Latest News

Will New Predator Content be Stopped? A Motion Hearing is Now Scheduled for Thomas vs. Disney

The battle between the original Predator creators Jim & John Thomas and Disney for ownership of the U.S. Predator copyright is heating up, and now there is a court date scheduled to decide if new Disney-era Predator content should be stopped until all the legal issues are resolved.

 Will New Predator Content be Stopped? A Motion Hearing is Now Scheduled for Thomas vs. Disney

Thursday, the 27th of May will be a big day for Predator fans, because that is the day when a Motion Hearing will take place for a Preliminary Injunction.

If you recall in our last article, we assessed that the Thomas Brothers were trying to stop the new Disney era Predator film “Skulls” from going into production. This is because the legal representation for the Thomas Brothers indicated they are entitled to have the court issue a “preliminary injunction” on new Predator works, which is a temporary court order that would prevent Disney from continuing new Predator works until the conclusion of a trial.

Per the legal complaint:

Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, during the pendency of this action, and thereafter to a permanent injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from exploiting after April 17, 2021 (the effective termination date), new derivative works based on the Screenplay and derivative Predator film franchise, without first obtaining at arms’ length a new copyright license from Plaintiffs.

Well now it seems there is a Court Hearing scheduled for that very purpose. On May 27th, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler will hear both sides and decide if a preliminary injunction should go into effect.

Here are the Motion Hearing details:

3:21-cv-02720-LB – Thomas et al v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation et al
CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Motion Hearing [12] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for 5/27/2021 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco – Videoconference Only before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lb

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

It appears the public can virtually attend this hearing, but if you do, please remember recording as well as taking screenshots is not permitted.

So will the 27th of May be a dark day for Predator fans? Will our favorite intergalactic hunter be tied up in legal battles for years like the copyright battle for “Friday the 13th” with no new Predator content in sight?

Keep your targets set on Alien vs. Predator Galaxy to find out, and for all the latest Alien and Predator news. You can also follow us on FacebookTwitter, Instagram and YouTube to get the latest on your social media walls. Be sure to join in with fellow Alien and Predator fans on our forums as well!



Post Comment
Comments: 139
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
  1. SiL
    If Disney's only claiming the first two notices are invalid then it's possible the Brothers withdraw those notices and just leave the uncontested 2023 date open, avoiding the whole nightmare.

    Fingers crossed.
  2. Proteus
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 10:49:35 PM
    Great find and good news! So each date was a separate notice, rather than caveats on the original, and they're only arguing the soonest two are invalid. Sweet.

    Look, I'm not saying the brothers shouldn't have the rights back. I think most of us feel this way, BUT if it turns out that 2023 is the real date, then awesome. That's 2 years of trying to pump out as much Predator material as possible (for better or worse), and honesty as a fan, PELT ME WITH CONTENT.

    At the end of the day, I just want SKULLS to happen, man. I'm happy with just that until the brothers retain rights.

    Let's hope those early dates are invalid.
  3. SiL
    Great find and good news! So each date was a separate notice, rather than caveats on the original, and they're only arguing the soonest two are invalid. Sweet.
  4. Voodoo Magic
    Okay, it appears that in January 2023 the Thomas Brothers may very well get their Predator (Hunter) copyright back.

    The lowdown: The Thomas Brothers legal representation sent Fox/ Disney three (3) Termination notices to reclaim Predator.

    1st Notice: Mainly referenced an incorrect copyright number. Hunter script was never registered at the copyright office (which doesn't need to by law) but the Predator rewrite script was, and that's the copyright number that they incorrectly referenced. INVALID PER DISNEY

    2nd Notice: Mainly corrected first notice but termination date was now less than two years required by law from notice. INVALID PER DISNEY

    3rd Notice: Other than acknowledgement of receipt, nothing in the Disney countersuit is saying it's invalid.

    So far, this is just about getting the first two termination notices declared as invalid. Disney is not arguing that the Thomas Brothers don't get the copyright back.

