Days producers sue Sony

Hi my fellow Days Fans! I know that I haven't been posting but its been a very long, stressful winter. I've got one question. Is Sony's favoritism to The Young and the Restless part of the reason why we are unable to see Days' most iconic, beloved characters such as Bo, Steve, et al? Is the lack of funds from overseas distribution contributing to that?
 
When your income is cut as drastically as Days' has been, it affects all aspects of the show. Salary, Contracts, Sets, Location shooting. All the contract actors have taken pay cuts, plus...it is noticable that the show is using short arcs for newer actors. In other words, no contracts. Plus they film at such a pace, they are now 7 mos. ahead, we have not even reached Easter, and they are filming November, will be Thanksgiving in Salem before Spring in the country.
 
Bo and Steve's absence has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Peter Reckell(Bo) CHOSE to leave the show to raise his young daughter in Nashville. His choice.

Stephen Nichols(Steve) had a contract dispute at renegotiation time and the show hasn't re-signed him. In my opinion, it's Ron being vindictive because he didn't like that Stephen asked for more air time in his new contract.
 
Barb, thank you for the information.

Heather I understand that Peter Reckell (Bo) retired to Nashville to raise his daughter, but it is my understanding that both he and Stephen Nichols (Patch) also wanted more air time/better storylines. My issue is simply this were Days' PTB (Ken Corday, Ron Carlivati's and all the previous head writers including Gary Tomlin, Dena Higley) hands tied because they couldn't obtain the necessary funds needed to write compelling storylines for them because Sony didn't distribute Days in the same fashion that they did The Young and the Restless?

If that's the case then Ken Corday needs to win this because it is fundamentally unfair to not only the actors but to all Days' fans if we can't and/or are not allowed to see our favorite actors/characters/couples as a result of a lack of funds due to Sony's favoritism towards another show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do know there have been a great many Days viewers in both Europe & in South America who have looked for ways to view Days as their station stopped carrying it. Obviously, those areas were not against carrying an American show, since they carried others. Just like one's local supermarket that no longer carries your fav brand, in favor of another, so does it seem Sony has done similar.
 
That was an interesting read..... Corday lost on almost every claim..... but one gives a tiny bit of hope for the show:
It wasn't a total victory for Sony, though, as a few of Corday's claims did survive this round. Feess found Corday has alleged a reasonable interpretation of their agreement with respect to its claims that Sony breached its obligation to adequately market the series and to share marketing costs.The claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing will also move forward, with Feess finding that Corday's allegations are more than a mere regurgitation of the breach of contract claim.
 
Some of the allegations were for items going back 40 years, and if that was going on that long, why did Corday not sue much earlier? However, the lack of marketing is valid. Days fans in some countries have complained about Days no longer being available in their area. And I do know that one factor is that while Sony owns another soap in it's entirety, Days is owned by Corday, which is why Corday Productions feels Sony isn't holding up it's end of their bargain/agreement, focusing more on their own show.
 
The good faith and fair dealing issue was really Corday's best point. The rest were the kind of window dressing that get stuffed into complaints. (Throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.) As for the forty-year-old stuff, they are a predictable loser. Anything that old gives the defendant a chance to plead laches, the concept that the plaintiff has waited to sue on a cause of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top