FUN WORLD

ABC

'General Hospital'

ABC enraged soap fans recently by canceling long-running shows All My Children and One Life to Live. Now the network has been sued by the heirs of the creators of General Hospital, who claim they have been stiffed on revenue from TV's longest-running daytime drama.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court by the daughters of Frank and Doris Hursley, who in 1963 created the medical drama and allegedly cut a deal with ABC to receive 10% of the show's net profits.

Now the Hursleys' daughters -- Bridget Dobson, Deborah Hardy and Polly Keusnik, two of whom also served as writers on the show -- are saying ABC hasn't honored the deal with their deceased parents, failing to pay the full amount owed or even allow a full audit.

The complaint for unspecified damages alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, money had and received and an accounting. It was filed by Dale Kinsella and Jeremiah Reynolds of Santa Monica's Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert.

ABC did not immediately respond to a request for comment

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

The "American Idol" judge, who partners with her husband Marc Anthony, director Jamie King and XIX Entertainment head Simon Fuller, says "Q'Viva" is "a show for the 21st century."

Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

Denise Richards

The Viacom-owned net has ordered 13 episodes of the scripted comedy, set to bow in September.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Richard Blumenthal acts following the data breach that has closed the Network since April 20.

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Nicolette Sheridan

A former executive producer of Desperate Housewives has come forward with testimony that supports Nicollette Sheridan in the actress's sex discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit against ABC and series creator Marc Cherry.

Lori Kirkland Baker, an Emmy-winning TV producer who worked on Housewives from May 2007 through May 2009, has submitted a sworn declaration in the case that supports Sheridan's timeline of events that led to her firing from the hit dramedy.

As we first reported last April, Sheridan filed a bombshell $20 million lawsuit alleging she was hit in the face by Cherry and wrongfully terminated from the series because, among other reasons, she is a woman. Sheridan later dropped her causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and discrimination based on sexual orientation and age. But the rest of the case is now heating up, with a key summary judgment hearing set for May 3.

In advance of that hearing, both Sheridan and ABC/Cherry have filed extensive court papers outlining their cases and the evidence collected so far (both Sheridan and Cherry, for example, already have sat for depositions.)

To win at this stage, ABC must convince Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White that the undisputed facts show Sheridan's allegations to be without merit.

"Sheridan was obviously unhappy to lose her job as a highly-compensated star of Desperate Housewives," the ABC/Cherry motion for summary judgment argues. "However, she cannot state a legal claim based on the creative decisions and actions challenged in her lawsuit."

A key dispute involves the timeline of events. Both sides agree that Sheridan, who was making $175,000 per episode in Season 5 of the show, was told in February 2009 that her character Edie Britt was being killed off. But ABC and Cherry argue in their motion that the decision to kill Sheridan's character was actually made nine months earlier, in May 2008, when "after discussing the death of Edie with the other staff writers and producers," Cherry got the green light from both producer Touchstone Television and ABC to dump the character.

If true, that would poke a big hole in Sheridan's theory that an alleged September 24, 2008 altercation with Cherry--in which he is said to have slapped her in the face on the set--and her subsequent complaints about it, were major reasons she was given the boot.

But now Kirkland Baker, who was one of those staff writers and producers working on Housewives during the fifth season, has come forward to say she didn't know Sheridan's character would be eliminated until at least September 2008.

"In fall of 2008, Mr. Cherry began talking with the writing staff, myself included, about killing off the Edie Britt character," Kirkland Baker says in her April 9 declaration, a copy of which was obtained by THR. "I have no recollection of any decision to kill off the Edie Britt character prior to fall of 2008."

And around the time of the alleged Sheridan slap, says Kirkland Baker, "Mr. Cherry had expressed to the writers, in my presence, increasing frustration with Ms. Sheridan." That led to a December meeting in which Cherry told the writing staff that he had met with then-ABC president Steve McPherson and had decided to kill off the Sheridan character at the end of Season 5, according to the declaration.

However, after Cherry returned from attending the inauguration party for President Obama in January 2009, "Mr. Cherry advised the writing staff that he'd changed his mind about the timing of Edie Britt's death," Kirkland Baker says. "Rather than waiting for the end of the season, he wanted to change course and, instead, have Edie Britt killed off much sooner." The writer/producer says Cherry then instructed his staff that the character "was going to be killed off in one of the next episodes to be written and filmed."

ABC lead lawyer Adam Levin declined to comment on the case. But the network's counter to that argument is that Kirkland Baker simply wasn't privy to the actual plans for the show until Cherry was prepared to go public. Indeed, in its motion, ABC says the fate of Sheridan's character "was kept highly confidential to prevent leaks to the media and public."