    Doc is here:
    https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FILED_Complaint-with-Exhibits.pdf
  5. Voodoo Magic
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 09:25:24 PM
    The problem with using the wording of the Brothers' complaint to interpret Disney's stance is that Disney posted a new counterclaim after the Brothers' complaint. But the full text of that claim hasn't been made available.

    That's why I wrote the caveat "according to the Thomas Brothers legal complaint" so we know it's according to them.

    QuoteFrom how it's been described in various media channels - including the quoted paragraph we've been discussing already - the claim seems to have shifted from "you're early" to "your claim is invalid and you get nothing".

    See the "you get nothing" you threw in there has been our point of contention. We haven't been able to confirm that aspect yet, with what's been provided.

    But good news! I was just emailed that Disney's counter-claim is available while typing this. Let me check this out and be back. :)
  6. SiL
    The problem with using the wording of the Brothers' complaint to interpret Disney's stance is that Disney posted a new counterclaim after the Brothers' complaint. But the full text of that claim hasn't been made available.

    From how it's been described in various media channels - including the quoted paragraph we've been discussing already - the claim seems to have shifted from "you're early" to "your claim is invalid and you get nothing". The one extra bit I can find is from Hollywood Reporter:

    While federal statutory copyright law endows certain grantors, like defendants [the Thomas brothers], with copyright termination rights, such rights may only be exercised in accordance with the statute's requirements, including provisions delineating when termination notices may be served and when the termination of rights becomes effective," states the 20th Century complaint. "Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/predator-screenwriters-suing-disney-to-recapture-rightswzz

    From what little we've seen it does look like Disney's lawyers are trying to prove statutory requirements were not met for the action to be legally valid.

    How this resolves, only time will tell.
  7. Proteus
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 06:56:55 PM
    ^ Yep, it certainly seems that way from what we've seen so far.

    So if the court finds the Termination Notice invalid, according to the Thomas Brothers legal complaint, this should happen:



    • In the unlikely event the Court finds the Termination Notice is invalid, Plaintiffs' Second Termination Notice or Third Termination Notice is valid, with effective termination dates of June 14, 2022 or January 13, 2023, respectively.

    And at this point we haven't seen anything pubically yet where Disney's legal team said the Predator copyright should never go back to the Thomas Brothers, at least not yet.

    Yeah, details suggest that no one is disputing the rights claim. I think most of us also KNOW the brothers are attaining the rights. It's just a matter of when. I just now think Disney is fighting to get SKULLS out if only to make some money on a property they started working on.

    Beyond that, who knows motivations.
  8. Voodoo Magic
    ^ Yep, it certainly seems that way from what we've seen so far.

    So if the court finds the Termination Notice invalid, according to the Thomas Brothers legal complaint, this should happen:



    • In the unlikely event the Court finds the Termination Notice is invalid, Plaintiffs' Second Termination Notice or Third Termination Notice is valid, with effective termination dates of June 14, 2022 or January 13, 2023, respectively.

    And at this point we haven't seen anything pubically yet where Disney's legal team said the Predator copyright should never go back to the Thomas Brothers, at least not yet.
  9. Proteus
    Quote from: Stitch on Apr 23, 2021, 05:01:41 PM
    I haven't read the whole legal paper, but if Disney's claim is that the Thomas brothers' suit is legally invalid because it wasn't filed properly, doesn't that indirectly imply that if filed correctly, Disney would lose? It sounds like a legal loophole that they're trying to exploit because they know they're going to lose.

    I won't claim to know how these legal proceedings will go or if anything I say could be possible, but is it feasible that Disney is betting on the filing being incorrect, the termination date is wrong, and there will be no injunction so that they delay until 2022 so they can proceed with SKULLS, since they've invested time and money into it. I feel like at this point Disney just wants to get one film in before losing the rights.
  10. Stitch
    I haven't read the whole legal paper, but if Disney's claim is that the Thomas brothers' suit is legally invalid because it wasn't filed properly, doesn't that indirectly imply that if filed correctly, Disney would lose? It sounds like a legal loophole that they're trying to exploit because they know they're going to lose.
  11. Voodoo Magic
    Indeed!

    Quote from: Proteus on Apr 23, 2021, 03:20:04 PM
    At the end of the day, we know little of what may happen.

