Mindfire
Istari
So apparently this is a thing that existed:
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Wheel of Time TV Pilot
- Thread starter Mindfire
- Start date
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
No mindfire none of that! Shame on you!
As an aside I want someone to CinemaSins this so hard.
As an aside I want someone to CinemaSins this so hard.
From what I've read, their option was expiring and they had to put something out there.
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
Question: and if you can't answer that's fine, but shouldn't there be a good faith clause in the option agreement making blatant options grabs like this void or make the option voidable (I'm probably using the wrong terms so read that with whatever terminology makes sense).
And fun fact I think Harriet (Jordan's wife) is getting sued by Red Eagle Entertainment because of her reaction to this options grab.
- Thread starter
- #5
Mindfire
Istari
What? Shall we not bear the shame and unintentional hilarity of its existence? And yes, that would be hilarious. xD
Steerpike is right of course. Apparently this is something they slapped together in a couple days so they could hold on to the rights. As for the suing, I'm going to Google that.
What was the pitch? "It'll be like a train wreck. Audiences will be horrified, but in a way that compels them to watch."
Voidable rather than void would make sense. I've never worked on a TV option for a book, but certainly if I were handling the agreement I'd have some provisions in there relating to quality, particularly with a well-known brand that could be damaged by a bad production.
It didn't hurt Steven King… did It?
Saigonnus
Dark Lord
I personally think if they do one... It should be an animated series. My principal reason is the aging of the actors would be awkward since only supposedly 4-5 years take place from start to finish at it would take considerably longer to put out a decent show that could cover even the basic plot of the 15 books in the series.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #10
Mindfire
Istari
For something as long and involved as Wheel of Time an animated series is really the only option that makes sense. Unless you were going to try for a Game of Thrones style HBO adaptation. But I think Game of Thrones itself has proven that there are significant challenges when going that route, and the end result is likely to drift quite a bit from the book's story if only for budgetary reasons.
Saigonnus
Dark Lord
Yeah, an actor's voice doesn't change much even across decades.
In one way, it could be great because they can make the episodes far in advance of their release in TV. And if they had 26 or even 52 episodes a year instead of the average of 12-16 per year that most series get it could help get it all out there faster. I hate waiting months for the next season of GOT...grrrrr
From a monetary standpoint it makes sense too, especially hiring no name actors for the voices initially, and using genuine celebs for later parts, assuming there is enough success to warrant it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In one way, it could be great because they can make the episodes far in advance of their release in TV. And if they had 26 or even 52 episodes a year instead of the average of 12-16 per year that most series get it could help get it all out there faster. I hate waiting months for the next season of GOT...grrrrr
From a monetary standpoint it makes sense too, especially hiring no name actors for the voices initially, and using genuine celebs for later parts, assuming there is enough success to warrant it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
Looks like there is going to be a hearing on the motions to dismiss by Harriet and the Bandersnatch group July 20th. This has been extended one or two times before so I think it will happen unless there is a settlement. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. For those interested the case is Red Eagle Entertainment, LLC et al v. Bandersnatch Group, Inc. et al.
I haven't seen any of the filings, but based on the limited reporting I've seen, it seems like it would survive a motion to dismiss. What do you think?
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
I don't know, I have access to the documents through Bloomberg and plan on reading them later. But I think the counts subject to the motion could be dismissed; they're pretty shaky.
I thought I read somewhere they were bringing a contract claim as one of their counts, but I could be misremebering.
acapes
Mystagogue
Low-level lighting solves all problems!
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
First, note that this is in California federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction and that it is likely the court there will find personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The Defense is trying to dismiss causes of action 2, 3, and 4. I mention the other two just for reference. Okay here is what I gather from the complaint and from the complaint and from the various motions:
First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
Red Eagle alleges that Harriet/Bandersnatch (hereinafter Bandersnatch) made disparaging remarks concerning the Pilot episode, which was expressly forbidden by contract.
Second Cause of Action: Slander of Title
Alleges that Bandersnatch stated that Red Eagle/Manetheran (hereinafter Red Eagle) did not have the right to produce the Pilot episode. Stating that other companies, like Sony, would rely on those statements and thus cast doubt on Red Eagle's rights to produce a movie or TV episode.
Bandersnatch, in their motion to dismiss, states that to succeed on a slander of title claim that Red Eagle must allege "'"(1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss."' (Citing Sumner Hill Homeowners' Ass 'n, Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030 (2012)). According to the motion, the rights are qualified and therefore such statements are privileged. Also, Red Eagle, according to the motion, failed to plead with "particularity of fact" that they have suffered a pecuniary harm, only that they have suffered harm to be proven later.