Still, Sheridan's lawyers argue in their court papers that the testimony of such insiders as Kirkland Baker and another writer-producer, Jeffrey Greenstein, "show that Cherry decided to kill off Edie after the September 24, 2008 assault and after she complained to Touchstone." (Sheridan's attorneys at Baute Crochetiere & Maloney were not available for comment.)

Why does the timeline matter? After all, it's only one aspect of the main case--whether Cherry hit Sheridan and whether she was fired due to discrimination.

But ABC is arguing that key parts of the litigation should be thrown out because it isn't possible that Sheridan could have been fired in response to an incident that hadn't happened when the firing decision was made. And Sheridan, in raising the timeline question, is trying to show that there's a real dispute over the facts in the case--a dispute she argues will require a trial, thus preventing the case from being dismissed at this stage.

The stage is set for some courtroom fireworks on May 3. If Sheridan's case survives the hearing, a trial is set for June 8 in downtown Los Angeles.

UPDATE: Lori Kirkland Baker emails us wanting to make sure Hollywood knows she isn't supporting Sheridan's case (or ABC's). Rather, she was contacted by the plaintiff's attorneys and asked for a timeline of events, which she agreed to submit in a sworn declaration. "I have no opinion on the merits of the case and am merely answering what's asked of me as clearly as I can recall

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Nicolette Sheridan

A former executive producer of Desperate Housewives has come forward with testimony that supports Nicollette Sheridan in the actress's sex discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit against ABC and series creator Marc Cherry.

Lori Kirkland Baker, an Emmy-winning TV producer who worked on Housewives from May 2007 through May 2009, has submitted a sworn declaration in the case that supports Sheridan's timeline of events that led to her firing from the hit dramedy.

As we first reported last April, Sheridan filed a bombshell $20 million lawsuit alleging she was hit in the face by Cherry and wrongfully terminated from the series because, among other reasons, she is a woman. Sheridan later dropped her causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and discrimination based on sexual orientation and age. But the rest of the case is now heating up, with a key summary judgment hearing set for May 3.

In advance of that hearing, both Sheridan and ABC/Cherry have filed extensive court papers outlining their cases and the evidence collected so far (both Sheridan and Cherry, for example, already have sat for depositions.)

To win at this stage, ABC must convince Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White that the undisputed facts show Sheridan's allegations to be without merit.

"Sheridan was obviously unhappy to lose her job as a highly-compensated star of Desperate Housewives," the ABC/Cherry motion for summary judgment argues. "However, she cannot state a legal claim based on the creative decisions and actions challenged in her lawsuit."

A key dispute involves the timeline of events. Both sides agree that Sheridan, who was making $175,000 per episode in Season 5 of the show, was told in February 2009 that her character Edie Britt was being killed off. But ABC and Cherry argue in their motion that the decision to kill Sheridan's character was actually made nine months earlier, in May 2008, when "after discussing the death of Edie with the other staff writers and producers," Cherry got the green light from both producer Touchstone Television and ABC to dump the character.

If true, that would poke a big hole in Sheridan's theory that an alleged September 24, 2008 altercation with Cherry--in which he is said to have slapped her in the face on the set--and her subsequent complaints about it, were major reasons she was given the boot.

But now Kirkland Baker, who was one of those staff writers and producers working on Housewives during the fifth season, has come forward to say she didn't know Sheridan's character would be eliminated until at least September 2008.

"In fall of 2008, Mr. Cherry began talking with the writing staff, myself included, about killing off the Edie Britt character," Kirkland Baker says in her April 9 declaration, a copy of which was obtained by THR. "I have no recollection of any decision to kill off the Edie Britt character prior to fall of 2008."

And around the time of the alleged Sheridan slap, says Kirkland Baker, "Mr. Cherry had expressed to the writers, in my presence, increasing frustration with Ms. Sheridan." That led to a December meeting in which Cherry told the writing staff that he had met with then-ABC president Steve McPherson and had decided to kill off the Sheridan character at the end of Season 5, according to the declaration.

However, after Cherry returned from attending the inauguration party for President Obama in January 2009, "Mr. Cherry advised the writing staff that he'd changed his mind about the timing of Edie Britt's death," Kirkland Baker says. "Rather than waiting for the end of the season, he wanted to change course and, instead, have Edie Britt killed off much sooner." The writer/producer says Cherry then instructed his staff that the character "was going to be killed off in one of the next episodes to be written and filmed."

ABC lead lawyer Adam Levin declined to comment on the case. But the network's counter to that argument is that Kirkland Baker simply wasn't privy to the actual plans for the show until Cherry was prepared to go public. Indeed, in its motion, ABC says the fate of Sheridan's character "was kept highly confidential to prevent leaks to the media and public."