    And isn't that the truth! We haven't even been privy to Disney's full counter legal complaint yet. Here SiL and I are debating just a paragraph or so, and there could be much more content to review in Disney's countersuit. In that prism, I must admit, it's silly at this point. :P

    Ugh, the wait to May 27th for just the injunction will be grueling.  :-\
  12. Proteus
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:52:57 PM
    Quote from: Xiggz456 on Apr 23, 2021, 02:33:00 PM
    Just my two cents but it is coming across as Voodoo jumping all over Sil as though he's spouting misinformation when all of Sil's posts have been well constructed. It's coming across like this:

    My speculation is right and your speculation is wrong

    I get that we're all justifiably worried but as someone who's had some experience in Contract Law, I think Sil's speculation has been solid and fully based on the Language presented. Obviously Language can be interpreted differently and that's why we have to "wait and see" how the judge interprets said Language but we can and should respect all the different angles that this motion can entail without attacking each other's theories.  :)

    Jumping all over SiL I think is a bit of hyperbole. If one looks, I didn't begin this latest conversation and SiL has countered my posts as well as others with his own speculation. But that's okay. It really is. That's what we do here. Discussion board. Point and counter point. :)

    In regards to this legal complaint and counter complaint, I'm just trying my best to interpret the actual words on the legal filings and only what is on the legal filings as best as I can. I used to do this at my job. But even I have to catch myself inserting speculation.  ;)


    Hey, we should all strive in sharing our opinions and discussing other's opinions without rancor.

    At the end of the day, we know little of what may happen. I am of the side in hoping things are resolved swiftly and without need for injunction so that we as fans can hopefully have SKULLS.

    But that's it. That's all I have currently. Hope. We shall see what happens in a month.
  13. Voodoo Magic
    Quote from: Xiggz456 on Apr 23, 2021, 02:33:00 PM
    Just my two cents but it is coming across as Voodoo jumping all over Sil as though he's spouting misinformation when all of Sil's posts have been well constructed. It's coming across like this:

    My speculation is right and your speculation is wrong

    I get that we're all justifiably worried but as someone who's had some experience in Contract Law, I think Sil's speculation has been solid and fully based on the Language presented. Obviously Language can be interpreted differently and that's why we have to "wait and see" how the judge interprets said Language but we can and should respect all the different angles that this motion can entail without attacking each other's theories.  :)

    Jumping all over SiL I think is a bit of hyperbole. If one looks, I didn't begin this latest conversation and SiL has countered my posts as well as others with his own speculation. But that's okay. It really is. That's what we do here. Discussion board. Point and counter point. :)

    In regards to this legal complaint and counter complaint, I'm just trying my best to interpret the actual words on the legal filings and only what is on the legal filings as best as I can. I used to do this at my job. But even I have to catch myself inserting speculation.  ;)
  14. Xiggz456
    Just my two cents but it is coming across as Voodoo jumping all over Sil as though he's spouting misinformation when all of Sil's posts have been well constructed. It's coming across like this:

    My speculation is right and your speculation is wrong

    I get that we're all justifiably worried but as someone who's had some experience in Contract Law, I think Sil's speculation has been solid and fully based on the Language presented. Obviously Language can be interpreted differently and that's why we have to "wait and see" how the judge interprets said Language but we can and should respect all the different angles that this motion can entail without attacking each other's theories.  :)
  15. Voodoo Magic
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 01:39:28 PM
    Honestly at this point it feels like you're disagreeing with me for the sake of it every time I post here.

    SiL, I think you started this one brother. In this latest conversation, all I did was post my opinion on injunction likelihood that Proteus inquiried about :

    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 08:52:37 PM
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2021, 08:23:05 PM
    Quote from: Proteus on Apr 22, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 01:58:49 PM
    Now this thread is REALLY taking a turn! :laugh:
    Back on topic we go please!

    Okay. On topic. Likelihood judge issues the injunction come May 27th? I say strong.
    Yeah, I see the injunction happening (un)fortunately.

    It's a tough bet, but I'd wager the preliminary injunction does not happen, because it's not a question of ownership (at least right now), but just a question of when that date of ownership changes. And if Disney truly has another year, you're essentially taking it away with this injunction in place. Then, say the trial drags out past that extra year, and Disney eventually wins. The question for Disney becomes.. You stopped everything US Court. So what did we win?

    While it was my opinion, you disagreed with it, gave your many reasons why, which is fine, and our conversation ensued.

    So... welcome to discussion forums!  :)
  16. SiL
    The notices are required to be valid for the provision to take effect. Disney is saying they are not valid, ergo.

    This is still besides the larger point of why an injunction is likely. There are too many things that need to get resolved. That's entirely the point of an injunction - to stop things getting messier so everything can get sorted.

    Honestly at this point it feels like you're disagreeing with me for the sake of it every time I post here.
  17. Voodoo Magic
    Again, it's all speculation. Bolding "are invalid as a matter of law" doesn't make the point stronger. Language is important, and if you read the entire paragraph you posted, Disney is only arguing to the invalidity of the notices, which subsequently makes the Thomas Brothers claim premature. They are not arguing that the Thomas Brothers no longer have a claim to Predator because of it.

    " There now exists between the parties an actual and justiciable controversy concerning the validity of Notice One and 20th Century's and defendants' respective rights. Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law. 20th Century seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that defendants' notices of termination are invalid. This action is necessary because defendants are improperly attempting to prematurely terminate 20th Century's rights to the Hunters Screenplay, at the very time that 20th Century is investing substantial time, money, and effort in developing another installment in its successful Predator franchise."

    Would Disney want the rights of Predator exclusively? Of course. Can they cancel the Thomas Brothers claim forever because, while apparently timely, there was an error or errors in the filing? I don't know. Neither do you. But all we have is the information that's been provided to us, and the information provided to us in Disney's counter-claim is not indicating that the Thomas Brothers claim is no longer invalid, it's not, but rather just premature.
  18. SiL
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 12:51:32 PM
    But if I was Disney and my goal was to exploit that the Thomas Brothers claim as null & void because they screwed up the reclaim eligibility window, my lawsuit would state that.
    It does.

    Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law.

    QuoteAnd the last thing I'd acknowledge in any legal claim is that the Thomas Brothers are trying to prematurely terminate the rights too early, because you're acknowledging right inside that legal filing that The Thomas Brothers reclaim of Predator is valid, but it's just too early.
    They have to acknowledge that the law provides them the right to retain the rights because it does. But if they can prove that the filing was in error, they can have the entire claim thrown out as it would mean the Brothers did not meet their obligations in trying to retrieve the rights. If the error was being premature, that is still an error.

    That's all entirely secondary to the point, which is that an injunction is likely as A) the Brothers should have had the rights back already if their filing was correct and B) if their dates were wrong but they're still entitled they need to find out what the actual timing is to settle things and C) they might have no case if Disney can prove they made an error that invalidates the entire claim.
  19. Proteus
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 12:51:32 PM
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 04:38:18 AM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:24:25 AM
    Even if they are only initially saying it's premature, establishing that there was an error in their notice opens the door for Fox/Disney to argue that the whole notice is therefore invalid and the Brothers aren't entitled to anything.

    It's basically the only legal pathway they have to not giving the rights back and renegotiating. If they can successfully argue the correct process wasn't followed, the whole thing disappears.

    You can speculate that, sure. Who knows for certain what options they are weighing. But if I was Disney and my goal was to exploit that the Thomas Brothers claim as null & void because they screwed up the reclaim eligibility window, my lawsuit would state that. And the last thing I'd acknowledge in any legal claim is that the Thomas Brothers are trying to prematurely terminate the rights too early, because you're acknowledging right inside that legal filing that The Thomas Brothers reclaim of Predator is valid, but it's just too early.


    Do you think the move may be to see what the judge is willing to enact, and if it favors the brothers plus an injunction, Disney then goes, "Fine, here's an offer we think you can't refuse," and hope the brothers take the money and run? Or do the brothers–despite the window of initial renegotiation passing–turn to Disney again and tell them, "You want it? Then this is the asking price or we go elsewhere"?
  20. Voodoo Magic
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 04:38:18 AM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:24:25 AM
    Even if they are only initially saying it's premature, establishing that there was an error in their notice opens the door for Fox/Disney to argue that the whole notice is therefore invalid and the Brothers aren't entitled to anything.

    It's basically the only legal pathway they have to not giving the rights back and renegotiating. If they can successfully argue the correct process wasn't followed, the whole thing disappears.

    You can speculate that, sure. Who knows for certain what options they are weighing. But if I was Disney and my goal was to exploit that the Thomas Brothers claim as null & void because they screwed up the reclaim eligibility window, my lawsuit would state that. And the last thing I'd acknowledge in any legal claim is that the Thomas Brothers are trying to prematurely terminate the rights too early, because you're acknowledging right inside that legal filing that The Thomas Brothers reclaim of Predator is valid, but it's just too early.
  21. Proteus
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 04:38:18 AM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:24:25 AM

    Above I see prematurely as the key word.
    The key phrase I see is immediately before that - they are arguing the notice of termination is invalid. If the judge rules the notice was invalid, the Brothers get nothing as t means they didn't follow the correct process.

    EDIT

    Even if they are only initially saying it's premature, establishing that there was an error in their notice opens the door for Fox/Disney to argue that the whole notice is therefore invalid and the Brothers aren't entitled to anything.

    It's basically the only legal pathway they have to not giving the rights back and renegotiating. If they can successfully argue the correct process wasn't followed, the whole thing disappears.

    Okay, hypothetical: Let's say Disney is correct about the termination date, the judge does not issue an injunction, and the legal issue is now pushed to June 2022, does that mean if SKULLS completes the filming 100% including trailers and marketing by June of that year that it now falls under the sequels the brothers cannot touch?
  22. SiL
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:24:25 AM

    Above I see prematurely as the key word.
    The key phrase I see is immediately before that - they are arguing the notice of termination is invalid. If the judge rules the notice was invalid, the Brothers get nothing as t means they didn't follow the correct process.

    EDIT

    Even if they are only initially saying it's premature, establishing that there was an error in their notice opens the door for Fox/Disney to argue that the whole notice is therefore invalid and the Brothers aren't entitled to anything.

    It's basically the only legal pathway they have to not giving the rights back and renegotiating. If they can successfully argue the correct process wasn't followed, the whole thing disappears.
  23. Immortan Jonesy
    Quote from: Huggs on Apr 23, 2021, 02:02:39 AM
    Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 23, 2021, 01:28:37 AM
    Quote from: Huggs on Apr 23, 2021, 12:38:56 AM
    They should just make a new alien movie instead.

    ;D

    But if the brothers win the rights and never get a fair deal with Disney, you'll have to forget about AVP crossovers. That means "you can just kiss all that goodbye!"

    Do you think you can handle it?

    It's already been like 15 years.

    I've learned to do without.

    :o

    But but what about the toys, games, novels and tracing books? 

    Won't you miss future releases of that ???


    Edit -

    Now that I think about it, they can morph Skulls into an Alien movie by making a JJ. Abrams.

    https://i.ibb.co/4dsS6cp/Pics-Art-04-22-10-23-40-removebg-preview.png
  24. Voodoo Magic
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 08:52:37 PM
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2021, 08:23:05 PM
    Quote from: Proteus on Apr 22, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 01:58:49 PM
    Now this thread is REALLY taking a turn! :laugh:
    Back on topic we go please!

    Okay. On topic. Likelihood judge issues the injunction come May 27th? I say strong.
    Yeah, I see the injunction happening (un)fortunately.

    It's a tough bet, but I'd wager the preliminary injunction does not happen, because it's not a question of ownership (at least right now), but just a question of when that date of ownership changes. And if Disney truly has another year, you're essentially taking it away with this injunction in place. Then, say the trial drags out past that extra year, and Disney eventually wins. The question for Disney becomes.. You stopped everything US Court. So what did we win?
    Disney's latest counter claim states the provision was not properly filed, and so they can ignore it. Disney is trying to worm out of it entirely - which is why I think the injunction is likely.

