changed their release plans so they made a big chunk of the initial profits through a secondary market, cutting Johannson out of her promised percentage. Disney got theirs, now Johannson wants hers, and Disney doesn't want to hand it over. I wouldn't call her greedy just for expecting the fair share she agreed to work for.

And the stripper metaphor doesn't exactly help your argument. It just sounds like you've got a hate on for Johannson for some reason.
 
2021-07-30 7:24:24 AM  

Stud Gerbil: I have no idea what this is about, and I am supporting ScarJo 100% in this matter.


Cool story, bra
 
2021-07-30 7:30:40 AM  
Love all the people here with wadded panties about Disney being dickish. Being dickish is how Disney creates it's magic. The magic you've enjoyed for 98 years. Take the dickishness away, and you no longer have Disnay. That's right. The same Disney you've loved for 40 farking years.

Dickishness. Or no Bambi II. You choose.
 
2021-07-30 7:34:03 AM  

Stud Gerbil: Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.

She got  paid, but a contract is a contract and, according to her, Disney is costing her money by streaming it before theatrical release.  Disney owns MCU and other entities like Star Wars and wants their cut up front instead of waiting for a COVID-reduced theatrical take.


Well, the courts will decide that.
 
2021-07-30 7:42:33 AM  
Scarlett: "We had a deal!"
Disney:
i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 7:48:23 AM  

LewDux: Love all the people here with wadded panties about Disney being dickish. Being dickish is how Disney creates it's magic. The magic you've enjoyed for 98 years. Take the dickishness away, and you no longer have Disnay. That's right. The same Disney you've loved for 40 farking years.

Dickishness. Or no Bambi II. You choose.


Bambi 2 already exists.

vignette2.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size


Dickishness would be forcing you to watch it.
 
2021-07-30 7:49:42 AM  

Bslim: Stud Gerbil: Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.

She got  paid, but a contract is a contract and, according to her, Disney is costing her money by streaming it before theatrical release.  Disney owns MCU and other entities like Star Wars and wants their cut up front instead of waiting for a COVID-reduced theatrical take.

Well, the courts will decide that.


There's no way Disney risks the court setting an unfavorable legal precedent on this issue. They'll drag it out through delay tactics until the press has forgotten about it then settle out of court.
 
2021-07-30 8:13:42 AM  
I know this is Fark and all, and not many RTFA, but...

the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date

That sounds like she gets a cut of those profits as well.
 
2021-07-30 8:14:18 AM  
Lawyer fight!
 
2021-07-30 8:16:03 AM  
Better headline:

Scarlett Johansson decides to never appear in another Disney movie.
 
2021-07-30 8:18:19 AM  

LewDux: Love all the people here with wadded panties about Disney being dickish. Being dickish is how Disney creates it's magic. The magic you've enjoyed for 98 years. Take the dickishness away, and you no longer have Disnay. That's right. The same Disney you've loved for 40 farking years.

Dickishness. Or no Bambi II. You choose.


This will probably not be the stupidest thing I read all day, but it'll be close.
 
2021-07-30 8:20:38 AM  

Derek Force: I know this is Fark and all, and not many RTFA, but...

the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date

That sounds like she gets a cut of those profits as well.


The article is poorly written. The lawsuit is that they're not giving her that cut.
 
2021-07-30 8:43:44 AM  

Birnone: On the surface it sounds simple. Either she has it in her contract that the movie gets released in theaters only, or she doesn't. I think the 'only' part is important. She wouldn't be the first person to hear only the part she wants to hear and not realize it's not binding in the way she thinks it is. Example:

If Disney told her "It will be released first to theaters" that means they can put it on their streaming service too as long as it goes to theaters first. It wouldn't have to be shown in theaters first, since that's not what the wording says. It just would need to be sent to them first. It's a 'net profits vs the gross' thing.


EdgeRunner: Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.

