"The Perfect Storm"- The Imperfect Lawsuit
starcro1
filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and two other companies involved in the
production of the film "The Perfect Storm." The Tyne family claims that the
movie presents Capt. Tyne, as portrayed by George Clooney, in a false and
unflattering light, that the film was produced without the family's
permission, and that it invaded their privacy.
"The Perfect Storm" is a dramatization of the true story of how Billy
Tyne and five swordfishermen under his command were killed when their boat
was swallowed up in a massive storm on the Atlantic Ocean.
I'm no lawyer, but I have studied law as it pertains to mass
communications. I could be wrong (please tell me if I am) but I don't think
the Tyne family has any standing to file a lawsuit.
The point that the movie libeled Billy Tyne is moot because Tyne is
dead. Only the specific person identified can claim damage from defamation,
and that right terminates upon the individual's death. Writers and artists
can say anything they want about the dead, true or not, and nobody has the
standing to sue them.
The filmmakers didn't need the Tyne family's permission to make the film
because the loss of Tyne and his crew was a well-known news story. The facts
of a news story cannot be owned, although a specific account, such as the
book the film is based on, can be copyrighted.
The Tyne family's claim of invasion of privacy is grasping at straws.
Tyne's wife and children are not protrayed in the movie; if I remember
correctly, they aren't even mentioned in absence. A person approaching the
film without having known the story, (someone like me,) would not have known
that Tyne was a husband or a father. If the family weren't specifically
identified, they suffered no recoverable damage.
The movie did suggest that Tyne may have been romantically involved with
another fishing boat captain, Linda Greenlaw (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio).
I don't know if that part of the movie is true or not. If it isn't, I can
understand the Tyne family being upset. But they still have no standing to
sue.
I read recently that Greenlaw, who claims to be the only female
swordfishing boat captain in the world, has written her own book about her
experiences (as the character of Greenlaw is the only major character still
alive at the end of the movie, I smell sequel!)
MFalc1
>The wife and children of doomed fishing boat skipper Billy Tyne Jr. have
>filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and two other companies involved in the
>production of the film "The Perfect Storm."
>The Tyne family claims that the
>movie presents Capt. Tyne, as portrayed by George Clooney, in a false and
>unflattering light, that the film was produced without the family's
>permission, and that it invaded their privacy.
<rest of post snipped>
I like how the attorney(s) waited to file (or waited to make the announcement
to the press) until the film grossed somewhat north of $100 million. Would
there have been a lawsuit if the film had been a financial failure?
Mark L. Falconer-film and video reviews at
http://hometown.aol.com/mfalc1/home.html
penrose
separated. The part of the lawsuit which annoyed the shit out of me was how
their likeness were used and distorted. What, the insert of a photo with
screentime of maybe 2 seconds? Fuck me running this is bullshit.
I'm grabbing a shotgun and hopping on an eastbound plane!
KalElFan
>... About two thirds of the movie are
>completely fictitious. Especially the reason why Tyne drove out late
>in the season to prove his ability as swordfish captain. In the book
>Tyne is just doing his job. In the movie he makes a number of fatal
>mistakes.
That's a nice way of putting it. "He's a fucking idiot" is probably
more to the point. Same with pretty much the whole crew -- the
whole lot of them are morons, which is one of the reasons why
the movie works. (They pretty much deserve to die and therefore
the audience doesn't feel too negative about the ending; the heavy
focus on the Coast Guard subplot also helps soften the ending.)
I made the same point at the time I first commented on the movie
here, and also said I meant no disrespect to the real-life crew
who died, or fishermen generally because I'm sure they weren't
portrayed correctly in that respect. Your "Tyne is just doing his
job" would probably have been more like it for him and the crew,
but a straight tragedy like that would tend to be box office poison
despite The Wave. It certainly wouldn't have done $175M domestic
without them taking the creative liberties they did.
All of which makes for an interesting lawsuit I think. There are
many things the original poster said that I'm not at all certain of,
e.g., the family having no standing. The issue here isn't libelling
a dead guy. I would think it's the way they commercially exploit
the dead guys (plural), and maybe even the dead guys' families.
They take their "true" story and indeed label it as based on a
true story, but make up a whole lot of stuff that, if people believe
it, portrays the dead and maybe the living in a negative light.
So maybe they'll lose, but I can't see how the case gets thrown
out. Especially since this was *not* really that famous a story.
I suspect 99% of the people who saw this movie knew nothing
of it beforehand, so it's not like JFK or some other movie like
that.
Considering the success of Perfect Storm, I'm surprised WB
didn't settle this with some payment and statement the family
would have accepted. I'm more surprised they didn't pay them
and have an agreement beforehand. This doesn't rank up there
with taking ABC off the cable dial, but I don't think it's good PR
for WB to be in court with the families of dead fishermen their
movie makes to look like idiots.
KalE...@aol.com
http://www.scifipi.com
(Interim page as this reboots -- e-mail comments sought!)
Tuttle
> Not really. Greenlaw's book is just an account of her life as
> swordfish captain. Greenlaw's and Junger's books have almost nothing
> to do with Petersen's movie. About the only sequence in the film with
> a nodding aquaintance to fact is what happened during the rescue of
> this sailing boat crew by the Coast Guard.
>
> --
> H.S.
And of course no disrespect to the Coast Guardians who died but was it
just me or did that seem kind of tacked on. We understood the Fisherman,
we got a glimpse into their lives then all of a sudden we have this
undistinguishable guys in a helicopter that has their own 20 minutes+
subplot looking for Jonesy (that was his name right) in the rain and I
really didn't care since, as I said before, I couldn't tell them apart.
starcro1
Harald Spyra <HS...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8oigml$7e5$0...@pita.alt.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:06:31 GMT, starcro1 wrote:
>
> > The movie did suggest that Tyne may have been romantically involved
with
> >another fishing boat captain, Linda Greenlaw (Mary Elizabeth
Mastrantonio).
> >I don't know if that part of the movie is true or not. If it isn't, I can
> >understand the Tyne family being upset. But they still have no standing
to
> >sue.
>
> It's not true. Maybe the family tries to cash in. I can understand
> that. But I can also understand that they are upset. It reminds me of
> "Titanic". First Officer Murdoch accepting bribes and finally shooting
> himself. There is no evidence of that on record. Even after more than
> eighty years there were protests by Murdoch's relatives.
>
Ever wonder how it is that the tabloid press can print outlandish stories
about Elvis Presley performing unnatural acts with chickens, and how John F.
Kennedy faked his death, and now resides in a secret love nest in Montana in
a menage a trois with Marilyn Monroe and Jim Morrison? It's the law: you
cannot libel the dead. If the makers of "The Perfect Storm" began with the
idea of a real-life fisherman named Billy Tyne, and then made the rest of
the story up out of their heads, they can get away with it.
> > I read recently that Greenlaw, who claims to be the only female
> >swordfishing boat captain in the world, has written her own book about
her
> >experiences (as the character of Greenlaw is the only major character
still
> >alive at the end of the movie, I smell sequel!)
>
scree...@my-deja.com
> And of course no disrespect to the Coast Guardians who died but was it
> just me or did that seem kind of tacked on. We understood the
Fisherman,
> we got a glimpse into their lives then all of a sudden we have this
> undistinguishable guys in a helicopter that has their own 20 minutes+
> subplot looking for Jonesy (that was his name right) in the rain and I
> really didn't care since, as I said before, I couldn't tell them
apart.
>
It wasn't a Coastie who died, it was a member of the Air Force rescue
team.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
starcro1
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000831061003...@nso-ch.aol.com...
That's what libel is, to willfully publish fiction that defames real people,
either with the intention of ruining their reputations, or with a disregard
for whatever the truth is.
But as I said before - you can't libel the dead. Exploiting the dead by
making up false stories about them may be ethically despicable - but it's
perfectly legal.
If, as another poster mentioned, a still photo of Billy Tyne's surviving
family was used in the film without permission, then the family would have a
cause of action against the filmmakers - but not for the reasons mentioned
when the story of the lawsuit made the papers. They can sue for themselves,
but not for Billy Tyne.
KalElFan
<star...@gte.net> writes:
>>... The issue here isn't libelling
>> a dead guy. I would think it's the way they commercially exploit
>> the dead guys (plural), and maybe even the dead guys' families.
>> They take their "true" story and indeed label it as based on a
>> true story, but make up a whole lot of stuff that, if people believe
>> it, portrays the dead and maybe the living in a negative light.
>
>That's what libel is, to willfully publish fiction that defames real people,
>either with the intention of ruining their reputations, or with a disregard
>for whatever the truth is.
What I said is the issue goes beyond that, to commercial exploitation
and the effect on the living. That's why I said: "it's the way they
commercially exploit..." and "maybe even the dead guys' families"
and "maybe the living in a negative light."
This case, if it goes to trial, will have relatives of dead fisherman
on one side, and AOL Time Warner on the other, with their movie
that's going to gross more than a half billion worldwide from all
sources. The reason it's going to do that much, in no small
measure, is because the portrayal of the fishermen, and the
captain in particular, as idiots softened the tragic ending enough
to make it palatable. There may even be treatment notes or
memos or whatever saying more or less "These characters cannot
be too sympathetic, or the ending will absolutely destroy us with
audiences. So don't let us know these characters personally.
