The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 8

[Serpico Jones]

One interesting thing here is, according to the Moriarty report, he's 'not taking Fox's calls'.

If there's enough bad blood between Trank and Fox, that could become a legal issue in itself. Trank could potentially sue to prevent them from releasing a film that doesn't complete his artistic vision after he was the primary director.

If they try to attach his name to it, he could sue to prevent that. If they try to release it without his name on it, he could claim they're not giving him proper attribution.

If he has the sort of ego he seems to have, he could make things difficult for Fox. I can imagine him throwing up legal blocks to them releasing this film. . . and with a deadline looming, simply taking this to court could prevent Fox from meeting their contractual obligations. Trank has some leverage to make Fox squirm if he chooses to.

This all could get very interesting.

The only thing he could do is sue to have them remove his name from the film but remember that Hollywood has an enormous good ol' boy network and that may piss some people off.

 

[Dark Raven]

For Superman 2, didn't the Salkinds excise all footage of Marlon Brando so that they wouldn't have to pay him for the 2nd movie? I'm sure Trank has been paid already but maybe Fox will want to excise any footage of his (which would be rather difficult to do considering its all his). That would delay things even further.

Now what would MBJ make of this if his buddy Trank is fired. Would he want to be removed from this movie too to make a stand? Or will he let Trank hang himself with his own noose?

I'm sure the actors can't wait to get out of it, and once the movie is either out in theatres or never gets released, they will feel a certain freedom to be able to voice their true feelings about it and say what a piece of **** it is.

If Trank didn't want his name on the film, that means that all this time he still only has one movie to his name.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

For Superman 2, didn't the Salkinds excise all footage of Marlon Brando so that they wouldn't have to pay him for the 2nd movie?

What happened is that Brando thought (was possibly mislead) that his contract was for one film. When he found out that some of the footage was to be used for a second film (SM 1 & 2 were filmed together), he wanted more money to allow his likeness in the sequel. The Salkinds felt they didn't need him anymore after the first film was so successful and so declined to pay him and ordered director Richard Donner to cut his scenes. Donner went to bat for Brando and was fired.

Later they offered to give Donner director's credit and showed him a private screening of the film. He refused credit, thinking it wasn't the film he made.

At least that's what Donner said happened.

Also some of the actors walked out to protest the decision to fire Donner, most notably Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman. Hackman never did come back, so they had to use a double to complete his scenes.

 

[Dark Raven]

What happened is that Brando thought (was possibly mislead) that he his contract was for one film. When he found out that some of the footage was to be used for a second film (SM 1 & 2 were filmed together), he wanted more money to allow his likeness in the sequel. The Salkinds felt they didn't need him anymore after the first film was so successful and so declined to pay him and ordered director Richard Donner to cut his scenes. Donner went to by for Brando and was fired.

Later they offered to give Donner director's credit and showed him a private screening of the film. He refused credit, thinking it wasn't the film he made.

At least that's what Donner said happened.

Was this before Richard Lester came in and refilmed material or before?

I wonder if there will be a similar situation with Trank. Maybe he'll see a cut of the film and think this wasn't the movie he made and will refuse director's credit.

But Fox have "promoted" this movie so far as being a Trank movie in the style of Chronicle. Their whole corner and cost cutting situation has been covered up by saying that it's done in the style of Trank's first movie with a real lo-fi, found footage feel. Now how are they going to "market" it if Trank isn't even attached to the movie anymore?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Was this before Richard Lester came in and refilmed material or before?

After. It was the final film. He said he turned it off during the Paris sequence, which was filmed by Lester.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The only thing he could do is sue to have them remove his name from the film but remember that Hollywood has an enormous good ol' boy network and that may piss some people off.

I think it could get a lot more complicated than that. I edited my post to include a link to the DGA's website and I think they may be very interested in this.

Sure, if Trank decides he doesn't want to ruffle any feathers or burn any bridges, he could choose to walk quietly away . . . but that doesn't seem to be the way this is going down.

If they, hypothetically, release the film without his name, he can claim that he was director throughout principle photography and they didn't give him any credit, that's a violation of his rights as director.

On the other hand, if they release it with his name on it while he was barred from post production, they have also violated his rights as director.

And even if his legal case is weak, the simple act of filing legal papers and then waiting for a trial date could delay the film until the rights run out.

And Trank's biggest concern is getting another job . . . but he theoretically has another job . . . with Disney. They may have already dropped him in which case he's screwed anyway, but if they haven't dropped him, would they warn him: "You better not file legal action against Fox if you want to keep your job."? Not only might the DGA have something to say about that, but I can't imagine Disney taking such a stand in this particular case.

 

[Eddie]

Was this before Richard Lester came in and refilmed material or before?

I wonder if there will be a similar situation with Trank. Maybe he'll see a cut of the film and think this wasn't the movie he made and will refuse director's credit.

But Fox have "promoted" this movie so far as being a Trank movie in the style of Chronicle. Their whole corner and cost cutting situation has been covered up by saying that it's done in the style of Trank's first movie with a real lo-fi, found footage feel. Now how are they going to "market" it if Trank isn't even attached to the movie anymore?

A handful of 30 second television spots that air when almost nobody is watching television, just like they "marketed" Dragonball Evolution.

Wait, I take it back. That's not fair to DBE. That movie actually had tie-in merchandise to help promote the film.

 

[Serpico Jones]

I think it could get a lot more complicated than that. I edited my post to include a link to the DGA's website and I think they may be very interested in this.

Sure, if Trank decides he doesn't want to ruffle any feathers or burn any bridges, he could choose to walk quietly away . . . but that doesn't seem to be the way this is going down.

