The law permeates the production of the media we consume. Usually, it works to our advantage—contracts, intellectual property rights, and the laws that enforce them give creatives incentive to produce an entertaining product that can sustain the livelihood of its creator. On occasion, however, the exercise of these rights results in some media never seeing the light of day.
We will never find out what Anglia Television’s straight-to-television movie, The Man in the Wood, would have received on Rotten Tomatoes thanks to Mr. Robert Reed’s breach of contract (though Lord Denning thought it impossible to determine what the film would have been worth). There is an IMDB page for a movie of this title made in 1973, but there seems to be no trace of the film online. Perhaps one day something will surface and we will finally understand why Anglia Television elected for reliance losses.
In 1994, an entire Fantastic Four B-movie was produced to extend the film rights for Bernd Eichinger, who had bought them for a mere $250,000 in 1983. What he purchased was an option, essentially a leasing of the rights to the franchise for a period of time. With the option expiring in 1993, Eichinger began production on the film, which had a $1 million budget, professional costume designers, special effects, and even an orchestral soundtrack. After it was completed, the movie was pulled before its world premiere, and the actors and producers were served a cease and desist, ordering them to refrain from speaking further about the movie. Unlike The Man in the Wood, Fantastic Four is now available to watch on YouTube, complete with all of its tacky effects and cheesy acting.
In 2004, A Cold Case, starring Tom Hanks and Robert De Niro, would have graced the silver screen had it not been for a lawsuit between the production and the author of the novel the movie was based on. In the United States, “life rights” are acquired by a studio from a person of interest so that the studio may have the exclusive right to dramatize their life story. Legal scholars have questioned whether or not this is a legitimate practice—typically, facts belong to the public domain. Regardless, film studios still like to acquire these “rights” in order to avoid any potential tort claims the real-life subjects of their movies may bring.
Last December, horror lovers were gifted with an exceptional remake of the 1922 German Expressionist classic Nosferatu. But the faithful adaptation of this classic vampire movie owes its existence to a classic case of copyright infringement. The original 1922 silent film was created only twenty-five years after its source material, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, was published. Despite the differences between the film and the novel, including the titular vampire’s name, Stoker’s widow sued for copyright infringement and obtained a court order requiring all copies of the film be destroyed. A few copies survived destruction, and the film would go on to be praised as a trailblazer in the horror genre.
Finally, some movies are never released because the production studio would rather write them off as a loss on their tax returns. Recent examples of this include a Batgirl movie that was in post-production when it got scrapped and a Coyote vs. ACME movie that was shelved due to a shift in focus to Barbie.
Intellectual property rights are necessary to maintain incentives for people to create amazing films and works of art. Still, it is interesting to take a look at what falls through the cracks when legal disputes close the curtains on a production.