Ellison is pissed
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Babaganoosh said:
Amanda is definitely in the film. Haven't heard about Sarek yet.
But Amanda already appeared in ST IV, and I don't remember a big brouhaha about that. Maybe DC is just not as much of a pest as Harlan is.
Side note: I just thought of another good choice for Sarek. L&O:SVU fans will know who this guy is. Peter Hermann
I always thought this guy had a remarkable resemblance to Lenard...
http://imdb.com/name/nm0157915/
That's the difference between a staff writer, and a freelance writer. Fontana was an employee, and anything she wrote was "work-for-hire" and as such belonged exclusively to the studio that employed her. On the other hand, Ellison, like many other TOS writers, were freelance, and their work belonged to them alone. When they "sold" a script, what they were really doing was selling limited rights to their work, as set forth in WGA guidlines. Big names, such as Ellison, were in a position to negotiate even better contract deals, with rights that went well beyond the WGA minimums.
That's not necessarily true - at least, it is not true now. A staff writer who writes a script for a TV series has all the same rights as a freelancer. They are paid residuals, for example.
Since such payments are routine, it's entirely likely that Fontana has received payments for the use of Sarek and Amanda on every occasion that such has occurred and it simply has never been a subject of public conversation.
Since such payments are routine, it's entirely likely that Fontana has received payments for the use of Sarek and Amanda on every occasion that such has occurred and it simply has never been a subject of public conversation.
Which raises my other question. How's Harlan gonna handle when he ends up getting his name plastered on a film he will no doubt despise simply because its "Star Trek"? Is he gonna attempt to hobble the horse feeding his bank account? If only by a tiny fraction.
Sharr
Wow. What exactly did Abrams and Paramount do that makes you wish ill will to befall them? I understand that you have decided this film is not your cup of tea, but now you're making this kind of personal.
I'm sure Abrams is a descent guy (and I'm sure there are descent people who work at Paramount). What exactly are they doing that makes you think they are deserving of such animosity and hostility from you, besides making a movie that you say you won't like?
A vain hope. If Ellison does in fact have a claim this will end with the studio paying him some money - it won't be permitted to interfere with the movie in any fashion.
Well one thing is for sure and that he has hired Shapiro as his bloodsucking attorney. He is very good. Also he could tie up the movie from being released if Paramount is forced to change the plot due to the statutes in the writers guild clause he is refering to. Also he would have to be compensated if the Guardian is used from spinoffs from the movie like comic books, toys, etc. and promotions by good marketing worldwide. I do see a settlement but the lawyers will have to figure box office estimates worldwide. This is just like the Poster said about the simularities of Thunderball and Never Say Never Again and look what happened to that from a legal standpoint. They could not even let Connery say Bond, James Bond nor we hear the Monty Norman theme. The characters were crappy. Another thing to consider is the New Voyages Web Cast of In Harms Way which is about using The Guardian and Pike but that no profit can be made from it. Yep the Saltsman and McCory legal feud delayed Bond for 6 years. Just pay Harlan and get it over with.
What cases is Shapiro known for?
If the owners were to build other buildings using the architect's design and not pay him, that would be cool, too? Because that's a closer analogy.
If Paramount's too chep to pay Ellison, have the Romulan's use some other plot device to travel through time. Trek has about, what, 60 different ways to do it.
Ellison is opening the flood gates. The writer who came up with phasers will have to be paid too. Same for the person who thought up communicators. And warp drive. And the manuver where you fly your starship into a gravity well in order to go back in time. And the guy that came up with "Live long and prosper." And so on and so on. I don't see how anything that was in CotEoF that Ellison introduced was different from anything that any other writer introduced. Did Ellison have a different contract from the other writers?
I find it both easy to grasp and easy to sympathize with.
I'm enormously grateful to the WGA for all they do to secure and protect the rights of authors in the TV and movie business - the residuals that I still receive from my TV work are modest by most standards but they do make life a little easier.
I'm enormously grateful to the WGA for all they do to secure and protect the rights of authors in the TV and movie business - the residuals that I still receive from my TV work are modest by most standards but they do make life a little easier.
Boys and girls . . .
A little less wild speculation, and a little more knowledge of the rights guaranteed under the Writer's Guild of America is called for.
Ellison has an extremely good case, and if nothing else, then Paramount should have sought clearance from him long ago. Studios make sure rights are clear just for character NAMES. If the time travel rumor is true, you can be sure that some means other than the Guardian will be used, or else Ellison would already know all about it, and have been compensated.
A little less wild speculation, and a little more knowledge of the rights guaranteed under the Writer's Guild of America is called for.
Ellison has an extremely good case, and if nothing else, then Paramount should have sought clearance from him long ago. Studios make sure rights are clear just for character NAMES. If the time travel rumor is true, you can be sure that some means other than the Guardian will be used, or else Ellison would already know all about it, and have been compensated.
It may end up stemming from the fact that the finished episode had only two lines written by Ellison in it.
Suffice it to say that if Ellison has a case (I actually don't think he does otherwise the Crucible trilogy would have been yanked the moment he raised a stink), then it could be very bad for the film. If the Guardian is a major set piece, then it's likely already constructed and waiting to be used. Furthermore, Abrams has said that the script is locked for the duration of the strike, therefore no re-writes. If Ellison actually follows through on a threat for a change, he could derail the entire movie.
The other issue is that since Ellison hates Trek so much, if the studio admits that he owns the Guardian, could they use it if even if he didn't give them permission? Or could they just do it anyways and write him a check with or without his permission? So basically the Guardian would just be taboo forever.
My way around the latter, have some story that requires use of a portal:
Character A: We need to use a time-portal to go back in time to observe/change something.
Character B: Well, we could use the...what was it called...the...
Character A: It doesn't work anymore. It deactivated itself 6 months ago and we don't know why. It won't respond to questions anymore.
Character B: That's too bad.
Character A: Yes, but we were able, in our decades of study, to figure out some of how it works and replicate some of it's technology, of course it's crude in comparison to the original, but we think we can...
etc. etc.
My way around the latter, have some story that requires use of a portal:
Character A: We need to use a time-portal to go back in time to observe/change something.
Character B: Well, we could use the...what was it called...the...
Character A: It doesn't work anymore. It deactivated itself 6 months ago and we don't know why. It won't respond to questions anymore.
Character B: That's too bad.
Character A: Yes, but we were able, in our decades of study, to figure out some of how it works and replicate some of it's technology, of course it's crude in comparison to the original, but we think we can...
etc. etc.
What we're talking about with respect to Fontana is very specifically the reuse of characters she created. Harlan is going on about "separated rights" to original elements of the story, which may be more complicated.
If, for example, Edith Keeler appeared in the movie there would be no argument about it - Ellison gets paid. It's not clear to me so far whether the Guardian is regarded as a character or a story element. Is a big prop with a voiceover a character? Is an onscreen actor who has no dialogue but is referred to by name a character, for these purposes? I mean, I really don't know about such things - I asked on one occasion years ago about the latter case, and couldn't find anyone on staff at the show who knew for sure.
Me no lawyer, and the separated rights issues that Ellison brings up are alien to me. AFAIK, if "Tam Elbrun" or "Mirasta Yale" were ever used in another TV episode of Trek I'd be entitled to payment, but it's never occurred to me that anything similar might be true for books, comics and so forth.
I'll be as interested as anyone to see how this works out.
In no event will this be "big trouble for the movie," since there's no indication that Ellison has the right to withhold the use of the character as long as he's paid according to the Guild rules (assuming that he is entitled to payment). If payment must be made the studio will just make it and continue on.
Ellison is pissed. What else is new?
Well, I'm pissed that Ellison is pissed. And I'm pissed that "pissed" is spelled p-i-s-s-e-d and not p-i-s-t, like e-q-u-i-p-p-e-d can be spelled e-q-u-i-p-t.
Yeah. I'm really pist about that.