Charlie Sheen vs. Warner Bros. Planning Oversight?

I have to say, I would hate to be the person who had to draw up a contract in any situation. I would guess it takes a lot of a TON of attention to detail. There are so many elements that can be manipulated based on the simple wording of the document, which is what Charlie Sheen and Warner Bros. are dealing with right now.

Well, after a great deal of public ranting and drunken episodes, it sounds like Charlie Sheen has been officially fired from the show he stars in, Two and a Half Men. Production has also been completely cancelled for the last eight episodes of this season. After fighting through media, twitter, and now even webisodes, Charlie Sheen is now taking Warner Bros to court. Does Charlie Sheen even have a case? Could this have been a simple planning oversight on Warner Bros. part when drawing up his contract?

Here are the facts as I have come to know them:

-       Apparently, when Charlie Sheen replaced Michael J. Fox on Spin City, there had been a clause in Fox’s contract stating that he would get paid as long as the show was in production, even if he left.     

-       After cancelling the production of the last eight shows of the season, Charlie Sheen demands that he get paid for these episodes, along with any shows in production for future seasons because of the clause in his contract.

-       Warner Bros. has come back saying that they were able to nullify the contract because Sheen was fired for reasons involving the legal term “moral turpitude”.

First of all, what exactly is moral turpitude? According to Wikipedia it is “a legal concept in the United States that refers to ‘conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals’”. Where was this in the contract? Since Charlie Sheen is in fact taking Warner Bros. to court over it, he doesn’t seem to think it is valid. It seems like the term is a bit ambiguous and doesn't clearly define what is considered as "moral turpitude". Whether or not the “moral turpitude” reasoning is valid for Warner Bros. to nullify the contract with Sheen, it just goes to show that with dealing with legal contracts and documents, every scenario really has to be examined and the risks involved need to be thoroughly weighed and determined! I’m very curious to see where this case will go.

Read more »

Who REALLY had control of the Golden Globes?

Although I am currently out of the country, I still get an earful from the internet, friends, and family about current events going on back home. One of the most current topics surrounding my gossip-loving mother’s phone calls is the Golden Globes and the controversial hosting of Ricky Gervais. 

I went on to Youtube and tried to get an idea of what was said and what everyone was so fired up about. I looked up news articles and reviews of his performance as well and ran across articles saying that he has been banned from the Golden Globes and will not ever be asked back to host again. In an article from BannedInHollywood.com, it states “an anonymous member of HFPA tells Popeater, “Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure… For sure any movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated. He humiliated the organization last night and went too far with several celebrities whose representatives have already called to complain”. Here is the article in full for those of you who wish to read it.

So, is HFPA saying that they had no control over what Ricky Gervais was going to say on national television? I have a feeling that HFPA had a little more project control then they are leading us to believe. When I was an intern at the Creative Arts Emmys in New York a couple of years ago, we stood in for the presenters during rehearsal and although this award show wasn’t televised, EVERYTHING was scripted and on a teleprompter. I’m not saying that Ricky Gervais’ hosting was as specific as being on a teleprompter the whole time, but I’ve learned that in any major projects, the details will make or break you. I find it very hard to believe that HFPA wouldn’t have made Ricky rehearse or submit some kind of preliminary script for the evening. 

In my opinion, they were well aware of what he was capable of, which is why they chose him to host for a second year. It seems a lot more companies are using the concept that any publicity is good publicity lately. They claim that they didn’t have project control, and apologized to make the company look good, when they are still winning and getting the publicity they want. After all, it has been almost a month since the golden globes and we are all still talking about it! Here’s another interesting article where Ricky defends his comments for those that are interested!

Read more »