Members DRW50 Posted July 29, 2012 Members Share Posted July 29, 2012 I discount it because it sounds illogical and because this is the second excuse that has been used to placate fans of characters not on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 29, 2012 Members Share Posted July 29, 2012 But it's not the character's image being used, it's the actor's. They could show a photo of anybody and call it "Natalie." But if PP owns the rights to the CHARACTERS (as opposed to the actors) then don't they own the rights to "Todd" and "Starr" too? Just like they own Blair, Tea and John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Posted July 29, 2012 Members Share Posted July 29, 2012 GH had to ask PP to use any OLTL character. The fact that Starr wasnt part of the PP deal, may have made her easier. Not sure why they got Todd so quick. But PP has the character rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitHappens Posted July 30, 2012 Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 I don't believe a word that comes out of that rat bastard's mouth, but why does Frank feel the need to explain why he can't get OLTL characters on GH? Spend the little time you have writing GH, moron! I DON'T CARE ABOUT OLTL! I really wish ABC cared about this show because if they did, Frank and his boyfriend would be gone by now. The audience sure drew the short straw with that wretched duo! Hate them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 30, 2012 Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 Yeah, their obvious lack of interest in GH is sad. I've said it before and I'll say it again: regardless of what one thinks of their endings, both AMC and OLTL were ended by people who cared about the shows, their history and their audience. GH isn't going to get that. GH is being scavenged for parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted July 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 LMAO it continues he has NO reason to lie about this. But knowing the audience is outraged, rabid, and wants to see Pine Valley and Llanview again … are you exploring any options such as a special, a mini-series, or something to in part satisfy them in some way? VICKI: There have been a lot of conversations about if there is something we could do and we are exploring that. When the Prospect Park deal was blowing up, I know the fans were so looking forward to those shows being online and the actors were too, of course. I know it was a huge disappointment, and it was a huge disappointment for us too. We were looking at that as that would be the continuation of the characters. But don’t the rights soon revert back to ABC? VICKI: They do. Basically it is a year after. So soon they will be back in our hands and then we have to figure out what we are going to do. http://michaelfairma...rns/2012/07/29/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's passing the buck. If this was the real reason, then someone would not have run that SID story trying to blame Kassie for Blair not being on GH more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 Why do you find it do hard to believe that SID would put misleading information out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 Mostly because this is not the first time in recent history that the spin on unpopular casting decisions is put on the actor. ABC did this only two years ago with Scott Evans and Brett Claywell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 It also wouldn't be the first time that SID has misled readers. With so few soaps left and little to write about, they seem desperate for stories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted July 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 this is the real reason, it was said a long while ago that PP had the rights for a year after the shows went off the air, they own the rights to everything but the actor's, which means even ABC has to get their permission if they want to use Blair, Tea, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's very convenient that this was only mentioned months and months after people wondered what was going on with the actors. These people blame anything and everything for their failures. I just don't believe anything they say. But if you do, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 Okay, let me see if I understand this: PP owns the license to the characters from AMC/OLTL. These rights last for one year after the final episode of these shows aired. PP has to give GH permission to use any of those characters which, I assume, is done for a fee of some kind. According to a source that I don't see named in this thread PP will only "let" GH use three characters. To date, GH has used the OLTL characters of Todd, John, Blair, Tea, Starr, Cole and Hope for various lengths of time whether a few eps to full on cast additions. That's seven characters. PP is exercising some influence over whether GH can bring on the character of Natalie that they didn't exercise with any of the seven characters listed above. ME, FL and KDP all "signed" with PP as did MA. RH and KA did not. Nor did the actors who played Cole and Hope. The contracts that any and all of the actors who signed with PP were never ratified/approved by the union so those contracts are not in effect, therefore PP has absolutely no say in what the actors do whether on ABC or anywhere else. Is that an accurate summary of the information as it stands? Am I missing anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 Roger was in negotiations but didn't sign before the thing collapsed. Kristen was, AFAIK, a free agent in L.A. and everyone expected Starr to be recast at some point or left in California with Cole. I think the truth is somewhere between the official statement and the Internet spec. I think they paid in full to use ME and get him out of whatever deal was in place, but they won't do the same for anyone else signed to PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoseVioletDaisy Posted July 31, 2012 Members Share Posted July 31, 2012 I think the reality is that Melissa Archer doesn't want to come to GH just to have Natalie and her kid dumped by McBain and then shoved off. And really, why should she? This PP stuff makes no sense. If this were truly about PP having the rights to the characters, it wouldn't matter which actors did or didn't sign with them since it's the characters that are allegedly at issue. The actor contracts never took legal effect anyway since PP has no agreement with the sanctioning union. The 3 character at a time ceiling doesn't wash either since at one point, Cole, Hope, Starr, Todd, Blair, and John were all on within the same week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.