This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"It appealed to the schizophrenic in me, both of them actually."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 28 July 2014












July 22 2010

20th Century Fox not paying artists or writers for using their work in Buffy Motion Comic? Well that's what Bleeding Cool claims.

Fox need to be sent to the Attic.
Maybe that's why Scott Allie hates it so much.
The thing I dont't get if this is true and with Scott Allie seeming to be against the whole thing: why is there a trailer for it on the Dark Horse site?
I would have been quite happy for people to post an entry on the front page each week to say that the next episode was available for download on iTunes. And we could have a nice old chat about that week's episode.

But after reading that, not so much. So it would be nice if someone from 20th Century Fox officially clarified the situation sooner rather than later. Because if this story is true, then it's shameless behaviour.
The thing I dont't get if this is true and with Scott Allie seeming to be against the whole thing: why is there a trailer for it on the Dark Horse site?

Even if they're against it, I can believe that they would see how promoting the motion comic is in their own self-interest (i.e. by getting people interested in the comics). But yeah, this is pretty crappy behavior if true.
It's nice that those of us outside the US can now see the trailer though. I'm all about the silver-linings.
The stone was going to fall, it was a matter o when.
Is this cos it's a derived work or something ?

Anyway, if true that saves me some cash. Silver lining, half-full etc.
They probably explored some sort of related legal loophole about that. Cause season 8 is still a licensed project.
The keyword might really be loophole.

Silver-linings are definitely a curious thing.
Yeah, won't be getting this, then. Didn't know about the non-union actors, anyway - that'd do it for me.

But re: the comic's writers & artists - first, I'd like to hear from FOX that it's true, and if so, then I'd like to hear the bogus rationalization. I collect them.

Soon I may have the whole set.
I doubt there will ever be a whole set. People find new ones every day.
So, I just posted a review on Amazon to try and let others know what is going on.

ETA: Will happliy remove or revise the review if this is proven false, just want people to hold thier money just in case.

[ edited by chance on 2010-07-23 00:10 ]
Might be better waiting for a confirmation on this report before calling for a boycott...?
If true, this is only about the online distribution. Buying the DVD/BluRay will be fine.
If that's what the contract allows, there's not much to be done. (Admittedly, I had no sympathy for Kirby in his fight with Marvel in the 80s so that's where I tend to stand on these things.)

Is that Buffy and Kennedy workign directly together????
If true, this is only about the online distribution. Buying the DVD/BluRay will be fine.


How is it only true for online distribution, but it'll be fine with DVD/BluRay sales?

The problem seems to hinge upon the "new media" of a work. So a comic that is transformed into a motion comic distributed on DVD would still be new media; that means FOX doesn't have to pay royalties.

These articles appear to be saying that it's motion comics, period, that are not paying the artist and writers. Not that it's motion comics released through iTunes and Amazon. So I don't see how the DVD release will be okay--it all seems steeped in badness.

FOX really lives up to its corporate image. Wolfram & Hart much?

Yes, it's still a rumor, but this situation stinks and this explanation sounds like the truth to me. It would explain Dark Horse's discomfort with the project. Allie's been fairly vocal about Dark Horse being cut out of the process.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-07-23 00:55 ]
I just find it hard to understand how Dark Horse could be completely cut out of the process - while the Buffy concept and characters belong to 20th Century Fox, the scripts and artwork in question are surely property of Dark Horse Comics? Hence why you don't see, say, IDW reprinting Dark Horse's Angel comics, even though it currently holds the Angel licence.

It may be that 2CF bought the rights to do this lock and stock from Dark Horse - but then Dark Horse surely has a responsibility to pass on some of that to the creators? Or perhaps their contracts ruled this sort of thing out?
Wow! Rumor much? I know nothing about any of this and I certainly don't know a damn thing about the legal details, but it just seems like really slight/sketchy information to get all hot and bothered about.
If that's what the contract allows, there's not much to be done.

Yeah, I don't see a problem either. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have agreed to it. And using non-union actors can only be considered a plus: it allows actors who haven't sold their souls to the actors' guilds to participate, at rates that they are able to set.
Also... Buffy motion comics aren't going to send Rupert Murdoch laughing to the bank. But they will keep 20th employees in work. I believe 20th are the only studio not to lay off any employees during a time when piracy is up and DVD sales are down. Motion comics are a cost effective way of using existing content to generate revenue. Yes, if they're not paying writers and artists royalties it sucks, but unemployment sucks more.
I wonder this info about Allies dislike/hate for the motion comics come from. Anyone who can link to a article/interview where that's said? I've read the buffyfest one.
Invisible Green: ...it allows actors who haven't sold their souls to the actors' guilds to participate...

Thus kinda skipping over the whole point of the power of unions and collective bargaining. Most of my actor friends are gladly in the unions to get a little of that group mojo in an industry where they tend to be treated like interchangeable cogs, or, you know, cattle. Unless they're Angelina Jolie or somebody.
Let's rally around Allie.

Okay, there was no point in me saying that, but it rhymed, so I said it anyway.
Please verify.
Why do you want to prove the rumour true or false? It's much more titillating when it's up in the air.
IF true, it's probably just how the rights shook out. After all Buffy belongs to Fox (right?). Sad but true, there's not as much protection for comic book writers, artists and voice actors as there are for actors and producers.

But yeah, seems a bit sketchy until someone verifies.
"a comic that is transformed into a motion comic distributed on DVD would still be new media"

I don't think so. "New Media" referred to online content during those strikes. But I wasn't there. I didn't get any splinters from holding picket signs.

All I can say is we've seen how some original online content doesn't end up on discs because the studios don't want to have to pay the actors as they would have to if they sold it on dvd. (I'm thinking of the Battlestar Galactica webisodes).

But we all appreciate that all of this is beyond our knowing. It's all conjecture. Which I love, but, it isn't Whedonesque worthy yet.
...but it just seems like really slight/sketchy information to get all hot and bothered about.

You must be new here ;).

(definitely the /. meme that fits most often. Dunno what that says)
Wow! Rumor much? I know nothing about any of this and I certainly don't know a damn thing about the legal details, but it just seems like really slight/sketchy information to get all hot and bothered about.


Because saying that this would be a very awful thing if true, typing such words on the internet is really indicative of being out of control?

This is the virtual world where you use CAPSLOCK and call your friends insulting names to show affection. I think you're overreacting a bit to tone on the internet (where extremes are used to express a moderate reaction). No one's sitting in front of their computer foaming at the mouth or sending threatening letters to FOX (well, at least, I'm not and I'm someone who's bothered by this rumor and glad I haven't put down money on the product yet).

As for the situation, this sounds like the sort of thing FOX is legally entitled to do with a licensed property. Is it really that shocking to consider this true? And if true, to find it dishonorable? There's a whole lot of things corporations can do that are perfectly legal that are downright despicable. And the bottom line is almost always money, an attitude this project is already steeped in with it's pursuance of non-union actors and taking the route of motion comics when a quality work could be made easily with animation (ah, but that would take more effort and more investment of money).

will.beuche, I still don't see how you've gleaned the specifics of how "Fox won’t pay any of the creators any royalties" means that Georges Jeanty, Karl Moline, Jane Espenson, Drew Goddard, and all the other creators are going to be paid for the DVDs. I imagine when these folks were hired, their contracts didn't include any in-depth discussion of being compensated for DVD sales when they're working on a comic. I imagine FOX would have reserved the right to refranchise their work for their own profit. And sure, that's speculation, but no more so than you asserting that the creators will no doubt be compensated by DVD sales.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-07-23 16:33 ]

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home