Make them the authors of their own misfortune. Have a heroic
Coast Guard or Air Force rescue sublot to deflect some of the
audience's emotional attraction to the fishermen..." and so on.
Libel wasn't even intended here, so there's another reason it's
not the issue. WB was arguably smart and made the characters
idiots, indeed not real people just props, so they could better
sell The Wave and not have negative word of mouth spread like
wildfire. They were wildly successful. How is this *so* different
than Fat Elvis being used as a prop to peddle somebody's pecan
pie? Indeed worse, because at least Elvis was fat at the end of
his career. How can you be sure a jury, or even judge, won't find
a way to make *something* wrongful like this stick against "big
bad AOL Time Warner" in this matchup against widows and
orphans?
Well, you can't, and this is why I think WB should settle.
They will not be able to creatively alter the sympathetic
nature of a dead fisherman's family the way they did the
fishermen in Perfect Storm. They lose just by being on
their way to court with them.
ing
>
> I'm wondering, could the company at least be forced
> to add an insert in further releases?
Isn't there already a line at the front end of the film that says
"based on a true story"? I've always thought that the phrase
"based on" meant that certain creative liberties could be
taken in the film, (kind of like Spielberg did with SPR) so
long as deliberate libel wasn't involved.
> "Movie inspired by the book ...
> any similarities coincidental" ...
>
Well, if the film is inspired by the book, saying that
similarities are coincidental is sort of silly, dontcha
think? I mean if it's inspired by the book, then
similarities would be
*deliberate* wouldn't they? Anyway, Junger and his book
already got a credit in the film. Wasn't Junger also an
advisor in the scripting? I thought he was, but I could be
wrong on that.
ing
surdamon
things he has absolutely no knowledge about,
and then expects us to pau attention.
as a public service, i will out all the superfluous comments,
and only reply to the relavant ones.
KalElFan wrote:
>
(They pretty much deserve to die and therefore
> the audience doesn't feel too negative about the ending;
people have been known to like tragedies.
> I made the same point at the time I first commented on the movie
> here,
so you're establishing a history of idiocy.
It certainly wouldn't have done $175M domestic
> without them taking the creative liberties they did.
yes, it would have made 200 million.
.. There are
> many things the original poster said that I'm not at all certain of,
and the heavens opened.....
>
> So maybe they'll lose, but I can't see how the case gets thrown
> out. Especially since this was *not* really that famous a story.
> I suspect 99% of the people who saw this movie knew nothing
> of it beforehand,
it was a best selling novel.
--
"We have a budget surplus but a deficit in values"-
George W. Bush, ignoring the lowest crime rates and the greatest
focus on human rights in a generation, instead choosing
to attack his opponent.
surdamon
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <P_vr5.825$Ep3....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, "starcro1"
> <star...@gte.net> writes:
>
> >>... The issue here isn't libelling
> >> a dead guy. I would think it's the way they commercially exploit
> >> the dead guys (plural), and maybe even the dead guys' families.
> >> They take their "true" story and indeed label it as based on a
> >> true story, but make up a whole lot of stuff that, if people believe
> >> it, portrays the dead and maybe the living in a negative light.
> >
> >That's what libel is, to willfully publish fiction that defames real people,
> >either with the intention of ruining their reputations, or with a disregard
> >for whatever the truth is.
>
> What I said is the issue goes beyond that, to commercial exploitation
you can't sue for commercial exploitation.
> This case, if it goes to trial, will have relatives of dead fisherman
> on one side, and AOL Time Warner on the other, with their movie
> that's going to gross more than a half billion worldwide from all
> sources.
acvcording to anothny, EVERY movie will make 500 million worldwide!
dinosaurs, wild wild west, perfect storm, doesn't matter.
.... How can you be sure a jury, or even judge, won't find
> a way to make *something* wrongful like this stick against "big
> bad AOL Time Warner" in this matchup against widows and
> orphans?
because we're smart, and you're not.
Tom Cervo
settlement from MGM because they said their characters had been denegrated by
fictional equivalents in "They Were Expendable".
The characters were the ones portrayed by John Wayne and Donna Reed. Now find
the denegration.
Norman Wilner
news:20000831220502...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
If they were alive, they could sue. But as has been pointed out elsewhere
in this thread, you cannot libel the dead -- this is why certain celebrity
biographers wait for their subjects to croak before writing their
tell-alls.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner/
Tom Cervo
My point being that anyone who deemed those portayals as objectionable had to
have a pretty thin skin--or wallet.
At least one should have been thankful. Robert Kelly, Wayne's prototype, was
known in the service as the "Manila Gorilla", famous chiefly for sinking by
mistake a US troop transport.