Forum - View topicNEWS: Lawsuit Launched over Proposed Live-Action Voltron Film
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Iritscen
 Posts: 793 |
|
||
|
Am I the only one who feels that the article title is rather inaccurate? The current state of the lawsuit is "an amended legal summons [...] seeking a legal declaration on which rights belong to WEP and which rights belong to Toei or Nakamura."
So basically, the title should be about how WEP is seeking clarification over rights, not suing anybody; either that or the title should indicate that the proposed film has been canceled since they now realize that GoLion's designer might (partly) own the rights to it? Never mind that he hasn't worked in television since 1987 and might be dead or senile. How about "Proposed LA Voltron Film Canceled Due to Some Old Guy in Japan Who Designed GoLion Possibly Owning It"? Well, I guess I'll leave headline-writing to the journalists. |
|||
|
|||
|
testorschoice
Posts: 468 |
|
||
There was a lawsuit filed in February, so WEP really is suing Toei. The legal summons themselves doesn't seek the clarification over the rights--they're just a minor legal tactic to bring the parties to court so the actual lawsuit can move forward. The lawsuit is where the clarification will happen, once the legal summons are served. Publicly, the film hasn't been completely canned yet, at least according to Variety in August. WEP was trying to pitch the project to another studio. However, the project probably will have little resemblance to the anime until this lawsuit is resolved. Nakamura is still very much alive. In fact, he runs his own studio that recently worked on Higurashi no Naku koro ni Kai and Chi's Sweet Home: http://www.nakamura-pro.com/ |
|||
|
|||
KabaKabaFruit
 Posts: 1871 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba |
|
||
|
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if this legal tie-up lasts for years or even decades. It looks like another classic case of "one party accuses the other of not honoring their rights and the other party vice versa" and if you're going to throw a third party into the mix, then you've really got yourself a sticky situation.
I'm already annoyed at Harmony Gold for tying up the rights to Macross, thus preventing us from getting Zero and Frontier over here and Bunker Jenkins for tying up the Mazinger rights. Do we have to see the same for Voltron? |
|||
|
|||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15306 |
|
||
|
testor: Even if he was retired, his family would still be entitled to whatever residuals they were promised from the series.
|
|||
|
|||
The Xenos
 Posts: 1519 Location: Boston |
|
||
Well considering Hollywood is turning toward board games for new properties to milk... Yeah, I'm going with the just dumb option. http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSTRE4AB14J20081112 http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/entertainment/New-Movie-Passes-Go-Collects-200.html |
|||
|
|||
jgreen
 Posts: 1325 Location: St. Louis, MO |
|
||
Hey, don't be hating on Clue, man! Although to be fair, it would seem a lot easier on paper to make a compelling movie out of a game based on a murder mystery than on one based on buying property and building stuff on it. |
|||
|
|||
Dardre
 Posts: 166 |
|
||
|
Sounds like both sides have gotten their wires crossed (again). It seems that both still have some kind of mis-communication/misunderstanding of just what the contract between them does, and does not, cover. It makes me wonder just what the actual wording in the contract explicitly states.
Of course, this could also be a case of both sides getting caught playing 'games' with the contract (i.e. both of them deliberately 'misinterpreting' what the contract says and doesn't say and/or 'stretching' the contract to cover something it doesn't explicitly cover). I have to admit that bringing up Nakamura is odd, though I have to say that I can't really blame WEP after the mess over the 3d version of Voltron; I'd be nervous and puzzled about finding out about a possible third party having rights to what I had just (relatively) settled. I mean, the two had already gone to court once (and settled) over the contract, so having a possible third party running around (that wasn't brought up in that settlement/clarification) would make me a little irritable. I'm kinda looking forward to hearing where this goes. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group