Is The LOST Lawsuit Viral Marketing?

Interesting. I'd have thought that if someone like ABC paid you $30K to write something for them, that they basically owned it. Presumably, it's less simple than that.

I'm at least glad they decided on "Sawyer" instead of "Butch." I'll bet "Butch" alone cost him another couple of grand.

He initially sued them in 2005, which sadly kills any hope of an ARG:

http://www.tv.com/story/571.html

OK, nearly any hope.

If it's real a number of those similarities are kinda weak. Female leads with criminal pasts and use of trip wire makeshift weaponry? Maybe the makers of Brian's Song can sue Apatow for stealing their plot to use in Funny People.

To be honest, the most damning thing about the claim is that both shows are titled "Lost" and have similar concepts. It's one thing to have two shows about a plane crash on a mysterious tropical island, or two shows titled "Lost". But you'd think in 2004 someone at ABC would have taken a quick look through the archives for, you know, any other identically titled scripts.

If the allegations are true, that is.

either way i'm glad we got the lost we have as opposed to the inevitably cheesy version that would've been produced in 1977

It is hard to imagine any company/individual with a lick of common sense or legal acumen (or the ability to hire people with either of those two commodities) would manufacture a lawsuit in this fashion. If the Court ever found out, the sanctions imposed would probably set records.

Agreed. Probably would've had something stupid, like time travel.

The similarities are close enough but this would've mattered more a couple years ago.

I thought something similar. One thing is to put together those archetypes but something else is to deal with the greatness of Ben Linus, John Locke... etc

It would have been cheesy, but its small but loyal fanbase would throw a fit 25 years later when rumors of a re-imagined series surfaced, especially after hearing that Dirk Benedict's fugitive outlaw "Austin" character would be played by Evangeline Lilly.

". . . and Parker Stevenson and Pamela Sue Martin as Boone and Shannon."

Nobody cast female roles like the Lost guys.

Now I'm curious how much the '77 version resembles the Jeffery Lieber version ABC had first before bringing in J. J. Abrams et al. who reworked it almost from scratch. I want to look up all that well-hashed-over timeline again, see when the name changed and when stuff like the Others and polar bear were added to the previously simple Castaway Show.

There's an interview somewhere with Lieber where he explained the differences (and why legally his name is still attached to the credits even though he hasn't had anything to do with it since long before the pilot was shot). If anyone has more time than I do to look it up, hint hint.* And, there's an extra on the S1 set with the usual backpatting of how Abrams, Cuse, and Lindelof "cracked" it. But I won't be able to get to that til the weekend at best.

Another Benjamin Button creative shortcut?

(I'm also morbidly curious how in '77 Anthony Spinner envisioned the "dangerous natives")

*OK, got off my ass and found it. Interesting timeline (upshot): Then chairman of ABC Entertainment came up with the idea for a vanilla, hyperreal "Cast Away, The Series"; Lieber was hired and came up with rough correlations to the present characters; ended up fired, Abrams wasbrought in and suggested the supernatural island's-a-character angle; added Lindelof and "together they came up with another ingenious idea: a flashback device that focuses on one character each episode and allows the show to get off the island." The pilot gets picked up off their 20-page outline, and shooting started 3.5 months later. Not sure at what point "LOST" was landed on as the title; as Count Floyd pointed out, that seems like the screwiest coincidence (as opposed to stuff like, uh oh, love triangle! both have love triangles!).

And Locke's catch phrase would have been "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." And Sayid would have been called "Huggy."

Though making Vincent a cockatoo would have been a little odd.

I smell spin-off.

There doesn't seem to be much similarity between Lieber's "Nowhere" and this guy's "Lost." So, Lieber gets fired off the project. Then, Abrams and Lindeloff come in and rework Lieber's pilot by working in aspects from this other guy's 1977 show?

It makes a lot of sense. That would mesh with all the stories of ridiculously cramped production schedules from the pilot and how they were literally writing the script during pre-production and everything.

Unless this guy came up with Dharma, Ben Linus, the Others, Jacob, and laid down the same flashbacks and the same ongoing story that Lost has ended up unspooling, then all that I see here is the possibility that ABC took something that they already owned and asked Abrams and Co. to run with it.

