Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some People say that Miller is the victim and Cunningham is the bad one and why is it like that again? I am not saying something against Miller or Cunningham but I saw a lot of People Bashing Cunningham.

But I have a friend who says that Miller is greedy and wants Money. I guess that is incorrect but why again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean is the one who is suing Victor to counter his claim that he deserves a fair piece of the pie for the franchise he helped create.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Sean is the one who is suing Victor to counter his claim that he deserves a fair piece of the pie for the franchise he helped create.

Is he being greedy there and actually got enough Money or did he get almost Nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Wolf with that Toast said:

Is he being greedy there and actually got enough Money or did he get almost Nothing?

To my knowledge Victor Miller got a one-time fee for writing the first Friday the 13th and that's it, so he feels he helped create the whole franchise. Cunningham had the idea and had Miller write the first movie on commission.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Wolf with that Toast said:

Is he being greedy there and actually got enough Money or did he get almost Nothing?

What @VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow said with the caveat that Miller is exercising a provision under copyright law that allows him to reclaim ownership of those characters. Essentially he wants a larger slice of the franchise pie than the $9200 he was paid back then. As for now, Miller hasn't seen a single cent from Cunningham. What most people want is for them just to settle out of court and put the thing to rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Sean is the one who is suing Victor to counter his claim that he deserves a fair piece of the pie for the franchise he helped create.

Vic wrote the first movie. He has that claim, he had absolutely nothing to do with the concept or an adult jason with hockey mask and everything. Even when the second film came out he said he hated the idea of jason being alive and killing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Crispen_Glover said:

 Even when the second film came out he said he hated the idea of jason being alive and killing. 

Don't you mix that up now with Sean? I am Pretty. he thinks like that (Maybe both think so).

Edit : I just saw how stupid that sentence Looks. Just a random ''I am Pretty'' thrown in there. I was going to write '' Pretty sure'' but because it is funny in my opinion , I am just Keep it like that.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crispen_Glover said:

Vic wrote the first movie. He has that claim, he had absolutely nothing to do with the concept or an adult jason with hockey mask and everything. Even when the second film came out he said he hated the idea of jason being alive and killing. 

I'm aware. That's why this lawsuit is still carrying on. It still means part ownership of the first film and all of its residuals depending on the outcome of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Wolf with that Toast said:

Don't you mix that up now with Sean? I am Pretty he thinks like that (Maybe both think so).

Vic says it in the crystal lake memories doc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Wolf with that Toast said:

I don't recall him actually being in CRM.

It's in near the beginning of it. Like at around the 5:50 mark if you go by 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crispen_Glover said:

Vic wrote the first movie. He has that claim, he had absolutely nothing to do with the concept or an adult jason with hockey mask and everything. Even when the second film came out he said he hated the idea of jason being alive and killing. 

So did Tom Savini, yet he did part 4 too. 

Problem is lack of empirical evidence from back then that he was hired simply for a job. Miller has his name in several credits, so why not award him with finances that go with it. Cunningham is a cheap douche that is ruining the franchise still because he wants to rip off another guy. After all, under copyright laws the characters are his art. Therefore using the name Jason throughout the franchise means you are using a character he created, no mattee the age or progression. It is still the same character.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TheHansonGoons said:

So did Tom Savini, yet he did part 4 too. 

Problem is lack of empirical evidence from back then that he was hired simply for a job. Miller has his name in several credits, so why not award him with finances that go with it. Cunningham is a cheap douche that is ruining the franchise still because he wants to rip off another guy. After all, under copyright laws the characters are his art. Therefore using the name Jason throughout the franchise means you are using a character he created, no mattee the age or progression. It is still the same character.

Well that's just it though. We don't know what Miller is entitled to for sure. If it was a work for hire as Cunningham claims, then Miller legally wouldn't be owed anything. If the contract doesn't say it was a work for hire, then Miller has a case. It's impossible to say for certain who's in the right legally or morally. One would have hoped they could have simply hashed out an agreement. Sadly it's likely a combination of greed and pride keeping that from happening. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheHansonGoons said:

So did Tom Savini, yet he did part 4 too. 

Problem is lack of empirical evidence from back then that he was hired simply for a job. Miller has his name in several credits, so why not award him with finances that go with it. Cunningham is a cheap douche that is ruining the franchise still because he wants to rip off another guy. After all, under copyright laws the characters are his art. Therefore using the name Jason throughout the franchise means you are using a character he created, no mattee the age or progression. It is still the same character.

But it could be understood like this :

MA5IfGU.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i not know much on this but sound like person who first invent Jayson and write original story should share in money. it take both man to create such wonderful movie so why not both man share profit and glory?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UrOnMyLaptop said:

i not know much on this but sound like person who first invent Jayson and write original story should share in money. it take both man to create such wonderful movie so why not both man share profit and glory?

Greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can imagine a similar scenario:

Say someone wants to make a new kind of train. They have an idea of what they want it to do, but don't have the ability to design one. They hire you to make the blueprints for the train. You provide them, and they go on to make thousands of trains based on your design. You don't get any residual checks for each train built based on your design however. You get a one-time payment for making the blueprints for the train. Would you not feel cheated?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Wolf with that Toast said:

But I have a friend who says that Miller is greedy and wants Money. I guess that is incorrect but why again?

Because Miller chose to apply for a legal remedy in canceling the copyright as allowed for by law.

Even with the cancellation of the copyright, the game would have remained unaffected.  Cunningham and his business partners are the ones who filed suit in federal court, which triggered the situation as it stands now.  Had they not challenged Miller's filing in federal court, they would have lost the copyright over which they claimed ownership going forward, but the game would have been fine.  Cunningham and co. strictly sought to preserve their claim to copyright and future proceeds from said copyright.  

Of course, the game would still have the issues it does in terms of bugs, but at least the content would still be developed and released as planned (maybe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought: Miller is owed money.. and here is why.

Although he had nothing to do with the sequels - the character he created (Jason Voorhess) did. Yes he created Jason as a child who died/drowned, but that child is the grown up version we see in the sequels. He also created Pamela Voorhees who did appear in part two of the film; they even used some footage from the first movie when it comes to Pamela Voorhees. 

So while he did not create adult Jason - he did create the actual character and lore surrounding that character. In numerous F13 movies Jason is referenced as the one who drowned as a child etc etc... which was Miller's concept/story. 

Here's why I think he is owed money. Let's do an example of another movie:

Beetlejuice. If you agree with Cunningham you are saying that there could be a Beetlejuice 2 without giving credit to the original creator of Beetlejuce. Even if your movie doesn't actually have Beetlejuice in it, but talks about Beetlejuice throughout the movie... you are using the character and lore of that character so why wouldn't you pay the original writer/creator?

IP consists of a lot of thought and ideas... Miller is the one who set up the entire idea of Friday the 13th... Cunningham expanded on that idea, but still included the original lore/characters  that Miller created. 

 

Edited: Just finished watching part 3...

Pamela Voorhees (Miller's character that he created) is in the beginning and end of film. The credits...give credit to Victor Miller.. "Based upon characters created by...."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither one of them are right. Couple of old men who can't sit down like mature adults and settle things for the good of everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ShaunAburame said:

One of them is lying.

Perhaps neither is lying.  You'll find often that the truths people cling to tend to reflect their own point of view.

The fact remains that the end of content can be attributed directly to the decision to file a suit in federal court. Miller did not file that suit.  His actions may have precipitated that move, but it was not the only (or even best) option available to Cunningham's folks at that point.  

Besides, it's not as if Cunningham has been that great of a steward of the franchise as of late.  We've had, what, three movies in the last 25 years?  One in the last ten?  It's almost been a decade since we last saw Jason on the big screen.  Cunningham can spin it however he wants, but he hasn't exactly been leveraging the property very well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...