The Blair Witch Project’s original cast ask for retroactive payments as reboot announced (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

Im not an EE lawyer (or any other type of lawyer for that matter)- but i tend to agree with Chuck in that i doubt they have a case.. as i started reading thru, i figured maybe they got really shafted and earned SAG scale or even less- but the fact that they each got $300k, back when $300k was actually a decent amount of money- now it cant even buy a starter home- leads me to think it wasnt *that* much of a raw deal .. though im sure that $300k is long, long gone and , as mentioned- they are probably regretting it and wish they’d held out for more or tried to retain a point or two of backend ownership in the franchise .



ETA re-reading i see that it says they’re seeking an amount equal to if they’d had SAG Aftra representation- so im guessing that means maybe they havent gotten any residuals, which could (or could not) have been substantial .

From the article posted above, it seems like they have been asking for this or some input into the franchise for quite awhile and given that they have not filed suit, my guess is that they have seen several lawyers who told them they don't have a case so they are hoping the studio does them a solid which seems highly unlikely. There best hope is that they studio sees some reason to get them involved in the new movie because it will help marketing and they pay them something for that.

I am a lawyer, but not an entertainment or labor lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. But, I would guess that they likely don't have a case here or someone would have at least filed suit for them. But, without reading the contract or knowing if their are some quirks of labor law involving SAG, I can't say for sure.

I don't know if they did this deal before or after the first movie grossed huge money, but as you say, $300K each was good money back then. I would guess they could have made more money had they negotiated for points or residuals, but they apparently signed the deal so that's likely it. Although I would guess what they sold was their IP as creators of Blair Witch and future showing of the movie and future projects based on the original. I guess they could have a beef on the SAG wage scale, but Lionsgate didn't own the movie when they made it so I'm not sure that would help them.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I don't know if they did this deal before or after the first movie grossed huge money, but as you say, $300K each was good money back then. I would guess they could have made more money had they negotiated for points or residuals, but they apparently signed the deal so that's likely it. Although I would guess what they sold was their IP as creators of Blair Witch and future showing of the movie and future projects based on the original. I guess they could have a beef on the SAG wage scale, but Lionsgate didn't own the movie when they made it so I'm not sure that would help them.

You’re right, i think the timing of when they signed their deal would be interesting , and informative, to know.. fwiw i was actually a member of SAG myself back then (in another lifetime) and the monies they received were way, way beyond what SAG scale was at that time.. BUT they should also have been entitled to residuals, if it were a “normal” SAG contract.. my guess, and my foggy recollections of the press coverage of the movie when it was released- is that it was almost guerilla filmmaking on a shoestring budget- id also guess that the deal they signed for the $300k each was done *after* the movie was a huge success- in hopes of them going away and never asking for anything else ever again.. which of course has not turned out to be the case .

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The fact that the original filmmakers and producers of Blair Witch sold their rights to the film shows either they had inept, incompetent representation, or they were incredibly naive, young and likely thought their film wouldn't become the pre-social media and box office success it did. Or perhaps a little bit of both and if that is the case, they are partly responsible, IMHO, for this mess their in for not getting proper legal representation.

Is it the film studios fault if you have improper, incompetent, incapable lawyers or agents way in over their heads and don't know how to negotiate effectively?

Why cape for predatory pencil pushers instead of the actual content providers

This sounds like the same thing that happens to recording artists too often - they’re trapped in some exploitative contract that pays them pennies on the dollar while their song soars to #1

 

[Saintman2884]

Why cape for predatory pencil pushers instead of the actual content providers

This sounds like the same thing that happens to recording artists too often - they’re trapped in some exploitative contract that pays them pennies on the dollar while their song soars to #1

Except most artists tend to have better representation and more control over their album sales, marketing and promotion and royalty percentages then their late 60’s-80’s rock predecessors, and granted it was hard-earned and their were more then a few casualties along the way ( Badfinger being a notoriously sad, despicable case) but most successful artists are far smarter, savvier and cautious about the record deals they make now.


You can’t blame Lionsgate, Guido, for the creators of the original Blair Witch Project for not getting better, more competent SAG representation and negotiating a bad, business deal. Thats on them at least, partly. They didn’t really believe their low-budget art horror film would become the sensation it did and likely also assumed that 300 grand was a steal for the movie they made because they thought it wouldn’t do much.



They were very much wrong and now they’re upset they couldn’t see the future and what original Blair Witch film would do and they have serious regrets. They were young, naive, and idealistic and made a terrible, misguided decision.


I feel sorry for them but Guido their at least partly responsible for them not having the rights to their IP and being able to rake in millions from all the reboots, sequels, and comic book-related material.


That’s why lawyers are a Godsend, Guido and why up-and-coming artists, actors/actresses, musicians and in a less then a week, every college player being drafted in the first/second round of this year’s draft HAS TO gets the best damn lawyer available that will fight to get you the best deal humanly possible. That’s why they are an absolute necessity.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Except most artists tend to have better representation and more control over their album sales, marketing and promotion and royalty percentages then their late 60’s-80’s rock predecessors, and granted it was hard-earned and their were more then a few casualties along the way ( Badfinger being a notoriously sad, despicable case) but most successful artists are far smarter, savvier and cautious about the record deals they make now.


You can’t blame Lionsgate, Guido, for the creators of the original Blair Witch Project for not getting better, more competent SAG representation and negotiating a bad, business deal. Thats on them at least, partly. They didn’t really believe their low-budget art horror film would become the sensation it did and likely also assumed that 300 grand was a steal for the movie they made because they thought it wouldn’t do much.



They were very much wrong and now they’re upset they couldn’t see the future and what original Blair Witch film would do and they have serious regrets. They were young, naive, and idealistic and made a terrible, misguided decision.


I feel sorry for them but Guido their at least partly responsible for them not having the rights to their IP and being able to rake in millions from all the reboots, sequels, and comic book-related material.


That’s why lawyers are a Godsend, Guido and why up-and-coming artists, actors/actresses, musicians and in a less then a week, every college player being drafted in the first/second round of this year’s draft HAS TO gets the best damn lawyer available that will fight to get you the best deal humanly possible. That’s why they are an absolute necessity.

If the artists are not FAIRLY compensated, of course I can blame the company - the money that should go to the creators goes to the predators instead - that’s not a fair system

 

[Saintman2884]

If the artists are not FAIRLY compensated, of course I can blame the company - the money that should go to the creators goes to the predators instead - that’s not a fair system

If they signed a contract over 25 years ago relinquishing their IP to Lionsgate because they assumed this would be another barely-successful, forgettable art horror film and this was one of those rare examples where they were wrong, then in a sense, they are partly responsible for at least bad representation or not having a strong, smart, tenacious lawyer to make sure they werent screwed.

Guido, they willingly signed away their IP rights and marketing to Blair Witch in late 1990's because they thought it would be another cult-like film following instead it became popular then they ever could have ever imagined. I agree with you, its their property, but they signed it away naively and now they want it back because of regrets.



I had a bad experience today, Guido, about putting my faith in one too many people, particularly doctors so right now, I'm not in the best mood to discuss this. The past week or so, I have had a pinched nerve in my lower back that makes walking very hard and painful and I was scheduled for a epidural tomorrow morning but the neurologist who would perform the operation forked me over by calling this morning say my appointment was cancelled until a new MRI was done, for next Tuesday. So, Ill have to deal with the pain to some extent, with the help of some muscle relaxers sedatives for another 7-10 days until I can get an epidural done.

I'm not saying exactly in the most positive mood right now after being strung along for nearly a week only to be hijacked at the last second and told to come later and for now, screw you and your pain. That's your problem, not ours.

 

[zeetes]

is it too late to request a refund for my tickets from 25 years ago?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

If they signed a contract over 25 years ago relinquishing their IP to Lionsgate because they assumed this would be another barely-successful, forgettable art horror film and this was one of those rare examples where they were wrong, then in a sense, they are partly responsible for at least bad representation or not having a strong, smart, tenacious lawyer to make sure they werent screwed.

Guido, they willingly signed away their IP rights and marketing to Blair Witch in late 1990's because they thought it would be another cult-like film following instead it became popular then they ever could have ever imagined. I agree with you, its their property, but they signed it away naively and now they want it back because of regrets.



I had a bad experience today, Guido, about putting my faith in one too many people, particularly doctors so right now, I'm not in the best mood to discuss this. The past week or so, I have had a pinched nerve in my lower back that makes walking very hard and painful and I was scheduled for a epidural tomorrow morning but the neurologist who would perform the operation forked me over by calling this morning say my appointment was cancelled until a new MRI was done, for next Tuesday. So, Ill have to deal with the pain to some extent, with the help of some muscle relaxers sedatives for another 7-10 days until I can get an epidural done.

I'm not saying exactly in the most positive mood right now after being strung along for nearly a week only to be hijacked at the last second and told to come later and for now, screw you and your pain. That's your problem, not ours.

Sorry to read about your health/healthcare woes
Hope you feel better

 

[St. Widge]

You’re right, i think the timing of when they signed their deal would be interesting , and informative, to know.. fwiw i was actually a member of SAG myself back then (in another lifetime) and the monies they received were way, way beyond what SAG scale was at that time.. BUT they should also have been entitled to residuals, if it were a “normal” SAG contract.. my guess, and my foggy recollections of the press coverage of the movie when it was released- is that it was almost guerilla filmmaking on a shoestring budget- id also guess that the deal they signed for the $300k each was done *after* the movie was a huge success- in hopes of them going away and never asking for anything else ever again.. which of course has not turned out to be the case .

That is my recollection of how things went too. It was a very low budget movie done with very few people and I think it became a hit before they sold their rights. An article I saw said they sold the right to Artisan in what appears to be about a year after they made it (and likely made a bunch of money but not the global money yet) and then Artisan was bought by Lionsgate about 3 years later.

 

[St. Widge]

If the artists are not FAIRLY compensated, of course I can blame the company - the money that should go to the creators goes to the predators instead - that’s not a fair system

I mean, they made a deal for what at the time was a lot of money. Should they have gotten residuals? Probably, but they had an opportunity to negotiate that and either didn't ask for them or the studio refused. They could have chosen to not take the money and shopped it to another studio, but apparently chose to take the money up front instead. I'm sure there was some evil movie studio maneuvering going on, but they really should have gotten an experienced lawyer/agent before doing the deal and they really had all the leverage whether they knew it or not.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I mean, they made a deal for what at the time was a lot of money. Should they have gotten residuals? Probably, but they had an opportunity to negotiate that and either didn't ask for them or the studio refused. They could have chosen to not take the money and shopped it to another studio, but apparently chose to take the money up front instead. I'm sure there was some evil movie studio maneuvering going on, but they really should have gotten an experienced lawyer/agent before doing the deal and they really had all the leverage whether they knew it or not.

yes and everyone is entitled to representation in court and if you can't afford an attorney one will be provided for you
but we all know that a court appointed atty is going to be hopelessly outmatched by 6 BP or Purdue Pharma white shoe lawyers is nothing close to fair so people settle for much less than they're owed
yes it's the system we have, no it's not a good system

 

[St. Widge]

yes and everyone is entitled to representation in court and if you can't afford an attorney one will be provided for you
but we all know that a court appointed atty is going to be hopelessly outmatched by 6 BP or Purdue Pharma white shoe lawyers is nothing close to fair so people settle for much less than they're owed
yes it's the system we have, no it's not a good system

At the time, they had an incredibly successful and profitable movie based on a novel concept. They had the leverage to get much more than the equivalent of a PD and likely could have signed with any of the large talent agencies. Or, they could have told the big movie studios no and gone the independent route or with one of the smaller studios that would have given them a better deal. You can't always protect people from making dumb decisions and no system is going to stop people from doing dumb things.

Beyond that, who is to say what they were "owed"? They each got $300K for their IP at the time. (I'm not even sure how much the sheetty IP is worth now.) They clearly thought that compensated them for what they were owed. We can't go back and recalculate the value of every transaction. If I sell a house for $100K and it turns out to be worth $300K four years later do I get to go back and ask for more money? Can the Van Gogh family go tell the people who now sell his paintings for millions of dollars that the deal Vincent made was bad so they want more money?

I mean, if you want to be P'Oed about artist getting screwed, I think the better target is all the people who steal IP off the internet.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If I remember right the deal the two directors agreed to was that they wouldn't make any real money until the film hit 10 or 20 million.

They were given that because the studio didn't think there was a chance in hell this hand held camera footage movie was going to make anywhere close to that. They just wanted to turn a profit

And they did to the tune of 250 million

 

[kcirdor]

there you go.. if you liked the original, this one is similar minus the snot bubble.