Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM
I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM
He's said glowing things about Doctor Who. I wonder if anyone's asked him what he thinks of the post-2005 series.
Perhaps there are fans who loathe him for that reason alone. I am not one of these fans. I don't care if he says bad things about Trek - he does that about everything, so it's not like he's singling Trek out.
And, if you've never read it, Gay Talese's "Frank Sinatra has a Cold" is awesome. Ellison had a throwdown with Sinatra. According to Ellison, Talese underplays what happened.
The thing is for me - with all respect to copyright laws - that his claims are seriously annoying. The similarities between Terminator and Soldier or Demon with a Glass Hand are marginable. I've seen worse and more obvious copies that didn't lead into legal cases.
And I get the feeling that if Ellison were in charge of Star Trek, he'd sue all of us here for all the fanfics and fanfilms violating his rights.
This.
I think what bothers me most is that he's suing to prevent release of the film theatrically. It gives the image that he only cares about money, and not the creative expression of his vision. If that were the case, he would be suing just to add his name to the credits (in addition to whatever monetary compensation he wants). As someone pointed out earlier, it deprives fans who are not interested in the legal battles from being able to engage a piece of art.
This new film does not reference his work by name, the title of which he owns. So if he wants to bring HIS vision to the big screen, by all means he should do so. And if his theatrical version of "Repent, Harlequin!" is superior to "In Time", then he'll get all the accolades he deserves.
As it is, he is already recognized as a brilliant sci-fi author. But, as far as I'm aware, he's not a Sci-Fi filmmaker.
This new film does not reference his work by name, the title of which he owns. So if he wants to bring HIS vision to the big screen, by all means he should do so. And if his theatrical version of "Repent, Harlequin!" is superior to "In Time", then he'll get all the accolades he deserves.
As it is, he is already recognized as a brilliant sci-fi author. But, as far as I'm aware, he's not a Sci-Fi filmmaker.
Very true, but that doesn't mean they should.
This does make me wonder what, if anything, Ellison's said or done regarding fanfic versions of his own work.
The key difference between fanfilms and professional ones, though, is they actively attempt to profit on the professional work, which a fan work doesn't.
He's trying to prevent the release because it could hurt the chances of Repent Harlequin being produced due to their similarities.
Harlan has never done anything wrong when it comes to creator's rights. It's been an issue he's been passionate about and I thank him for it. I certainly don't agree with everything he says but when it comes to his supposedly "litigious" side he's almost always in the right.
That's just a tactic. It'll probably end up being settled down the road a bit.
An authorized script has recently been written for "Repent, Harlequin!" by a Bafta-nominated screenwriter. It needs to find funding and a director. How easy is that likely to be with something similar being released first? Blocking the release is exactly what he needs to do to protect his interests and vision.
Jan
Hasn't stopped:
Armageddon and Deep Impact
Wyatt Earp and Tombstone (about the same friggin character!)
Antz and Bug's Life
Dante's Peak and Volcano
Red Planet and Mission To Mars
Truman Show and Ed TV
You're assuming that it's a movie he'd want to be associated with.
Suing to prevent release is probably the most effective tactic.
Based on just the THR piece the suit sounds plausible.
I'm aware of that. It was simply a statement of fact. That is why Ellison's doing it. Besides if this movie is an unauthorized adaptation of his work then he does have every right to stop it's release. Florence Stoker did the same thing with Nosferatu. Nosferatu was a beautiful work of art but legally and morally it had no right to exist at all. Or rather it did but only if Murnau had bothered to pay the Stoker estate for the privilege of adapting a copyrighted work.
Well, Tombstone and Wyatt Earp don't really count since those were based on a real historical event!
The real problem is that any studio wanting to film "Repent" might decide, "Well, why should we bother to buy the rights from this Ellison guy when those other people didn't have to? Let's just go ahead and rip him off, too."
I should stress that I have no idea what the actual merits of this particular case are. It's just worth noting that the main function of lawsuits like this can be a deterrent one. If you let one person rip you off, you're practically inviting others to do so. But if people know that you're willing to make a fuss, they may decide that it's just easier to buy the rights in advance next time around . . . .
For those interested, this Roeper preview of the movie seems to be the one noted in the lawsuit. An important point will be the source of the statement that the movie was based on Harlan's story.
Jan
Jan
What exactly is it that you think this proves?
Does it have anything to do with the merits of Ellison's case, anything at all?
Nah.
This sems an implausible concern if In Time is a hit (because once soemthing is a hit Hollywood does enjoy producing similar titles), but I guess that's a reasonably big 'if'.
I would have thought that Harlan Ellison was doing what Harlan Ellison does: Protect the rights to the stories what are his.
But consider this... If In Time is not a hit then studios would decide that stories in the same vein are not profitable and that would also hurt the chances of a Repent Harlequin film being produced.
For flaming I can see (against Ellison, who isn't a member here), but why trolling?