Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Soap Opera Network Community

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

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

Featured Replies

  • Member

Not sure what was said in relation to GL on OLTL, but if Tad said Liza moved to Springfield, I don't see a problem with it. Springfield could be Springfield from The Simpsons or any number of towns in the US or beyond. If they said she specifically lives in the same town as Reva Shayne and Josh Lewis, then there would be something there.

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!

Edited by Pine Charles

  • Replies 725
  • Views 52k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Member

While we are accusing folks of stuff, I'm just gonna say it. I'm seeing, in this thread, quite a bit of bitterness over losing AMC and OLTL, and now that PP is bringing them back, they are just so wonderful so this makes them right in all this. Some of you want the 3 performers back just as much as PP does and might not care about OLTL [as much as you think you do] unless you have them (some of you, not all).

I mean no disrespect at all, but some of this passion is a bit transparent to me. You want ABC nailed for canceling your shows - am I wrong?

+1

Maybe you should stay out of this one too. smile.png

+2

  • Webmaster

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!

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)

  • Member

But GH didn't use Tomas. He was never on the show. It caused no long term damage.

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!

  • Member

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

;)

  • Member

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!

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

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

wink.png

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!

  • Member

“General Hospital” Hits Ratings High, But ABC Gets Sued By Online Soap Network

While clearly slanted towards ABC, I did like this part:

One of the complaints: that “GH” killed off two of the “OL” characters without asking. If the case makes it to trial, that would be one of the funniest discussions. Everyone knows that unless a character is killed on camera, no one actually dies on a soap opera. Even then, they can be revived. I refer you to Whoopi Goldberg complaining about a decapitated Kevin Kline returning to her show in the movie “SoapDish.” “I can’t write for a man without a head!” And yet, she did.

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.

Edited by EricMontreal22

  • Member

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.

Edited by Vee

  • Member

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.

I'm just going to quote you back to you....

I hate it when we agree.

  • Member

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

wink.png

:) You're so pretty!

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.

And there you have it.

I'm just going to quote you back to you....

I hate it when we agree.

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!

  • Member

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...)

  • Member

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.

  • Member

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.

Edited by EricMontreal22

  • Member

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.

Edited by Vee

  • Member

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

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

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

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.