|
|
Post by Zagreus on Aug 7, 2016 20:01:10 GMT
I've asked this before, elsewhere, but I don't think I've received more than a vague hand-wavy "there might be rights issues" answer.
So... why can't BF use the Revival actors in place of the original actors who are no longer with us? I thought Dan Curtis developed the 1991 series as well? Does he not own the characters? And could BF not technically recast anyone they like as those characters?
I mean, they've already skirted the line a few times, like casting Thinnes as Isaac Collins, a role that probably would have gone to Edmonds, were he still with us. And they've gotten plenty of the other actors in to play other parts, like Lysette Anthony, Barbara Steele, Joanna Going, Rebecca Staab, and.... I think that might be it?
But, aside from issues of "recasting", which BF seems to be dipping their toes into, what with Laura and possibly Julia, is there a real world reason they couldn't, say, have Thinnes play Roger? Or have Cross in to play Barnabas? Or get Blair Brown in to play Liz, for that matter (form the 2004 pilot, but same principle)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Morris on Aug 10, 2016 22:16:47 GMT
I don't think it's handwavey, I think it's just that BFP and DCP wouldn't (and indeed shouldn't) reveal contractual details and - to a certain extent - those are none of our business, anyway. Writers included.
What I believe (and it's believe, not know) from various forum posts and Big Finish Day discussions is that the BFP licence is for a continuation of the original ABC series. Hence they can use actors from that show in their original roles, use those characters with different actors and so on and move it forward from 1971.
But I think it's fairly apparent the licence doesn't include the NBC series revival - and that would obviously need a separate licence since DCP and NBC had a separate contract for the revival series. The characters may have the same names and so on, but it's a different show - and almost certainly has more complex contracts in place because TV lawyers were more cluey (and evil) by the 1990s.
So the upshot seems to me that Joanna Going - who is, technically, a jobbing actress - is free to do any role she pleases EXCEPT one that is part of the NBC series. So while she can be Laura in Blood and Fire she can't be Vicki or Josette because that combination of actor/character would fall under an NBC licence which is simply not in place. Same would be true for Ben Cross and anyone else.
And besides, why would we want Ben Cross as a recast Barnabas? My antipathy towards the 1991 series aside (it's well documented, we should all get over it) we have a great Barnabas in Andrew Collins. It'd be a bit shitty to shove him out of the way suddenly for Cross.
IMHO of course.
And I should say, this is all supposition on my part. It's just (intelligent I hope) extrapolation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Aug 10, 2016 22:32:18 GMT
I think when it comes to commercial contracts, all you can ever really expect is that answers regarding it will be vague, the commercial contracts I've seen (not related to BF) all had confidentiality clauses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Aug 10, 2016 22:46:58 GMT
So the upshot seems to me that Joanna Going - who is, technically, a jobbing actress - is free to do any role she pleases EXCEPT one that is part of the NBC series. So while she can be Laura in Blood and Fire she can't be Vicki or Josette because that combination of actor/character would fall under an NBC licence which is simply not in place. Same would be true for Ben Cross and anyone else. And besides, why would we want Ben Cross as a recast Barnabas? My antipathy towards the 1991 series aside (it's well documented, we should all get over it) we have a great Barnabas in Andrew Collins. It'd be a bit shitty to shove him out of the way suddenly for Cross. Because some of us fantasize about full-cast stories set during the early half of the series, with the original characters in play, ie: Victoria, "classic" Barnabas, Burke, Roger, Liz, etc. They are of course free to recast with other actors, I just assumed that actors who'd already been cast in those roles would be preferable to elsewise. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Morris on Aug 10, 2016 23:02:33 GMT
Because some of us fantasize about full-cast stories set during the early half of the series, with the original characters in play, ie: Victoria, "classic" Barnabas, Burke, Roger, Liz, etc. They are of course free to recast with other actors, I just assumed that actors who'd already been cast in those roles would be preferable to elsewise. If those actors who'd been cast were recasts in a different version of the series then it seems not. |
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Aug 11, 2016 16:20:07 GMT
So here's a question, would Revival Actors be able to play characters their Original Series counterparts did but that they themselves did not in the Revival Series?
For instance, in Revival, Roy Thinnes played Roger Collins and Reverend Trask. Would he be able to hypothetically come in for a BF audio and play Joshua Collins, a Louis Edmonds role in the Original Series?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Aug 11, 2016 16:28:17 GMT
So here's a question, would Revival Actors be able to play characters their Original Series counterparts did but that they themselves did not in the Revival Series? For instance, in Revival, Roy Thinnes played Roger Collins and Reverend Trask. Would he be able to hypothetically come in for a BF audio and play Joshua Collins, a Louis Edmonds role in the Original Series? hasn't that already been answered? So while she can be Laura in Blood and Fire she can't be Vicki or Josette because that combination of actor/character would fall under an NBC licence which is simply not in place. Same would be true for Ben Cross and anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Aug 11, 2016 16:29:43 GMT
I suppose strictly speaking it has, it just seems a bit of an overlapping gray area and was wondering if there were any more nuances I was missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle Crawlins on Jun 19, 2017 9:45:10 GMT
And besides, why would we want Ben Cross as a recast Barnabas? My antipathy towards the 1991 series aside (it's well documented, we should all get over it) we have a great Barnabas in Andrew Collins. It'd be a bit shitty to shove him out of the way suddenly for Cross. IMHO of course. Slightly off-topic but... I thought Cross was good as Barnabas but you are right. Andrew Collins does a good job and I hope for more of him as Barnabas. I also hope for more Stokes; I thought Toby Longworth was great in the part. As that character has been recast anyway and 99% of the listeners were happy with the casting and seem to want him to return I am hoping he will at some point in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 21, 2017 23:45:39 GMT
And besides, why would we want Ben Cross as a recast Barnabas? My antipathy towards the 1991 series aside (it's well documented, we should all get over it) we have a great Barnabas in Andrew Collins. It'd be a bit shitty to shove him out of the way suddenly for Cross. IMHO of course. Slightly off-topic but... I thought Cross was good as Barnabas but you are right. Andrew Collins does a good job and I hope for more of him as Barnabas. I also hope for more Stokes; I thought Toby Longworth was great in the part. As that character has been recast anyway and 99% of the listeners were happy with the casting and seem to want him to return I am hoping he will at some point in the near future. I agree. I would be perfectly content with a Dark Shadows box set, or series, featuring Andrew Collins as Barnabas, Toby Longworth as Stokes and a recast Julia Hoffman. |
|
