Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Why Are These Two Things Different?

I would like to address the Human Relations/Drones situation in depth. I feel like the best thing I can do is lay out the facts, as I have experienced them, and let them speak for me.

I have never said Scott Prendergast is guilty of plagiarism. I haven't read the script. I'm just saying the concept is eerily similar.

When a DRONES fan forwarded me the link to the SyFy Press Release, you can imagine my reaction.

If the press release had read, Human Relations is: "NCIS" meets "Men in Black" then I would've been a little curious, but with the tone being so different, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But when you take "The Office", a very specific kind of comedy, and mash it up with "Men in Black", well, you have a very specific kind of tone...the exact same kind of tone as DRONES, or at least, that's what Sci-fi Wire thought. In fact, they called DRONES: "The Office" meets 'The Day The Earth Stood Still".

Even the title 'Human Relations' is similar to one of the tag lines we use in the film: "Omnilink, #1 In Human Capital". It's the same joke.

It really appeared as if our idea and its very specific tone had been co-opted by the same network that had premiered our trailer six months earlier.

Now, Scott Prendergast has come up with a time line for the development of his project, but after looking at it, I have to say that there are a lot of strange 'coincidences' in it, too.

Scott says, "My show has been in development since August of 2008..."

Which is kind of odd, seeing as the DRONES script was written in May of 2008 – two months before Scott started writing his script for Human Relations. DRONES was out in the world by August of 2008, available for any curious mind in Hollywood to read and/or take advantage of.

Scott says. "It was not developed at Syfy -- we brought it to them independently in January of 2010."

Which is another strange date.

Our trailer premiered on the SyFy Network's website in January of 2010.

Look, I don't think, nor did I say, Scott Prendergast 'ripped me off'. Heck, I didn't write the script, so it's not literally possible for him to have 'ripped me off' of anything.

I can just ask you to look at the two synopses - mine was culled from our treatment, a few lines come directly from the movie, (just check out the trailer to see our main character, Brian, talking about blowing up the planet), from reviews (right here you can check out: Brian, the regular office worker, who discovers the people he works with are aliens...) and from SyFy directly (they coined the phrase "The Office" meets "The Day The Earth Stood Still", not me) and you make the call. Scott accused us of making up what was in our synopsis. That is inaccurate, it's all their online for you to go and see. Just follow the links. They've all be online since January 2010.

It's not just me who sees the similarities...SyFy pointed it out in black and white.

We've never seen the Human Relations script and they've only released three lines about the show, all of which mirror lines from the synopsis of DRONES at Sci-Fi Wire or from the trailer of DRONES, itself. Until someone releases more information about the differences in these projects, we will continue to draw similarities.

Scott Prendergast throws dates and timelines at us, but he never addresses the real question. How are these two projects different? All he has to do is answer that question and we can lay the issue to rest.

If the two projects are totally different, then great and good luck to Scott Prendergast in the future.

Addendum: Scott says he wrote his script in 1995, but in this interview he purports to be writing his tv pilot in May of 2009.

129 comments:

  1. You're right. If he just comes up with how different it all is then he won't get a stampede of fangirls/boys after him.

    Which on it's own could be a funny thing to see, mind you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read the interview of Scott Prendergast and he says:

    "My show has been in development since August of 2008," Prendergast said. "It was not developed at Syfy -- we brought it to them independently in January of 2010. In fact, my show is based on a script I wrote in 1995, based on a job I had in Chicago in 1995-96."

    From that quote, it sounds like he actually wrote his script in 1995, not 2008. Just to clarify. I read that here:

    http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7689/human-relations-creator-says-he-never-stole-from-buffy-star.html

    (Link provided in case anyone wanted to check out the interview themselves...)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like a lot of programming on Sigh-Fy it's all in how it's described. I heard the term "aquired original" today from Sigh-Fy. Which means no matter what they buy to them it's original and not to mention it's "Their Original" And again, what does wrestling have to do with Sci-Fi?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Valerie, check out the addendum to my post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read the article, and I don't buy Scott's timeline. Historically Syfy/Sci-fi has a habit of cloning or adapting things ranging from Transformers to Anaconda. To me this fits in their MO of cloning another's idea. I am in your camp Amber.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's hard to discern until I can see just how similar the scripts are, but the evidence is pretty damning. It's all well and good that Scott had this idea rattling around since 1995 but he obviously didn't get it pitched and put into production until after Drones was already moving ahead full steam. There's plenty of time to alter that original idea to include story elements and characters directly lifted from Drones. Even if, ultimately, there are enough differences for people to feel that Drones hasn't been copied, can there really be any doubt that Scy Fy is specifically using the same marketing to attract the same audience?

    The whole thing is shady. I hope I'm wrong but, right now, I absolutely understand the frustration that you and the rest of your team are feeling, Amber.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, I hadn't heard of "Drones" until this all came out, so at least it's getting more publicity. Bright side!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmmm...reminds me of when I wrote THE GRAPES OF WRATH a few years ago, but then John Steinbeck went back to 1939 and wrote it first.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling being done by this guy! Is there anything else besides boycotting SyFy and submitting a petition that we can do to help you guys?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amber,

    I can't begin to tell you the amount of respect I have lost for you over this matter. I first read this story on Whendonesque. I was horrified someone would do this to you.

    Then I read comments there. I read the article at Airlock Alpha and I see now how badly you are handling this. The accusations you make with no proof, the fact you haven't even bothered to speak to Mr. Prendergast and that this is coming across as a publicity stunt makes me feel dumb for feeling so very sorry for you at first.

    You jumped feet first into something without checking out facts first. Go to Whendonesque and read the comments there. When some of your biggest fans think you handled this wrong, doesn't that tell you just maybe you did?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well,this is indeed a crappy week for you, Amber (some comments on Airlock Alpha, the Wrap and even in your own blog were not very kind with you) but you made your arguments very clear and I'm still totally with you. The Bitsy's comment was very interesting too, very clever.
    Keep going, Lady. You know that your die-hard fans are with you! BTW, great news for the gays marriages. Sadly, it's not in France that this kind of thing will happen.
    A bientôt!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm fully backing you, Amber. I don't think the issue has been handled wrong at all by your side. As you pointed out, you never said Prendergast took the idea. Even if his script has been written since 1995-1996, it still leaves plenty of time for the idea to be tweaked to facilitate a lot of the plot lines of DRONES. It is uncanny the way that everything at SyFy was set into motion AFTER everything with DRONES was already moving, and there's no evidence to point otherwise... I mean, seriously, where's the 1995 original script for "Human Relations"? His side doesn't make sense, and the timelines given came from way out in left field. Just know that your fans will stick by you and back you one hundred percent. Hang in there! :o)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Irrespective of what your 'friends' might say here, you might also consider how this behavior (and surely you DID intend readers to understand that SOMEONE had ripped you off - otherwise why blog about unlucky coincidences) may be viewed by people you might want to work with in the future. Professionalism is reflected in more than just the artistic 'product'.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The people who are mindlessly attacking you for standing up for yourself have obviously never had their creative licenses swiped from them. I feel sorry for them if it ever happens, because karma will be sitting back and laughing at them. And pointing with glee.

    Point of fact is, the evidence is there. It doesn't take a flipping genius to see the similarities between the two plot lines, nor the fact that SyFy network had their grubby little paws all over said plot line. If this was Fox network, or some other network that had absolutely no dealings whatsoever with the Bens, or Amber and Adam, then we could say, "Damn. That's a really huge coincidence, I wonder if..." The evidence is there.

    As far as questioning Amber's character, I'm rather disgusted by someone saying she's being anything other than professional. This isn't Stephen Spielberg, someone who makes a million dollars just for walking onto a movie set. Amber and Adam worked damn hard on this project, as did Ben Acker and Ben Blacker and the entire crew behind the film. It is far and away their right to call foul when they see something that is unjust.

    Anyone who wants to criticize it, why don't you sit down and think how you would react. And if you still think she's being unprofessional, here's a concept, leave.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hmmm, 1995-2009. That's an awfully large 14 yr gap! I guess he just can't get his stories or years straight. That's probably why he can't answer any of the questions straight on as well. Until then, Drones fans and Amber and Adam fans will just continue to be biased in our own opinions and call it like we SEE it. Human Relations is a DRONES rip-off!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Constantly amazed by the things some people will write in comments. I suppose, when we're all safe behind the anonymity of the internet it's easy to just come out and say what you think right off the top of your head. I spent two days working over a blog post on this topic (as it is related to one I had already put up about Art vs. Industry). Hopefully, the time I spent to think it over gave it some polish (I hate to think of myself coming off like some of the folks on here...or worse, some of the folks over at The Wrap).

    After all that rambling, I have just this to say: I think, given the circumstances, you've handled the situation with aplomb. You've speculated (and I would too), but never accused and have certainly left all doors open for your speculation to be proven wrong.

    It hasn't been. If there were a way to disprove it (i.e. "Our show is completely different from your movie, they just SOUND similar!") then that should have been the first steps that were taken to dismantle your speculations. But they weren't. This is telling to me.

    I still hold to this: Cubicles and aliens go together (don't ask me why, but I work in Cubicle Land and often have wondered if my co-workers/bosses were aliens, even before I heard of Drones). So, it's possible that the two insanely similar ideas originated in different places at similar times. Here's what's not possible: That SyFy could have missed that this show so closely resembles Drones. The timing is just too coincidental to me.

    What happens when business and art collide? Art takes risks with new ideas...business capitalizes on the new ideas, once the risk involved has been mitigated by the artist "testing the waters" for them.

    Happens again and again.

    My tag line of the day: Art is about taking risks. Business is about reducing risk, maximizing profit.

    As I said in my blog- I appreciate that you and Adam (and Acker and Blacker and everyone involved...) make art by whatever means are available, risks be damned. It inspires me to do the same. And that is why you (and everyone involved) have my support.

    Here's hoping your week gets better,
    -Dawson

    ReplyDelete
  17. If he's not hiding anything then why not answer the direct question? That in and of itself looks odd. Which also makes it easy to draw the conclusion that not only was he faced with a lack of imagination but a lack of originality. Hopefully this will get sorted out properly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous at 4:49 PM, your cowardice is a reflection of the drivel you just spewed here. How is it unprofessional for an artist to stick up for her work? Especially after pouring her blood, sweat, and tears into the final product? Shame on you for making such ridiculous comments behind a mask of spinelessness. Amber’s integrity is fully intact here, and she has every right to fight for what is hers. Where is your integrity? You seem to have misplaced it, right along with your backbone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for the addendum.

    I'm not on anyone's side in this though I do believe you as an artist have a right to defend your work, as does Scott Prendergast. I think it's perfectly plausible that you both had a sliver of the same idea, regardless of timelines and such.

    The coincidence of timing might just be on the part of the Syfy network...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Amber, just wanted to say thank you so much for linking to my review of DRONES! This whole Syfy business sounds quite suspicious but I'm confident anyone would see your film as the superior (and original) aliens-in-the-workplace comedy!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, I'll make the call again: They ripped you off. At least you get "'The Day The Earth Stood Still" comparison cred.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is amazing that people are still trying to get away with this stuff! All they have to do is look at the date something actually go posted on the net. That can prove most things let alone actually seeing when something printed/talked about a subject online. follow the bread crumbs!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Amber I am a huge fan, I really am. I have sat through Sci-fi Channel movies to see you, that should tell you a lot. But I really don't think you have handled this well at all.

    I can see why you were so upset over the weekend obviously, and why you passionately defended your work. But I really think you leapt without looking and could end up damaging another indie film maker by being careless. Would it not have been better to check things out privately before posting *several* blogs bitching about this. Although I understand the original one, The Wrap was just in poor taste without ever contacting the guy to check facts.

    Because I'm sorry, you *did* accuse Prendergast of ripping you off, even if you didn't explicitly say it. And then wrote on a high profile blog "SyFy series suspiciously close to ours". I'm sorry that really is calling someone a thief without having all of the facts, spin it how you like.

    SyFy like all other networks rips off concepts from everyone else, but I really think it is just a case of two people having a similar broad idea. As you say, we don't even know how similar the actual scripts are. Because it has been in development for 2 years, even if slightly after "Drones" was written, no one had actually seen the movie at that time.

    You admit that you didn't write the scifiwire bit and they did, so is it possible that the PR department are just really lazy and reused generic discriptions rather than actively ripping you guys off?

    Of course I will still watch Drones and anything else you do, but maybe it's time to put this matter to bed unless anything else comes to light.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm a relative newcomer in this world of "post and comment" on the net and i'm already fed up with some frakking behaviors. I'm maybe naÏve, but i can't stand these guys (or gals)who're criticizing under the cover of "anonymous". I'm totally agree with one of the post below, it's totally cowardice. I don't use a pseudo, i'm not an anonymous, i'm Sylvain Simon from France and it's my real name!
    I'm with Amber, not by sheer admiration, even if i love her work, i'm with her because her arguments are speaking true to me.
    Accusing a person like her, who takes time to raise funds for Food care or other charities and who defends gay rights like she does, of being greedy and just looking for publicity, makes me angry... and you wouldn't like me when i'm angry (ah!ah!)!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I believe you. I think most of the people who've ever met you will believe you. Why would you be so upset if it weren't true? You aren't a jealous or mean person and you're always happy to help other artists out so I see no reason at all why I should doubt a word you said.

    I won't be watching this new thing but will keep an eye on youtube and reviews, if it turns out to be alike I will do everything in my power to make fans see the "original idea" so at least Drones will get some extra exposure out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amber, I have been in deep "fanlove" with you for years, and I'm personally convinced your take on this is correct. Now I've read the article follow-up with you giving Scott a pass but attacking SyFy, a whole network. Ia gree with you personally but, and I'm not the only fan of yours sayign this, check the thread at Whedonesque August archives, please pull way back on this, stop letting your temper do the talking and let your self-interest take over, I'm begging you. DaddyCatALSO

    ReplyDelete
  27. Amber:

    Thank you for taking the time to give me a call yesterday and to talk about this a bit. We posted our new story late last night with your comments (http://airlockalpha.com/node/7694/blame-syfy-for-drones-controversy-buffy-star-says.html), and appreciate you reaching out to try and talk about this.

    While I will continue to report all sides of the story here, I just have to say as someone who has covered the entertainment industry for 12 years next Friday, that some comments here are a bit out of sorts.

    And just to preface this, I'm a big Amber Benson fan. I loved her character on Buffy, and I've been interested in a lot of her work post-Buffy. I think she's a wonderful, creative, talented woman, and someone I admire a lot.

    At the same time, I still feel -- as I mentioned in a commentary on Airlock Alpha -- that much of this was handled improperly. One of the things Amber told me was that Scott Prendergast's response should've been to come to me and talk about how different the two projects were. But how could he do that, if the first time he had ever even heard of "Drones" -- at least from what he tells me -- was when this controversy erupted?

    I am not really interested in taking sides, and I wouldn't even know what side to take. I didn't even know who Scott Prendergast was before this whole thing. But I do have some serious observations.

    First of all, even if the script work for "Human Relations" began after filming started for "Drones," what makes anyone think that anyone -- Prendergast, Syfy, etc. -- had any clue about this movie, what it was or anything else? Amber herself admits this is a low-budget, indie film. There are hundreds if not thousands of them made every year, and most we NEVER hear about, let alone hear about then in production.

    ReplyDelete
  28. (continued)

    Hell, I get a dozen e-mails every day from people trying to get me to talk about their indie film, or indie film idea. It's very rare we cover any of that, unless something really hits us hard (like the film "Judas Kiss" that was decided to cover after reading an amazing script). If Amber had talked to us about "Drones" a couple years ago, we may have covered that as well, because it looks like a fun movie.

    But the fact is, no one really knew about it, outside of Amber, Adam, the people putting together the film, and some fans. In fact, many people didn't hear about it until the trailer was released in January, and then even more people -- like me -- didn't hear about it until this controversy erupted.

    To say that Syfy was implicit with this is to say that Syfy was part of the production, or had specific details of the production of "Drones." Has Amber said that anywhere? Has anyone said that anywhere? From the information all of us have, Syfy didn't know about it until they were offered the trailer in January -- which is AFTER the time Prendergast said he was working on a pitch for Syfy.

    Also, in terms of story ideas taking years -- more than a decade -- to come to light. That's the way it is. Ideas for shows and movies don't always come out of just a brainstorming session the month before. Many ideas -- especially from people trying to establish themselves -- can take years (sometimes many years) to be realized.

    I've had a few stories rumbling around in my head for more than a decade, two of them fully fleshed out. I'm thinking about working with a production company on one of them, possibly in the next few years (which means even if it were to be announced in 2012, it would be almost 12 years old). Does that mean that I'll be lying when I say that it's an idea I've been thinking about and even wrote a treatment on for more than a decade?

    That's silly. Ideas can sometimes take a while to gestate.

    Finally, in terms of people not understanding unless they have had things taken from you. Trust me, I understand. I've had creative ideas stolen from me a lot. Hell, we were one of the pioneers out on the Web in terms of how entertainment news coverage was done in different ways. I have stories pretty much copied and pasted all the time to larger news outlets without even a mention of me.

    I know what it's like, and I have a frame of reference for it. Hell, that's what prompted me to write about all this in the first place.

    I'm worried that this could end up hurting Amber more than help her. But hopefully, when it all blows over, it will simply get lost in the Internet, and not hurt anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the people in Syfy commissioning and acquisitions weren't aware of Drones, even if they hadn't screened the trailer, they should all be sacked. I knew about it early on, with no knowledge of who Amber etc were, and I live at the foot of the Andes in Argentina. It's also hard to believe that any professional would develop a project without researching whether anything similar was out there. Which it was.

    Syfy are choosing not to deal with this and Prendergast is basically relying on "yes but I thought of it in 1995", so you can hardly blame Amber for not just sitting there quietly and waiting for Jesus to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, you're right, Anonymous. It's so easy to research what is being made, and they should have done that.

    By the way, I have a story idea ... could you please spend a few minutes and provide me a list of all the indie movies in development right now? I need to know who's working on it, the plot information, and such. I want to make sure I don't step on any toes. I need it both for those in production, in post-production, and even in pre-production.

    And can I get that next week?

    My point is that there is really no way you can research it. It's not like there is some government requirement (or even a UNION requirement) that forces people who are making films -- especially independent films -- to register their ideas, and give a good quick resource in how to find it. So you can't just say, "They should've researched it," and then sit back and smile because you think you figured out something no one else had.

    On top of that, The thing is, "Anonymous," NO ONE KNOWS THAT ANYTHING IS EVEN THE SAME! Even Amber herself has stated the synopsis she presented in her July 31 post was written AFTER THE FACT and pieced other descriptions of the plot together.

    All she knows it that it centers on an office and there are aliens involved.

    By the way, I saw the pilot for "Outsourced," a new comedy by NBC. It takes place in an office, and makes comedic situations from employee interactions, crazy management hijinks and the like. Yet, should "The Office" creators be out there blasting it as a ripoff?

    It's very easy to say this apple is the same as this orange if the only description you're given is that they are both fruit. But I bet you're not going to peel that apple, or use it as a flavor for Fanta.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What? Prendergast is claiming he knew nothing about Drones until he turned on his computer the other day and up popped Amber's post. So neither he, nor anyone at Syfy nor any of his friends or colleagues had ever come across it. Really.

    It is Prendegasts's and every one involved with this at Syfy's business to know if this is an original project. A simple Google search would do it. He may well have come across it after the fact but to claim he had never heard of it until a few days ago is ridiculous and almost certainly under legal advice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What I'm saying is that, whether he knew of Drones before he developed his own project or not, the "I just found out about it last week on Amber's post" line is utter bollocks unless he's been in a coma. And no, I don't think I figured out something no one else has, I'd say that's blindingly obvious. I've worked in this industry for 15 years and I know exactly how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I must have been in a coma, too, Anonymous. I had never heard of "Drones" until July 31 either. And I run a major science-fiction news site, and I pretty much have my finger on the pulse of many things out there.

    We just talked to Syfy (exclusively). Here is our story, where the network responds to Amber's claims: http://airlockalpha.com/node/7701

    ReplyDelete
  34. Personally, i had never heard of "Airlock Alpha" until July 31. Nice "publicity stunt", Mister (lol)! BTW, I knew about Drones one year and a half ago on IMdB,so...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Exactly, Simon.

    With all respect Michael, though it's good that Syfy have finally stuck their heads up, their response is exactly what you'd expect, regardless of the facts (which remain unclear to us all).

    And wherever your finger is, it would still be absolutely amazing if Drones' existence was a complete surprise to all these people. At the very least it would be massively incompetent on their part. Who invests this kind of time and money on a product without performing the basic market checks it would have involved? Maybe it is all a big coincidence but the "golly, we had no idea!" stance is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sylvain Simon:

    That's OK, I'm also not claiming that anyone took anything from me.

    Airlock Alpha celebrates its 12th birthday next Friday. It was founded as SyFy World, and later became SyFy Portal. Last year, we sold our name to NBCU, and changed our name to Airlock Alpha.

    Whether you might have visited our site under any name or not, you probably still learned something because of us. Even for Buffy, we were the first site to report Buffy's cancellation back in the day, and was one of the first to report Angel's cancellation (although that caught even us by surprise). We also were the first to report the cancellation of "Firefly," and were the ONLY site for more than a month that was reporting "Dollhouse" was getting a second season, when everyone else said we were crazy.

    We weren't. :)

    Anonymous, if that is your real name (hehehe, sorry) ...

    I feel like even if Jesus himself came down and said this is the way it is, if it doesn't support Amber, you won't believe it. I'm sorry to hear that.

    I have a lot of respect for Amber, but I also respect the fact that she's human, just like me (and I'm assuming just like you), and she is fallible. Just as I am. Just as I believe you are.

    I am totally with WHY Amber did all this. But it doesn't mean I agree with what was done, and how she continues to handle it. But that is my opinion, and she is her own person, and is more than capable of doing anything she wants. :) And of course I respect that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. If you read what I wrote, I'm only supporting Amber in that I understand why she posted about this. I don't know if anyone got ripped off or not, my point is that the other parties' claim to only just finding out about Drones lacks credibility. That's it. And it clearly does. And I'm sure Jesus, if he had any professional experience and a little common sense, would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well, I think basing an ENTIRE accusation on a one-sentence blurb, an accusation -- whether explicit or implicit -- without even finding out if it's true or not, lacks credibility.

    That's what happened here. All Amber read was the blurb. That's it. She has no clue what the show is ... yes, she essentially defamed someone else because of it.

    And that's what this is, Anonymous ... defamation. Even if Syfy doesn't pick up "Human Relations" for other reasons, if Scott Prendergast could prove his idea was completely different, and point to how Syfy had even the slightest concerns about negative publicity because of an accusation not based in fact, then "Drones" is going to become a whole lot more expensive.

    I don't want to see that happen to Amber because of what might be a mistake ... and to blindly follow someone who is blindly leading means you have no one looking to see where you're going.

    Trying to be the eyes here ... trying to be the eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Amber,

    Scott Prendergast isn't keeping his story straight, and that is the issue here. A person who is telling the truth doesn't keep altering and evolving their claims, as he has, something that all lawyer point-out. First he gave certain dates for the development of his script, and then he changed them in an effort to back-date them before the dates of your stated creation of "Drones"? Isn't that more than curious?

    Well, Amber, if this is true, he can produce computer records proving this, or copyright information, or at least, something from the Writer's Guild, something to lock in his claims that his script was authored in 1995. He could have done this, and presented this to the journalists whom he spoke to, journalists, who FYI, just sold the name of their web site to SciFi Channel, making it, SyFy Channel, so they, Air Lock Alpha, aren't exactly non-biased on this issue. SciFi (Syfy) made its owner a very wealthy man, well over a year or two ago, in the deal. But I digress, back to the evidence portion of discovery.

    Experts can test printed paper for how old the ink is, and how old the paper that it is printed on, is. If Scott Prendergast's original script was handwritten, or typed, or printed in 1995...they, experts, can confirm it--that, and...some printers leave an invisible code (the latter, of which, I have been told--but you should check with those in the know, like former FBI investigators for a hard answer on that issue), and...computer forensics experts can check computer hard-drive discs--the magnetic tape, and any software back-up disks. As far as magnetic tape is concerned, a forensics computer analyst can check for evidence, including a computer keyboard's keystrokes, to verify when, and how, something, ala a script, was written. I would advise you to take these steps during the discovery phase of the case, should you go to court. Also, get the show's creator to make hard admissions during depositions--the point being, he'll have to give his account and stick to a fixed story during depositions. If his story changes from the articles where he has commented on your claims, that will allow your lawyers to impeach him via his own words, not only during any depositions, but also during any testimony at trial. Should he not testify in court, well, his comments can be used against him, and perhaps his statements at deposition, which are made under oath.

    That said, this case looks like it will be heading toward a settlement. Have your lawyers inform Syfy and Mr. Prendergast's attorneys in any would-be closed door settlement talks that you are expecting royalties and a creator/production credit on the show, should it be green-lit...that, and, you'll be expecting an offer from the network for a 3 year first-look development deal, and a cash payment, as a part of any said settlement, one that is considered to be "most favored nations"...thus, making any pay that you receive, equal to Mr. Scott Prendergast's production deal with the Syfy network in terms of Human Relations; they can afford it. Case closed, and everybody is happy. Neither Syfy, nor Prendergast, will have to admit to wrong-doing, and there will be a gag-order put in place, as a part of the deal, one placed...on both parties.

    Syfy gets its new show, and they also get a truly great actress/writer/director/producer in you, Amber. You are something special, and if they are smart, they will go for such a deal. They'll be glad they did, not for settlement sake, well that will be a plus, but for the sake of having discovered a great talent in you!!!

    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  40. This will be my last entry on that subject, because i really think it has gone too far and that it's time to stop the press for quite some time.
    Mr Henman, my last post was just a little joke. Yes, i "ripped off" your line just for fun (sorry, bad french joke).But i also think you overreacted quite a bit (the Jesus line). I'm not a zealot of the religious cult "let's all worship Amber Benson" (i don't even believe in God). I just made my own opinion after reading all the articles and interviews and i stick with it.
    We're all geeks and we are the most passionate people in the world and that story is a good demonstration of that fact.
    As far as i am concerned, i'm waiting for Amber's new book at the end of the month and look forward to see drones next year (if it's available in europe).
    If HR becomes a TV show, i will not watch it. I'm already following a dozens of other shows (dexter, true blood, sons of anarchy, smallville, supernatural,House md,24, Dr Who, Torchwood...)and i don't have room for this one.
    It's over for me on that controversy.
    Peace and love, guys! Faites l'amour, pas la guerre!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Little Red Riding Hood Guy: Obviously, you know more about this than I do, and I recognize that the system respects those who stand up for themselves, but that sounds like a strategy which will give Amber, Adam, and the _DRONES_ writers a reputation as "difficult," which would do the opposite. DaddyCatALSO

    ReplyDelete
  42. Little Red Riding Hood Guy:

    You make a claim that Scott Prendergast changed dates. Please show me where that happened.

    So far, he has only spoke to a single outlet: Airlock Alpha. And he's only spoken to us once. He has also made a comment on The Wrap blog, but there he didn't mention any dates like he did with Airlock Alpha.

    So where did he change his dates? He did provide two dates in that story, and maybe that's the cause for your confusion. The first date was one in 2008, which marks when he started FULLY DEVELOPING the script. The second date was when the genesis of the actual idea came, in 1995.

    Sorry, but those aren't two different dates. Those are two different milestones in the story development. That makes your statement incorrect.

    I can tell you that Prendergast has his original script from that time (in fact, he's holding all the scripts he wrote over that time related to this project in what was the top story photo before it was replaced with the Syfy one). You don't register scripts with the WGA. If there is a dispute like this, both sides would have to present evidence to a WGA committee, and then they would make a determination. They are not the copyright office.

    Our name is Airlock Alpha (not the spelling you provided), and just because we sold our name to Syfy does not affect our credibility in any way. If you go through the Airlock Alpha archives, you will see that we have been highly critical of Syfy many times, even after the sale of our name. In fact, the story we posted after my phone conversation with Amber was highly critical of Syfy.

    Trust me, we don't pull punches, and we have absolutely no obligations to Syfy. Our deal was to sell our name to them, and that's it. We didn't even have to support their decision to change their name and could've blasted it like everyone else.

    If I have any bias, it's to people trying to make a name for themselves in Hollywood who get knocked around by the big boys. I don't like that, which means that my bias would be more toward Amber Benson than to Syfy. So the fact that I am actually disagreeing with her should say something.

    The Syfy name deal did NOT make me a wealthy man. They paid $250,000, a lot of that which paid off debt and eliminated debt. The only thing different about me now is that I drive a better car, and I was able to do some remodeling in my small condo in Tampa. After all that and taxes, about $35,000 remains.

    If NBCU had properly identified themselves (they did not during negotiations, using a shell company), I could've become wealthy because I learned later I could've demanded $2.5 million. But because they didn't identify themselves, I got 10 percent of that. Tell me, if you knew that, would you have bias in FAVOR of Syfy?

    ReplyDelete
  43. (continued)


    utside of your CSI discussion about testing ink and printers and everything else, there is one thing you have to have first: You have to be able to show that there are direct similarities between the movie "Drones" and the pilot for "Human Relations." And we're not just talking concept ... we're talking characters, dialogue, situations, etc. Not an easy thing to do, and has not happened very often (in fact, one of the few examples I can think of is Art Buchwald's fight over "Coming To America" from the 1980s).

    After that, Benson would have to show damages. A lost distribution deal, proof that her film would've made more money otherwise (which would be hard in that case since she could have her film released this year, and the earliest "Human Relations" would come out -- if ever -- is late 2011).

    Sadly, if the two projects WERE compared, based on what I've learned about "Human Relations" from the people involved and an additional source, there really is no comparison. In fact, I understand that the blurb provided by Syfy is incorrect to a single point: The aliens aren't out to destroy Earth.

    Then you have an issue of leaping before you look. And if that's the case, it won't be Prendergast and Syfy trying to settle this thing quietly ... it would be Amber Benson. And it won't be copyright infringement (aka intellectual property theft which is the only weapon she would have in something like this), it would be libel.

    Libel is hard to prove as well ... but believe it or not, one aspect of libel -- painting someone in a false light -- is much easier to prove. And I'm no lawyer, but I'm very familiar with libel law because of the business I'm in, but if "Human Relations" doesn't get picked up, and there's even a single iota of evidence linking that decision to these claims, then I think Amber should be the one fearful of a suit.

    I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope that this recent volley of stuff will help both sides understand what their projects are, how different they are, and go from there. I like Amber a lot, and don't want to see her go through this.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sylvain SIMON:

    My name is Hinman, not Henman. Not even in the French translation. =P

    I never accused you of being of the religious zealot type, at least not from your "Jesus" line. If I did mention that, it was more from blindly following someone no matter what happened, which is what zealots do. :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. I really wanted to stop, i swear. But here comes Mr HInman again.So no more peace.
    1- I know your name is hInman, it was a typo, you never do typos or what? I'm not using a translator ans if i mispell or if my grammar is bad, well I don't give a shit, at least i'm trying and i think you understand me.
    2-your line was "if Jesus himself came down and said this is the way it is, if it doesn't support Amber,you won't believe it"(and you said "it" for Jesus, that's funny). I know you weren't referring to me, but that sentence can be referring to all the people who believes Amber.I felt it like that. Hence my answer, we are not zealots, we have a brain and we used it to make our own opinion, and you saw that there are people who are not agree with her.
    So, unless you want to give me some english lessons, I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sylvain Simon:

    Throughout these comments, you've done a marvelous job in expressing your opinions. Please, don't get discouraged because of one person. You were right in that it's time that this just be put to rest.

    Michael Hinman: Throughout your original post, you made the point of stressing the fact that you wish to remain impartial. I could respect that in that you were truly attempting to bring all parties back to the fact that they should simply keep a cool head and attempt to work things out. However over the course of your commenting on this blog, Amber's blog, you have done little more than show yourself as a biased writer. You clearly think that Amber is in the wrong. It is in everything you write and I have read all of your comments here as well as your articles on the blog which you keep bringing up at every possible opportunity. You have a blog, sir. Go there and write there. There's no need for arguing with Amber's fans/supporters on Amber's blog page. Show a little of the respect and professionalism that you were originally advocating. Going after those commenting does nothing to help further your argument. It only discredits it.

    In the end, this matter has nothing to do with any of us. We were all given the opportunity to form our own opinions and we expressed them. Let's leave the matter where it belongs between the people that it belongs.

    To the Amber fans out there, let's just keep supporting this incredibly talented woman and her work. Her blog is supposed to be about community... not arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @AG's Best Fwend:

    Sense and reason in a blog comment. My day is rescued. This is the time where I waste some space and say, "Hear, hear."

    I have refrained from making my own commentary on the commentary, because I know I'm not level-headed enough to remain calm while I write it. I'm glad someone else is. I applaud thee.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sylvain Simon:

    Hey, we all do typos. However, I just prefer my name to be spelled right. I mean, we're both using our real names, and I respect the fact that you're doing it.

    Actually, the line about Jesus that I used is based on a common expression that some people will believe something is true, even if every piece of evidence on the planet was presented to refute it. Usually God or Jesus is used, because that's typically the type of behavior of zealotry (typically found in religion).

    I'm not knocking religion. I'm a pretty religious guy myself.

    I don't know if that is something you can say is directed at all of Amber's supporters. In fact, I have seen many people continue to support Amber, but not necessarily support her on this. I think we all agree that no one should rip off Amber (or anyone for that matter), but right now -- outside of a couple of synopses (including one that was rewritten after the fact by Amber, as she has admitted) -- there is no evidence that anyone ripped anyone off.

    That's the issue here. Prove to me that Amber was ripped off. Show me the evidence that would be enough to at least stop a case from being dismissed as frivolous in a court of law to show that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. {continued}

    Amber is the one making the claim, thus she is the one with the burden of proof here. Otherwise, her accusations -- or even the inferred accusation -- can be very damaging to someone else's career. And that's not right, no matter who the parties involved are, or who you would normally support.

    The fact is, no evidence has surfaced. I mean, who here has even seen "Human Relations" or read the script, or even read a one-sheet on it? Anyone? Hello?

    I haven't even seen the script or a one-sheet on "Human Relations." But then, I'm not the one making claims. Amber is. And Amber is the one with the burden to prove that, which she has yet to do.

    It's not up to Scott Prendergast or Syfy to come out and say, "No, these are different!" It's actually up to the accuser to say, "Yes, you did this, and here is my proof."

    Imagine what our court systems would be like if I could accuse someone of theft, but the judge required not me to prove they stole it, but the defendant to prove they DIDN'T steal it.

    That's not how it works in actual judicial courts, and that's not how it works in the public court, either. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  50. AG's Best Fwend:

    I'm not sure how impartiality translates to being the person to tell everyone to calm down. That's not impartiality -- that's someone who is trying to stay completely out of it.

    What is impartial is making sure there is evidence to back up claims. All I am saying is that there is not sufficient evidence here to back up Amber's claims. If Amber can present a script for "Drones" and a script for "Human Relations" and start pointing out the similarities -- something that a court would require -- and she can make some very legitimate claims of similarities, then I will definitely turn my attention back to Prendergast and Syfy and ask what the meaning of that is.

    That is the definition of impartiality -- someone who is willing to keep an open mind and hear all evidence. And that's what I am doing here. The bad part is that I have heard a lot of evidence presented by Syfy and Prendergast. But even when I pressed Amber for comparisons, she couldn't draw any more than the basic concept, and that's not enough.

    I am a fan just like you and anyone else. Amber does not restrict who can comment on her blog, and it is her blog, and she has every right to ask me to stop commenting here (and I would respect that if she did).

    This isn't Watergate, and I don't write for the Washington Post. I'm an entertainment writer, and one who does take a side: I take the side of the truth. Show me truth, and I'll be right behind it.

    What I have done here is simply respond to blind claims that Amber has been ripped off, and that she was ripped off by Scott Prendergast, or ripped off by Syfy. I pointed out that there is no evidence to support that, and by making those claims (and compounding those claims) without evidence, there is a chance that comments here and Amber herself could be open up to lawsuits and the like.

    That's not my decision, and what they do is up to them. What Amber does is up to her. But if you read back through my posts, you will see that I am more about making sure we are talking about FACTS, and not just insinuation or inaccurate statements and such.

    For example, I commented on the fact that someone claimed there were inconsistent and changed timelines offered by Prendergast. I corrected that, stating that there was only one timeline offered by Prendergast (as he has only spoken out twice publicly, and only once did he mention timelines), and clarified that two time periods were mentioned, but were mentioned in the context of milestones along a single timeline.

    I also pointed out that I cannot take a position that someone stole from someone else unless proof is offered to back it up. Outside of a synopsis comparison -- which is highly inconclusive, especially since the basis of one of the synopses is in doubt -- there is nothing to suggest that.

    And I'm sorry, but if you think theft is bad? Falsely accusing someone of theft -- especially as they are trying to make a name for themselves -- is worse.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hush, Hinman. Hush.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "As far as questioning Amber's character, I'm rather disgusted by someone saying she's being anything other than professional. This isn't Stephen Spielberg, someone who makes a million dollars just for walking onto a movie set. Amber and Adam worked damn hard on this project, as did Ben Acker and Ben Blacker and the entire crew behind the film. It is far and away their right to call foul when they see something that is unjust.

    Anyone who wants to criticize it, why don't you sit down and think how you would react. And if you still think she's being unprofessional, here's a concept, leave."


    Well said, Bunny!

    Everything one needs to know is in black and white. Amber and Adam have been wronged, plain and simple.

    And no one can say otherwise until Mr. "I-like-to-steal-other-people's-works" comes out to confirm or deny it. The more dates and timelines he throws out, the more unbelievable he becomes. Not that I believed him in the first place.

    All in all, Amber and Adam worked harder...and faster than that other guy. Dates be damned.

    I'm with Amber and Adam all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Michael Hinman I am a huge Amber supporter and honestly I don’t know any more if the gun was jumped here or not. I can however appreciate why Amber blogged about this - after all I would scream bloody murder if I felt I had been done wrong by and I am really happy Amber has spine enough to speak her truth.

    You have made some interesting points which I am not disputing, however you say you are impartial and are just on the side of the truth but when I hear you say ( these are your words) ” without evidence, there is a chance that comments here and Amber herself could be open up to lawsuits and the like.” It sounds like an underhanded way of trying to keep people quiet and not speak up. Basically it really does feel more like you are trying to scare people and I do not believe that falls on the side of impartial but more on the side of bullying. It is obvious you are an articulate person Michael but no matter how you spin it, these posts you have shared on Amber’s blog feel passive aggressive and I am sure you will find a way to twist my words but I really felt the need to share my opinion.

    SinkOrSwim

    ReplyDelete
  54. Open Letter To Michael Hinman...And All Readers:

    So, the Airlock Alpha head man, himself, Michael Hinman, admits he was paid for the name of Syfy, by SciFi Channel, which has now assumed that very name? I have heard rumors about your cash exchanged, but no one revealed the exact dollar figures, openly, from that deal--save for said rumors. My post was a bit of a bait to get you to reveal the inside details of your involvement, and business dealings with SciFi (now Syfy), and I am very pleased that you have. Checkmate! That shows that you are not impartial here, no matter what the dollar amount is, or was, that was paid to you, et al. And with the poor economy, a quarter of a million dollars, if that is the real figure, is still a lot of money, my friend. BTW, you should get a better lawyer; you could have gotten millions from them, if that is, indeed, the real figure? But back to the specific dollar amount. Listen, in this life, people will kill others for less than 5 dollars, so...what would a person do for a quarter of a million dollars? Hhhhhmmm, let's see, how about frequenting someone's blog with seemingly harassing messages in order to spin the story, Syfy's way, perhaps???? Better watch-out, or you might just find yourself testifying under-oath in depositions, considering your close and personal relationship with Syfy.

    Just for your information, anyone can sue for defamation, but will they win? Most likely no, considering the issues at hand, however, I'd say that Amber and partner stand a far greater chance of winning in court based on the story synopsis of the productions, respectively, and the time-lines both sides have presented in the press, concerning the creations of the two projects.

    As far as your impartial views, or the lack of them, you should have openly stated that you have been doing business with the Syfy Channel--and in fact, are not non-biased, as you have claimed.

    That said, who knows what your real motives are in this matter, and how close you are with the Syfy Channel, at this point? You certainly have entered this debate with a suspect, and again, seemingly personal interest, one that I have never seen you show, or reflect, with any subject matter you have reported on in the past, and I have been logging onto your web site for a very long time, years, before you sold your name.

    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    PS: I would suggest to Amber, that she share your comments with her lawyers. Nothing wrong with freedom of the press, but are you free press, or in league with Syfy? Don't answer that, save it for the depositions, when you will be speaking, under-oath.

    ReplyDelete
  55. PS--To: Mr. Hinman,

    I was correct on the time-line changes, which you then denied, and then confirmed--in regard to the development of the project according to Mr. Prendergast. I am not the one who is confused. If that 1995 date is true, it can be confirmed either by way of hardcopy papers, or by way of (computer disk) magnetic tape. Any computer forensics expert can tell you that. And as I said prior, paper and ink can be checked for age, another checkmate. Ask Mr. Prendergast to turn-over that evidence for independent testing. I suspect, however, that he won't, and with good reason. Therein, you will find the truth--his willingness to cooperate, in full, or not, with your reporting, should you make that request. Regardless, if this goes to court, he will be asked to supply said evidence in court, as a part of discovery. If he fails to deliver it, said evidence, it will show that he is being evasive, and most likely, has everything to hide.

    Signed, Little Ride Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  56. Really? The best you can do now is say he might have rewritten his script to rip off your awesome trailer? Do you really think your movie is that great that all this subterfuge would have occurred?

    And why does Prendergast have to prove he DIDN'T plagiarize? Legally, it's the other way around - the person "ripped off" has to do the proving. The reason you're inciting fanboys/girls to libel him is because you know you have no grounds at all. When the show is on TV, and you think you have grounds, go for it.

    Or are you going to then claim a further conspiracy, that they've changed the script AGAIN because you "caught" them? "Until we see Prendergast's draft from January of 2010, we will not rest from making mealy-mouth accusations."

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Anonymous August 6, 2010 10:01 PM


    An accusation is only libelous if it is wrong, and usually with malice, and intent to mislead, but if said accusation is correct, or made with good reason, well, that isn't libel, it is, however, factual--or made without malice, and or, with a purposeful intent to mislead, and to harm others.

    What I have seen from Mr. Prendergast and his defenders...here, is the typical reaction of those whom are operating with a "Crisis Management" mentality: They go on the offense--and tend to attack those whom may have an honest case, or at least, feel that they do. The first stage is to defile an individual, and their works, and then question their abilities, sanity, and motives. The second stage, is intimidation. In that stage, we witness warnings from a would-be defendant, et al, against a would-be complainant. This would include veiled threats of legal action. "Cease your public arguments, and be careful about what you say to the media, or elsewhere...and about whom...or, it is you, who could be sued!" I have seen it all before, this is textbook stuff.

    Then there is the third stage, where the individual, again, the complainant, is told that they may be viewed by the industry as being "difficult to work with": This the typical industry tactic of threatening a blacklisting through a veiled threat. Sense this drama began, we have witnessed all three stages of such crisis management strategies, and thus, this would appear to be a targeted and directed spin campaign aimed squarely against Amber and her writing partner, one designed to influence public and media perceptions (and to shake Amber's will to continue, etc.); that being the anti-Amber postings, as they are not not just average fan fueled comments, no, they appear to be...too specific, too focused on an outcome to be legitimate, or believable grassroots generated, and independently influenced banter.

    For instance, I read some...mistakenly post, that if Mr. Prendergast loses his deal with Syfy, and it is directly traced to Amber's accusations, then he has a legitimate lawsuit against her. Well, not so fast! Syfy isn't going to cancel this deal, as they can also be sued. The only way they would cancel the deal, is if they have a valid belief that Mr. Prendergast has stolen this idea. Trust me, they will fully vet his story and dates of authorship, if they are truly in the dark here. That said, it seems to be Amber's view that Syfy, at a creative executive level, is responsible, and that Prendergast is a dupe who was brought in by them, as a third party, to develop an idea that he was given by the suits (her idea), hence, her issue...is with them, Syfy, and that is the thrust of her complaints, in the continued examination of this incident, so far; however, that may change to include Prendergast, at a future date--who knows, but his time-line is suspect, and ever morphing, suggesting his knowing involvement in this intrigue?

    Amber, keep-up the pressure on these people. If Mr Prendergast, indeed has a "locked script" that is not carrying similarities, or exact contents that mirror your script, he is free to share it with you and your lawyers, as well as the media, and ask that its contents not be divulged publicly, pre-filming and airing of the show. Surely his script has been copryright protected, and is on file with the Library of Congress, and the Writers Guild? Nothing to fear, unless, there is something amiss? Good luck!!!

    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Okay... wow! There are a few things here I want to address. I'm probably one of Amber Benson's biggest fans,and I KNOW how to be objective. While I do tend to be partial to her, I have enough cognizance to see both sides of the story. That being said, Mr. Hinman, I have followed your Airlock Alpha posts on this subject, up through the one when SyFy spoke with you. I simply want to say, that while you say you respect Amber Benson, your post on "Plagarism or Publiciy Stunt" was ANYTHING but respectful to her. You, sir, have done anything except be objective since the initial post about Amber's claim. You point out that she has no evidence to support the fact that her idea was ripped off; Prendergast doesn't either. He couldn't even provide the script he supposedly wrote in 1995. While he, and SyFy, claim to not have known anything about DRONES, I knew about it prior to the trailer release. I'm also follow enough indie filmakers to know that most indie film makers keep up with other independent work. ESPECIALLY in a genre that is in their area of interest. That's my viewpoint anyhow. You seem to tend to side with SyFy had their been evidence provided or not. While I don't agree with you, I also don't believe that you should have been attacked the way you have been on this forum, and I do apologize for that. There is a right way to present your viewpoints of another person's opinions and a wrong way, and some people were harsher than they should have been and lacked respect for your point of view. I do respect you, I follow Airlock Alpha, and I plan to continue to do so.
    After all of that, I have seen DRONES at a couple of different film festivals and it is definitely an original concept. It's a very hard writing style to attempt to duplicate. Prendergast claims that he didn't "rip off" Acker and Blacker's writing and concept of the film, and I believe him. I DON'T believe, however, that SyFy didn't know that there was anything out there along the lines of aliens in an office. They say that aliens being in the office is where the similarities end, so at this point, really the only thing that can be done is just to wait and see when the series premieres on SyFy. It's one of those things that time will tell on, and there's really no debate at the present time, since no one has seen the script for "Human Relations", and as Mr. Hinman pointed out, not a lot of people have seen DRONES. It's bascially a waiting game at this point.
    Lastly, whether you're in favor of the side of Syfy and Scott Prendergast, or Amber Benson and the team of Acker and Blacker, I strongly suggest you guys check DRONES out when it hits DVD and/or theaters in March of 2011, and as Amber said, judge for yourselves! :o)
    A final note to Amber: From one Southern girl to another, love ya to pieces, I have mad respect for you, and keep doing what you do! :o)

    ReplyDelete
  60. What, according to Tholmes86, Mr. Prendergast can't provide a copy of his own so-called 1995 version of his script idea, which would be an outline, I suppose? Now, isn't that convenient? This gets more, and more, interesting and unbelievable with every new passing day. If this is true, he curiously has no way of establishing that his script idea was indeed authored in 1995, as he claims, other than his word? Again, I ask, where is the computer which you created it on? Where is the printer that you printed it out on? They all can verify evidence of your claims if real. I would suggest that you turn them over, or any back-up disks you have, to establish your claims. I'll point-out that most authors/writers keep hardcopy notes of their works, and file them away, for future reference, but this individual has nothing of this nature to confirm his own so-called original work's origins? Nothing? How interesting?

    Also, it seems timely that, one day, after nearly fifteen years, you just happened to wake-up and say, "Hey, I think I'll dust-off my old script idea, and write a full teleplay"...just in time to run into Amber Benson, and company's...similarly themed, and toned, work. What an extreme coincidence? Such are lottery winning odds, not impossible, but so unusual as to be beyond suspect, and the odds grow even higher, because you are now doing business, post, with Syfy which ran Ms. Benson's trailer, months prior to your deal with Syfy? Now, the odds are akin to lightening striking twice in the same place.

    Add to that, Mr. Hinman's attacks on Ms. Benson's efforts, for her intent to learn the truth here in regard to the strange similarities between the two productions. When one references Mr. Hinman's deal with Syfy...which seems to have gone unmentioned and undisclosed in his article, and letter posts, in respect to this story, until I challenged him on this very matter, and we have, and witness, lightening striking in the same place, involving the same related people, directly...or indirectly, three times, in a short, and timely period? That is near impossible, unless, planned.

    To Mr. Hinman, your condo, the house that Syfy built, or at least, helped to remodel, according to your own words, you have an agenda, consciously, or unconsciously, and it isn't to Amber Benson's benefit, or in the interest of fairness. Perhaps you are expecting favors from Syfy? I don't know, only you and they can be certain of that, but you don't get a free pass here, considering your conduct in failing to openly disclose your past financial involvement with Syfy Channel and your business entity (now renamed, thanks to that very deal), this being a serious "Conflict of Interest" in relation to the controversy...specifically over the plagiarism concerns as raised by Ms. Benson and partner, again, until I called you to task for it, apparently? You did not mention, in your reply to me, that you previously made any such disclosures, if at all, to the reading public of your web site, or this blog, nor to Ms. Benson, etc., whatsoever? Shame on you, that isn't good journalism. Perhaps you just failed to think of the conflict of interest issue, or perhaps, you were working as a Trojan Horse? I'll leave that question up to you to debate with Ms. Benson and the readers of your respective online entity's.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  61. That's..."Entities". Sorry for the typo, but, regardless, the message is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  62. PS: @Mr. Hinman.

    Lying by omission is wrong--as it is the same as telling a bold-faced lie. It is deceptive, no matter how you may wish to frame it.

    To full disclosure...next-time.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  63. It would be an outline that would need to be produced from Prendergast. I would lay everything to rest if they could produce that,or even a rough draft of the script, and the specualtions, I believe, would somewhat stop. Still, I agree with Little Red Riding Hood Guy. I question the timing. Why, after fifteen years, would you suddenly drag out a script from that time period. Definitely suspicious, and one of the reasons that I'm not so sure I buy the story that SyFy pitched Airlock Alpha about "Human Relations" not knowing anything about DRONES. I also don't understand why SyFy is unable to back their comments that aliens in the office is where the similarities stop. With any series, there are things that can be pointed out without giving away the whole plot line to show how the series differs from the film. Just my opinion. Like I said, it's really just a waiting game at this point because SyFy can provide no concrete evidence that the two are different, and no one besides Prendergast and SyFy have seen the "Human Relations".
    I think Amber Benson has handled this gracefully, because I, for one, would be one pitching a ROYAL fit if it appeared somone had taken a concept of friends of mine that I had poured time into directing and tweaking until it was just so.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Little Red Riding Hood Guy, may I ask you two odd questions?

    Do you post at Whedonesque.com?
    How old are you?

    To be fair I will answer my own questions. Yes I do. I'm 34.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Matthew Hawes

    I will answer your questions in backwards succession of order.

    I'm old enough to have been involved with the industry for a good long time, and I have been involved with a major industry lawsuit that ensnared 3 corrupt and very elite, and powerful, lawfirms--a suit that lasted for years--over millions of dollars, BTW. I know the industry is dirty, more dirty than you can ever imagine--and it is mostly all mafia, my friend; that is a fact. The experience was scary, threatening, and very fun--all at the same time. I learned how to play intellectual chess with some top, and very celebrated, lawyers, and how to beat them at their own game.

    As for Whedonesque.com, I have posted there in the past, and they promptly banned me from the site, simply because I was exercising my valid right...to free speech. I used no curse words, nor hate speech, nor was I a cyber stalker. I was just very opinionated...and Simon banned me on a hair-trigger reaction to me questioning the words of the owner of that site (when I asked, "What are the exact rules there, specific to the exercise of speech?", upon her objecting to a word that I used that is found in the medical realm of use); this, one of the very reasons Whedonesque's visitor numbers are down. You can't keep banning visitors--that, being members of the net public whom traffic one's web site, and expect it, a web site, to grow in popularity. When one does that, banning people without good reason, they lower their hits to their site, and that lowers their ad revenue, as a direct side-effect. I was attempting to help grow that community, recommending the site to many (anyone who would listen, in fact), but it, my efforts, were not appreciated, so I went elsewhere. Periodically, I check the site, and I have watched the numbers of posters fall, dramatically. That is what happens when moderators become over-aggressive, they often destroy the very thing they are trying to protect.

    "You can't stop the signal!"

    -Mal

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  66. So you won't give your age and danced around it instead of saying I'm 38 or I'm 52 or whatever age you are. Guess that's all I needed to know. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Matthew Hawes,

    I was trying not to be rude, but since you have chosen your present tact (to be rude), so, I will tell you in a manner that you might better understand; "It is none of your business."

    Now, if you have something of import to say, concerning the Syfy vs. Amber controversy, please speak-up. The only one whom is dancing, is you--by failing to state your real purpose for commenting here, and that is what...is so...obviously evasive. No matter, your attempt to vet me, has failed.

    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  68. Joe aka AmberAddictAugust 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM

    I think Syfy have shown you a real lack of respect to Amber and I can understand her frustration. I read a comment posted by another reader that said she had implied Syfy had ripped of Drones and while I respect a person’s right to their opinion in this case I think they are wrong.

    All Amber has done is express legitimate concerns at an alarming number of coincidences between Drones and Human Relations together with information and a Drones production timeline to support this. Syfy for their part have offered nothing other than to say Human Relations was an original idea. Scott Prendergast has stated that he stared work on his series in 1995/1996 I’m not disputing this in anyway however I do find odd that a writer would wait over 10 years to try and bring their idea to TV. When he first had his idea is irrelevant the fact remains for whatever reason didn’t do anything about for over a decade. If someone in this case Amber and her team beats him to it with their own idea Drones that’s his loss. The Drones cast and crew took all the risks in getting their vision to the big screen. It seems to me that Scott Prendergast has seen their success and is now attempting to cash in which strike me as very unfair!

    If it seems like I’m being one side here you could be right but that’s only because Syfy can’t or won’t give us theirs. To simply say we asked Scott and he said it was his idea and we’re Syfy and wouldn’t do such a thing is not an adequate explanation.

    I don’t expect Syfy give people this information publicly of course but I don’t see what’s stopping them from talking to Amber, Adam and their representatives. At the end the day that’s all Amber and the Drones cast and crew want to reassured that Human Relations is in fact different to Drones as Syfy claim.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Littel Red Riding Hood Guy: Did you, by any chance, make a reference to Amber's having gonads - via use of a colloquial form of that biological term- and got criticized therefrom? D'C'A'

    ReplyDelete
  70. I had an idea for white chocolate milk about a decade ago... 3 years ago someone started selling it.

    Did I hurry and put it on the market too and then complain that "I had the IDEA sooner" so you guys can't yell at me for copying it? No I didn't, cause someone beat me to it and fair's fair, they were sooner than me!

    So even ÎF that guy speaks the truth... (which I doubt, too coincidential!) He's still a wanker!

    ReplyDelete
  71. "obviously evasive"

    Says the person who is listed as Anonymous and signs their posts as Little Red Riding Hood Guy. Is it really that hard to put your name? Most everyone else here is or is using a handle that takes you to their blog. People might take you more serious if you backed up your words and didn't hide behind anonymity.

    In my experience, my 34 years of experience I've found that people who can't answer a question like, "how old are you?" don't bring much to the table and are more interested in trying to seem smarter than they are. Us common folk in Indiana who don't brag about what we know and have seen, we can actually answer easy questions.

    So that is why you have told me all I need to know. If you want to answer my question of your age, great I'll answer anything you wish to ask me. If you instead want to continue acting like it's some outlandish question and use it to puff out your chest, you aren't worth my time.

    As an aside, It's funny that you say it's none of my business to ask your age, yet my second question which by your logic should also be none of my business was easily answered. Maybe because in that answer you got to play the poor victim of being banned from Whedonesque.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @August 9, 2010 2:16 PM

    I criticized a producer for dismissing the series "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer". This same producer ripped-off the series Buffy with his own show, and I felt it hypocritical of him to assail Joss' creation, and then benefit from stealing from that very creation. I specifically called him, that producer, a "moron". The word moron was originally used in the medical world to describe someone of low-intelligence.

    The owner/creator of Whedonesque asked me not to use the word again, and told me that they frown on debate at her web site. To that, I asked her, what can be said, and what cannot...on Whedonesque? As well, I reminded her of an individual's right to freedom of speech. BTW, I was told once before, that they also frowned on debate over politics, even if the conversation was organically raised from Whedonesque's posted stories. The moderators were constantly everywhere, all the time, with threats and warnings about what you could say, or think, and it got stifling. They were even going after posters, and postings, that were absolutely (white bread) harmless and completely benign? Posters, and posts, that seemed to perfectly fit Whedonesque's enforced policies? It was the book "1984" come true over there. So, after they banned me, I didn't bother to continue posting there, even under another screen name. After trying to speak with those that banned me, whom refused to write me back, I just gave-up.

    As for Amber, I am a fan, and have never spoken against her. Of course, I will admit being upset that she left Buffy, and I did assume that she was a diva, at first, and wrongly so. I thought, "Who is this girl, going-off calling herself a filmmaker, director, and writer, while abandoning Buffy?" However, I discovered that she was relentless and committed to her art, and, it was at that point, that I stopped and realized, this is a true artist, and I have been a fan ever since. You should see her film "Strickly Sexual", it's brilliant, and authentically true, when it comes to the depiction of relationships, and honest sexually. Why she hasn't included it in her blog profile, I don't know, but it is her finest performance--a real tour-de-force.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  73. That's: "when it comes to the depiction of relationships, and honest sexuality." Sorry for the typo.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Matthew Hawes

    I am not playing the poor victim of Whedonesque.com--what I said, however, is a fact, and there are others, like me, who have been banned. Add to that, why would I think that it would play well on Amber Benson's Blog for me to attack Whedonesque.com? It would seem that it would work to the contrary? They are, I assume, pro-Amber, and she, pro-Whedonesque? That said, their actions, that being...Whedonesque's staff and owner, didn't hurt me, and others, they, however, only managed to successfully hurt themselves by lowering their own net traffic, via bans, and thus, lowering hits to their web site, and related ad revenues, that those hits generate through that net traffic.

    The reason I won't give you my name is for aforementioned reasons. Blacklistings in this industry are very real, and not to be played with. I have stood before an entertainment exec who told me she knows every major exec in her genre of the industry, and she could, according to her, pick-up the phone and tell another executive at another rival company, across town, not to do business with a certain well known producer, one, who pissed her off, through his rep's actions. I was also witnessed similar behavior from another executive...at another, unrelated, company, who told me that he was a part of a group individuals (mafia) that could take anyone whom messed with them out to the desert, and kill and bury them. This guy was helping to run a division of a company that is a household name, and the same with the other exec. When you witness things like that, you learn to stay Anonymous.

    Look-up the quote from writer Joe Eszterhas about Michael Ovitz. Joe threatened to leave his, Ovitz' agency, I think it was CCA (?), and Ovitz threatened to send his foot soldiers up Sunset Blvd gunning for him. Joe ran to the L.A. Times and told them about this, and Ovitz admitted to the threat, but claimed that he was just joking. Trust me, or not, he wasn't joking.

    BTW, speaking of industry conspiracies, it is very interesting that Mr. Hinman has suddenly gone silent on the subject of Syfy vs. Amber? Very interesting, indeed? It has been days now since I pointed-out his active "conflict of interest" here, with regard to this story, and his apparent non-disclosure of this fact, previously, before the time in which I confronted him on this site...that being, Amber Benson's Blog?

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  75. That's CAA, Creative Artists Agency. Again, sorry for the typo.

    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  76. It's on whedonesque that I read the most stupidest comment on the whole thing : "... she's maybe perhaps finally going to get mentioned in People and the Tabloïds for this after years of being under the radar".
    Yeah, sure, a woman who is so proud to hold her new book in her hands (see her last twitpic) suddenly wants to be Lindsay Lohan!
    Give me a break! And remember her two posts : she NEVER used the word "plagiarism", she only pointed out the similarities and the coincidences and she had the right to do so. The word "plagiarism" appeared for the first time in a title page on Airlock Alpha and from that time everybody went nuts!
    And don't get me started about the others syfy pilots : Robin Hood in the future, a mix between Meteor Man and the Wonder Twins, National Treasure meets Firefly, Lee Majors creates a bionic Man and Kevin Sorbo as himself fighting demons like Bruce Campbell in "My name is Bruce"! Very imaginative (LOL!)
    Amber was right to stand for the work of the Drones team, any creator would have done the same thing. Now, give her a break and let's wait for "Among the ghosts"!
    I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Maybe Mr. Hinman hasn't come back because there is no new information and he is smarter than I and didn't want to continue speaking to you?

    I should have given up when you started talking about how the government is connected with the mafia and have great influence over the entertainment industry, the same industry you also claim to have grown up in.

    If not then, I must have a screw loose to still be trying to talk with someone who claims to have written a movie script in the 1980's that was sent to Saturday Night Live by his mom and then had it ripped off to make the movie Freeway. You could have at least said you had an idea for a good movie.

    If you are concerned about being blacklisted, your stories about what you have seen/heard sure as heck would make someone in that mafia controlled hollywood know who you are easier than just signing your first name.

    Or are you going to claim if you write Bob or Rick, Larry, etc will instantly make them know who you are? I bet that's why you can't say your age as well. The mafia is monitoring this blog and if you sign a post Frank age 42 the alarms will go off and they'll have found you.

    Nice try pretending to be an adult. If you're not some kid trying to sound smart I'll eat my hat.

    Amber is a very talented actor, writer and director. I'm sure she just loves fans like you pretending to be something you are not. It's okay to be just a regular person and give your opinion. I'm just a store owner myself. I didn't have to invent myself into some kind of big deal like you.

    See ya kid

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Matthew Hawes:

    Please don't write me anymore. I showed you the breadcrumb trail to follow, that being the Joe Eszterhas/Michael Ovitz story that you could have easily looked-up online, or you could looked-up Tommy James, or Frank Sinatra, and Tommy Mottola, and their mob connections, for extra added back-up to what I have said.

    Do you really think all of this could go on, and the government would not know about it, and could not stop it? Well, the whole industry is like that, even today, not just yesterday, but you don't wish to listen and learn, and I refuse to play your teacher, that train has left the station. Ignorance can be bliss, as you have so proudly proven. Enjoy it, if that is what you are looking for. Or is it that you are playing dumb, and are fishing for information, as I suspect, and have openly suspected all along?

    Signed, The Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    PS: As for Mr. Hinman, he obviously got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and fled the scene of the crime, or not? Oh, well, I guess we'll see him working as the editor of Syfy's entertainment news web-site, Blastr, soon? Hey, when you run-out of a quarter of a million dollars (probably more), you gotta keep the income coming in, one way, or another--truth, and integrity, in journalism, be damned?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Oh, well as I said, everybody went TOTALLY nuts!
    And that's entertainment?

    ReplyDelete
  80. The thing about you lying so often Little Red Riding Hood Guy is the fact you can't keep them straight.

    You previously said while in college, 1988/1989 or so, you wrote a script that was ripped off to make the movie Freeway. So that puts you at what, early 40's in age?

    It's weird then that when someone else laughed at your mob theories and said they had 30 years of being in the business producing and directing, you said you had more, a lot more experience than they did.

    So how does a guy by your own words who is in his early 40's, and had to have his mom send his script into Saturday Night live barely more than 20 years ago, suddenly claim to have been in the business longer than someone with 30 years in the industry?

    You make this stuff up as you go. That guy had 30 years experience, suddenly you have more. If he said he had been in the business 40 years, you'd say you had 41.

    Read up on Frank Sinatra to know he had mob ties? Isn't that a given that everyone knows he had mob ties, I think most people have seen The Godfather.

    Since you are a kid, with every time you speak I'm guessing younger and younger I'm sure I knew the story about Joe Eszterhas long before you ever did.

    What's laughable is your connecting the mafia with the government in some team up that controls Hollywood. If the mafia has such control over the entertainment industry, how come we've see so many stories about how bad the mafia is? If the mafia runs so much of Hollywood how does Tommy James put out a book about the mafia? As for the government being in league with the mafia? Yeah, that's why you never ever see mafia bosses go to prison. Oh wait, they do, all the time.

    So I know that summer vacation can get boring but you should be outside playing and not trying to pass yourself off as an adult with so much experience in the world. Amber would have been just as happy to have a nice regular teen say they supported her. You didn't have to pretend to be some know it all with so many years of experience.

    Oh and since you still for some reason are afraid to even write your first name, I'm going to make a guess. You seem like a Jerry to me. Maybe a Tim.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Copying projects seems to be a trend this week:

    http://twitchfilm.net/news/2010/08/tiff-2010-how-to-start-your-own-country-is-disturbingly-familiar.php

    ReplyDelete
  82. Sylvain Simon: I posted that on Whedonesque because, like most of Amber's adoring fans, I've long wanted her to be more visible to the general public. I'm upset to think it might be because of this instead of something more positive. If that wasn't clear from context, I'm sorry.

    Little Red Riding hood guy: Amber didn't "leave" BtVS; Tara's arc came to an abrupt end. She didn't come back to play FirstTara because many of her fans had such a strong emotional investment in the character that they would have been very upset by it.

    Matthew Hawes: I don't know about anyone else but I post as anonymous because I don't have a blog, LiveJournal, or any of those other neat things.

    I'm glad this seems to be quieting down.

    DaddyCatALSO

    ReplyDelete
  83. DaddyCatALSO, I know your name from Whedonesque I think :) Hi.

    You identify yourself though with a name you use elsewhere and that to me is a big difference. So while it's not your given name, it's still a name you can be identified as. Plus you aren't accusing anyone of something untoward like Little Red Riding Hood Guy is.

    I just think if you are going to go after someone and you can't even attach your first name to it, it may be your right but the words become meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  84. One last thing for the young Little Red Riding Hood Guy, a name that screams I have over 30 years of experience in the entertainment industry.

    You said to me, "Or is it that you are playing dumb, and are fishing for information, as I suspect, and have openly suspected all along?"

    Someone is projecting. Reading up I see you said this to Mr. Hinman.

    "My post was a bit of a bait to get you to reveal the inside details of your involvement, and business dealings with SciFi (now Syfy)"

    I don't have to play around, I don't have to make this a game. You're the one who has already admitted in this blog to baiting someone for information. Just because you act that way, please don't assume others drop to your level.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Bitchfight!!!

    *throws purse full of pastries and cream at nearest person*

    ReplyDelete
  86. Since none of this has anything to do with anything other than two people sniping at each other, maybe it's time to give it a rest?

    Signed,

    Gettin' Bored

    ReplyDelete
  87. I second that.

    Signed,

    Gettin' totally Bored.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Mmmm, I don't really know what to think about the whole Drones/Human relations thing...
    The whole thing just keep escalating, thatś for sure.
    I think it's just a coincidence (and that ideas are not the same as fully developed projects and how you prove someone stole your idea?) and Amber posted while upset her conspiration theory, then we have all of her super loyal fans commenting,the angry greek angrier than ever, then Scott Pendergrast felt really upset and answered, then we have this post, which goes a little bit further than conspiration theory... And then we see lots of off-toppic fighting comments in this post.
    Okay, may as well throw my off-topic comment:
    Geeks and nerds of the world: enjoy, http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

    Oh, also... I have the biggest crush on you, Amber!!!! There, anonymous crazy fangirl!!! Ohhh, the things I say while anonymous!!!

    P.S. Sorry about my bad english. I'm spanish. I basically have *learned* english watching series and reading fanfics.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "(and that ideas are not the same as fully developed projects and how you prove someone stole your idea?)"

    I mean, I know Drones is already a movie, but the idea about Drones is and idea, and the idea about Human relations.. I meann, I read that copyright is not about "ideas", it's about the developed idea, the script, the poem, the song, whatever...

    ReplyDelete
  90. @August 10, 2010 5:15 PM

    Why do so many Spanish speakers apologize for their English, when they speak, and write, with such wonderful English? You have a great command of the English language--be proud of it. I saw only a few flaws in what you wrote. It's...Conspiracy Theory, not Conspiration Theory, and Off-Topic, not Off-Toppic. Other than that, your spelling, sentence structure, and overall writing structure, is just perfect. Really, it's absolutely fabulous. Look, I have typos in what wrote (see my previous posts...above), and a lot more than you have in your post, and English is my first language. Keep studying English, you have a real gift which you can expand upon here, and one that you must not abandon. You write better than most Americans and British people--that is the truth. For you to have picked-up English...the way you have, is just amazing, and inspiring. Please continue to build upon your abilities!!!! I tell my friend (whose original language is not English) similar things, but, I have always been honest with that friend. Like you, my friend has a gift for foreign languages, and specifically English. I love to see my friend grow as an English speaker, and I wish the same ongoing growth...for you!!! Kudos!!!! Have an amazing journey, in your experience studying English!!!

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  91. Sorry for the typo. See my correction below:


    "Look, I have typos in what I wrote (see my previous posts...above)"

    See, I told you, I make mistakes also, even as a native English speaker. I hope my posting (above) puts a smile on your face, and encourages you to believe in yourself, with respect to your English writing and speaking abilities.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  92. Off-topic:

    Well, thanks. My english is not so great. I can understand everything I read but I still have some problems with listening. And a few more with talking. But, yes, I guess my spelling is not so bad. I'm usually good at grammar and all of that stuff. I'm a grammar nazi (in spanish, I mean).
    And I guess a lot of spanish people apologize because we don't usually speak a fluid english. And I didn really self-taught myself english (I lack the discipline for that). I learned english in school, but that didn't work that well. Not a really challenging level, I guess. Or perharpd not the best way to learn a language. I think you learn much more watching movies in the language you want to learn or yes, reading fanfics (lol).

    Sorry again for this new off-topic.

    Spanish fangirl.

    ReplyDelete
  93. 100% agree with you, Spanish fangirl. I'm the French fanboy from the previous posts and I learned english almost like you (because my english teacher wasn't very inspirational) : I read a lot (books and comic-books, in french and in english) and I watch movies and tv series in english (thanks for the DVDs, it wasn't possible with the tapes in the old time...man, I feel old by saying this).I even lived in England for a training experience years ago.
    These are the best ways to learn a foreign language by yourself... and I really wanted to read Amber's books and comic-books, because they're not translated in french.

    ReplyDelete
  94. My last off-topic, I promise, ;)

    Yep, definetely the best way to learn a language, Simon. :)
    I don't know in France but here in Spain we dub everything. I wish I could go to the cinema and watch a movie in original version with subtittles. But that only happens at film festivals. Lucky me, I live most part of the year in San Sebastian where we have a famous International Film Festival and several more minor festivals.
    And now, thanks to the DTV I get to watch Buffy episodes in original version which really makes the diference for me.
    And we have, of course, THE INTERNET.

    Spanish fangirl.

    ReplyDelete
  95. THE INTERNET.

    Claude, spanish fangirl.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Oh yeah, it was great to finally see Buffy in the original version. I couldn't stand Tara's french voice, and Once More with feeling was entirely dubbed, even the songs! Horrible!
    The real OMWF was a relief for my ears.
    And don't worry about the off-topics comments.
    We, europeans, brought back peace to Amber's blog and it was about time!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Hello, Spanish Fangirl:

    I'm sure Amber would allow us this conversation. The world can seem so small, and yet, be such a big place? Spain, it must be lovely there? I'm a dyslexic, so I do my best with the English language, although it is a constant struggle, so I envy you, and your abilities, both in your native language, and in my own, English. I am considered to be a very good writer, but at times, the dyslexia gets the better of me when I am stressed, tired, or just not focusing as hard as I need to. In a way, English is a foreign language to me.

    I am glad that Amber and you are Fangirls, as it, the current influx of women as fans and creators in genre works, is changing the climate of Hollywood, and genre related works, for the better. Half of all writers in Hollywood during the "Golden Age" were women. That was a time when the best films were made. As their numbers shrunk, women writers, film lost something, not all, certainly, but many; I think because we lost the female voice in writing, to a large extent? I hope that maybe you will become a writer like Amber, and change the entertainment field's largely men only culture, as Amber is doing, as well as others. Yes, there is a big change in the wind, and with your command of language and words, and your love of the Film/TV arts, you would be marvelous asset to the industry!!!

    As per the original topic of this blog entry, that being Amber's battle over Syfy possibly plagiarizing her production: I logged on to fight on her behalf because I thought it unfair that she was, in my view, being unfairly beaten-up on by others; mostly men. So, as a man, I chimed in...to defend her honor. I know I stayed a bit too long here, and went a little, to a lot, off-topic at times, but I mean well. It has been a pleasure speaking with you Spanish Fangirl, and all.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  98. Spanish fangirl:

    Oh, I think we didn't dub the songs in Spain. That's horrible!! Tara's voice in sapnish... Well, her stutter sounded really artificial to me and she also sounded olded. Anyway, I didn really Tara at the begining. Too shy, I think. I actually like when she dumps Willow, she stands up for herself and she blosoms (a bit) and then they kill her. Not nice. And I like some fanfics not-so-shy Tara. I even read some fanfics where Tara is a domme (without her being a vamp). It's always the quiet ones, they say. Lol.
    "We europeans brought peace..." Hahahaha. Sure we did.
    Little Red, I thought about logging when I read the first post about Drones/Human relations but I didn't want to rush. I have to say I kinda get Hinman's point (as I said before: if I'm not mistaken copyright is not about ideas), though I wouldn't suggest this is a publicity stunt at all, nor would I threaten Amber with libel suits. I think Amber is genuinely concerned about her idea being ripped off, I just personally think it's a bit too soon to imply plagiarism or to point out the coincidences. I think this began as a matter of distrusting Syfy (I don't know if I'm mistaken but people seem to think Syfy aren't that great respecting copyright), I myself (without knowing anything about Syfy) watched the whole thing as big bully fish VS indie filmmakers and writers and wanted too to "chime in and defend her honor", ;) But then I read about Scott and I was like: wait a minute, Human relations has a writer too...

