In an update of the last post, Ilana's "V" site is explaining that the "created by" credit for the new "V" is a separate issue from the shutdown that's taken place. So the way things stand is that there are three arbiters at the Writers Guild of America who will decide whether or not this "V" is a remake of the original.
Apparently if the arbiters decide that the new version of "V" is different enough, the term "remake" kicks in. The Guild defines remake as a motion picture that contains "substantial similarity" to a previous motion picture with respect to principle characters, general setting (including an updated setting), plot, storyline, tone, events and structure."
Should the WGA decide that the new show is different enough, basically the creator ends up with no royalties. And to add insult to injury, the creator cannot even address the Guild on the matter (which is different from a regular arbitration). Additionally, the results are not allowed to be questioned or argued against.
Okay....time for more editorializing. Two times in one day and something that we seldom do, but here we go.... Visitors Among Us is far from one of those sites that decries the new "V" as VINO (V In Name Only). Both the new "V" and the original are equally supported, and our enthusiasm for the overall concept is undeniable. At the same time, this arbitration is absolutely ridiculous and unfair to Kenneth Johnson. Who can honestly claim that this is not a remake of the original? The structure, the basic dramatic thrust and the revelation that the Visitors are not our friends and, in reality, are lizardsin human guise comes right from that 1983 series. In terms of characters, Scott Wolf's Chad Decker is clearly a modern take on the original's TV reporter Kristine Walsh; Tyler Evans follows a similar character set up as the original's Daniel Bernstein; Ryan Nichols is a Visitor passing himself off as human who is in a relationship with a human (Valerie Holt), which is similar to the original's relationship between the Visitor Willie and the human woman, Harmie; and it goes on from there.
The real problem here comes down to money, not that that should be surprising to anyone. There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong -- on the most basic moral level -- to try and deny the writer who clearly laid down the foundation that would pave the way for this new show, his "created by" credit. If the WGA would like to bestow upon the new team the credit "developed by," more power to them! But in this ever-evolving world, where pop culture history seems to be limited to just a few years, a writer's legacy -- particularly in terms of their "created by" credit -- is something that needs to be respected, especially on those rare opportunities where their efforts from the past are revisited in the present.
We should know the results of this arbitration in the next week or so. Let's hope that the right decision is made. -- Edward Gross
If the WGA state that the new V series is not a remake, then they can kiss goodbye to any credibility!
The concept is the same, the characters are drawn from the same type of architypes that populated the original. I could go on but in my mind the similarties are greater than the differences.
All of the Star Trek spin offs gave credit to Gene Roddenberry. What is Warners' problem? Its like the narrow vision by the studio that corrupted the original V starts again. Or is it a network issue?
Posted by: Donal | August 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM