Members Pine Charles Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 Miles: I don’t know where the government's gonna move us. All I do know is every thing is gonna be fine as long as the two of us are together. Rose: I can’t believe this is happening. Maybe we better try Springfield. He’d never find us in Springfield. Miles: ....Which Springfield? Rose: A-ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 +1 +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmaster Errol Posted April 20, 2013 Webmaster Share Posted April 20, 2013 Exactly, lol. I do believe that if anyone ever said on TV or in Movies that they'd like to move to Llanview or Pine Valley, they could be sued (more so Llanview) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitHappens Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 It caused no damage at all, and add in the fact that PP continued to negotiate with ABC/GH for the 3 [obviously never asking GH to decrease the stories/airtime] even after this particular "breach", and you just end up with a big bowl of sour grapes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 If it caused damage to Tomas, then it did to John and Sam by that "logic" cause they alluded very heavily that they were really Livvie and Caleb lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 I think what it boils down to is we're speaking about different things (and going in endless circles, but that's not new for this forum ) While I think ABC is being petty *as well as* PP, that's a personal thing. But they *do* have a legal case. A lot of valid leagl cases are even stupider (much much more) than this. But they still have a case. The end. Well then since ABC owns PC and GH they can sue themselves if they want to. Sounds fun. I don't think that's possible, but if it is somehow then--they have a valid case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 Ha, someone on here posted a similar comment. What a biased piece of soap "journalism"--you always know it's good when in the opening paragraph the author pats himself on the back for somehow proving he was right all along. And the fact that PP seemed to be trying to do exactly what he suggests they should have tried to do--work on a crossover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 It doesn't matter whether anyone is being "petty" or reacting "too late" in the opinion of SON posters. Our opinions and personal feelings and what may or may not have motivated any party in this lawsuit have absolutely no real-world relevance to the case. No amount of frothing at the mouth and heated tempers is going to change that. It doesn't matter whether or not they did any lasting damage to the Tomas character or any other from OLTL, like Cole or Hope, Tea and Victor's child, Natalie and Clint, etc. or whether that can all be easily undone. It can, but that is not the point or the issue. The issue is: GH allegedly did it all outside the purview of their agreement with PP. They agreed to a certain limited usage of certain characters (Todd, John, Starr, Blair, Tea, Cole, Hope) within certain parameters, and then they did everything else - like going forward with major storylines on their own, or referencing Clint and Natalie and creating their offscreen attitudes and ongoing actions, choices attributed to them without their being cleared for use by PP. Or killing off three characters without getting clearance for that from PP, or playing around with Tomas's identity and sending him off to Narnia without clearing use of him (offscreen or otherwise) with PP. That is why they are culpable and that is why they are in the wrong. It doesn't matter whether you or I care about all of these characters, or whether what was done to them is easy enough to roll back. The point is they apparently had no right to do it. It doesn't matter how we feel. It doesn't matter if it's "petty". All that matters is the letter of the law. GH clearly believed it wouldn't matter and that they could get away with anything and everything extra-normal outside the initial agreement because pfft, they had Ron and Frank who know and love OLTL and OLTL would never really come back, right? Who cares? But they were wrong, and now they get to own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 I'm just going to quote you back to you.... I hate it when we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 You're so pretty! And there you have it. I was taught this philosophy on this very board: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It makes agreeing with those who you don't necessarily agree with a lot less painful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 Exactly what Vee said. That's why arguments (like the pretty inane linked one above) are, frankly, irrelevant. A court case like this isn't about opinion (and frankly the argument that any damage can be rectified by undoing a story, while true, strikes me as disingenous for a soap fan to say, when the same soap fans more often than not complain about how soaps should no longer do back from the dead stories, etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 20, 2013 Members Share Posted April 20, 2013 That's why most of the angry soap bloggers, Bibel, etc. are wasting their time pooh-poohing the complaint and saying how easy it is to fix. Of course it's easy. That is not the issue. The issue is that GH did what it wanted with OLTL property outside the scope of their legal agreement because they felt they could get away with it, because they felt PP would never return and RC and FV were as good as any executors of the show's estate. Unfortunately the legalities, and reality didn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 21, 2013 Members Share Posted April 21, 2013 Exactly. The above guy also seems to want to use it as a forum to reiterate how Kwatinetz is the Devil and he warned soap fans but no, they wouldn't listen. "This is the same Kwatinetz who nearly wrecked Kelly Clarkson’s career, who had an unfortunate partnership with Mike Ovitz and Rick Yorn, was briefly engaged to the late Brittany Murphy, and managed Britney Spears for a month. Controversial? That’s an understatement." YAWN. You could probably make a more compelling argument for his huge success in the industry, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 21, 2013 Members Share Posted April 21, 2013 I don't care if the guy spends his Sundays sacrificing infants to Baal. None of that is even remotely relevant to the case. And Roger Friedman has been around long enough to know that - even most of the soap bloggers fangirling out must know that. So this is all just stagecraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Posted April 21, 2013 Members Share Posted April 21, 2013 Yes everyone is well aware & its well documented all about Jeff Kwaintez & his time at THE FIRM. But that time is over. PP is a new venture and JK/PP/TPLN seem to have their [!@#$%^&*] together as far as these revivals go. I will celebrate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.