Red Eagle states that because Harriet made statements that cast doubt on their claim to the rights the privilege defense does not apply. As to the pecuniary loss losing a market could be pecuniary loss, according to Red Eagle, if the slander was published widely and that attorneys fees could be recovered and considered as special damages.
Bandersnatch's reply states that Red Eagle has not plead with particularity what defamatory statements either they or Harriet made. And due to other procedural things the Court has to determine if there is a potential for the statements to be construed as defamatory. Bandersnatch states that HArriet's statements do not actually disparage Red Eagle's property rights and so there is no tort claim for counts 2, 3, and 4. Slander of title requires the statement to be false and the person making the statement does not have a privilege to make the statement. They state that they have privilege to comment on the Pilot since they also have property interests in the work. And the malice argument, again according to the reply, must be stated affirmatively in order to be in effect and that while stated there are no facts that they pled to support it. Again, they state that pecuniary claims made by Red Eagle were not pled with particularity of facts.
Third Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contract
Red Eagle states that Bandersnatch knew that they, and Manetheran, had contracts with various organizations like Red Eagle Games, Radar, and REE Productions. They allege that Bandersnatch's statements, mentioned above, interfered with these contracts.
Bandersnatch again notes that this claim only made conclusory statements and so should be dismissed. Bandersnatch states that Red Eagle has failed to indicate there was a breach of contract, only that they cannot enter into a contract and the interference with performance is a required element. They do not state how, specifically, this occurred. Next problem Bandersnatch points out is that in order to make an interference claim Red Eagle had to enter into contracts with third parties, and some supposedly breached contracts were with related entities (e.g. not third parties). Another claim is that even if an affiliate could be a third party they would know whether or not the statements made by Bandersnatch were true or not and as such would not be swayed by Bandersnatch's statements and that even if it does they allege the statement was made with malice and so the pled around the defense.
Red Eagle replies with a statement that mentioning affiliates shouldn't matter in this instance since there were other truly third parties and that by stating contract performance is more difficult that they have plead sufficiently.
Bandersnatch's response notes that there must be actual contracts and that the contracts must be lawful. They state Red Eagle only said they had agreements, indicating they Red Eagle didn't have a contract with anyone, and that they failed to plead about how much harm they suffered. They just make the assertion that it was made more expensive, not how performance is more expensive.
Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations
According to the complaint, Red Eagle and Sony were negotiating to produce a television show and that these statements made around February 9, 2015 were designed to interfere with that relationship, that they did so, and that they caused harm.
Bandersnatch states that a required element for this claim is that the statements be wrongful beyond the act of the interference itself, the wrongful act must be unlawful. The allegation is that Red Eagle did not make statements to this effect and so the claim must be dismissed.
Red Eagle replies that defamatory statements are acts of independent wrongfulness, they mentioned that, and they have therefore met the pleading standard.
Bandersnatch goes on to explain that Red Eagle didn't make a sufficient claim for defamation. They didn't note with particularity why the statement was defamatory and that there was no privilege.
Fifth Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief
They state there is controversy and is a cause of action.
My Analysis
Alright, now with the complaint, dismissal, and responses out of the way, let's get started with what I think. I think that Bandersnatch is correct. For causes of action 2, 3, and 4 Red Eagle didn't plead with enough particularity of fact. In my estimation they just said Bandersnatch harmed us but did not note any facts that could show how. But, I wouldn't be surprised if these survived a 12(b)(6) motion, but I think Bandersnatch is likely to win at the summary judgment phase as the facts now stand. I am curious to see what happens during the oral arguments come July.
(I just realized that Steerpike tricked me into doing legal research for fun. And I ain't even mad. Not sure how to feel.
Also, none of this is meant to be legal advice or meant to be me practicing law. This is just my person, unprofessional opinion.)
First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
Red Eagle alleges that Harriet/Bandersnatch (hereinafter Bandersnatch) made disparaging remarks concerning the Pilot episode, which was expressly forbidden by contract.
Second Cause of Action: Slander of Title
Alleges that Bandersnatch stated that Red Eagle/Manetheran (hereinafter Red Eagle) did not have the right to produce the Pilot episode. Stating that other companies, like Sony, would rely on those statements and thus cast doubt on Red Eagle's rights to produce a movie or TV episode.
