Springfield Expansion | Page 15 | Inside Universal Forums

Springfield Expansion

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Sometime before it opens....:p

CaptobviousChooseOption.gif
 
I asked a friend of mine in the Screen Actors guild and was told "Universal/Fox could only be sued if Harry Shearer owns the intellectual property related to the characters he voices and his contract with Fox doesn't allow anyone else to voice his characters". :cheers:

Showing a character with a voice that sounds the same would fall under copyright law. Fox or Harry shearer(maybe both) owns a copyright on the character. Someone else doing the voice would be seem as copying the character and fall under copyright law. It would only be okay if both agree to the use. The character has a copyright whether or not it is registered. All original works are copyrighted
 
I only mentioned it as a possibility :thumbs: Shearer doesn't own the rights to Mr.Burns he is only paid to voice him. Could you imagine how complex the Simpsons contract would be if every single voice actor owned the characters they portray? And as far as because he voices the character he would have to agree to it? No..explain to Frank Welker who voiced Megatron in generation one Transformers how he suddenly lost that voice role to Hugo Weaving...all without his knowledge then. And how many different people have voiced the various incarnations of Optimus Prime besides Peter Cullen? That's why for the movies he has to be approved by Michael Bay. Otherwise he could just say "well Michael Bay I'm not voicing Optimus Prime this go around..well then you'll have to have a movie without Optimus Prime. :thumbs:
 
Matt Groening owns the rights to the character. And they can have anyone they want voice the characters. The problem is that the show is still in production, and they don't want to piss Shearer of while they are still in production.
 
Well, if it's only changing over IFFF to Moe's or something of that sort, it's not a huge thing. I'd say just a bit more of a deal than the Tangled area, which Disney still hasn't confirmed (will on Dec. 7th likely).

I know this is a much bigger thing than restrooms and Tangled theming, but at the end of the day, if there's no ride, it's still just a mid-level announcement that will likely be made through Twitter/Facebook.
 
Last edited:
^ you get ten cans of Duff beer for that :rofl: That's what i was trying to write but I couldn't abbreviate :doh: lol so whats the.concensus on the animal actors.stage? Do you think that Project 971 would eliminate that. I hope not..that.show is pretty cool :thumbs:
 
^ you get ten cans of Duff beer for that :rofl: That's what i was trying to write but I couldn't abbreviate :doh: lol so whats the.concensus on the animal actors.stage? Do you think that Project 971 would eliminate that. I hope not..that.show is pretty cool :thumbs:

I would think that this would go along with the supposed Kidzone redo. But hey, who knows.
 
I can't remember right now and don't feel like looking it up.....:lol:

But was the Krusty Burger what they made a McRib parody episode with?
 
The possibilities are pretty endless whichever way they go.

I just hope they bring their A game with the theming.

I'm pretty sure they will. No reason to do it if they don't.

But I was also thinking that this will likely take it off the Meal Deal. Where could they add in another place to eat, or will they leave it?