Jim and John Thomas suing Disney to reclaim Predator rights

Started by Kailem, Apr 16, 2021, 12:46:54 AM

Author
Jim and John Thomas suing Disney to reclaim Predator rights (Read 46,310 times)

Immortan Jonesy

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?

Huggs

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.

Voodoo Magic

Voodoo Magic

#287
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.

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.


Voodoo Magic

Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 23, 2021, 02:28:37 AM
But but what about the toys, games, novels and tracing books? 

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


I definitely would!  :'(

Immortan Jonesy

Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Apr 23, 2021, 02:35:00 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 23, 2021, 02:28:37 AM
But but what about the toys, games, novels and tracing books? 

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


I definitely would!  :'(

Me too! I am not into books and comics, but I am always interested in video games and of course in movies, which I own.  :'(

Nightmare Asylum

Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 23, 2021, 02:28:37 AM
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

Wouldn't be the first time JJ pulled that move on Trachtenberg. ;)

Immortan Jonesy

Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Apr 23, 2021, 02:48:43 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 23, 2021, 02:28:37 AM
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

Wouldn't be the first time JJ pulled that move on Trachtenberg. ;)

I see what you did there!

SiL

SiL

#293
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.

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?

SiL

Basically if the movie is completed before the rights transfer then even if the Brothers take their toys and go home, it's safe.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed