Great anology regarding the PP/ABC lawsuit

Posted on: September 5, 2013

This post was brought to my attention as a great way to explain for all those asking about the lawsuit so
I am going to share it with all of you. Thank you Mupp


Mupp Freek

Since the lawsuit is a hot topic of discussion because of its impact on OLTL’s temporary halt in production, I’ve noticed in multiple threads, people are attempting to discuss the suit without really understanding what it’s actually about. (Which is hardly 100% fans’ fault because the reporting on the issue has been pretty shoddy.) Instead of trying to clear up the misconception in each individual thread, it struck me as better to create a thread devoted to the topic, clearing up some common myths and answering some FAQ’s.

First and foremost, let’s get this out of the way: Probably the #1 myth about the suit that keeps getting spread like a virus is that the lawsuit is all about ABC killing off Cole & Hope or that it’s all about the tug of war over the actors who migrated to General Hospital. This is a part of the suit, yes – a rather SMALL part of it. Certainly not what the lawsuit is “about”.

In a nutshell, the suit outlines a long laundry list of ways that ABC has sabotaged PP’s efforts pretty much every step of the process. PP paid a large amount for the rights – and ABC continually damaged the product PP paid for. In addition to sabotaging PP’s efforts to revive the soaps, ABC also outright broke agreements that were part of the initial deal and did so during a vital time: during PP’s rush to meet a very short deadline (one that ABC itself imposed) to get the shows up and running; ABC made it near impossible for PP to meet the deadline because it forced them into doing massive rewrites and taking away or changing things they thought they’d have when they started shooting.

To put this all in a manner easier to comprehend, I offer the following metaphor: What ABC has effectively done is sell PP a massively expensive luxury car and once the money was paid and contracts signed, ABC thoroughly vandalized the car, ripped out the radio, destroyed the air conditioning, burnt the engine, took a sledgehammer to it, and spray painted graffiti all over it before handing it over to PP. Then even after PP took delivery, ABC still continued to slash the tires, put sugar in the gas tank, and live bees in the air ducts. And oh yes, they also promised PP when they first sold them the car that they’d also provide them free gas and oil change cards for a year and a complimentary rental car to use if PP ever needed to have the car serviced for repairs…and then decided at the very last minute (especially after the car was most definitely in need of repair…due to ABC’s multiple acts of vandalism) that they weren’t going to provide those perks they promised anyway even though it was part of the original agreements and pricing.

(And to extend the car metaphor further, imagine if all the newspaper coverage on the matter said that PP was suing ABC “for selling it a car without a radio” – and spectators discussing the suit kept saying “Oh how stupid of PP to sue or not use the car for the business they bought it for if it’s just about the radio…people buy sound systems for their cars all the time – just buy a new radio and move on!!” never mind the fact that PP shouldn’t HAVE to replace a radio that was SUPPOSED to be part of the car to begin with, was included in the original price they paid for it, and most importantly there’s the matter of all the OTHER tens of thousands dollars’ worth of damage to the rest of the car that makes it undriveable!)

Hopefully, this clears up a lot of confusion about what the lawsuit is actually about and helps people discuss it more knowledgeably not basing their opinions on myths, half-truths, rumors, or falsehoods. Ironically, the soap press is largely responsible for fans being misinformed since one of the numerous charges in the suit is that ABC has been feeding the soap media anti-PP spin to further sabotage fan support…and in knowingly misrepresenting what the lawsuit is about, the press is helping prove PP’s claims!


2 Responses to "Great anology regarding the PP/ABC lawsuit"

This did NOT clear up anything. You didnt give specifics. What exactly did abc do to “damage the product”. You sound like a PP exec trying to convince the public of a lot of BS.

!. as stated I found this great analogy.

#2. Analogy: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

That is why you are not finding specifics! Those are posted on this blog as well.

BTW, I wish I was an executive at PP!!
Been at this Since April 14th, 2011 I would have a nice chunk of change!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

All My Children & One Life to Live rise again!!

The day AMC & OLTL air on Hulu, Hulu+ and iTunesApril 29th, 2013
The big day is here. grab your popcorn and saddle up folks the shows are about to start!!

previous tasks

Soapsaversunite, us on twitter

Previous Posts

%d bloggers like this: