|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 10, 2005 12:28:49 GMT
With thanks to Lee from www.eveofthewar.co.uk & Anthony at www.eveofthewar.comSource - www.videobusiness.comH_C WOTWOnline In a real-life David and Goliath story, director Timothy Hines claims he's being bullied by Paramount Pictures over his indie film H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds.
It's all systems go to distribute a DVD of his 'War' to retailers beginning June 15, Hines said, though there is some question about who might distribute the DVD. Hines believes he has (or had) a deal with UAV, but that company hasn't confirmed the deal to VB.
Hines believes UAV's waffling might by due to the pressure and threats of legal action Hines has been getting for years from Paramount, which is distributing the much higher profile and Tom Cruise-starring War Of The Worlds in theaters this summer.
Paramount claims to own all movie and TV rights in most countries excluding the U.S. to productions based on the original 1898 H.G. Wells novel. That claim is based on a deal signed with Wells' son, Frank Wells, in 1951.
Paramount clearly has the bigger audience draw with its Cruise cache--not to mention the marquee magic of director Steven Spielberg. Hines' version features no name actors.
Even though Paramount's rights apparently only apply outside the U.S., the studio seems annoyed that a competing War of the Worlds will be released so close to its own version.
"They've sent us mountains of letters," Hines said.
No legal action has been initiated. But VB has obtained letters written from as far back as 2001 and as recently as last November from an attorney named Jonathan Zavin, who says his firm--first Bingham Dana and later Loeb & Loeb--represents Paramount.
In the letters, Hines is put "on notice" that he has "no right to distribute your film, based upon Worlds, until 2016" in "most of the world outside the U.S."
The letters state that Hines would be guilty of infringing on copyrights held by Paramount, "which Paramount intends to vigorously enforce" if he were to proceed.
Prior to VB obtaining the document, a Paramount spokeswoman said the matter was a non-issue, noting that Paramount hasn't threatened any legal action. Since then, the studio has not returned calls to comment on the letters.
Hines' production company, Pendragon Pictures, "has spent thousands researching the copyright [issues]," said Hines, who said he knows of no rights problem.
Still, it remained unclear at deadline who will distribute Hines' DVD. The director claims to have UAV aboard to ship units to at least 60,000 stores, but a UAV rep said no deal has been cinched as yet.
"It's scary for people ? when you're competing with some pretty powerful forces," Hines said. "[Paramount] is expending huge amounts of energy to discredit us."
The Paramount spokeswoman said the studio has "had this property in development for many, many years." The project was officially announced in the Hollywood trade press in spring 2004.
Hines took out an ad in Variety to hype his War intentions in May 2001. The director is chronicling his battles in a pair of books, The Making of HG Wells' The War of the Worlds Part One and Part Two, to be published by Retrovision on June 1.
DreamWorks, a co-producer of the upcoming Paramount release, holds all home video rights and will distribute the DVD through its output deal with Universal Studios Home Entertainment
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 10, 2005 12:42:43 GMT
Hah. Looks like another set of lame 'the dog ate my homework, Miss' excuses from Timbo.
Isn't it odd how whenever he 'believes' or 'claims' to have distribution deals set up, whether theatrically or, now, through cheapjack DVD hacks, no-one in a position to know has ever heard of him?
The only independent verification of anything he's producing is the appearance on Retrovision's site (as pending) of the two books he's supposed to be writing.
I wouldn't be surprised if he realises the game's up with his effort, and now he's going to try to cash in by presenting the behind-the-scenes story of evil Paramount quashing the little guy, making himself out to be a rebel indie martyr, deflecting the blame for his film's non-completion on the iniquities of corporate America (rather than his own rank ineptitude and utter lack of talent), and perhaps even gain enough kudos as to get backing to complete Chrome.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 10, 2005 13:20:56 GMT
"It's scary for people ? when you're competing with some pretty powerful forces," Hines said. "[Paramount] is expending huge amounts of energy to discredit us." Yeah right. So Paramount released all those rubbish trailers did they? Paramount told all those blatant lies did they? Paramount released those cast messages and cast diaries did they? Paramount made PP miss every deadline they have ever set did they? Paramount made PP set up one of the worst web sites ever to hit the web and then stopped them from updating it for months on end did they? In fact not once have I heard of Paramount doing or saying anything to 'discredit' PP, they did enough of that to themselves. Typical Hines BS, "its not my fault honest!" Nobody wants his film because its sub standard, even if they wanted to Paramount have the rights to the world and Dreamworks have the rights to video/DVD distribution for the WOTW title. reading between the lines it looks to me like Hines is saying it wont be out on DVD in June or anytime soon, excuses excuses excuses.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 10, 2005 13:31:36 GMT
Its hard to say if Paramount 'have' been discrediting the Pens film, not every one has read the press articles and not every article has been released. Paramount would not want to anounce there dislikes of the Pens project while there film is still being put together. If they are ruthless, there not stupid. Who knows whats goes on behind 'closed' curtains.
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 10, 2005 13:36:59 GMT
I dont buy it, how much more discrediting does PP need? Paramount must be laughing at them, PP have done more than Paramount ever could to discredit themselves.
If there is a campain to descredit PP then its not a good one is it? I mean I havent heard of anything, has anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 10, 2005 13:39:35 GMT
If there is, with the amount of eagle eyed members on here, you would have read about it a longgggggggg time ago
|
|
|
Post by themaster on Apr 10, 2005 13:40:55 GMT
Exactly. Its Hines spinning his web of excuses. "its a conspiracy!" erm...no your just a lost cause mate!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 10, 2005 16:30:22 GMT
Oh what a surprise! Just read my thread DON'T BELIEVE THIS CINEMA RELEASE RUBBISH ANY MORE it might just explain the situation.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Apr 10, 2005 17:37:22 GMT
Well, it would *appear* to confirm some opinions on the whole thing. It just shows to me that film companies can be like kids threatening each other in the playground. I find the whole thing distateful and amateurish by BOTH parties. It looks like Hines is pretty much daring Paramount to let him release his film without hindrance but we are only hearing one side of the story.. and then not all of that. Hines movie is no threat to Paramount's blockbuster, we all know that, so why not let him release it and be done with it. If nothing else it'll stop him spouting his conspiracy talk. And it'll let Hines show once and for all if all his talk of a definitive WotW was warranted or just a 4 year trip through cloud cuckoo land. Yet again, the only casualties in this particular war will be the fans. No surprise there then.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 10, 2005 17:45:14 GMT
I guess we'll all just wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by notobfukwiv on Apr 10, 2005 18:24:14 GMT
How long does Timothy Hines think that he can keep up this ludicrous masquerade? Excuse just seems to follow excuse, no vision, no direction nor light at the end of the tunnel can be seen. Quite simply somebody isn’t doing his or her job.
He claims that ‘thousands’ have been invested towards copyright issues. Serious questions need to be asked about his tactics, objectives, leadership and his overall plan. It appears that he may have made assumptions and gone ahead with the making of his film regardless of the possible consequences. Why were these avenues not explored properly and dealt with, put to bed, doors closed etc. for a clear path forward?
If Hines now intends to ‘hang his jacket’ on this latest excuse regarding copyright, I certainly don’t buy it. Common sense tells us in this matter that there should have been no ‘grey areas’ whatsoever before he began his project. Hines goes on to say that his company ‘knows of no rights problems’; that statement causes me concern as it shows me that every stone hasn’t been turned over properly, nothing is clear and at this late stage of the game, it should be. I’d certainly like to see contributors, that support Pendragon’s unorthodox practice, share with us the reasons as to why they behave in the business manner they do.
Time for some straight answers not excuses.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 10, 2005 20:21:09 GMT
I can't help thinking there's some form of a wind up going on here. Surely anyone saying things like "I'm being bullied by this company" or "this company is expending huge amounts of energy to discredit us" whilst actually naming the company - is slander.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Apr 10, 2005 21:42:24 GMT
"Hines movie is no threat to Paramount's blockbuster, we all know that, so why not let him release it and be done with it" Because no film company is going to set a precedent by allowing a unauthorized film of a property or film title they own go out on a professional release scale,, no matter if it is a threat or not. If you own an book or film title legally, you are NOT going to allow anybody to openly infringe that right. It's SOP in the publishing or entertainment world. Try making a film of "Lord Of The Rings" and releasing it on DVD and see what New Line does. Try making a "Star Wars" film and release it on DVD and see what Lucas does. (Lucas tolerates "Fan Films" made strictly for fun but he has moved against any attempt to release these films on a mass level, as the makers of the "Phantom Edit" found out). A property as valuable as WOTW will be protected. Hines was a fool for not doing his legal research or in thinking he could get away with it someway. Just another sign he is an amateur. "How long does Timothy Hines think that he can keep up this ludicrous masquerade?" As long as some people as gullible enough to buy into it. Paramount, btw, is considered to have a very tough line on defending it's property. It is ruthless in protecting it's "Star Trek" franchise, and Hines should have known that.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Apr 11, 2005 0:45:17 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Some precedents: Cadbury chocolate tried to stop Tim The Yowie Man from calling himself Tim The Yowie Man. Cadbury had been making their Yowie products (a chocloate with a toy of an animal, often rare endangered or extinct inside) for about two years. Tim was calling himself Tim The Yowie Man in books, on radio, on tv etc for over a decade as one of Australias most public cryptozoologists specialising in the search for the yowie. The name Yowie comes from an aboriginal language for a large bipedal beast that makes a terrible screaming sound. Plenty of early settlers and people since have claimed to have seen it and it is considered by some to be an Australian form of Bigfoot. Cadbury had hoped that Tim couldn't afford to fight the case in the courts and so would just hush up and go away, instead he appeared on a popular current affairs show and publicity made them withdraw. A small local cafe in Victoria called Thelma and Louise was sued by a large film company for using the name. Despite the owners of the store being named Thelma and Louise and the store opening a year before the film came out they were forced to change the name as they couldn't afford legal representation. Big companies bully little people all the time. It might not excuse Hines for his handling of anything but that does not mean that big business isn't behaving in a typical and common manner. Of course Hines is not the only one to make claims that do not accord with Paramounts 'official line' from todays scifiwire: www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30746 [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Apr 11, 2005 9:11:01 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]Nothing really new here. Tims still convinced he can distribute, and Paramount is giving out conflicting stories.
As I've said previously, Tim has gotten so obsessed that he has become The Curate. We won't see any proper details, or website updates, as Tim is now so convinced Paramount are stealing his ideas and applying pressure on him.
How much is true - we don't know. Tim's paranoia makes him reluctant to say anything, and Paramount say they have, and they haven't started legal proceedings.
Back to square one...[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 11, 2005 21:44:37 GMT
(Lucas tolerates "Fan Films" made strictly for fun but he has moved against any attempt to release these films on a mass level, as the makers of the "Phantom Edit" found out). You have some very good points dudalb, and not to contradict you, but just a minor correction: It was not the Phantom Editor himself who tried to mass distribute "The Phantom Edit", but rather a fan network. The Editor claims to have had nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 11, 2005 22:09:02 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Some precedents: Cadbury chocolate tried to stop Tim The Yowie Man from calling himself Tim The Yowie Man. Cadbury had been making their Yowie products (a chocloate with a toy of an animal, often rare endangered or extinct inside) for about two years. Tim was calling himself Tim The Yowie Man in books, on radio, on tv etc for over a decade as one of Australias most public cryptozoologists specialising in the search for the yowie. The name Yowie comes from an aboriginal language for a large bipedal beast that makes a terrible screaming sound. Plenty of early settlers and people since have claimed to have seen it and it is considered by some to be an Australian form of Bigfoot. Cadbury had hoped that Tim couldn't afford to fight the case in the courts and so would just hush up and go away, instead he appeared on a popular current affairs show and publicity made them withdraw. A small local cafe in Victoria called Thelma and Louise was sued by a large film company for using the name. Despite the owners of the store being named Thelma and Louise and the store opening a year before the film came out they were forced to change the name as they couldn't afford legal representation. Big companies bully little people all the time. It might not excuse Hines for his handling of anything but that does not mean that big business isn't behaving in a typical and common manner. Of course Hines is not the only one to make claims that do not accord with Paramounts 'official line' from todays scifiwire: www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30746 [/glow] More big boys trying to bully the underdog (but, hehe, failed in the end): www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/cyber/articles/26etoy.htmlI saw this once on a program on NGC about hackers... -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Apr 12, 2005 0:47:19 GMT
Whatever the merits or quality of Hines's film, I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount is trying to manhandle him and his project. In fact, I'd be astonished if they weren't.
All of us here can distinguish between the various productions, but that's because we're fans. Millions of other people won't, however. And advertisers and producers fear one thing above all else: product confusion. Paramount fears a good Hines release (real competition); they also fear that his film is a disaster and consumers won't be able to distinguish between brand names (when the title "War of the Worlds" film = bad).
We shouldn't be naive on this point. Isn't SS's _War_ the most expensive movie ever? Bad competition, bad press, bad events, could cost this film big bucks. Moreover, there's a certain risk, given international affairs: a terrorist attack of any severity, especially in the US, could conceivably delay the film and cost millions upon millions in potential profits and wasted advertising. A small risk, perhaps, but a risk nonetheless. These same events could also cost in terms of DVD releases and sustained sales.
On another level, the press already treats SS's film a 'remake' of the Pals version - not as a retelling of the Wells story (fairly or not). So the film is already seen as a remake and it will not receive good critical reviews (not that serious critics consider SS artistic, at all, but sometimes these reviews have an impact - consider _Pearl Harbor_).
Again, all unlikely, but there's risks with this film, I'd say. I'm sure corporate board members and investors see it in similar terms.
If I were working for Paramount, I'd say the corporation should stomp Pendragon like a narc at a biker rally. Too much is at stake.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Apr 12, 2005 17:24:25 GMT
The main reason Paramount is legally challenging Hines is simple: It is SOP for a license or copyright holder to go after anybody who infringes that copyright or license. Generally they will ignore stuff like fan fiction or amateur fan films but try to release somthing on a commerical basis and you will be in court.It's automatic. You don't want to set a precedent of letting somebody get away with a blatant case of it...and If Paramount has a valid copyright or licence for WOTW (The Book of The FIlm Title") what Hines is doing is a pretty blatent violation. Even George Lucas, who is a lot more tolerant then many copyright holders, went after the people who tried to sell and mass distriubte the"Phantom Edit". Lensman was right, it was not the guy who made it who started to sell it on the internet and at conventions. But the ones who did quickly got a legal order to cease and desist..it was an open and shut case. The only way Hines can win is if Paramount does not have valid copyright or license, and apparetnly they do.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Apr 12, 2005 21:32:50 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]It's never as straightforward and clear cut as that. Copyright laws change from country to country and things that are copyrighted in some countries are not in others. Some things are public domain in Australia for example that are still under copyright in England.
There are dirty tricks involved in the legal process too, one favourite in Australia is for big multi-nationals to take legal action in American courts using American laws against small Australian companies. The Australian company might be in the right according to Australian law but if they can't afford representation in the USA the company then asks our Government to enforce the decision of the American court in Australia! Our current Government seems to be particularly compliant in this so often American copyright is riding roughshod over Australian!
It's a very complicated issue (as Charles has explained ad nauseum) and as I was told by the scriptwriter a few years ago at least one Paramount version (90% accurate to the book starring Tom Cruise) of War of the Worlds was unable to be made because of Jeff Wayne's copyright on it! So to say Hines was being nai've is itself nai've. One could just as easilly say that as Paramount could not get a film made in the 90's because of Jeff Wayne then they shouldn't have tried now.
[/glow]
|
|