If they, hypothetically, release the film without his name, he can claim that he was director throughout principle photography and they didn't give him any credit, that's a violation of his rights as director.

On the other hand, if they release it with his name on it while he was barred from post production, they have also violated his rights as director.

And even if his legal case is weak, the simple act of filing legal papers and then waiting for a trial date could delay the film until the rights run out.

And Trank's biggest concern is getting another job . . . but he theoretically has another job . . . with Disney. They may have already dropped him in which case he's screwed anyway, but if they haven't dropped him, would they warn him: "You better not file legal action against Fox if you want to keep your job."? Not only might the DGA have something to say about that, but I can't imagine Disney taking such a stand in this particular case.

He'll never work in Hollywood again if he goes through with all of that.

 

[Serpico Jones]

Something similar to this happened on the first GI Joe movie with Stephen Sommers who was locked out of the editing room for awhile and actually got replaced with Stuart Baird in post. It wasn't until Sommers' agent pointed out that he had final cut written into his contract that they had to let him back on.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

He'll never work in Hollywood again if he goes through with all of that.

Do you think he has people pounding on his door now?

He may not even have to do it personally. Turn it over to the DGA and let them handle it.

Have you ever wondered why the director's name is always the last name on the credits before the film starts? That's not something that just happened. It's specifically required by section 8-201 of the 'Basic Agreement'.

No other credit shall appear on the card which accords credit to the Director of the film. Such credit shall be on the last title card appearing prior to principal photography.

Read more than you'd ever care to know here:

http://www.dga.org/Contracts/Agreements/Basic2011.aspx

The key point is directors aren't just hired guns that studios can treat any way they like. Director's have special status and creative rights that have been specifically negotiated and defined by the DGA on their behalf.

 

[Dark Raven]

He'll never work in Hollywood again if he goes through with all of that.

But if he feels that he's never going to work in Hollywood again anyway, then he would be someone with nothing to lose and might just go ahead with all of that as his last stand.

 

[Dark Raven]

Do you think he has people pounding on his door now?

He may not even have to do it personally. Turn it over to the DGA and let them handle it.

Have you ever wondered why the director's name is always the last name on the credits before the film starts? That's not something that just happened. It's specifically required by section 8-201 of the 'Basic Agreement'.

No other credit shall appear on the card which accords credit to the Director of the film. Such credit shall be on the last title card appearing prior to principal photography.

Read more than you'd ever care to know here:

http://www.dga.org/Contracts/Agreements/Basic2011.aspx

The key point is directors aren't just hired guns that studios can treat any way they like. Director's have special status and creative rights that have been specifically negotiated and defined by the DGA on their behalf.

I do think there are. It's the lynch mob of Fantastic Four fans and disgruntled Fox colleagues trying to break the door down and calling for his head.

 

[Wildcard]

A handful of 30 second television spots that air when almost nobody is watching television, just like they "marketed" Dragonball Evolution.

Wait, I take it back. That's not fair to DBE. That movie actually had tie-in merchandise to help promote the film.

And it still flopped horribly just like this will.

 

[RAE072]

God I hope this is all true. Just to see the ****storm.

 

[MadVillainy]

I hope all these rumors arent true.

Trank made a good movie with Chronicle and he was on a lot of people's "Director's to Watch" lists. Mine included. If this is all true I wonder what the hell happened with this guy. Did the hype go to his head or what?

If this is true he'd probably be regulated to TV unless MBJ makes it big and is able to use his clout to rehire this guy

 

[Tymminator]

I would LOVE for all of these problems to be bad enough that it delays the films just long enough for it to pass some type of deadline and cause revision.

 

[Dark Raven]

Is it going to end up costing Fox more to fix this problem than they thought? They hired Trank in the first place to keep costs down but it may not work out as they hoped.

 

[Suzanne78]

On one hand, I really need FF and their crazy stories and characters back in the MCU.

On the other, it really does suck if a talented filmmaker like Trank let demons get the better of him. Dude had one helluva career, but if he's let his drinking/other substances get in the way of his work, he needs rehab.

Then go back to making great movies that don't break the bank.

 

[Doc Ock]

I gotta be honest, I didn't like Chronicle. So I have to see Trank as "talented." Of course I haven't discovered many or any found footage films I have enjoyed.

 

[Docker2.0]

Me either. I never got the obsession with the movie. I tried to like it but can't.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I didn't care for Chronicle either.

 

[Tymminator]

I thought it was OK, but it wasn't something I would consider groundbreaking.

 

[MadVillainy]

I liked it. Good story. Good acting.

I bought the blu ray.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I liked it. Good story. Good acting.

I bought the blu ray.

 

[Flint Marko]

I also enjoyed the Chronicle.
Don't see how that movie makes him a good fit for the FF though... never have.

"But... but... there hasn't anything official released yet. It's all hearsay and speculation by geeks in a forum and no-name bloggers. Just something the fanboys would desperately cling to so they can continue their circle jerk of hatred."

Exactly, come on guys we haven't even seen any footage yet! It's way too early too form an opinion!
And on that note I think Domashev will be a well-developed, interesting villain
In all seriousness this is looking better and better for us who are paying attention to this whole debacle. I usually don't listen to El Maybe, but he has had some solid scoops lately and he's always had respectable Marvel connections, so him along with Faraci (who has also been a long time supporter of this film) saying negative things about this movie has me absolutely giddy.
No matter how this turns out, it will wind up poorly for Fox and I can't wait to see them and their defenders tuck tail and walk away dejected.