REMAKE ?
Would anyone like to see this story modernized with a audition with a actress that dances this time. I think it would be a great idea and anyone would have any ideas for a actress to play Alex.
shareThere was talk of a remake with Jennifer Lopez after her "Flashdance" video came out (after that whole rights/infringement thing was hashed out.) I guess Hollywood producers were really eager to get it started, but it must have fallen flat because I haven't heard of it in ages.
shareHi starjk;
Just for the record, that "whole rights/infringement thing" about Lopez's '"Flashdance" video' has not been "hashed out" quite yet. If you have a sound card, speakers, and the system capability to handle Windows Media Player--and if you're interested in the status of my court case to date--surf over to this webpage--
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/Media%20Search?OpenForm&Seq=4
--and type the case (Marder v. Lopez) number # 04-55615 into the search field. You will be able to access the audio file of the hearing on December 9th, 2005 in the California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 40 minutes of oral arguments by all parties as to whether my case against Lopez, Sony, and Paramount will proceed to trial or not. I appealed my case to this higher court when the lower court didn’t want to hear it with no explanation given.
Yes, it is taking some time, but since the courts must give each case due consideration, and since the courts are swamped with cases, I must simply wait and be patient. I have trust in the judicial process though, and I am hoping for a more favourable outcome for me (and my daughter now too) this time than when I negotiated long-ago outside of court. If the justices decide to give me my day in court, then perhaps some things will come out that are not discussed in the oral arguments and which I am not at liberty to discuss here either.
Although I am not a litigious person and would much rather go the road of negotiation, teamwork, and inclusion, it is sometimes necessary to ask the courts to force a resolution in a complicated situation when trying to ‘swim with the sharks’ in the entertainment field where many of the players suffer from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). And it makes all the difference in the world to have competent, experienced legal representation when trying to protect oneself in this business—which I have now thanks to my lawyer, Bob Helfing, for taking me on. Narcissists (and I am speaking about the psychiatric definition here) are not about sharing—the spotlight, credits, or anything else—and sometimes the only way to get them to pay attention to the harm they are inflicting is through the courts—when rational negotiation proves pointless and one is in danger of being run down and left for dead again.
Thanks for your input: keep posting and let me know what you think about the updated info.
Sincerely,
Maureen (Marder)
Wow, that was so interesting! I'm in my last year of high school and one of my subjects is legal, so it was good to combine my interest in that with my love of movies! I am such a geek, I listened to the whole thing, and while some of it went straight over my head, I guess I understand the general gist of it. Those last two lawyers certainly were impressive, and more persuasive than the first one. I am leaning towards siding with them, because I just don't see how Marder could say that she was the victim of copyright infringement when she has no legal basis. It surely was a shame that twenty years ago or whenever she made legal mistakes, but that doesn't mean that she can claim rights she gave up or signed over to Paramount. Paramount were the ones with the right to give or refuse permission to Sony. They settled with Sony, and they had every right to do so, from what I gather. The only point I really felt was persuasive from the first lawyer was right at the end where he said something like 'if she had no legal rights, then why would they approach Marder for permission for a remake or sequel?'. I have no idea. I'm thinking that Marder's case lies with Paramount and not Sony and Lopez, who settled the matter with Paramount. This is just my understanding of what was going on. All the complicated language the lawyers used has left a big possibility of me misinterpreting things, so if anyone has a different standpoint or understanding, I would love to hear it!
Based on what I've read on the message boards, I think Maureen sounds like a completely lovely person, I just don't think I agree with her on this. I wish I could, though; everyone likes an underdog.
Alrighty! That's about it. Sorry for boring everybody, but this post was partly me sorting out and clarifying what I just heard in the sound file thing, and seeing if anybody interpreted it differently. Thanks!
Hey there, pisces-chick;
Thanks for your compliment on my personality, and I'm glad you found the appeal hearing interesting. I cannot comment on my case, but I can say to you that I most certainly would not bring my complaint to court--or appeal it to a higher court--if I didn't have a legal basis to do so. And my lawyer would not waste his valuable time on it either, if he did not think there was a legal basis for a claim to be made. It is in nobody's interests to tie up the courts for a frivolous reason, and I would not do so.
Paramount--or anyone else--has absolutely no right to use my story (or my identity) after that one film. I retained my rights and must assert this in court for the justices to sort out, as no one else has been able to determine how to settle this thing in a reasonable way. It is in court precisely because no one can agree about what my contract means, and if these experienced and well-educated people of law can't figure it out, don't be too quick to be overly impressed with perceived style over actual substance. I am hopeful that the justices will be able to make sense out of the messy situation--and that they will find a solution favourable to me too.
(And don't be so quick to dismiss my lawyer either. He is a pretty shrewd player in these things too: check out his credentials.)
But, sincerely, thanks for your interest and input!
Maureen
I am talking of a remake where the main character 'Alex Owens' is 19 to 22 years old not Jennifer Lopez's age. Think about a young construction worker whose older boss has just fallen in love with her seeing her dance. It is a great story.
shareJennifer Beals is still hot looking, so why not just a sequel, maybe not of her still dancing in her 40's but teaching some younger students or having a dance studio or something.
shareOr, how about a remake where the main character is a construction worker 19 to 22 years old and an older magazine editor has just fallen in love with her after seeing her dance but is too shy to make her acquaintance but meets her years later, is still bewitched by her, but she spurns his advances. What about that for a more complicated plot?
shareAnother idea of a plot in a office the a girl who works there but dances for some extra money to go to dancing school. The boss of the office falls in love with her in the story and pays for her tuition after helping her get in. It would be a great idea that they do another story based on 'Flashdance' with a modern twist.
shareOr, how about a remake where the main character is a construction worker 19 to 22 years old and an older magazine editor has just fallen in love with her after seeing her dance but is too shy to make her acquaintance but meets her years later, is still bewitched by her, but she spurns his advances. What about that for a more complicated plot?
Or how about not? I don't like remakes, and they made too many already, and ruined good movies.
share