This sounds like the woman who claimed the Wachowskis stole the Matrix script from her.

Actually even if you pay someone to write a script, usually if you pass on producing it they are allowed to try to sell the script to others. So the author might own the script, not the studio. (Note: I am obviously not an intellectual property lawyer. Maybe a senator will ask Sotamayor about it.)

The tough thing is knowing whether Abrams, et al, ever saw it or were using it as source material or coincidentally had similar ideas. I mean, plane crash on island is not an entirely unusual idea, and it would likely be headed to LA or NY in order to be over an island when it crashed in the first place. Giving characters 'secrets' and 'criminal pasts' and so forth is also not new.

For funsies, let's just say it is viral marketing. If it were, this certainly adds some credence to that theory:

We know that the writers dig bestowing the names of philosophers--especially philosophers whose theories embody the themes of "Lost"--upon their characters. According to TMZ's list of similarities, Locke was originally named Hagan. There is a (very, very) minor philosopher named William Hagan who wrote a book called "Piercing the Temporal Veil: It's About Time, God & Man". From the Amazon description:
And in Amazon's "About the Author" section:
I'm just saying it's sort of interesting, is all.

They're too busy implying that her 'identity' will compromise her decisions on the bench.

Because, as we all know, no white person has ever let the color of their skin influence their decisions.

Nice, Mattioli.

Don't tell who I can't sue!

In the alternative, I would also have accepted:

They TOOK my PITCH!

The Island's statue is clearly a clever comment on the crumbling Statute of Limitations associated with this suit.

As for ABC's lawyers, may I suggest: "We have to sue BACK, Kate!"

If the debate continues this is the man that should visit Spinner.

I bet Driveshaft's music would've sounded a hell of a lot better back then.

They'd have been a disco act, and 'You All Everybody' would resemble a BeeGees track.

Clearly the Abrams version wasn't stolen from Spinner, it was based on Abrams and co. time-travelling trip back to 1977 to steal Spinner's idea. Wait, that logic is almost as confused as the actual show.

I hope this was indeed viral marketing. If there is truth to Spinner's claim undoubtedly there will be an even longer line of people looking to sue various producers and studios over "stolen" ideas. I'm just waiting for that first lawsuit over a movie adaptation of a book that hasn't even come out yet.

Now that I think of it, if I ever get sued, I'll claim the plaintiff's suit is just viral marketing for the legal system. And if I ever get arrested I'll claim the arrest is viral marketing for the criminal system. And I'd sure like to pretend that Sarah Palin's term as Alaskan Governor had to have been some innovative viral marketing for a reality show about a kooky Alaskan clan.

Shut up! Fox or E! might hear you.

There was actually talk about a reality show centering around the Palins, and showing the former Governor at work and at home.

I suspect that plan may have changed now.

Well, the "at work" part, anyway. Probably lots more time for the "at home" stuff, though.

Not to help the derail, but I keep hoping Palin will go back to her roots as a sports anchor and get dumped into a cheap 1-hour opinion/sit-down on FSN as Jim Rome counterprogramming. They deserve each other.

Anyway, I was talking about this LOST lawsuit with a fellow fanatic, and how as Devin pointed out that the date of the original script, 1977, is coincidental enough to suggest viral marketing. Then we both realized, could -- if the lawsuit has merit -- the LOST guys have been so stupid as to use '77 in season 5 (as opposed to '75 or '78) as an in-joke referencing the Spinner version? That smacks of being a little too unbelievably smug and smartass to be true, but, hell.

If Spinner's suit has merit, I can believe some research and digging around for various references could have resulted in them stumbling upon Spinner's idea. I can also see '77 as an in-joke, however unbelievably stupid it would have been to antagonize the guy. Would it have been more convenient to just pay Spinner for use of his idea before beginning production, or to just rip it off with the understanding that it may result in a future lawsuit and possible (large) settlement?

After the arbitration that got Lieber his cut, I can see them being resentful/careful enough to just bury any knowledge of Spinner's version instead of lawyering out yet another payoff for "their" work. That is, if they knew about Spinner's version, period.

That Hagan bit is quite fantastic.

Since the Comic-con thing is happening soon, I'm guessing that we'll get some word on this one way or the other.

I'm glad people are digging it.