A Scene for Jadzia Was Written in DS9 Finale!
-
chrismitchell400 — 19 years ago(August 11, 2006 09:36 AM)
I agree, i would love to see Jadzia back in the relauch novels. Like it or not she was a main character on the show for six years and Ezri was only there for 1 year. I would much rather see Jadzia back than read about Ezri, as cool a character as she was, she just didn't kick ass like Jadzia did
-
mobrecht — 19 years ago(April 05, 2007 11:08 AM)
She wouldn't let them.
They used footage of Terry as Jadzia in an early 7th season episode, without clearing it with Terry first. She found out about it after the fact, and would not allow them to use clips of her again.
Yes, Paramount owns the footage, but they still have to clear the use of it with any actors in that footage. It's part of their contracts. -
prometheus1816 — 18 years ago(April 13, 2007 02:01 PM)
NO, they don't have to clear it with the actor first before they use clips. Ask a soap actor if the network clears it with them when they use footage of them in flashbacks? They don't. When they used flashbacks of Genie Francis (Jonathan Frakes' wife) in flashbacks of the infamous Luke & Laura years on a GH retrospective, they did NOT have to get clearances with Genie. Paramount has exclusive rights to all their product and can, if they chose, use whatever they like as they like. The actor just signs the contract. That's it, that's all. Parmount was just being pissy. Denying her importance on the show. And the clips you're talking about, were the recap for the start of seasn seven from season six. The actor has no control over how the network uses their image.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon -
prometheus1816 — 13 years ago(August 27, 2012 01:36 PM)
That's untrue. Actors' contracts dictate this.
Um, no. If you're an actor if you appear in something, it automatically becomes part of the production company and or studio and they can do whatever they want with whatever footage they have in their possession. Actors when they sign a contract know what they're signing. Say if there is another "Hellraiser" film and they want to use footage of Terry as Joey from part three, they don't have to clear it with her before they use it. Whoever owns the rights to the Hellraiser franchise can just use the footage without asking Terry or her management because that type of of stuff is included in the contract, the ability to use whatever footage they choose in further projects. The same with her DS9 stuff. If Paramount wants to use footage of her as Jadzia in any further Star Trek related stuff, they reserve the right to use it whenever they like.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon -
prometheus1816 — 13 years ago(August 27, 2012 02:55 PM)
Prometheus, you are simply incorrect about this.
Um, fraid not. Unless you are of the level of a Harrison Ford or a Johnny Depp, you have no control over things like this. Why do you think the studio reserves the right to fire if someone say gets caught with drugs? There's a morality clause in contracts that people sign that states the studio/production company reserves the right to fire if that morality clause is broken. As I said, unless one is on the level of a Harrison Ford or an Angelina Jolie, on a simple television show unless one is on the level of a Mark Harmon or a Glenn Close, then you pretty much sign a slave contract. The pro238duction company/network/studio must provide certain tings in terms of if someone is say a Diabetic like Victor Garber is, they must allow for sufficient time for medications to be taken. Or if someone has a special dietary need like if someone is a vegan or vegetarian, they must provide those essentials such as a dressing room and adequate housing if the actor/actress is from out of the state, but other than that, the contract that is signed more or less gives your arse over to the studio. As with any of the people who signed to do Star Trek related things, ones5b4 like Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks are required to provide their voices to video games, likenesses to board games, puzzles, trading cards, and or anything else the studio requires as long is it is within the requirements of the contract. Now the studio has no right to ask the actor/actress to do things such as stunts that could be potentially dangerous or to appear nude if they don't want to do it. A nudity clause in a contract must stipulate the amount of nudity and what is required. It is up to the actor/actress to sign the contract given what is required. But all those things are negotiated a head of time, but with a franchise like Star Trek, Star Wars, Bourne, Bondyou name it. Daniel Craig has said once he signed on to do Bond, there were other things he was required to do such as the video games. If EON productions wants to provide footage of Craig for say a BAFTA retrospective of the Bond franchise, none of the actors who have played Bond can object, which means Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan or Craig cannot object since any and all footage relating to Bond is the sole possession of MGM and EON. Same with Terry Farrell and any and all footage she filmed during her time on DS9. If they wanted to use footage of her as Jadzia in a flashback for Worf in "Nemesis" they would and could use it whether Farrell wanted them to or not. It's their possession, not Farrell's. Now if they wanted to use it for someone e1c84lse other than the reasons Farrell signed her contract like say manipulate it for nefarious reasons, she would have ample cause to file a suit charging her likeness was used in a way she did not agree to upon the initial signing. And she'd likely win. But other than that, all footage and such is the sole property of Paramount and or Berman productions.
If it were the case that Farrell owned any part of her television or film work, than she would be in possession of all negatives and film cuts and have the ability to say what countries the work appeared in. But she doesn't.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon -
prometheus1816 — 13 years ago(September 11, 2012 09:58 PM)
Ok Prometheus, if you are correct then can you please tell us why Paramount did not use Farrell's image in the DS9 finale?
Because Paramount and Farrell parted under less than amicable circumstances. She burned some bridges and that does not bode well for further employment. There is an actress named Sarah Brown who originated the part of Carly on the soap opera General Hospital. She left the soap then got the role of a detective on the CBS show Cold Case. She was let go by Jerry Bruckheimer and Leslie Moonves and she took to her official website and more or less blasted them for firing her. She has had a hard time in finding work since. She's had to go back to soap operas because of her bridge burning. Same thing happened to Farrell. She got it double because of her trying to go for more money from Paramount when she was on Becker. So she burned a lot of bridges behind her which is the reason they didn't use her in the closing out of DS9 finale. Also, there was no need since technically Ezri was Dax. Though I think it was a pretty sad thing to do to someone who'd been on the show for as long as Farrell had.
One thing one doesn't do in the 'biz' is piss off studios or studio execs. You'll never work again. Farrell's career pretty much dropped off after Becker and she only did a couple of things afterwards.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon -
prometheus1816 — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 06:13 PM)
She tried to organise the rest of the DS9 cast to fight for a more fair and balanced wage and got shot down. At least thats what I've read.
That was when she was on "Becker" not "DS9." That's why she was replaced with Nancy Travis.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon -
ThatGuamGuy — 13 years ago(December 11, 2012 07:04 AM)
"Or if someone has a special dietary need like if someone is a vegan or vegetarian, they must provide those essentials such as a dressing room"
In case you were wondering, this is the exact moment that your stupidity became so immensely obvious that it wasn't worth continuing to read what you were saying.