    ReplyDelete
  99. The last comment was mine. I don't know why I wrote my nickname at the beginning like I was answering myself, instead of signing with it.
    Spanish fangirl.
    Okay, no more comments today. I'm going to watch a soap-opera with my mom and then study a little. No more procastination.
    Spanish fangirl.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hi, Spanish Fangirl

    Mr. Prendergast keeps changing his story, regarding timelines, about when, he created his script outline, and then, the resulting script, and that is a big issue. Further, in the fore blog posting...about this matter, one of the posters claims that Prendergast, at one point, accused Amber's production of lifting his idea, or at least, speculated about it as a possibility? This, even though her production pre-dates his, and some of the dates of his script development coincide with key dates of her already in production project, which was in the midst of live-action filming, and wrapping production. That just does not make any sense, and to add to that, Mr. Hinman sold the name of his web site to SciFi Channel, which changed its name to Syfy, using the spelling of Mr. Hinman's formally named site,at time of the sale; something Mr. Hinman failed to inform his readers about, apparently so. I have confronted him on the matter, and onlt then did he admit to the financial transaction between himself and Syfy, but then failed to give any follow-up as to whether he informed his readers, and the readers of this blog, of his personal financial involvement with Syfy...and thus, the "conflict of interest" that it caused. It has now been near a full week since I asked that question, and Mr. Hinman's silence, in terms of failing to answer that question, speaks volumes.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  101. PS: Sorry, I had to step out for a moment, well a few hours.

    Back to the subject at hand. All trial judges and lawyers regularly point-out, that a truthful person doesn't change and evolve (morph) facts within their story. Facts remain fixed, unless someone is lying.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  102. Just in case anyone doubts that Hollywood steals from writers, here is a news story that just hit TMZ:

    Writer Sues -- My Agent Stole My 'Lottery Ticket'
    34 minutes ago by TMZ Staff


    Ice Cube's new movie "Lottery Ticket" doesn't come out for another week -- but there's already a legal fight over the flick ... from a screenwriter who claims his agent ripped off his idea and gave it to another one of his clients.



    The man filing the lawsuit is Tom Huang -- who once wrote an episode of "The Mullets" back in 2003.

    According to legal documents, Huang claims he came up with an idea for a movie back in 2004, wrote a "treatment" for it ... and talked it over with his agent Brad Kaplan.

    But in the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in L.A. County Superior Court, Huang claims Kaplan "stole" the idea and gave it to one of his clients named Erik White .. who went on to write and direct "Lottery Ticket."

    Huang claims "Lottery Ticket" ripped off all sorts of elements from his movie -- including "detailed plot elements, characters, and scenes."

    Huang is suing for an undisclosed amount -- but states in the lawsuit that he believes "Lottery Ticket" will rake in millions ... so it's safe to say he's gonna want a ton of cash.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "All trial judges and lawyers regularly point-out, that a truthful person doesn't change and evolve (morph) facts within their story. Facts remain fixed, unless someone is lying."

    You know, that is an excellent point. Truthful people don't change or evolve facts. So what does this mean then?

    July 31, 11:17pm - Little Red Riding Hood Guy
    http://amberbensonwrotethis.blogspot.com/2010/07/drones-tv-show.html#comments

    Quote: "I wrote something when I was in college which reworked Little Red Riding Hood as a quirky, dark comedy in present day...with Red Riding Hood recast as a teen hitch-hiking to grandma's house, and the wolf was recast as a human male sociopath, who happens to be a pervert--and possibly...a would-be sex offender. It was a real hit in class when they did a read through of the script. Later, my mom sent it around to Saturday Night Live, and elsewhere, but we received no return letters to comfirm receipt of my script.

    No one replied to my mother's mailings, but about 6 to 8 years later, here comes a Reese Witherspoon movie named "Freeway"...about an updated Little Red Riding Hood in modern times, cast as a girl who is picked-up by a sociopath/would-be rapist, as she is hitch-hiking."

    For those of you not up on your Reese Witherspoon movies, Freeway was released in 1996. If Little Red Riding Hood Guy wrote a script 6-8 years prior to that, it was between 1988-1990. So he was, by his own admission in college 20-22 years ago.

    In subsequent comments, Little Red Riding Hood Guy spoke of the large mob influence in the entertainment industry. To which another person replied the following.

    August 3, 5:00pm - Anonymous
    http://amberbensonwrotethis.blogspot.com/2010/07/drones-tv-show.html#comments

    Quote: "To the Anonymous poster who stated,"This industry is not what it appears, there is a very, very...large mob influence, and yes, it is very real", as someone with thirty years producing and directing films in this business I can only LMFAO."

    It took him a week to reply but when he did, Little Red Riding Hood Guy's answer was this

    August 10, 1:08am - Little Red Riding Hood Guy
    http://amberbensonwrotethis.blogspot.com/2010/07/drones-tv-show.html#comments

    Quote: "I have been in the business a lot longer than you, and you are not being truthful. There is a very large mob influence in this industry."

    We have already established, by his own words that 20-22 years ago Little Red Riding Hood Guy was in college and needed his mother's help to send out the script he allegedly wrote. Yet when someone says they have 30 years experience producing and directing films, suddenly his story changes and he now has been in the industry for a lot longer than 30 years.

    His facts changed. His story evolved. Is Little Red Riding Hood Guy being truthful?

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Matthew Hawes:

    You are very immature. You never asked how I came about being in the business, so it went right over your head. I come from a show business family, and I was raised in the business. No facts that I have given, have changed. I have been in this business since I was a very small child. Via that opportunity, which I was born into, I have witnessed the workings of the entertainment industry, from the inside out, and have been around very rich and powerful people, and largely, that was my film school, growing-up on film and TV sets. I was a child actor, started from the time of a baby. I was always told about various intrigues in the business, since I can remember, and most seemed like fantasy stories to me, but you find yourself bookmarking what you are told, or overhear, in your brain, never thinking that you will ever learn the answers directly for yourself, and then you grow-up and are directly exposed to what you were told, like info about the mob and show biz. The reason why my mom sent my script in, is she knew where to send it, as she was vastly more well seasoned than me, in this very strange business, at the time.

    Back to the ugly side of the business, including the mob; until I witnessed it for myself, and was involved with powerful people (VIPs) who were a part of said conspiracies--well, like you, I didn't know, other than what I had been told. SAG (The Screen Actors Guild) is a great Union for actors, it really is, well as compared to the music business, which has a poor union in the Musicians Union, but even SAG can't protect its members from blacklistings and the mob influence.

    There are only really about 5 major companies in the business, so it has become rather incestuous, meaning, all the execs/workers, tend to know each other, and their careers are like a game of musical chairs. For instance, if they leave one company, they go right across the street, and move to another--again and again. They associate daily at the same restaurants and social engagements, and thus, retain a friendly relationship--for networking business reasons. Many of these people are related, also; you never know whom is related to whom. Like if I can recall, Dustin Hoffman has a black son, the singular, among his kids. And if I recall correctly, Beau Bridges has a black son, whom is adopted. You don't know which exec is married to whom, or dating whom, and if you are dealing with a mogul's mistress, someone whom is placed in an executive position, or as an AD on a film sets, or as a producer, talkshow hostess, etc. My point is, you never know which person is related to whom, and why, so if you develop a problem with someone, well, your life can be instantly up in the air, and at the mercy of someone else.

    That said, I am always truthful, as integrity is all one has to set them apart in this life, and in this business. Once your reputation is compromised by lying, you can never get it back, in the eyes of others.


    Signed, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  105. That was quite a fight.
    Hope it was the last round, guys!

    ReplyDelete
  106. @Anonymous--August 13, 2010 7:01 AM

    Agreed, however, I was never in a fight with Mr. Hawes--he, however, was attempting to confront me?

    Matthew Hawes' curious comments, as directed at me, first, and obviously, began as a poor attempt at vetting me, and then--soon, changed into what appears to be an orchestrated campaign of misdirection--to focus readers away from the facts, and questions, that I raised...about, and in support, of Amber Benson's would-be case--and against those who were assailing her. Again, I point to Mr. Hinman's "conflict of interest", which he has fled giving any additional comment on since I exposed him as being anything but a non-disinterested party, as he claimed to be, in this story.

    Also, there is the issue of Mr. Prendergast suspect, and ever evolving, timeline for the creation of his series pilot script, and its script treatment (outline) and concept. That is the focus here, and something that others wish you to be distracted away from examining, with faux arguments that have nothing to do with this matter. It's an old debating technique, that is frequently used as a strategy; for, when you are losing an argument, the losing side often presents misdirection to distract the audience from their opponent's truthful points, thus, their (the winning side's) message is lost, or placed in a fog of confusion.

    When there is a elephant in the room, and otherwise, very intelligent people, seem to not notice it, well then, at that very moment, you instantly know something is wrong, as they have to be equally aware of the presence of that elephant, as you are. Hence, when there is an open secret that everyone should be addressing, but aren't, clearly, you are not in the loop. You, the observer (and outsider), have become aware of something that you weren't supposed to know, or see--the elephant, in this case, being a certain inconvenient fact of evidence, that others in the room, don't wish you to notice, or confront, because when you do, their culpability in a crime becomes exposed, and they can't afford that.

    I am reminded of the old tale of The King Who Had No Clothes. It was a little boy's innocence, that gave him the ability to dare to stand-up and say the obvious, when others would not, that being the fact that their king was not wise, but rather, was a fool--who was duped? Maybe I am a bit of an innocent, the reason why I speak the truth, but somebody had to say it, or the status-quo would remain the same, and unchanged--so I did.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  107. ".. In fact, my show is based on a script I wrote in 1995, based on a job I had in Chicago in 1995-96."
    "My show has been in development since August of 2008"
    May 2009 interview: "I’m writing a tv pilot too."
    "It was not developed at Syfy -- we brought it to them independently in January of 2010."

    This is Scott's timeline. It has not changed or evolved. It is completely plausible that by May of 2009 he was still writing (developing) this TV pilot. He did not specify in the May interview what the pilot was about. Was he referring to "Human Relations" or some other pilot project? Regardless, I am not defending Scott. The dates he has provided may very well be bogus. I am merely pointing out the facts as they have been presented publically.

    @ LRRHG August 13, 2010 3:52 PM
    "..others wish you to be distracted away from examining, with faux arguments that have nothing to do with this matter. It's an old debating technique, that is frequently used as a strategy; for, when you are losing an argument, the losing side often presents misdirection to distract the audience from their opponent's truthful points."

    So what does Whedonesque, Dustin Hoffman's children, the Mafia etc. etc. etc. have to do with SYFY and DRONES? Really, this is ridiculous.

    You can, and should, support Amber without twisting facts and launching personal attacks against other posters, webmasters and moderators. A lot of what is being said here is totally out of line. Show Amber the respect she deserves. Remember.. this is HER blog.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I was educating a naive poster about that dangers of the business, and upsetting the apple cart...within this business--in answer to said poster's specific questions.

    You will recall, that I was asked to identify myself by name? The reason I haven't, as I explained to him, is for the reasons I have previously given (I refer you back to my above series of posts for your personal edification), that being the very real issue of blacklisting in the entertainment industry, and the mafia plays prominent roles in such things, and the rather overwhelming, and large, presence of nepotism, also has its role. As for the latter, once you have crossed someone in the industry, or are deemed to have, you never know who is in position to receive a fateful phone call from them, or their reps...that says, "Don't hire that girl or guy", and enforce it. Many people who are in prime positions (job posts) in the industry, are--more often...than not, related to others in this business whom are equally, or more, powerful--or to degrees, less powerful, one way, or another; individuals whom often go by different last names, and are not always of the same color, or seeming, background--so when you mess with someone, or are perceived to, you are walking in an invisible/stealth minefield. You are placed on an enemies list, and you never know who is going to pull the rug out from under you, at anytime, on any deal.

    That said, I can see you are still interested in the misdirection that you have been offered, instead of the real show (that being Amber Benson vs. Syfy).

    A point of advice, don't look at the rock being thrown, or the direction it is being thrown in, rather, keep your eyes on the hands that are throwing the rock, and raise your eyes...all the way up their arms, and neck, to their face--so that you know who is throwing that rock. Once you learn that, then you will be able to deduce why they are throwing said rock, and that is, again, to distract you from what you should be viewing, and that is the matter at hand, and certain related evidence, in this case, as admitted to by Mr. Prendergast. At every turn, the first two dates that he delivered in defense of himself, conveniently corresponded with crucial dates given by Ms. Benson...where, and when, she was in progress of shooting, or completing, major aspects of the live-action filming of her production. Coincidence? I don't think so! And when Mr. Prendergast curiously selected a third date, one going back, nearly 15 years earlier, 1995, (this being a date when he claims that he had originally created the idea for his work--a date which is now in serious question), he was unable to present evidence--printed, handwritten, via hard-drive, software, and or, otherwise, to prove his latest claim--a claim that is expanding, and morphing, all the time, it seems?

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  109. @August 13, 2010 4:37 PM


    If Prendergast is telling the truth, fine, I am all for it, but have him deliver his notes and treatment from 1995. If he can refer to it, 15 years later, as he has, as fact, he isn't doing it from memory, and thus, would have to be looking at a written piece of evidence, if true--short of that, he is guessing, or not being truthful. Where is the paperwork, or software/hardware for forensic examination by independent experts? If he has it, turn it over to a non-related, and disinterested, reliable/trusted press organization of some renown, and integrity, for said examination.

    If your interest is indeed the truth...in this matter, you shouldn't have any problem with that simple request--but in fact, you should eagerly invite, and support, it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. For your information, I fully support Amber. I don't need to attack anyone and everyone, as you have, to do that. You are disrespecting Amber by doing that and by using her blog as your personal soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
  111. @August 13, 2010 8:43 PM

    Your claims are specious and therefore, false in totality. I am the only one here, at least, of the last week, who has consistingly, and unwaveringly, supported Ms. Amber Benson and her cause. As for my soapbox--again, I was asked--no demanded, to answer certain questions, by a certain poster--which I did. Then next, you made unfounded accusations against me, in-line with said poster (perhaps, you are one in the same?), to which point, I answered, in-full.

    It would be disrespectful, to you, for me not to answer your questions, or misinterpretations of my statements, and, retroactively, it would be disrespectful to me to allow any falsehoods against my good character...stand...unaddressed.

    Again, I ask you to support me in requesting that any paperwork, or software/hardware that Mr. Prendergast has in his possession--that which was used to germinate his aforementioned project, in 1995, as he has previously claimed, and that which can prove his claims of originating the idea in question, be made public for media examination, and that by forensic experts, as ultimately, delivering the truth of this matter in total...will be a real show of unadulterated respect to, and for, Ms. Amber Benson.

    If Mr. Prendergast cannot prove his date of authorship, that is a major problem. His stated date of his work's creation, suggests that he has provable, and unrefutable hard evidence, to show the 1995 date, as being accurate. If it is so, that you truly stand-by Ms. Benson, then join me in demanding that Mr. Prendergast hand-over said evidence. Anything short of that, by you, would serve to reveal that you do not support Ms. Benson.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Isn't it clear that the man with the umbrella, standing on the grassy knoll, is the real killer?

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ LRRHG August 13, 2010 10:23 PM
    I don’t have to join YOU to support Amber. Amber is not demanding Scott produce papers or other materials for forensic analysis. That’s YOUR demand, not hers. Amber specifically asked the question, “How are these two projects different?” And states, “All he has to do is answer that question and we can lay the issue to rest.” You continue to attack people, and now, even someone (me) who honestly supports her. And frankly, anyone who thinks Dustin Hoffman, Beau Bridges or any Caucasian person for that matter, with an African American child is some kind of shocking revelation is probably a racist. Who are you that you think people must join YOUR demands otherwise they don’t truly support Amber? That is nonsense.
    @ LRRHG August 1, 2010 6:32 PM: “My advice to Amber is, again, move on...”
    I strongly encourage you to take your own advice.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @August 15, 2010 7:32 PM:

    Color is not a shocking revelation, the shocking revelation, is that you don't know who is who in this industry, in regard to whom is related to whom...and why, and how it may affect you, should you be placed on a blacklist. Whether it be a child, cousin, lover, friend, business acquaintance, or other, of someone you have managed to tick-off, you may become targeted by those that are loyal to them--and that is, and was, clearly my point. Your specious attempts to twist my statements, are a new low for you. The hyperbole that you are spewing gets more self-serving with every new intentionally misleading falsehood that you write.

    As for Amber Benson, she asked for answers to her questions, and since the dates to which Mr. Prendergast supposedly created his story treatment are actively in question by Ms. Benson, then it is only logical, that if he, Prendergast, is seeking to prove that he is indeed innocent of said accusations, as he has strongly insisted, by openly denying the charges elsewhere, and supplying the press with the 3 aforemention dates, then it is also logical, that he is serious in attempting to be transparent here. If true, he will continue his efforts at transparency by supplying paperwork, and or, software/hardware evidence...to prove his case. If he does so, and it is vetted by independent experts, to his advantage, case closed, but if not, the debate continues, and suspicion will only continue to grow, and rightly so. Someone who has nothing to hide, won't hide it.

    If you were honestly hoping for a truth to be found here in this matter of Benson vs. SyFy, or for the right thing be done, for either side, you would support such transparency, but you became surprisingly evasive when asked to lend said support, and have now refused--repeatedly??? Sounds like you have a horse in the race here (?), and it certainly isn't to Amber Benson's benefit.

    You are not a fan, or a supporter of Ms. Benson. Yes, it is clear that you have a hidden agenda, one that does not mean Ms. Benson, or her case, well.

    As per my advice to Ms. Benson, I told her, predicted even, what she would be facing at the hands of an unscrupulous entertainment industry. Since Ms. Benson has chosen to press on with her case, regardless, I choose to support her fight, nevertheless--as I am not a fair weather friend, or fan. You, however, by your ending comments--that which is seen in your last post (above), as framed in the form of a veil threat--one that is directed at me, have proven my point, exactly.

    I have dealt with far worse than you. Heroes don't blink, and I am not blinking, or backing down.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @August 15, 2010 7:32 PM

    PS: Thank you--the framing of your words, have served to prove that something here...is not only criminally amiss about this case, but it serves to prove that the script idea was indeed most likely stolen, based upon your veil threat, against me, here, tonight, and exhibits an increased pattern of desperation to hide something of great import of evidentiary value; that being the hardcopy paperwork, and software/hardware needed for forensic analysis that can establish the forementioned dates of authorship, or prove them to be completely false. Further, it serves to show that the players in this alleged theft, are actively trying to encourage (intimidate) Ms. Benson and others (me) to walk away. Innocent people don't make threats. I'm am sure the authorities would be very interested in meeting you, et al? You can explain yourselves to the Justice Department.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  116. uh oh, I think mr Red Riding Hood might have had a bit of a mental shock at the workings of a blacklist after he stepped on someone's toes... and is now making things VERY big in his head. Poor guy.

    Can we now continue our regular scheduled bitchfight?
    *Throws plenty purses of pie, pudding and pastries*

    (either that or just stop fighting and support Amber?)

    ReplyDelete
  117. Just love Rainbow Nerdette's comments, still so funny!
    Last time I checked that blog, it was 5 days ago and I can see that my calls for peace remains unanswered. Mr Red Riding, I know you genuinely wanted to help Amber, and your comments on the industry were very interesting...in the beginning.
    I'm not naïve, I know the industry is rotten, but you actually began to sound like a know it all, and to quote a song I like "everybody hates a know it all" (and don't sue me for saying this)!Take a little break and stay away from the net for a few days. I do that regularly and it's really good for the sanity of the mind.
    A bientôt!

    ReplyDelete
  118. @Rainbow Nerdette and Sylvain SIMON


    The blacklist is real. I was regularly informed of it...as rumor, until I specifically, and directly, heard two execs, on different occasions, make threat of the use of it against others, the reason for my wish to protect the integrity of my statements from untrue counter arguments, for the edification of would-be readers.

    As you can see, upon mentioning said issues, in my coversation with a certain party, I was accused of making these intrigues up, to which I responded, again, in order to clarify my intent, and words, and to defend the truth.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  119. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  120. *takes a tiny break from the bitch/food-fight*

    Yup, I know the blacklist thing is very real, I've had a run in with a local one and it had NOTHING to do with my abilities on the job (in fact I was already hired after being picked from a bunch of people, but got fired before I even started the job. They only checked me after I was hired... and a sociopathic aqaintance of mine had put me on... She was long since fired for exactly that, being a sociopath but all the people she falsely accused stayed on the list) so I really do believe you...

    But all the rest seems a tiny tad paranoid, and on top of that, sorta irrelevant to the discussion ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  121. @Rainbow Nerdette:

    You are right, it is irrelevant to the discussion, but however, it is indirectly relevant as to a question I was asked, which hinged on the accurancy of my truth-telling, and the integrity of that truth--in regard to my not wishing to disclose my name. Again, this is why I defended my ground here, on that particular subject matter, as if you are seemingly impeached on one issue, it can be assumed that you are being untruthful about the whole of your account.

    I recall hearing of a book, years ago, it was about MCA Records. I have since forgotten the title, and I never read that book, but in the media reports about its contents, which I saw, it was revealed that a well known mafia hitman had an office there, in MCA Records. When the company was approached by the FBI about it, neither the company, nor the hitman (a black suited older man, whose picture was shown in the report), could explain why he had an office there, or what his position was? BTW, they found him there unexpectedly, as they were conducting another investigation at MCA Records, at the time. This happened during the late 80s early 90s. I have independently confirmed knowledge of similar activity elsewhere, from uninpeachable and legendary celebrity sources, that will go undisclosed.

    Just letting you know how very deep the rabbit hole goes, in terms of the dark intrigues of this industry. I wish I was over-exaggerating, or paranoid, alas, I am not.

    Now, back to the intended subject of Amber's postings. I apologize for diverting away from said matter, but I felt it neccesary to address the individual who was questioning me, in detail, or his specious claims would have stood unrefuted, and thus, taken on the faux appearance of truth.

    Sincerely, Little Red Riding Hood Guy

    ReplyDelete
  122. proceeds purposefully plus precipitously propelling pie pudding & pastries

    *it's just more fun, sorry. this is the last I'll say anything about it*

    ReplyDelete
  123. That's "unimpeachable". Sorry for the typo.

    ReplyDelete
  124. LRRHG please move on. You've posted interesting and scandalous little tid bits about the business of show. However these things have been going on since the beginning. The game remains the same and the faces change. Bugsy Segal anyone? Anywhere there is money to be made, organized crime (not just mafia sweetie) will muscle in. That's why they call it swimming with sharks, 'cos that's what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens in Hollywood all the time. I'm sorry this happened to you, Amber. I don't get why some people think you handled this in the wrong way. If it was me I'd be scorching the earth with my rage. Seriously even though you don't have hard facts right now, wouldn't anyone feel violated if they trusted someone (in your case SYFY) with their creative idea, and then all of the sudden they read or see something almost the exact same idea as theirs. It's natural and human to be annoyed, pissed, and to feel slightly betrayed. Honestly I would be seeking legal action as soon as the script is available. Again, Amber, I am so sorry that this has happened. Personally I hope my own ideas will never be taken advantage of by this kind of screwed skewed system.

    ReplyDelete
  126. While I hope that the two projects turn out to be different enough to exist as separate properties, and that all this adds up to good publicity for both of them, I think this is bad for letting the creative works speak for themselves. I hate seeing ideas tainted by exterior controversy.

    Having said that, seeing two things so similar delivered to market within such a narrow timeframe makes my paranoia bone twinge. I have difficulty believing in coincidence.

    Ideas get duplicated all the time, and the SyFy channel has provided example after example of this with numerous knock off movies and derivative television shows. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the TV show was a knock off of the movie, but I'll reserve my final judgement until I've seen both.

    What I'd really like to say here is that I think it's important for the people involved with Drones and Human Relations to state their cases for being the creators of their properties. To be honest, I'm on Amber's side all the way, but both sides must state their intellectual rights because it is very important to defend your right to control / be compensated / be responsible for an idea that you had a part in developing and delivering to the public.

    If you don't defend your intellectual property, it is much harder to fight for your rights to it after it's been taken or copied in some way. While I hope this doesn't turn into a massive time consuming online brawl between show runners, I am glad that both sides have stated their case as it stands.

    As for Pendergrast not being able to produce an original screen play dating back to '94-'95, well, that's negligence on his part. If you've had an idea worth writing an entire document on, then you at least shelf an actual copy for safe keeping.

    I know I still have the teleplay and original storyboards for Gene Pool, which was partially responsible for inspiring the Spinward Fringe series - and that was shelved in 2001 after spending a year in development. If anyone ever questioned my ownership over Spinward Fringe, I could present that and many other original drafts to back myself up. Drafts that would clearly demonstrate a development of concepts and characters that led up to a final product. It's important that I keep these documents now because the Spinward Fringe series is now 6 books long and has about a thousand or so regular readers.

    Back to the point: I'm hoping that this controversy somehow leads to something positive. If that's not possible, I hope whoever deserves the credit for the concepts driving both properties get the respect they should have coming to them. It's possible because both parties have stepped forward and laid their claim.

    Good luck Amber and Drones crew.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I've just watched The Killing Jar and heard The One I Need sung at the end- a beautiful voice. I can't find any information on where to buy the soundtrack or preferably just this single- does anyone know? Any help appreciated! Thanks, Kate

    ReplyDelete
  128. I love to read your blog. it is very interesting to me, and I'm sure other readers.
    I work in foreign currency investments (forex) my manager forced me to read a lot
    forex books
    but it's very boring so I'm running here to read your blog .. :)

    ReplyDelete
  129. This is a sort of blog we can have loads of information i would like to appreciate the intelligence of this blog’s owner

    ReplyDelete