LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
81–86 of 86 posts
Re: LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
#82Why isn't there an enterprising law firm going through the credits of all the Star Wars (and similar-vintage films with ongoing commercial potential), contacting every person on the list, and telling all the retired ones "There is a pot o' money with your name on it if you sign these papers which let us sue them for residuals on your behalf."? I have to imagine that the legal strategy required there is a for loop wit…
Why isn't there an enterprising law firm going through the credits of all the Star Wars (and similar-vintage films with ongoing commercial potential), contacting every person on the list, and telling all the retired ones "There is a pot o' money with your name on it if you sign these papers which let us sue them for residuals on your behalf."? Because it's a violation of professional ethics to solicit clients in this…
Re: LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many would say the same thing about the software industry.
There was actually a time in the 1980s when software developers got a percentage of profits. I remember working at WordPerfect in the late 80s and seeing some of the developers houses - one guy built a medieval castle complete with a working moat and drawbridge. At the time I was hired in '89 or so they were doing away with that practice. "New developers don't get royalties any more." But, it was a good business to b…
Who did this benefit? Not the government, they lose taxes as now the contractors have to incorporate (filtering your income through an S-corp allows you to deduct all sorts of expenses). Not the contractors who now have to maintain and run a corporation.
It's always the corporations who benefit. Corporations are largely owned by the massively wealthy.
Re: LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
#84Geez, Lucas. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? I mean, really. I can see being a greedy fuck for a couple decades, while you're still unsure if you are, in fact, going to become and remain wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. But once you have the fuck-you money put away for you, your entire family and everyone you've ever met who was halfway interesting, can't you t…
I hate citing Reddit, but this un-sourced imgur link makes it seem like he's not such a bad guy, no? http://i.imgur.com/lTvOg.jpg
Re: LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donating 5% of your net worth to charity is praiseworthy, but it's not really anything special, particularly for people in that range of disposable income. He could probably release another boxed set of the original trilogy and make the entire amount back. Every active Mormon donates twice that much to their church.
The Mormon church is hardly a laudable "non-profit" charity.
Re: LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't there an enterprising law firm going through the credits of all the Star Wars (and similar-vintage films with ongoing commercial potential), contacting every person on the list, and telling all the retired ones "There is a pot o' money with your name on it if you sign these papers which let us sue them for residuals on your behalf."? Because it's a violation of professional ethics to solicit clients in this…
weird, I get mail all the time from law firms..."you may already be owed this money!" or "we have records showing you purchased xyz lawnmower from abc, we have a class action suit blah blah if you simply sign and return this form you can join the class..."
In keeping with the Star Wars example, suppose David Prowse sued on behalf of himself and all other costume-actors in Return of the Jedi - by 'costume actors' I mean people who appear on the screen but don't speak any lines. Darth Vader's lines are all spoken by James Earl Jones because David Prowse has a goofy accent that's not appropriate to the character; the Screen Actor's Guild mandates quite different royalty payments for actors who talk as against actors who merely appear. If a court agrees that 'costumed actors' constitutes a viable class of identifiable persons who are similarly situated (they probably would; they're listed in the credits, and many actors appear without having any lines to speak) then it may certify a class on the basis that it's more reasonable to wrap multiple plaintiff's claims into a single suit. A lot would depend on whether the court considered the suit to have any merit, which would require looking at industry employment agreements of the time. I don't know much about labor law so I couldn't tell you how likely that is. My gut feeling is 'not very' because these compensation practices are widespread. Anyway, say Prowse does a good enough case that he either wins, or Lucasfilm fears that defending the case will cost more than paying out and offers a settlement. Then everyone who played an Ewok/Stormtrooper/whatever but didn't have any lines will get a letter advising about rights arising from a class action.
Basically, if you are ever invited to appear in a big-budget film or TV show you need to remember three things: do you have a line (otherwise it's low-paid day labor with free lunch and some celebrity-spotting fun), SAG minimum (get hired in accordance with the Screen Actor's Guild deal, or Actor's Equity on a TV program), Taft-Hartley (in case the producer says you need to already be a member of the actor's union). If you have a line and come under an industry agreement, you get a residual payment every time the film/tv show/commercial is rebroadcast. This can add up to a tidy sum if you are lucky enough to work on something that becomes a hit. If you get hired as an extra, you can try talking during the scene you're in to get a speaking credit, but you'd better add enough value to the scene that the director is willing to stick up for you when a producer objects. That's the basic difference between acting and just having a particular look. David Prowse can't act, sad to say; he's what people in the industry call a 'movable prop.'