Disney and Johannson negotiated a contract that promised her a certain amount of the initial profits. Then Disney changed their release plans so they made a big chunk of the initial profits through a secondary market, cutting Johannson out of her promised percentage. Disney got theirs, now Johannson wants hers, and Disney doesn't want to hand it over. I wouldn't call her greedy just for expecting the fair share she agreed to work for.

And the stripper metaphor doesn't exactly help your argument. It just sounds like you've got a hate on for Johannson for some reason.


Her contract probably had her getting a piece of box office sales, yes.

"...significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date."

And she was probably looking at making RDJ "Endgame" level of money from the film.  I don't see her making another $55 Million off of a stand alone film, but her point is probably about the way Disney+ Premium Access works.  Pay for it once and you have unlimited access.  With people not having to pay to watch it more than one time, until it was scheduled for normal release to Blu-ray (yes, they still make those) and streaming, she feels Disney is screwing her out of potential earnings.

She's in a bit of bind over this though.  If she didn't file the lawsuit, she would have the reputation of being a pushover in Hollywood, and get under paid for every film she makes from now on.  On the other hand, she will never work for Disney again, so no more Marvel money (no flashbacks, or preqeals, or voice over for Bambi III).
 
2021-07-30 9:03:48 AM  

Erek the Red: On the other hand, she will never work for Disney again


Disney is all about money.  If her presence in a film will make them more money, they wont give two shiats about this lawsuit.
 
2021-07-30 9:13:17 AM  
They could hire someone to off SJ, publicly brag about it, and you people would still flock to their shows and buy their Disney Plus.

"Wow, I can't believe Disney actually had Scarlett hit, and then burned down that puppy orphanage"
"Yeah, they're the most evil corporation in history"
"Agreed. New seasons of 'Loki' starts next week. You coming over to watch it?"
"Goddamned right I am! I wouldn't miss it for the world!"
 
2021-07-30 9:37:03 AM  
tse2.mm.bing.netView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 10:05:50 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Lawyer fight!


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 10:06:25 AM  

EdgeRunner: Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.

Disney and Johannson negotiated a contract that promised her a certain amount of the initial profits. Then Disney changed their release plans so they made a big chunk of the initial profits through a secondary market, cutting Johannson out of her promised percentage. Disney got theirs, now Johannson wants hers, and Disney doesn't want to hand it over. I wouldn't call her greedy just for expecting the fair share she agreed to work for.

And the stripper metaphor doesn't exactly help your argument. It just sounds like you've got a hate on for Johannson for some reason.


Wow, I compare her work to that if a stripper and I am heading on her.  I actually appreciate the work strippers do.  They work hard at looking sexy and making people happy for money but I would not say they are natural actresses.  Sounds about like Scarlett Johansson to me.  Anyone, male female or otherwise who gets paid millions of dollars to play pretend it's getting overpaid in my opinion no matter who they are.  But reality is, they could have slipped nearly any actress into leather and had her crouch while their stunt doubles do all the hard work and nothing would have been changed because they did not write a very complex character for her in the movies.  She got her own movie simply because Feige needed to show they were supporting their female heroes as much as the males which is a good thing if you have a good product.  And since they felt good in killing her off and finding a younger replacement in her own movie, Disney realized it.  So no, I have no hate for Scarlett, but I see no millions of dollars of worth in her either.
 
2021-07-30 10:37:41 AM  

isamudyson: Scarlett: "We had a deal!"
Disney:
[i.kym-cdn.com image 610x343]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 11:07:31 AM  

Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.


So because she got a lot of money in YOUR terms, that cancels out a specific promise made to her that they'd renegotiate, that they broke?

I'd hate to be in business with you if your standard is "that chick made enough. Eff her."
 
2021-07-30 11:47:41 AM  

AAAAGGGGHHHH: Theaters are pretty much an obsolete anachronism anyway these days. Time to send them and their price-gouged popcorn to the place where we dumped our buggy whips and whale oil.


Have you had popcorn with whale oil? It's delicious.
 
2021-07-30 11:53:16 AM  
It's not complicated:   Disney ruins everything they touched over the last 25-odd years.   If they can ruin Star Wars and the MCU and National Geographic, they won't care so long as they get paid.   Anyone that would defend them because they used to be good before the '90s, would defend Larry Nassar because he helped make Simone Biles a star.
 
2021-07-30 12:40:40 PM  
On one hand, pay her from the rental royalties from Disney+ too. People are still paying to see it and that money is akin to a box office takeaway. Honor any other contracts in the same scenario. Nobody predicted the pandemic, so contract language shouldn't really matter. Unless of course this becomes a case to determine what is officially considered box office now.

On the other hand, hasn't she made enough being a third banana in a multibillion dollar franchise?
 
2021-07-30 1:02:53 PM  

Stud Gerbil: I have no idea what this is about, and I am supporting ScarJo 100% in this matter.


I tend to side with people over corporations, just by default.
however on this one i got two ???? on it all.

1: I have a hard time buying the idea that the mob of Disney lawyers made a mistake and allowed a breech of contract to even happen.

2: I, by default, don;t generally support any claim that there was some other sacred time line you were supposed to be on that was guaranteed to result in X for you, and now someone else has to make a time line correction of some kind. Like on that other supposed to have been time line, we could know exactly how well the release was, or that for a fact is was good at all.
When we speculate on alternate timelines, ALL OUT COMES ARE EQUALLY PROBABLE, we have no reasonable capacity to claim the good outcomes were what happened and none the bad outcomes went on for sure.

In essence the claim is, in theaters only it woudl have been more money earning for me, and yet the possibility that it flopped grand no bonus was earned , seems like it must be treated as an equally probable outcome.

So on that i have a hard time backing anyone claiming they basically know the outcomes on an alternate time line that were unjust to not have gotten.


SO while as a person v corporation i would generally default to back the person.
but as a claim of being denied an alternate time line i'd not back that claim by defualt most days either.


SO i guess a flat, they breech the contact, and breech of contact is all this is, and all the payment being sought is flatly breech of contact money, sure. But maybe not so much if she is seeking monye from an alternate time line where she Nostrodomous vision swears the movie blew up 10 fold if it had gone theaters only, so pay me that money.
 
2021-07-30 1:14:52 PM  

Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Wow, I compare her work to that if a stripper and I am heading on her. I actually appreciate the work strippers do. They work hard at looking sexy and making people happy for money but I would not say they are natural actresses. Sounds about like Scarlett Johansson to me.


"Hey, I wasn't insulting her! I'm just saying she only gets hired for her looks because she sucks at acting!"

That's not even a non-apology. It's just rephrasing the dig.
 
2021-07-30 1:45:23 PM  
https://www.ign.com/articles/kevin-fe​i​ge-embarassed-disney-scarlett-johansso​n-lawsuit-marvel

Kevin Feige is getting pissed b/c the super-suits are starting to tune him out again.
 
2021-07-30 1:49:41 PM  

PvtStash: Stud Gerbil: I have no idea what this is about, and I am supporting ScarJo 100% in this matter.

I tend to side with people over corporations, just by default.
however on this one i got two ???? on it all.

1: I have a hard time buying the idea that the mob of Disney lawyers made a mistake and allowed a breech of contract to even happen.

2: I, by default, don;t generally support any claim that there was some other sacred time line you were supposed to be on that was guaranteed to result in X for you, and now someone else has to make a time line correction of some kind. Like on that other supposed to have been time line, we could know exactly how well the release was, or that for a fact is was good at all.
When we speculate on alternate timelines, ALL OUT COMES ARE EQUALLY PROBABLE, we have no reasonable capacity to claim the good outcomes were what happened and none the bad outcomes went on for sure.

In essence the claim is, in theaters only it woudl have been more money earning for me, and yet the possibility that it flopped grand no bonus was earned , seems like it must be treated as an equally probable outcome.

So on that i have a hard time backing anyone claiming they basically know the outcomes on an alternate time line that were unjust to not have gotten.


SO while as a person v corporation i would generally default to back the person.
but as a claim of being denied an alternate time line i'd not back that claim by defualt most days either.


SO i guess a flat, they breech the contact, and breech of contact is all this is, and all the payment being sought is flatly breech of contact money, sure. But maybe not so much if she is seeking monye from an alternate time line where she Nostrodomous vision swears the movie blew up 10 fold if it had gone theaters only, so pay me that money.


Is an extra $50 Mil in money from the theaters a reach here? Probably but there are instances where that has happened from such deals. More likely she could have gotten $20-25 Mil from it. However, if you're a big corporation, do you keep your word about the timing of releases OR do you go "screw it", wait to see if she sues & then offer an out of court settlement of $8-10 Mil vs "Hey, you could take it to court and win. But who says the jury awards you that much given the situation. Then there is the chance you might not. You would owe us our cost for defending this suit. So how about we just avoid all that and you take this instead?"
 
2021-07-30 2:40:31 PM  

EdgeRunner: Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Wow, I compare her work to that if a stripper and I am heading on her. I actually appreciate the work strippers do. They work hard at looking sexy and making people happy for money but I would not say they are natural actresses. Sounds about like Scarlett Johansson to me.

"Hey, I wasn't insulting her! I'm just saying she only gets hired for her looks because she sucks at acting!"

That's not even a non-apology. It's just rephrasing the dig.


Wait, but I was saying she was hired for her looks.  See also Jessica Alba and a slew of other actors and actresses in the business.  Take a look at your superheroes and show me an unattractive one in the movies...and then take a look at their acting and you can divide them up into talent and eye candy.  Go back and read any fark article comments in the past two years regarding Avengers and read the ones about Scarlett.  99% is going to be about her looks.  When a ref calls a foul on a play, it is not because he hates the team, he is just calling what he sees.  So there was no apology, I was just saying I do not hate her...you know, having an opinion.  It might not be the same as yours, you may think she is a very in depth actress and I respect that, but most opinions on here tends to be the T&A variety.
 
2021-07-30 7:35:34 PM  

Doctoral Candidate Zaius: On one hand, pay her from the rental royalties from Disney+ too. People are still paying to see it and that money is akin to a box office takeaway. Honor any other contracts in the same scenario. Nobody predicted the pandemic, so contract language shouldn't really matter. Unless of course this becomes a case to determine what is officially considered box office now.

On the other hand, hasn't she made enough being a third banana in a multibillion dollar franchise?


I disagree with some points being made in this thread:
How much she has made off this movie so far is irrelevant.
That the pandemic happened is irrelevant UNLESS the contract was altered and agreed to by both sides.

Example: I collect 20 million from you but you still owe me 10 million. Does the fact that I collected 20 million mean I shouldn't expect the 10 million?

If I have a contract saying my movie gets released in theaters only for its first run so I can collect a share of the box office, and a pandemic hits and shuts down theaters, and you need to release this movie soon one way or another due to having more movies in the series scheduled to come out, I still have a contract saying theatrical release only. Your only way around this is to have negotiated a new contract where I agree to streaming as well as a theatrical release.

Since Disney, to my knowledge, has not stated that they have a contract she signed where she agreed to streaming the movie due to the pandemic, I suspect that she's telling the truth. The one and only contract is for theatrical release only. We'll see soon enough.
 
2021-07-30 11:00:47 PM  

Susan'sLittleAdamsApple: Regardless of where the money came from, the article says Scarlett already got paid twenty million for this one movie.  Talk about Disney being the greedy one here.  Show me a stripper who gets paid this amount for dancing around looking pretty while having a stunt double to handle the dangerous lap dances.  She was not even the biggest draw in her own movie to me, that would have been David Harbour.  She knows her place in MCU was up so she is trying to score a payday before she tries her hand at directing or something.


I too support businesses farking over their employees and contractors.


There are probably a lot lesser known people who will be helped if she wins.

Good for her, I hope she wins and sets a precedent.

/"per the contract: fark you, pay me."
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.