7 ms·

What's wrong with these people? Why couldn't Warner Brothers reach out to Tess and say "Hey, we're going to produce a sci-fi film based on GRAVITY. We'd like to

by dxhdr 12y ago

What's wrong with these people? Why couldn't Warner Brothers reach out to Tess and say "Hey, we're going to produce a sci-fi film based on GRAVITY. We'd like to work with you and are interested in re-negotiating your contract for a new version of the story." You know, acting in good faith. Instead they just screw her, no recognition, no money? How is that the default thought process for a company? This may be vindictive but I hope the court sticks it to Warner Bros in the most painful way possible. Something needs to be done to change the decision making process at that company.

prawn 12y ago
"Instead they just screw him..." Just a quick correction, but Tess Gerritsen is female. Otherwise, I agree. Very unfair and they deserve what is (hopefully) coming.
- dxhdr 12y ago
  Fixed thanks
  - tim333 12y ago
    Indeed you've got to wonder if the studio would have tried to screw over the writer so blatantly if it had been a he.
    - tim333 12y ago
      To the downvoters, re the "What's wrong with these people?" issue don't you think there could be a teensy bit of sexism going on here?
      - protomyth 12y ago
        I think most of the downvoters believe the studios are equal opportunity screwers and have demonstrated that fact on far too many occasions. I did not downvote.
spiritplumber 12y ago
I think it's because large corporations without a public figure at the helm think like paperclip maximizers. There is a process that counts cost vs. reward for various strategies, and the most efficient one is selected. TW is big enough that they don't have to worry about their reputation taking a big hit from doing this once, or even a dozen times - people will still pitch scripts to them. What puzzles me is why we hardly ever hear of military or even professional reprisals against these companies.
- konceptz 12y ago
  I'm confused,and intrigued, what a "military reprisal" would be.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    In this case I guess it would be "You've ripped me off to the tune of a million dollars, so I'm going to cause you a million and one dollars in property damage, this way you'll learn next time". This is considered acceptable in some cultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      So, weregild is a legal institution the entire point of which is to prevent the process you're talking about. Why the link?
      - spiritplumber 12y ago
        Because if at some point in history there was a need for weregild, the process I am talking about was common enough to warrant addressing.
pyre 12y ago
From interactions previous employer(s)/co-worker(s) have had with Warner Bros., I do not have a good opinion of WB corporate culture (at least at the higher levels). Someone probably got a promotion for this based on saving the company some amount of money and will see no negative consequences even if the courts stick it to WB financially.
chucksmart 12y ago
A wait for the lawsuit first negotiation strategy works well against people without the wherewithal for protracted litigation.
ubernostrum 12y ago
Well, some of the issues seem to be: 1. The movie "Gravity" is primarily an action/special-effects pageant about an astronaut trying to get safely back to Earth after an accident destroys the space station she was on. The book "Gravity" is a medical techno-thriller about a doctor in space fighting a disease outbreak on a space station. Reasonable people can probably disagree about whether the movie, given its significantly different plot, is even a derivative of the book at this point. 2. The lawsuit was not regarding plagiarism, but rather for breach of contract related to the film rights for the book. Gerritsen alleges that Warner Brothers was bound by and failed to observe the terms of a contract she had signed with a company which became a subsidiary of New Line, which in turn became a subsidiary of Warner Brothers. The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that contract. This mostly seems to depend on the arcana of contract law and how mergers and acquisitions pass obligations on (or don't pass them on), and suggests that the main issue was either she or her attorney did not sufficiently understand those arcana (given that she apparently contracted for a percentage of net rather than gross, a lack of experience in what makes a good contract for film rights seems likely) in order to build a successful complaint.
- ricardobeat 12y ago
  Did you miss the part about the person who wrote the script for the movie being involved in the original project, based on the book?
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    Did you miss the part where this was a contract issue? Where the author of the book said, literally, "Yeah, Gravity is a great film, but it's not based on my book"? She's trying to argue that a contract she made with one company would somehow jump across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes and begin binding a different company that made a movie she admits wasn't based on her book. And that's why it comes down to contract law, and contracts do not represent an easy, straightforward, intuitive body of law. You don't particularly have to like the way that stuff works, but the simple truth is that changing it to make it work the intuitive and desired way in this particular case would probably result in many more other types of cases suddenly coming out in ways you wouldn't like.
hkmurakami 12y ago
"It's easier to apologize than to ask for permission." Not that I agree with the above, but let's remember that this attitude is pervasive in every industry today.

by dxhdr 12y ago

prawn 12y ago

"Instead they just screw him..." Just a quick correction, but Tess Gerritsen is female. Otherwise, I agree. Very unfair and they deserve what is (hopefully) coming.

dxhdr 12y ago
Fixed thanks
- tim333 12y ago
  Indeed you've got to wonder if the studio would have tried to screw over the writer so blatantly if it had been a he.
  - tim333 12y ago
    To the downvoters, re the "What's wrong with these people?" issue don't you think there could be a teensy bit of sexism going on here?
    - protomyth 12y ago
      I think most of the downvoters believe the studios are equal opportunity screwers and have demonstrated that fact on far too many occasions. I did not downvote.

spiritplumber 12y ago

I think it's because large corporations without a public figure at the helm think like paperclip maximizers. There is a process that counts cost vs. reward for various strategies, and the most efficient one is selected. TW is big enough that they don't have to worry about their reputation taking a big hit from doing this once, or even a dozen times - people will still pitch scripts to them. What puzzles me is why we hardly ever hear of military or even professional reprisals against these companies.

konceptz 12y ago
I'm confused,and intrigued, what a "military reprisal" would be.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  In this case I guess it would be "You've ripped me off to the tune of a million dollars, so I'm going to cause you a million and one dollars in property damage, this way you'll learn next time". This is considered acceptable in some cultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    So, weregild is a legal institution the entire point of which is to prevent the process you're talking about. Why the link?
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      Because if at some point in history there was a need for weregild, the process I am talking about was common enough to warrant addressing.

pyre 12y ago

From interactions previous employer(s)/co-worker(s) have had with Warner Bros., I do not have a good opinion of WB corporate culture (at least at the higher levels). Someone probably got a promotion for this based on saving the company some amount of money and will see no negative consequences even if the courts stick it to WB financially.

chucksmart 12y ago

A wait for the lawsuit first negotiation strategy works well against people without the wherewithal for protracted litigation.

ubernostrum 12y ago

Well, some of the issues seem to be: 1. The movie "Gravity" is primarily an action/special-effects pageant about an astronaut trying to get safely back to Earth after an accident destroys the space station she was on. The book "Gravity" is a medical techno-thriller about a doctor in space fighting a disease outbreak on a space station. Reasonable people can probably disagree about whether the movie, given its significantly different plot, is even a derivative of the book at this point. 2. The lawsuit was not regarding plagiarism, but rather for breach of contract related to the film rights for the book. Gerritsen alleges that Warner Brothers was bound by and failed to observe the terms of a contract she had signed with a company which became a subsidiary of New Line, which in turn became a subsidiary of Warner Brothers. The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that contract. This mostly seems to depend on the arcana of contract law and how mergers and acquisitions pass obligations on (or don't pass them on), and suggests that the main issue was either she or her attorney did not sufficiently understand those arcana (given that she apparently contracted for a percentage of net rather than gross, a lack of experience in what makes a good contract for film rights seems likely) in order to build a successful complaint.

ricardobeat 12y ago
Did you miss the part about the person who wrote the script for the movie being involved in the original project, based on the book?
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Did you miss the part where this was a contract issue? Where the author of the book said, literally, "Yeah, Gravity is a great film, but it's not based on my book"? She's trying to argue that a contract she made with one company would somehow jump across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes and begin binding a different company that made a movie she admits wasn't based on her book. And that's why it comes down to contract law, and contracts do not represent an easy, straightforward, intuitive body of law. You don't particularly have to like the way that stuff works, but the simple truth is that changing it to make it work the intuitive and desired way in this particular case would probably result in many more other types of cases suddenly coming out in ways you wouldn't like.

hkmurakami 12y ago

"It's easier to apologize than to ask for permission." Not that I agree with the above, but let's remember that this attitude is pervasive in every industry today.