Jump to content

Prospect Park Sues ABC Over ‘One Life To Live’ & ‘All My Children’ Licensing Agreement


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

tumblr_l8re0a2Btb1qbkht8o1_500.jpg

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!

  • Replies 725
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Webmaster
Posted

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)

  • Members
Posted

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!

  • Members
Posted

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. :P

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!

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

:) 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!

  • Members
Posted

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...)

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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.

  • Members
Posted

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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I truly do not understand why this has not happened. It's so un-Carly-like not have confronted Joss already. 
    • He definitely had it going on back in the day
    • I have long given up on logic and Mayor Laura Collins! It makes about as much sense as Luke being elected mayor over Lee Baldwin in the 80’s, maybe even less sense. She committed manslaughter as a teenager, was involved with a mobster (I guess credit for them taking Smith down), had a shoot out in her home and killed another mobster in self defense, thought she bludgeoned her stepfather to death, then was catatonic for years. Her current husband had a twin that was a serial killer, had his own breakdown that threatened lives, and most recently hid his brother for treatment and that allowed Ryan to escape and kill again. And had hook killer Esme as a houseguest and is raising her child. I don’t care for Sonny anymore but their relationship is just another thing that involves suspension of belief to watch the show. I wish someone on this show would remind these adults that they used to pull way worse stuff than this! I would love a scene where Laura is sitting with Lulu and tells her while she is not happy this is nothing compared to what she got up to when she was young, and maybe even some understanding that she would also do stupid stuff if she believed in the cause. Olivia reminding Dante that he was wild as a teen and this isn’t that. Felicia reminding Anna that they were being shot at when pretty close to Emma’s age. These characterizations are just so basic. Have some fun with the actual history of the show. That kind of wink would mean more to me than just name dropping some random fact.
    • There are no dumb questions here, we've all known each other long enough to fill in information without shaming each other.  We want you to be happy @carolineg.  Your POV as one of the few women here is vital. So, please, I hope you never feel as if any question, idea, or opinion is ever silly or stupid.  Your daily reminders about the realities of manicure and menstrual management has become a part of the personality of this thread. As for Hank, while I'm confident there's a plan in place.  It is frustrating that they announce these casting so far in advance that it is tough as an audience and wait it out until the thing happens.  I'm happy they didn't blow it the second Mike was in town, a week after meeting Liam. So, it is a slow burn.
    • I think his full name is Chadwick.  I remember, back when the previous actor was playing him, someone called him Chadwick a couple of times.  It may have been Stefano.  
    • I didn't like those two sleeping together, but I suuure liked seeing BF in them. Wiggle and all. Just sad about the waxing of the chest.   Same.
    • It’s strange. I wonder if the writers at that time had worked with him somewhere else and had a relationship? That time is murky AF to find info on. Rachel Ames in effect left the show at one point in the early 80’s and she is credited like she was there until JFP. Tristan Rogers also took various contract breaks that were not short, and websites also credit him one long stint from 1981-1992. So many people come and go in short succession in 1982-part of 1983. I know they lost a lot of viewers when Genie left, but the show somehow survived yearly at number one through like sheer force of will.
    • In that way, at least we were fortunate.  The Daniel Pilon/Ron Raines decisions...not so much.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy