Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 6384706" data-attributes="member: 7808">Documented cases?The best documented case I have of a studio literally spending a million dollars to stop someone else from making a movie is the rarely seen Roger Corman version of Fantastic Four: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_%28film%29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film)</a>There's also a good amount of documentation about the controversy surrounding Antz, A Bug's Life, and Prince of Egypt: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antz#Feud_between_DreamWorks_and_Pixar" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antz#Feud_between_DreamWorks_and_Pixar</a>Another documented example would be Kevin Costner's discouraging major studios from distributing Tombstone in favor of his movie Wyatt Earp: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp_%28film%29#Production" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp_(film)#Production</a>Obviously, none of these cases is exactly like the one D+D faces now.  But the underlying facts remain: 1. There is not a large enough market to justify multiple studios all making D+D movies.  2. Studios are not afraid to sit on IP as long as they like, and 3. Studio's can be willing to pay money to make sure no one takes IP even if they aren't currently using it.  So I have to agree with Elven; just because the case is going to court know doesn't guarantee that any D+D movie will be made in the next decade.There's an old saying that movie executives like to talk, like to plan, and like to do lunch; the one thing they don't like to do is make movies.</blockquote>

Verification