Superscout...What is the truth?

Sept17th · April 12th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Who is Superscout, why do people claim Superscout is Bonnie "Broomstick"?

Superscout claims re-imagining is happening for copy-right reasons, some kind of Larson/Universal rift?

Most importantly, why would some one choose a handle that's a Galactica1980 episode title, ehhh-ukk?

peter noble · April 12th, 2003, 09:19 AM

I think Superscout is one of Bonnie's minions voicing her thoughts to fandom.

The copywright thing is bollocks, just look at the copywright indicia on Richard's books or the BSG videos and DVD.

Plus, DeSanto's show would have used the original characters so copywright isn't an issue!

Regards,

Peter

repcisg · April 12th, 2003, 09:41 AM

Actually the copyright issue is real, there is an old thread called copyright that deals with this point. I’ll see if I can find it and bring it forward for you. I did some extensive research, (actually read to law – my poor eyeballs).

The Sonny Bono law of 1998, as its called, made changes specific to the film and music industries. These changes are designed to prevent studios from reusing old shows with out the written permission of the artists that created it. In fact permission is needed at two levels, first permission is needed just to do the modification work then permission is needed to sell it.

When Tom DeSanto started his project the first thing he did was bring Glen Larson onboard as a consultant and get his permission to start the project. From that point on things get murky; we do know Glen really does not like sharing what he views as HIS property with others. Anything more from this point on would be pure speculation.

With the new law studios are faced with a dilemma. If they get permission to proceed with, say a continuation, then after spending $10-20 Million on it, have the original producer comes back and says he doesn’t like the new work and won’t approve it’s sale. The studio is stuck, he is fully within his rights to say no and kill the project, and they cannot sue him for it. See the problem?

Sept17th · April 12th, 2003, 10:29 AM

I vaugely remember this being brought up, why did not Moore make Larson the villian with all the changes. Instead of Moore coming off ignoring fans.

I know I'm asking people to speculate.

repcisg · April 12th, 2003, 11:44 AM

Two good reasons, One – these folks may need to work together in the future, second – they could be sued for defaming Mr. Larson.

The script reads like surgical removal of all that could be traced to Larson or any of his employees. Only that which could be sourced to Universal was kept, this is one reason why the script reads as badly as it does. Frankenstein looked better than this thing.

Because Larson ‘Owns” Pegasus, if Universal fails to produce a viable product, i.e. a mini series, then he can go forward with his own. This is why Tom was allowed to hang in the wind for nearly five months until RDM was ready to take over. Since Tom and Brian started their project Universal has had a “Battlestar Galactia” project in production, effectively locking Larson out (there was a lawsuit file by Larson over these issues in 1999 which Larson won).

This whole issue would be retained within the ranks of upper management, like Bonnie Hammer and above. I doubt RDM would have full knowledge of it, but he might. The rank and file would not know and if they did would lectured to keep their mouths shut. This is the kind of information that can have a negative affect on investors being courted for the new the new show.

So from my perspective this whole RDM mini is just a throw-a-way production designed to retain control of the BSG property. I noted in a recent rant from the guy’s in Canada they are now referring the current production effort as a cousin to the original show. This is a significant change in view from their side of the fence, they now see the new production as separate enough from the old to not negate the old show.

peter noble · April 12th, 2003, 12:04 PM

repcisg, I thought havoc315, said the copyright issue was a non-issue because the Sonny Bono law did not apply in BSG's case.

Regards,

Peter

repcisg · April 12th, 2003, 12:26 PM

It is at the heart of the BSG issue, the Law is specific to Film (all forms) and Music (again all forms) and it was made retroactive to Jan 1, 1978. This includes the broadcast date of BSG.

This law gutted the value of all film libraries of all the studio's. Prior to 1998 Universals film library was valued at over $10 Billion. Today the whole of Universal is valued at only $15-$17 Billion (that includes Universal Music and its library).