Vannormal said:

Remember, he's dead. As dead as can be, and, most important, no will! No personal legacy plan.

So what's going on now has nothing to do with what his wishes were or weren't.

.

Prince had decades to tell his own story. He didn't. One of the reasons he sued uptown a quarter of a century ago is that their books were hurting his potential to release his own books.

.

It kinda looks like he might have started to work on that retrospective on his life and work towards the end, but considering how fickle he was it is a massive question if his autobiography would have actually gotten published (considering he was already whining about him needing a way to get out of the contract before he had even signed it), let alone some kind of documentary series.

.

Don't forget that there is an unreleased (and unfinished?) documentary about the Lovesexy era somewhere in the vault -- thank fuck once upon a time the BBC got an excerpt of it and broadcast it. There is the Kevin Smith ONA film. But were those actually kept? Was all the unedited footage kept? We don't know. Could be those were destroyed.

.

Famz say "why no Moonage Daydream-like documentary?" Using what? The mediocre or downright ridiculous interviews Prince gave? The man talked about goddamn chemtrails in a televised interview.

bizzie said:

databank said:

Great article.

IMHO the heart if the problem is the collusion of interests between journalism and the subject, as well as journalism and consumerism. Whether it's the artist or their estate, it's pretty obvious any attempt at making a documentary that isn't 100% flattering isn't going to end well if the filmmaker depends on the subject to approve of the final product.

I can understand the point of getting access to unreleased material in order to increase viewers' interest (particularly the core fanbase), but if they wanted to do anything other than 9 hours of praising Prince, they should have done their thing without asking the Esate for permission in the first place, and Netflix should have given up on some of the project's commercial appeal in favor of quality journalism.

.

Dude, come on. This is nonsense.

.

Netflix ain't in the business of making promos. They were never going to compile six hours of Prince videos and be done with it. They paid the estate to get access to unreleased footage to use in a documentary series, and that was always going to include some "bad" stuff.

.

I wouldn't be surprised if DuVernay left the project because her version of the doc was the same old story that's been told a million times and Netflix didn't care for that, and then Netflix hired a prestigious documentarian to create something that could win them awards.

.

Netflix never were going to do a Prince doc without audio and video of Prince, and particularly unreleased audio and video. Nobody's gonna subscribe to Netflix to watch some lame doc liek the ones that already exist and that no one cares about.

Duvernay is a prestigious documentarian.

bizzie said:

bizzie said:

JorisE73 said:

Netflix will use it as a tax write off lol.

.

Doubt that can be true: for a tax write off all of the sources need to be destroyed. Since the documentary consists to asignificant degree of footage licensed from the estate, it could mean that footage is not available to anyone, which would seriously fuck the estate.

.

I kinda doubt Netflix is just gonna be OK with spending tens of millions and getting nothing; they don't want this to be an example for others with similar deals.

.

And the estate isn't gonna be able to pay back Netflix.

Was a joke. I doubt that Netflix would do that and risk other artists to shun them if they ever want to make a documentary on them.

bashraka said:

SoulAlive said:

The estate should just grab a video camera,interview themselves,gush about how amazing Prince was,and call it a documentary that’s obvious what they really want: a positive “puff piece” with no negative details.

Or maybe, just maybe, the estate still believe that Prince, even deceased, deserve to be portrayed in every light with respect and dignity without unproven claims.

[Edited 9/11/24 16:23pm]

EXACTLY

I wouldn't want 'a positive puff piece' but do we really need autopsy photos, ex's talking how he was in bed, speculation of abuse, etc...

Personally I wouldn't want this for a deceased friend or family member

bizzie said:

databank said:

Great article.

IMHO the heart if the problem is the collusion of interests between journalism and the subject, as well as journalism and consumerism. Whether it's the artist or their estate, it's pretty obvious any attempt at making a documentary that isn't 100% flattering isn't going to end well if the filmmaker depends on the subject to approve of the final product.

I can understand the point of getting access to unreleased material in order to increase viewers' interest (particularly the core fanbase), but if they wanted to do anything other than 9 hours of praising Prince, they should have done their thing without asking the Esate for permission in the first place, and Netflix should have given up on some of the project's commercial appeal in favor of quality journalism.

.

Dude, come on. This is nonsense.

.

Netflix ain't in the business of making promos. They were never going to compile six hours of Prince videos and be done with it. They paid the estate to get access to unreleased footage to use in a documentary series, and that was always going to include some "bad" stuff.

.

I wouldn't be surprised if DuVernay left the project because her version of the doc was the same old story that's been told a million times and Netflix didn't care for that, and then Netflix hired a prestigious documentarian to create something that could win them awards.

.

Netflix never were going to do a Prince doc without audio and video of Prince, and particularly unreleased audio and video. Nobody's gonna subscribe to Netflix to watch some lame doc liek the ones that already exist and that no one cares about.

You do realize that this is a documentary we're talking about, not a concert film? The core of it is interviewing people about Prince, not showing Prince perform. If the documentary isn't like the ones that already exist and reveal things beyond the obvious and well known, this should be enough. I don't remember seeing videos of Prince shows in the many books about Prince we've all read. Yet we read them. But obviously, if I'm to believe the article, Netflix isn't in the business of making serious documentaries, it's all fan service and pretty moving pictures.

.

And I'm pretty sure no one is going to subscribe to Netflix to see one documentary, I mean maybe a few people for just one month, but either people will already have Netflix or, if they don't but really wanna see the doc, they'll download it or stream it illegally in 3 clicks.

dodger07 said:

dodger07 said:

Trufunksoulja said:

dodger07 said:

EXACTLY

I wouldn't want 'a positive puff piece' but do we really need autopsy photos, ex's talking how he was in bed, speculation of abuse, etc...

Personally I wouldn't want this for a deceased friend or family member

Have you even read the article? There are no autopsy pics that would be insane. The doc only shows paisley park with all the pills bottles etc. Pics from the investigation. And P had many girlfriends it is obvious that this was a crucial part of his life which manifested in his music. [Edited 9/12/24 5:32am]

Of course I've read the article. But there's more bits of info floating round. What's 100% true, who knows

.

Spicer on Twitter: 'Ask yourself, would you be ok with a director putting explicit coroner photos of your loved one in a documentary'

.

If this is true, I would not be ok with it. But thats just me

dodger07 said:

Trufunksoulja said:

dodger07 said: Have you even read the article? There are no autopsy pics that would be insane. The doc only shows paisley park with all the pills bottles etc. Pics from the investigation. And P had many girlfriends it is obvious that this was a crucial part of his life which manifested in his music. [Edited 9/12/24 5:32am]

Of course I've read the article. But there's more bits of info floating round. What's 100% true, who knows

.

Spicer on Twitter: 'Ask yourself, would you be ok with a director putting explicit coroner photos of your loved one in a documentary'

.

If this is true, I would not be ok with it. But thats just me

There are no photos from the autopsy in the documentary. But there is a photo (or photos) of his body as it was found at Paisley Park, which was already publicly available - in all those photos released as part of the investigation.

ItsOnlyMountains said:

dodger07 said:

Of course I've read the article. But there's more bits of info floating round. What's 100% true, who knows

.

Spicer on Twitter: 'Ask yourself, would you be ok with a director putting explicit coroner photos of your loved one in a documentary'

.

If this is true, I would not be ok with it. But thats just me

There are no photos from the autopsy in the documentary. But there is a photo (or photos) of his body as it was found at Paisley Park, which was already publicly available - in all those photos released as part of the investigation.

That's fine then. Get it on Netflix

Feels like the Estate has more to lose by blocking this release

Netflix will put out a ton of stuff each week , Films, documentaries and TV series

whilst the Estate is unable to release anything apart from Bed sheets, candles and an album in Atmos we have all heard a thousand times.

The Amy Winehouse Estate didnt like the documentary that was released by Asif Kapadia (Amy) so made and put out there own rebuttal on the BBC Reclaiming Amy

surely this could be done by the Estate to put their view over whilst allowing Netflix to release what they have produced.

Both would generate a buzz and would allow SDE's etc to be released

Seems like the only people suffering are the fans

According to the article, Netflix and Edelman retain final cut rights. If that's a stipulation in the contract, then that means Netflix doesn't require the estate's creative approval for its release. From previous articles, it sounds like there was also a stipulation in the contract that the doc not be longer than 6 hours. This seems like what the estate is using as legal leverage to block the release. The estate obviously probably doesn't care about the length but the content - but they can only block the release using whatever legal levearge they have - in this case, the length issue from what we know. If that is indeed all the leverage they have, then I have no doubt that - if push comes to shove - Netflix will just adjust to clear any legal hurdles and release it. Right now it seems like both sides are waging a PR war - Netflix/Edelman with the NYT story and the estate with their tweets or whatever. I think Netflix wins.

[Edited 9/12/24 8:16am]

SpookyPurple said:

According to the article, Netflix and Edelman retain final cut rights. If that's a stipulation in the contract, then that means Netflix doesn't require the estate's creative approval for its release. From previous articles, it sounds like there was also a stipulation in the contract that the doc not be longer than 6 hours. This seems like what the estate is using as legal leverage to block the release. The estate obviously probably doesn't care about the length but the content - but they can only block the release using whatever legal levearge they have - in this case, the length issue from what we know. If that is indeed all the leverage they have, then I have no doubt that - if push comes to shove - Netflix will just adjust to clear any legal hurdles and release it. Right now it seems like both sides are waging a PR war - Netflix/Edelman with the NYT story and the estate with their tweets or whatever. I think Netflix wins.

[Edited 9/12/24 8:16am]

I have a feeling that this doc will get released somehow and the estate will release some kind of rebuttel.

[Edited 9/12/24 9:46am]

Strawberrylova123 said:

happyshopper said:

Strawberrylova123 said:

I have a feeling that htis doc will get released somehow and the estate will release some kind of rebuttel.

I heard someone else suggest something similar. Let them release it, then The Estate can issue a statement with corrections. Or, if even people interviewed feel their comments were used out of context, let them have a say on it and explain the full story. . I have feeling though that Londell is more backed into a corner than ever, so won’t ever let it go.

He's honestly just making things worse. I can see Jill speaking to the press about the alleged abuse and things will just spill over.

“Whoever tells the story controls the narrative”. Lesson: Don’t allow haters to tell your (or your loved ones story)

So, LM thinks Edelman/Netflix are haters???

WTF?

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

Famz say "why no Moonage Daydream-like documentary?" Using what? The mediocre or downright ridiculous interviews Prince gave? The man talked about goddamn chemtrails in a televised interview.

He gave good interviews in the 80s. Esp pre PR. Plenty that could be excerpted. But using archive footage, a moonage daydream type doc would be easy. It would also likely be less interesting than this one, and MD also had fans saying it didnt show enough plain old concert footage etc. Fans will never be happy really. Such is the nature of fandom. And estates will always suck to varying degrees. [Edited 9/12/24 10:30am]

Yup. Plus, there can and will be many documentaries made about Prince in the coming years, decades, centuries. And they'll all focus on different things. Just like books have. And the estate can dictate the creative of many of those. And some of us will watch, some of us won't, etc.

nayroo2002 said:

Even a newspaper in Zurich in the german-speaking Switzerland now has an article about the NYT article and the newest developements concerning the Prince estate. Title: "Controling and egostic - this side of Prince shall nobody see" (literally translated title): https://www.tagesanzeiger...3163649639 (behind paywall)

Strawberrylova123 said:

Londell is having a meltdown on twitter. https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ https://x.com/londellmcmi...us26qn0pRQ

"Due Process and Fairness Matters. . No one should ever get the opportunity to independently create a “director’s vision” of your life without checks and balances. ARE YOU CRAZY!"

.

Actually yes, one should: it's called freedom of the press.

.

Now I haven't seen the doc and for example, while I found it interesting for the new facts it revealed, I wasn't too hot with Alex Hahn's first book because it seemed way too much like the author had an agenda against Prince as retaliation for the way Prince treated Uptown Magazine (Hahn having been their lawyer). So if the doc makes a point of trashing Prince (which is not the impression the article gave me, but again, I haven't seen it), it's a pity, but no, there is no obligation of "checks and balances".

.

One ethical obligation of journalists is theorically to always try and interview the "accused" and give them the opportunity to defend themselves, but even if he was among us, Prince would never have cared to do that. Either way, Prince is now gone and a historical figure. Whether a journalist is right or wrong when portraying him is now a debate among journalists and researchers, with other journalists being free to challenge one of their colleague's perspective. Dead artists' offspring, let alone their Estate ran by businessmen making money with what they left behind have absolutely no right to demand "checks and balance".

.

Now if the journalist in question or their publisher/producer were foolish enough to sign contracts allowing said Estate to approve the final result, it's on them. They should never have done that in the first place.

.

But coming from a lawyer, I find Mr. McMillan's statement quite absurd: he, of all people, should know better. And when it comes to him refering to Prince's life as "your life" (i.e. his life), I find this somewhat outrageous. Owning shares of a dead artist's catalogue doesn't make his life your life. No disrespect meant, but the only valid argument there is the Estate's legal right to block the documentary, and it is valid, but please, no moral nonsense about Prince's life being "theirs" or "checks and balances".

Jill Jones didn't technically accuse Prince of assault. Or, if she did, she also confessed to assault. If a woman (or a man for that matter) slapped me, my reaction wouldn't be the same as Prince's (presuming the story is true). BUT, it's not victim blaming to say "you reap what you sow" if a person strikes another and then deals with the response. Some may say Prince is guilty of "assault". I'd say he's guilty of defending himself.

databank said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

Id be happy with a moonage daydream type doc. It had a real immersiveness and flow to it that really pulled me in. Someone call Brett Morgan! But it didnt tell you much about bowie. It was also authorised by his estate which might be why it didnt even mention his first wife! So it was pretty uncontroversial. If this edelman film makes it out, it will be quite a coup. What is the name of it though, thats what id like to know, unless i missed it. Mcmillan and Spicer sound like babies, petty control fiends, just unhappy they dont get to pull the strings, basically just the same as prince when he sued fans, uptown, etc, that very same mindset. So maybe its true to prince, but that was disappointing the first time round. If they controlled the estate from day one they prob wouldnt even allow his music on YouTube etc.

Another template which might work is I'm Not There, the Dylan biopic that had multiple people, including Cate Blanchett, playing his various personas.

Edelman's comments on Prince's elusiveness make the title oddly appropriate.

But we have a very talented filmmaker who has already made a film that I hope we get to see.

SoulAlive said: