^That's hyperbole. No one is saying that. What is being said is that if Paramount and WGA have reneged on their contract agreements, then they should, yes, pay up to Ellison.
Harlan Ellison COTEF Lawsuit Gains Momentum
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
Now, there's an incorrect usage of the word "fact" that would make a high school journalist blush.
"Fact" is not properly defined as "the interpretation of the limited information I have that makes it possible for me to be dismissive of something I don't like."
No, we should all applaud and support lying and cheating in order to make sure that we get our yummy food pellets. Isn't that what you call the "Star Trek philosophy?"
Absolutely Right(TM). That "if" is why the courts are there in cases like this.
Know what I think? I think that none of us here, not one single poster, has read the contract signed between Paramount (or Desilu) and Harlan Ellison. And therefore no one here can say what, if anything, Ellison is entitled to.
I also think that Ellison does come across as arrogant, whiny, and bitter. And I think Paramount has likely screwed people out of rightfully deserved money before. And neither of those things makes it any more or less likely that Ellison is owed money.
I also think that Ellison does come across as arrogant, whiny, and bitter. And I think Paramount has likely screwed people out of rightfully deserved money before. And neither of those things makes it any more or less likely that Ellison is owed money.
Exactly so.
Actually, that does make it somewhat more likely that they owe him money - they do get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. It just doesn't make it so.
Although if anybody wanted to, they could read the court complaint that I linked to in post #7 of this thread which quotes what the Ellison attorney feels are the relevant portions of the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement that was in effect at the time the script was written. The legalese isn't even all that onerous.
Jan
No, but even if he does get paid, what good will this do for Star Trek? No more 'City on the Edge of Forever' references at all? If Harlan wins this, City on the Edge of Forever might be one of those episodes Paramount will want nothing to do with it simply because they don't want anything to do with Ellison. And judging from how many times anything is referenced from that episode, they're doing a good job at avoiding Harlan altogether. If you look at it, the Guardian wasn't revisited at all with the exception of the one TAS episode, but that's it. I guess I won't be taking photos in front of the Guardian mock up at any Star Trek tours. Not Harlan's fault, but would you continue to work with someone who sued you and took away millions? Again, that money may be owed, but it's still money they thought was theirs.
And even if if Harlan wins, how will that make everything better except for him? There are still writers out there who will work for nothing even on a voluntary level, and that's something Harlan himself said was an issue.
We'll boycott when the "Paramount" name/logo appears in the opening and closing credits by closing our eyes. That'll show 'em!
Those fancy pants will think that everyone is seeing their company's name, but they'll be wrong! Oh, they'll have egg on their faces all right.
Hoo, boy...
Well, absolutely nothing... unless you believe that Star Trek is better if it's written by good writers who get paid enough to remain writers, rather giving it up altogether (or deciding that they're not going to work on that show again). And royalties to somethign from one really popular episode and its spin-offs can sometimes make the crucial difference.
Of course, that assumes there is a Star Trek series for them to write, but we can hope.
I think the flaming rules need some adjustment.Son of a bitch! I post the article first, hours ahead of both TrekMovie and Trekweb, and who do you fuckers on the board I run quote? TrekMovie!
(No offense, Tony. You run a fine place.)
I thought all the Forums except Misc. and The Neutral Zone were supposed to stay PG-13? (One F-word elevates any MPAA rating to 'R')
Actually, I did read the complaint. But that doesn't alter my original point. Those are the sections his attorney considers relevant. But they don't represent the entirety of the WGA agreement. And they also don't include the specifics of the contract Ellison signed with Paramount with whatever individual provisions he or they may have agreed to over and above what the WGA mandates.
So I still maintain that while we can all offer opinions on Ellison, Paramount, the WGA, or anything else, that no one here has enough information to form a well-informed opinion about the merits of the case.
I...don't...care.
If Ellison is in the right, I hope he wins. The courts will determine that.
If anyone cares more about "the good of Star Trek" than they do about the rights of the people who create it - and I don't imagine that anyone really does - it's reasonable to view that with pity and contempt.
The whole bloody four-decade-old edifice of Star Trek is not worth one person being cheated on its behalf. That many folks have been is no excuse for taking sides against one person pursuing a little justice in the here-and-now.
This "protect Star Trek" bleating is just part-and-parcel of the whole sickening "we're fans/we're entitled" posture that's so widespread among vocal fans on the Internet. You not entitled to more Trek any more than Paramount is entitled to a single dollar the studio took away from someone by fraud or neglect of responsibility.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
It seems a general re-evaluation of freelance "work for hire" contracts is underway. The Seigal and Shuster estates, for example, have recovered significant amounts of the rights to Superman recently.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Happens all the time. It's a primary reason we got Kira instead of Ro in DS9, Tom Paris instead of Locarno in Voyager, and why until Coto's aborted 5th season Enterprise plans we never got another Kzinti ep.
It's also why "classical music" in the 24th century is all Beethoven and Bach and stuff.
They didn't want to pay royalties.
It's a sad truth. They only do pre-established races/characters about once in a show's lifetime (Tribbles in DS9, Gorn and Tholians in Enterprise and Sulu/Kang in Voyager) and it's only done on anniversaries.
Are you saying that you would pull the plug on Star Trek's entire existence just for Harlan Ellison's behalf? Why? Is he god or something? That's quite a big judgement call for a series that's been around for 40 years and has a big world wide following. Obviously this douche bags' need for a 'little justice' is a lot more important than anyone who has enjoyed or have been inspired by Star Trek over the past four decades.
Seriously, I'm not against Harlan's case here. If it's in the contract, by all means. I just hope you understand that there's more to Star Trek than just Harlan's "I want money!" scandal.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You gotta admit, that's poetic justice, considering how Kirk was willing to pull the plug on his timeline for Edith.
I consider Bailey (Polaris) to be so full of it that it is hard for me not to think of him as a paid studio plant, but in this rare instance, I agree with him, because Ellison's positive output far outpoints everything anybody ever did in Trek, and I'd say that even if you took his prose fiction and tossed it. His NF and his screenplays are often unbelievably good, whereas TREK is occasionally very good, and often incredibly bad.
I'm not talking about recycling (i.e. The Naked Now), I'm talking about revisiting. It worked for Q, the Borg, Harry Mudd, Lwaxana Troi, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Ferengi, the Cardassians and even the Guardian. Star Trek revisits characters and stories a lot and most of the time the stories that come from them are good and unique in their own way. Revisiting doesn't harm the series, it gives it a scope. If everything was new and episodic and no one was ever mentioned again, it would make the series feel irrelevant.
It's like the new Star Trek movie that's coming out. They're not recycling old stories/characters, they're just putting them into a new scenario that's unfamiliar to both the characters and the audience.
Good or bad, doesn't make it any less important. If you're just going to tell me that Star Trek should be thrown out simply because it has bad moments, you might as well take every book in the library that's not as good as your favorite book and burn it. Because only your opinion matters.
I like Star Trek with it's bad moments and I like Star Trek with it's good moments. Who is to say that some of their best stories didn't come from the fact that the writers, producers and cast wanted to do better than some of the bad material that's been done in the past?
I know a lot of people, friends and family members who love Harlan's works. Even though I haven't met him, or read any of his works, I respect the people who do appreciate them and I respect Harlan for writing them.