    EDIT

    Per Disney's lawyers:

    There now exists between the parties an actual and justiciable controversy concerning the validity of Notice One and 20th Century's and defendants' respective rights. Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law. 20th Century seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that defendants' notices of termination are invalid. This action is necessary because defendants are improperly attempting to prematurely terminate 20th Century's rights to the Hunters Screenplay, at the very time that 20th Century is investing substantial time, money, and effort in developing another installment in its successful Predator franchise.

    Above I see prematurely as the key word. And that goes to my point, that if it takes approximately 6 months to a year for the courts to make a ruling, and they do rule in Disney's favor, you've essentially taken away the extra time Disney was entitled to with this injunction.

    QuoteDisney is trying to worm out of it entirely

    Again, the word "prematurely" suggests otherwise. It suggests a problem with a termination date, not the eventual termination.
  25. Proteus
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 23, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 08:52:37 PM
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2021, 08:23:05 PM
    Quote from: Proteus on Apr 22, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 01:58:49 PM
    Now this thread is REALLY taking a turn! :laugh:
    Back on topic we go please!

    Okay. On topic. Likelihood judge issues the injunction come May 27th? I say strong.
    Yeah, I see the injunction happening (un)fortunately.

    It's a tough bet, but I'd wager the preliminary injunction does not happen, because it's not a question of ownership (at least right now), but just a question of when that date of ownership changes. And if Disney truly has another year, you're essentially taking it away with this injunction in place. Then, say the trial drags out past that extra year, and Disney eventually wins. The question for Disney becomes.. You stopped everything US Court. So what did we win?
    Disney's latest counter claim states the provision was not properly filed, and so they can ignore it. Disney is trying to worm out of it entirely - which is why I think the injunction is likely.

    EDIT

    Per Disney's lawyers:

    There now exists between the parties an actual and justiciable controversy concerning the validity of Notice One and 20th Century's and defendants' respective rights. Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law. 20th Century seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that defendants' notices of termination are invalid. This action is necessary because defendants are improperly attempting to prematurely terminate 20th Century's rights to the Hunters Screenplay, at the very time that 20th Century is investing substantial time, money, and effort in developing another installment in its successful Predator franchise.

    Yeah, as much as I don't want an injunction to occur, I just feel like everything will lean toward the brothers. And why wouldn't the judge order in their favor? The franchise after all this time is rightfully theirs.

    But man, what awful timing. And I'm sure the pandemic last year didn't help. Perhaps this film could have started production late last year had it not occurred. I mean, Dan did say he'd been working on this for 4 years. So there was sufficient time, but I'm sure there were other roadblocks in the way.

    At this point, those 4 years will have been a waste because every fiber of my being is telling me the brothers topple Disney. Ugh.
  26. SiL
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 08:52:37 PM
    Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2021, 08:23:05 PM
    Quote from: Proteus on Apr 22, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
    Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 22, 2021, 01:58:49 PM
    Now this thread is REALLY taking a turn! :laugh:
    Back on topic we go please!

    Okay. On topic. Likelihood judge issues the injunction come May 27th? I say strong.
    Yeah, I see the injunction happening (un)fortunately.

    It's a tough bet, but I'd wager the preliminary injunction does not happen, because it's not a question of ownership (at least right now), but just a question of when that date of ownership changes. And if Disney truly has another year, you're essentially taking it away with this injunction in place. Then, say the trial drags out past that extra year, and Disney eventually wins. The question for Disney becomes.. You stopped everything US Court. So what did we win?
    Disney's latest counter claim states the provision was not properly filed, and so they can ignore it. Disney is trying to worm out of it entirely - which is why I think the injunction is likely.

    EDIT

    Per Disney's lawyers:

    There now exists between the parties an actual and justiciable controversy concerning the validity of Notice One and 20th Century's and defendants' respective rights. Defendants' notices fail to comply with these statutory requirements and are invalid as a matter of law. 20th Century seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that defendants' notices of termination are invalid. This action is necessary because defendants are improperly attempting to prematurely terminate 20th Century's rights to the Hunters Screenplay, at the very time that 20th Century is investing substantial time, money, and effort in developing another installment in its successful Predator franchise.
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed