Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Excellent

About Smitty_Voorhees

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Back at ya, Splatter.
  2. Naturally, but a lot of sympathy for Miller is the fact he was paid what was at the time WGA scale, and not his fair due. But it seems he was paid more than he was legally due 8 years later.
  3. No, all they'll do is remove "Uber Jason and Grendel Map 'Coming Soon'". They won't alter anything else (as well they should not).
  4. That's a good idea, too. Otherwise you'd be double dipping.
  5. So, don't know where this falls under with tweaks and balance updates, but as a wistful wish list... It would be great if Jason had an accumulative Mini Rage meter that increased with each stun (firecrackers, pocket knives, or melee weapons only) or grab escape that not only built up his Rage, as it does now, but also a transitory boost to Jason's terrible powers. With each stun or grab escape, the Mini Rage meter would increase by a set amount. Maybe different amounts per type of stun (so the weapons that are easier to stun with increase the Mini Rage meter more than the weapons that are harder to stun with, etc.). If the stun and grab escape are close together (say within 30 seconds), the Mini Rage meter is increased even greater. When the Mini Rage meter maxes out, then Jason's grab range increases (percentage tbd), he becomes stun immune, and grab-escape immune for a certain duration (Mini Rage decreases at a certain rate -- maybe 1 or 2 minutes to fully deplete?). The Mini Rage meter always depletes at the same rate (perhaps slightly slower once Jason is in Full Rage mode). So filling up the Mini Rage meter is kind of like when Pac Man eats a power pellet. Counselors cannot see this Mini Rage meter, nor can spectators. FINAL GIRL/GUY: When only one counselor is left, the Mini Rage meter goes away. JUSTIFICATON: To prevent stun chains and trolling. If you see people escaping and stunning Jason and swarming all over him, rather than feeling encouraged to gang up on him, you'll be motivated to run the hell away because you know he's about to become unstoppable for a couple minutes and your luck is about to run out. Since you don't know when his Mini Rage meter is active, you will always be afraid to be grabbed, even if you have a pocket knife -- you can't be certain it will work (since it won't while he's in Mini Rage mode). So it will encourage more realistic reactions from players -- they won't casually stroll up to Jason, knowing they are perfectly immune from grabs because they have a Swiss army knife in their pocket. It would likely discourage the trolls who stick around to stun Jason rather than escaping to the cops (and holding up the game), since doing so only increases the chance of their own doom. It would also negate the ubiquitous calls for fewer baseball bats on maps, because this would balance those stun chains out. It would largely negate the need to otherwise buff Jason, because now harming Jason comes with a terrible price. It would encourage the mechanics of stunning and escaping to be utilized more as they were originally intended -- as desperate last-ditch efforts, and not a trolling strategy. It would encourage strategizing weapons, since higher-stun-chance weapons increase Mini Rage meter faster, thus forcing player choices. It would encourage an immediate "flight" response after escaping from or stunning Jason, as players would then immediate ask themselves, "Shit, did I just trigger his Mini Rage??" It would make it more fun to be Jason. IMO, it would be a healthy way to balance the need to give counselors a chance, but also keep Jason a terribly frightening presence on the game map.
  6. Yup. Or more specifically, control of the first film, and Cunningham is suing to prevent from happening.
  7. The Copyright Act is intended to help artists who sold away their rights. Miller was hired to write the script -- he didn't write it and then take it to Cunningham. This would be like if the guy who designed the McDonald's logo claimed it as a work of art after 35 years and tried to rescind the copyright because of a loophole in the contract that McDonald's wrote, and demand McDonald's pay him a huge sum of money because they made a lot of money. I mean, I usually side with the writers. But I've taken my fair share of terrible deals as work-for-hires on projects that were brought to me, and while none of them have gone on to the kind of breakout success that FRIDAY has, even if one of them did, I know I wouldn't be entitled to those profits because I knew what the deal was going into it. And if I suddenly decided that I wanted a piece of that pie because I know how much they're making, then I'm being shady and unethical, because I already agreed to the original deal. We can all empathize with Miller and where he's coming from, but it doesn't make it right. EDIT TO ADD: It should also be noted that in 1988, Miller sued Georgetown Productions and Cunningham, claiming he was co-creator and therefore entitled to more of the film's profits. They settled with Miller and paid him an undisclosed amount of money. (Citation: On Location in Blairstown -- The Making of Friday the 13th by David Grove.)
  8. There was no original script without Cunningham. Look at this way -- at no point could Miller ever have taken this script as his own original work and sold it to someone else. He never outright owned this script -- it wasn't an original work of art, and therefore falls outside of the Copyright Act. (Cunningham went to Miller; hired him to write the story based on his concept; vetted the concept with him before sending Miller off to write the first draft; supplied revision notes.) However, because Cunningham either failed to include the "work-for-hire" language in the contract, or he lost the contract, or because he didn't have Miller sign the contract before writing the script, Miller is able to exploit that technicality and claim that he was an independent contractor, and therefore NOT an employee (not a work-for-hire contract), and thus this IS an original work of art that he outright owned. But IT WASN'T. And he's only able to make the claim because of a fuck-up in paperwork. Period. So this is Miller's fault, ethically. Though technically Cunningham's fault for not having proper paperwork.
  9. Well, there lies the rub. If he did purchase it, then Miller has a claim. But as has been repeated in countless documentaries and interviews, that's not what went down. But despite the situation being a work-for-hire, there is no contract supporting it. So now a judge has to decide if the facts are enough to support the law, or if the contract is required. Either judgment is sticky. But if Miller were an ethical man, he wouldn't be trying to exploit this technicality.
  10. Smitty_Voorhees

    If you were the judge...

    That would definitely explain why the judge is being squirrely about it, as that could create a terrible precedent in the OTHER direction. Logically, it is a work for hire (as in, if one were to ask at what point could Miller ever have taken the FRIDAY THE 13th script to shop to other interested parties the answer would always be NEVER), but maybe the judge is thinking ahead and being cautious. Either way, imo, Miller is trying to exploit a loophole in a contract, knowing full well the intention was a work for hire. HOWEVER... I guess you can't blame him, if legally the opportunity is there to do so. (Well, I DO blame him, but come on, Cunningham.)
  11. Smitty_Voorhees

    If you were the judge...

    Miller's argument: "Cunningham didn't pay me at first, so I was essentially writing on spec. I turned in my first draft well before I signed a contract and was paid, therefore I'm entitled to original works clause under the Copyright Act." Cunningham's argument: "I conceived of the title and concept, and reached out to Miller to be the one to write my vision. I was involved in the entire process, from hammering out the details to the final draft. I even hired another writer to revise and polish Miller's final draft. Miller signed a contract stating this was a work-for-hire, not a transfer of rights. Therefore, Miller is not entitled to FRIDAY THE 13th as an original work."
  12. But none of those examples you listed are works for hire. The Copyright Act was intended, as I understood it, to protect artists' original works, not work-for-hire creations. Granted, at the studio level, it's not usually a work-for-hire, but a lot of indie producers still use that verbiage for scripts they hire writers to craft (that also might happen to pay far below scale, but could still go on to make the producers and everyone else involved several million).
  13. He's only the defendant because he tried to rescind copyright. Cunningham's point is that Miller never would have written the script if it weren't for him, and they developed the concept together (there are multiple interviews where both men admit they debated and bounced ideas off each other what the setting should even be before finally landing on a summer camp). Now, Cunningham could have made a deal instead of suing, but Miller is being greedy. But whether or not he's entitled to being greedy, a judge will decide. But I hope for the industry's sake the judge says no. If the judge says yes, it opens the floodgates to a lot of out-of-work writers to go back to their originally dated drafts and/or treatments and comparing them against final contracts with the studios.
  14. Probably referring to this: http://modernhorrors.com/the-future-of-friday-the-13th-tom-savini-reanimates-victor-millers-undead-claims/ At the end of the day, Miller is being a chump. It's 100% a work-for-hire case, but he's trying to squeeze by on a technicality (that the contract wasn't written prior). But at the end of the day, Miller would not have written this script if Cunningham hadn't hired him to do so. It's not like Miller wrote this on spec, by himself, and brought it to Cunningham. And this sort of thing happens ALL the time in Hollywood. All kinds of projects are started on before a contract is hammered out. It's on Miller for not negotiating better terms for the contract. He was perfectly fine with receiving his paltry sum, and had remorse later after the franchise made bank. So now he's trying to exploit a loophole. Hopefully the judge has the sense to realize this could lead to a very ugly precedent in the industry if he or she sides with Miller. I usually always side with the writers -- but not this time. Miller is a fucking twat.