Bandersnatch, in their motion to dismiss, states that to succeed on a slander of title claim that Red Eagle must allege "'"(1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss."' (Citing Sumner Hill Homeowners' Ass 'n, Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030 (2012)). According to the motion, the rights are qualified and therefore such statements are privileged. Also, Red Eagle, according to the motion, failed to plead with "particularity of fact" that they have suffered a pecuniary harm, only that they have suffered harm to be proven later.
Red Eagle states that because Harriet made statements that cast doubt on their claim to the rights the privilege defense does not apply. As to the pecuniary loss losing a market could be pecuniary loss, according to Red Eagle, if the slander was published widely and that attorneys fees could be recovered and considered as special damages.
Bandersnatch's reply states that Red Eagle has not plead with particularity what defamatory statements either they or Harriet made. And due to other procedural things the Court has to determine if there is a potential for the statements to be construed as defamatory. Bandersnatch states that HArriet's statements do not actually disparage Red Eagle's property rights and so there is no tort claim for counts 2, 3, and 4. Slander of title requires the statement to be false and the person making the statement does not have a privilege to make the statement. They state that they have privilege to comment on the Pilot since they also have property interests in the work. And the malice argument, again according to the reply, must be stated affirmatively in order to be in effect and that while stated there are no facts that they pled to support it. Again, they state that pecuniary claims made by Red Eagle were not pled with particularity of facts.
Third Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contract
Red Eagle states that Bandersnatch knew that they, and Manetheran, had contracts with various organizations like Red Eagle Games, Radar, and REE Productions. They allege that Bandersnatch's statements, mentioned above, interfered with these contracts.
Bandersnatch again notes that this claim only made conclusory statements and so should be dismissed. Bandersnatch states that Red Eagle has failed to indicate there was a breach of contract, only that they cannot enter into a contract and the interference with performance is a required element. They do not state how, specifically, this occurred. Next problem Bandersnatch points out is that in order to make an interference claim Red Eagle had to enter into contracts with third parties, and some supposedly breached contracts were with related entities (e.g. not third parties). Another claim is that even if an affiliate could be a third party they would know whether or not the statements made by Bandersnatch were true or not and as such would not be swayed by Bandersnatch's statements and that even if it does they allege the statement was made with malice and so the pled around the defense.
Red Eagle replies with a statement that mentioning affiliates shouldn't matter in this instance since there were other truly third parties and that by stating contract performance is more difficult that they have plead sufficiently.
Bandersnatch's response notes that there must be actual contracts and that the contracts must be lawful. They state Red Eagle only said they had agreements, indicating they Red Eagle didn't have a contract with anyone, and that they failed to plead about how much harm they suffered. They just make the assertion that it was made more expensive, not how performance is more expensive.
Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations
According to the complaint, Red Eagle and Sony were negotiating to produce a television show and that these statements made around February 9, 2015 were designed to interfere with that relationship, that they did so, and that they caused harm.
Bandersnatch states that a required element for this claim is that the statements be wrongful beyond the act of the interference itself, the wrongful act must be unlawful. The allegation is that Red Eagle did not make statements to this effect and so the claim must be dismissed.
Red Eagle replies that defamatory statements are acts of independent wrongfulness, they mentioned that, and they have therefore met the pleading standard.
Bandersnatch goes on to explain that Red Eagle didn't make a sufficient claim for defamation. They didn't note with particularity why the statement was defamatory and that there was no privilege.
Fifth Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief
They state there is controversy and is a cause of action.
My Analysis
Alright, now with the complaint, dismissal, and responses out of the way, let's get started with what I think. I think that Bandersnatch is correct. For causes of action 2, 3, and 4 Red Eagle didn't plead with enough particularity of fact. In my estimation they just said Bandersnatch harmed us but did not note any facts that could show how. But, I wouldn't be surprised if these survived a 12(b)(6) motion, but I think Bandersnatch is likely to win at the summary judgment phase as the facts now stand. I am curious to see what happens during the oral arguments come July.
(I just realized that Steerpike tricked me into doing legal research for fun. And I ain't even mad. Not sure how to feel.
Also, none of this is meant to be legal advice or meant to be me practicing law. This is just my person, unprofessional opinion.)
Brian Scott Allen
Dark Lord
Quick update: looks like a settlement has been reached and the claims are being dismissed.
Kobun
Journeyman
Hope it doesn't result in more Red Eagle WoT. I mean Billy Zane as Ishamael is cool but...