Re: Peter "PAD" David
Ellison is pissed
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Re: Peter "PAD" David
Exactly so.
It's amazing the disrespect with which folks who are supposedly fans of something will treat the rights and concerns of the people who create it - and how quickly and casually the "fans" will leap to it - when any of those people step off the reservation and threaten the fantasy in any way.
Exactly so.
It's amazing the disrespect with which folks who are supposedly fans of something will treat the rights and concerns of the people who create it - and how quickly and casually the "fans" will leap to it - when any of those people step off the reservation and threaten the fantasy in any way.
Re: Peter "PAD" David
Eh, that's his way. Some of us love it, some of us hate it, what are ya gonna do? It's no worse than what GR did to him at convention after convention and I still admire his work else I wouldn't be here.
Eh, that's his way. Some of us love it, some of us hate it, what are ya gonna do? It's no worse than what GR did to him at convention after convention and I still admire his work else I wouldn't be here.
Re: Peter "PAD" David
do you guys know that Columbia Pictures owes Satyajit Ray for just THIS sort of thing for ET: The Extraterrestrial? They got away with it too because Ray never pressed for it. unless the original writer/creator presses for compensation, nothing much comes of it.
if this is more than a publicity stunt for all concerned and if Ellison persists, Paramount should pay up as soon as possible and be done with it. I personally do not want this kind of a cloud hanging over this movie for years to come. I've never been able to watch ET or any other project by Spielberg or Columbia without a bad taste in my mouth. plagiarism and creative "stealing" may not seem like such a big deal to most people who aren't writers, but it's pretty endemic in the industry (both hollywood and its cousins everywhere, and in publishing), and in my book, it's pretty heinous.
do you guys know that Columbia Pictures owes Satyajit Ray for just THIS sort of thing for ET: The Extraterrestrial? They got away with it too because Ray never pressed for it. unless the original writer/creator presses for compensation, nothing much comes of it.
if this is more than a publicity stunt for all concerned and if Ellison persists, Paramount should pay up as soon as possible and be done with it. I personally do not want this kind of a cloud hanging over this movie for years to come. I've never been able to watch ET or any other project by Spielberg or Columbia without a bad taste in my mouth. plagiarism and creative "stealing" may not seem like such a big deal to most people who aren't writers, but it's pretty endemic in the industry (both hollywood and its cousins everywhere, and in publishing), and in my book, it's pretty heinous.
Re: Peter "PAD" David
Exactly! When Art Buchwald sued Paramount for ripping him off to make Coming to America, Paramount claimed that they hadn't made any money off the film, which was a pretty big hit. It became a joke in itself, funny for its sick audacity.
Whenever I look at the evil and malfeasance that runs rampant in our corporations and our governments and wonder how people could be so blind, I'll remember all of Paramount's apologists in this thread and I'll have my answer.
Exactly! When Art Buchwald sued Paramount for ripping him off to make Coming to America, Paramount claimed that they hadn't made any money off the film, which was a pretty big hit. It became a joke in itself, funny for its sick audacity.
Whenever I look at the evil and malfeasance that runs rampant in our corporations and our governments and wonder how people could be so blind, I'll remember all of Paramount's apologists in this thread and I'll have my answer.
I doubt that a very large amount corporate malfeasance is allowed to exist purely because the victim does everything in his power to make it seem to the public like he's getting what's coming to him.
Seriously, do you think half the people who have trashed Ellison in this thread would be taking the side of "the Man" if the victim wasn't Harlan Ellison, and he wasn't acting like Harlan Ellison? If it was D.C. Fontana, or Theodore Sturgeon, or someone else who was being snubbed?
Seriously, do you think half the people who have trashed Ellison in this thread would be taking the side of "the Man" if the victim wasn't Harlan Ellison, and he wasn't acting like Harlan Ellison? If it was D.C. Fontana, or Theodore Sturgeon, or someone else who was being snubbed?
Frankly, I don't care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w&eurl=http://www.avclub.com/content/videocracy/2888
Hollywood screws writers. Ellison should be lionized for refusing to take it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w&eurl=http://www.avclub.com/content/videocracy/2888
Hollywood screws writers. Ellison should be lionized for refusing to take it.
Maybe not. Why does it matter? If this ever makes it to a courtroom, it won't be decided on the basis of whether some ill-informed fanboys think Ellison's an asshole. It won't be decided on the basis of whether Ellison actually is an asshole, either, though there's certainly some evidence to suggest he can be one.
I mean, really. From the tone of some of the posts in here, if Ellison was a passenger in a car that got hit by a drunk and red-light-running Britney Spears, half of the people in this discussion would find a way to blame Ellison for the accident. Or say that he was only in that car so he could get publicity out of being injured by a real celebrity.
Thanks, I appreciate that so much. The idea that a man can look at a bunch of people hating on one, isolated jackass and then say that they actually hate all writers, and then disclaim his bizarre conclusion when he's called on it makes my heart sing with joy. It's that kind of low signal-to-noise ratio that makes discussions like this worth having.
Yes, that's right. Hollywood does screw writers. I'm glad you understand the issue so well, but I fail to see why you brought it up... oh! You think the fact that I believe Harlan Ellison is acting like a prick means that I don't support the rights of writers, despite the fact that I've repeatedly said otherwise in any number of venues! See, that's my bad. I thought I was conversing about the fact that Ellison was personally unlikable and socially maladjusted, when it's actually about studios not wanting to pay residuals. I don't know how I could be so stupid as to think a topic about Harlan Ellison might actually be about Harlan Ellison. Believe me, I won't make that mistake a second time!
No, he really shouldn't. Because as I've repeatedly pointed out, he is the stereotype of greedy millionare writers that the studios use to justify their position. He's not fighting for others. He's not fighting for some starving kid who sells three scripts a year and then can't get another sold for the six months. He's fighting for himself, a reasonably well-off bestselling writer who, honestly, could easily afford to put his money where his mouth was when he told Roddenberry and co. to stick their rewrites up their asses.
Its like starting a campaign against racial injustice in the legal system and then picking O.J. Simpson to be the poster boy. It hurts the cause much more than it could ever help.
I said it in response to a statement that this thread was emblematic of how corrupt bodies get away with persecuting regular folks. If this case is special, then the thread is not emblematic, and thus it matters. It can't be taken as an explanation of a large trend of people not caring when others are shafted if don't care only in the case of one Harlan Ellison.
That's obvious. That fact that Harlan Ellison consistently acts like a spoiled brat and is fortunate enough to have nailed down a career that allows him to indulge in his sociopathic tendencies without any consequence is totally immaterial to whether or not he should be paid. Even the fact that he's asking to be paid for things no one else has ever used is immaterial to whether or not he should be paid, amazingly enough.
There have been two separate conversations going on in this thread, and somehow, people are under the mistaken impression that they conflate.
Conversation One: Harlan Ellison acts like a childish dick, which makes it difficult to personally respect him. It is also hypocritical to use the bully pulpit both to disclaim a work and to demand compensation and acknowledgment for it.
Conversation Two: Harlan Ellison deserves to be paid for whatever has his name on it.
I have no problem with Ellison contacting Paramount and demanding that he get a billion dollars per ticket sold, every frame of the movie have his name watermarked on it, and the title be officially changed to "Harlan Ellison's Star Trek." What I do have a problem with is him going and whining about it to God and everyone, especially since he'd previously whined about how Roddenberry twisted his arm into putting his name on CotEoF in the first place.
Maybe it's because I have some bit of pride, so the idea of taking money for something I find personally repugnant is something I find personally repugnant. The point is, all the imprecations against his character have nothing to do with if he should (legally speaking) be paid, so people rebutting those imprecations on the grounds that he should be paid is frustrating.
Of course they would. It would help that Ellison would likely publicly claim he was going to sue Spears for all she was worth, see that all of her work was rounded up and set on fire, and live fat and happy off her fortune while employing her family as domestic servants, and he would doubtless come out on top in the end. You don't get to spend your entire life acting bitter and vindictive without people assuming you have something to be bitter and vindictive about.
We get it. You don't like Ellison.
You said PAD should never have informed Ellison of this rumor. As many have pointed out, if Ellison had not been informed, his chances of getting paid are slim. So you have conflated the discussions yourself.
I see no need to post at length in response to that sort of disingenuousness. There's your signal-to-noise ratio right there.
You said PAD should never have informed Ellison of this rumor. As many have pointed out, if Ellison had not been informed, his chances of getting paid are slim. So you have conflated the discussions yourself.
I see no need to post at length in response to that sort of disingenuousness. There's your signal-to-noise ratio right there.
PS: The OJ Simpson analogy is especially classy considering how much Ellison has done in defense of the rights of all writers in Hollywood. He's long been active in WGA affairs and he's stood up many times in defense of others.
Your analogy is about as apt and cogent as a porcupine flying the Enola Gay.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, you may actually have something resembling a point there and it does you no good. OJ got away with murder. So did Robert Blake. So did Phil Specter. I don't hear white America whining and crying about the latter two a tenth--a ten-thousandth--as much as I do about the ancient OJ case. So yeah, in his own scummy way, OJ (the media's Moor of Brentwood) is emblemattic of the festering racism in our society.
Looks like your porcupine delivered his payload after all.
EDIT 2: And I included that video to show that bad faith is de riguer among the Hollywood production companies and that Ellison is absolutely right to holler about it long and loud.
(By the way: I love how you suggest that Ellison should effectively donate his idea to Trek XI since he's said mean things about and does not like Trek. Pride indeed.)
So I'll say it again: You don't like Ellison? Frankly, I don't care. I'm not even sure I like him. Doesn't mean a damn thing to this discussion.
Your analogy is about as apt and cogent as a porcupine flying the Enola Gay.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, you may actually have something resembling a point there and it does you no good. OJ got away with murder. So did Robert Blake. So did Phil Specter. I don't hear white America whining and crying about the latter two a tenth--a ten-thousandth--as much as I do about the ancient OJ case. So yeah, in his own scummy way, OJ (the media's Moor of Brentwood) is emblemattic of the festering racism in our society.
Looks like your porcupine delivered his payload after all.
EDIT 2: And I included that video to show that bad faith is de riguer among the Hollywood production companies and that Ellison is absolutely right to holler about it long and loud.
(By the way: I love how you suggest that Ellison should effectively donate his idea to Trek XI since he's said mean things about and does not like Trek. Pride indeed.)
So I'll say it again: You don't like Ellison? Frankly, I don't care. I'm not even sure I like him. Doesn't mean a damn thing to this discussion.
It's weird, the character-ownership rule is the same one that allowed Joss Whedon to make "Serenity" with the characters from "Firefly", which made nerds worldwide do the dance of joy. So why are so many people irritated with Ellison?
I think it's because Joss was trying to find a way to keep the game going, but Ellison is using it as an excuse to take his ball and go home.
Bit of an extended metaphor, but you get the point
I think it's because Joss was trying to find a way to keep the game going, but Ellison is using it as an excuse to take his ball and go home.
Bit of an extended metaphor, but you get the point
^Ellison doesn't own his Trek characters, though, and he wasn't the creator of the whole TV series. His contract may/would specify exactly what royalties he's entitled to whenever/if the original characters of his episode get reused in a movie or TV episode, but he seems to have extended that right to "You also need to ask me first because it's good manners, like my respectful pals, DC Fontana, AC Crispin and Peter David."
Ironic, in that Mr Ellison hasn't always seemed to model good manners himself.
Mind you, he was almost charming here in Sydney in the 80s for a SF convention, and spoke warmly about Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry (but not Glenn Larson), and was judge in the costume parade, awarding the prize to me for my Andorian costume! (Hardly the Trek hater he's often made out to be, I'd say.)
Harlan Ellison was also said to have been a major backer of Bjo and John Trimble's first campaign to save Star Trek - after his episode was ordered changed by GR.
Ironic, in that Mr Ellison hasn't always seemed to model good manners himself.
Mind you, he was almost charming here in Sydney in the 80s for a SF convention, and spoke warmly about Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry (but not Glenn Larson), and was judge in the costume parade, awarding the prize to me for my Andorian costume! (Hardly the Trek hater he's often made out to be, I'd say.)
Harlan Ellison was also said to have been a major backer of Bjo and John Trimble's first campaign to save Star Trek - after his episode was ordered changed by GR.
I don't get this hostility towards Ellison.
Granted, he's extraordinarily blunt and "in your face" and is more likely to use uncomplimentary terms to talk about someone than most people I've met.
On the other hand, I'm not aware of a single time that Ellison has backstabbed someone. Ellison tells you how it is, and if you don't like it, tough. I FAR prefer that sort of behavior to the sort where someone is "nice" to your face then destroys you behind your back (which is a far more common behavior pattern).
Does he have an ego the size of Montana? Sure. But name ANYONE in the entertainment biz who doesn't. Seriously. There are damned few HUMBLE people in entertainment. And those who start out humble don't seem to stay that way very long.
If given the chance to hang out with Ellison... I think i'd take it. I don't mind someone being a prick to me as long as that person is HONEST with me.
What, is the hostility towards Ellison based upon him saying what he really thinks? I think it's obviously so.
Also, I think that Ellison has been stung before... and he's just being proactive here, putting the PPC folks on notice that if they DO use stuff he owns the rights to, as the rumors tend to imply, they'd better be sure that they meet their contractual obligations.
I read his letter (from above) and it honestly didn't seem "pissed." Just mildly concerned, and pretty blunt.
I LIKE BLUNT. BLUNT IS GOOD.
And I think that what Ellison is doing is entirely appropriate and in no way either "rude" or "out of line."
Man, it's like Ellison boiled someone's baby for breakfast or something.
I'm trying to remember, did the Guardian describe himself as halfway between living being and story prop?
I'd love to see the lawyers they drag up to pore over the minutiae of Trek
K
ktanner3
Guest
Awesome. Harlan is just speaking from the heart and I love it. He does have a point. That episode IS one of the most popular episodes in Star Trek and he deserves some type of recognition of that fact if any of his characters such as Edith Keeler,The Guardian of Forever etc. are used in the upcoming movie. And his long standing feud with Paramount is based on the fact that him and many writers for that show were screwed by both the network and Gene Rodenberry.
Wasn't it Desilu back when all this started?
Sharr