Warner Brothers will shutdown production of V on Wednesday

POSTED BY: Haken
UPDATED: Thursday, September 3, 2009 05:14
VIEWED: 8140
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

HAKEN

Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM

Interesting article over at Airlock Alpha about Warner Brother shutting down the production of V due to a legal dispute between original "V" creator Kenneth Johnson and WB on the matter of whether "V" is a remake or not and whether Johnson should be given credit on the new series.

You can read the full details over at Airlock Alpha.

http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/6661

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:25 PM

I don't understand this - what's the harm in giving the man a bit of official credit since it was his concept in the first place ?

Or is it the money, I mean, would they have to pay him royalties, or is this just a whizzing contest over egos and stuff ?

-F

ECGORDON

Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:36 PM

Airlock Alpha has usually been a reliable source, so it is possible there is a legal dispute.

The new BSG credited Glen Larson as Executive Producer even though he had no creative input on the series. There's no reason WB can't do the same for Johnson. I would think the compensation for that would be minimal compared to the rest of the budget.

I do question this statement by WB:

Quote:
The studio, which is looking to air "V" in November on ABC, said the two-week shutdown was nothing more than a chance to help the writers refresh themselves creatively, taking advantage of a later premiere date than normal.

The emphasis on the word later is mine, since that makes no sense in the light of the fact the original premiere date was going to be mid-season, January or February.

KWICKO

Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:49 PM

Looks like someone didn't get all their legal ducks in a row before they started the project. You don't go into something like this - calling it the same damn name, even - and think that you don't owe some debt of at least a damned mention or special thanks to the guy who created the original. And if your legal stance is that "this is a different show", then by god, call it a different name!

I don't think it's asking too much to give credit to the concept's creator, do you? How would you feel if the latest Star Trek remake were listed as "Created by JJ Abrams"? I'm sure you'd feel that Gene Roddenberry had been grossly slighted were that the case, and rightly so.

Mike

FILLYGIRL

Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:26 PM

JMHO, thats the least they can do, after all WB is going to MAKE money off of the franchise, how much could the person want??? If it just screen credit, then somebody's being a real prick. Why did they wait till now to address this, why wasn't it brought up before production got so far into the shows??? I don't doubt this at all, like somebody else said, they usually are right(Airlock Alpha). I guess we will have to wait and see....

Chaplain of the 76th Independant Battalion

Do not bother dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

...it's worse than you know...Operative
...it usually is.....Mal

CYBERSNARK

Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:53 PM

Well, there is (I trust) a legal distinction between "created by" (or "based on characters created by") and "Executive Producer." I believe it has to do with not just creative control (i.e., ownership), but with royalties.

It's fully possible that the original creator got a "created by" credit and is now whinging for something else (maybe he wants more money, maybe he wants more of a say in where the show goes, maybe someone in the production is undercutting him and he needs to go over their head). Such is the kind of hijinks studios can get into.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

MANGOLO

Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:22 PM

From a guy inside the biz- it is rarely just screen credit. For something like this it is usually points 1-5% up front AND back end. I don't know what their budget, but that can their whole expected margin thereby killing the project.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

WHOZIT

Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:45 PM

Atleast it's not because ABC thinks the storys suck, they'll just throw Johnson a few $ and put his name in the credits. No reason to panic.

KWICKO

Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:21 PM

Quote:

From a guy inside the biz- it is rarely just screen credit. For something like this it is usually points 1-5% up front AND back end. I don't know what their budget, but that can their whole expected margin thereby killing the project.

Thing is, this is the kind of thing that really SHOULD be addressed before production STARTS, just to cover the studio's arse, and you not only take care of it, but you get signatures on a contract stipulating EXACTLY who's getting what. And it sounds for all the world like they didn't do this, and now the creator of the original is able to come in and say, "Hold on - I haven't been given credit here". And of course, now that they're this deep, instead of being able to just get him to sign away his monetary interest for one or two points and a line in the credits, HE is the one holding the cards. Obviously so, since this is leading to a production shutdown.

I know people always claim it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, but that's not really true. Often, that forgiveness comes with a much higher pricetag than the permission would have had you but asked in the first place.

Mike

MANGOLO

Monday, August 31, 2009 1:35 AM

Mike, you're right. In addition, the big boys (studios) often think because they have a staff of lawyers that they can get away with murder.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

1 2 NEXT PAGE