Still, Sheridan's lawyers argue in their court papers that the testimony of such insiders as Kirkland Baker and another writer-producer, Jeffrey Greenstein, "show that Cherry decided to kill off Edie after the September 24, 2008 assault and after she complained to Touchstone." (Sheridan's attorneys at Baute Crochetiere & Maloney were not available for comment.)

Why does the timeline matter? After all, it's only one aspect of the main case--whether Cherry hit Sheridan and whether she was fired due to discrimination.

But ABC is arguing that key parts of the litigation should be thrown out because it isn't possible that Sheridan could have been fired in response to an incident that hadn't happened when the firing decision was made. And Sheridan, in raising the timeline question, is trying to show that there's a real dispute over the facts in the case--a dispute she argues will require a trial, thus preventing the case from being dismissed at this stage.

The stage is set for some courtroom fireworks on May 3. If Sheridan's case survives the hearing, a trial is set for June 8 in downtown Los Angeles.

UPDATE: Lori Kirkland Baker emails us wanting to make sure Hollywood knows she isn't supporting Sheridan's case (or ABC's). Rather, she was contacted by the plaintiff's attorneys and asked for a timeline of events, which she agreed to submit in a sworn declaration. "I have no opinion on the merits of the case and am merely answering what's asked of me as clearly as I can recall

Jon Kopaloff/Getty Images

Jason Sudeikis

This is the first time the "Saturday Night Live" regular is hosting the awards show.

Courtesy of FOX

By adding series from ABC and Fox, the cable giant says it will be the first pay TV provider to offer current shows from all four major networks.

Yeah, so I'm on "vacation" - what of it? True, by having this work stoppage I am, in some sad sense, bringing the weak stuff. Which is what I preach for series not to do. But hey, it's only a week. Plus, for the sake of some kind of continuity, I'm going to lay out the Fab Five for you - for the week ending April 24. And next week, The Power Rankings! will be back to the Elite Eleven and dealing with the finale of Justified, plus other important moments in television. Until then, here's how I would have kicked off the rankings this week:

1. Game of Thrones

2. The Killing

3. Justified

4. Treme

5. Archer

We can hug this out later. But just so you know some of the reasoning, the first three essentially retained their greatness as expected and aligned exactly like the previous week. Treme is a welcome addition and its return warmed our cold little heart. And the Archer season finale was, well, Archer-esque. As noted previously, Friday Night Lights is wonderful but doesn't start hitting on the correct cylinders until the fourth episode and that was just the second one. And yes, last week I forgot to mention that one of my favorites, Fringe, was still in contention. In any case, The Power Rankings! will be back to full form next week

Courtesy of NBC Universal

NBC’s singing competition show improves the net's season average by 89% while "Glee" sinks to season low.

Lately, Fox and Marvel have had a real yen for making superhero origin stories. But off-screen, the Writers Guild of America has had its hands full determining the origin of the X-Men: First Class screenplay itself.

After an unusually complicated credit dispute, WGA arbitrators determined Tuesday that Sheldon Turner and Bryan Singer deserve story credit and Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn will share screenplay credit on the Fox/Marvel franchise film, set for release in the U.S. on June 3. In an odd twist, Josh Schwartz and Jamie Moss, the first two writers on First Class, were left out even as Turner, who never wrote on the script, was included. (Though a potential appeal is still in the offing.)

How did this happen? The anomaly points less to the ever-frustrating WGA credits process than to the unique nature of the comic-book world that Marvel and its studio partners continue to grow. And the stakes are high, as credited writers typically become eligible for bonuses and royalties if the films do well (as they often do).

After X2: X-Men United grossed $408 million in 2003, Fox took a serious look at expanding the franchise by breaking off individual characters from the core group of X-Men, even as it moved toward making a third movie in the series. So in 2004, David Benioff was hired to pen a Wolverine spinoff, and Turner was hired to write a Magneto spinoff. Over the next four years, those two scripts were developed and eventually re-branded as X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men Origins: Magneto.

David Goyer came on to direct Magneto in April 2007 and also worked a bit on Turner's script, which took a look at Magneto's origins as a Holocaust survivor and his early friendship with Professor Charles Xavier. Even though it was ready to cast and go forward, Fox kept waiting to get X-Men Origins: Wolverine in shape enough to entice Hugh Jackman back to the franchise, since his character was a more bankable hero than Magneto's revenge-minded evil mutant.

At one point, the two scripts were going to be intertwined a bit in the Marvel universe fashion (see: The Avengers), but ultimately, even though it cycled through a number of potential directors, Wolverine went ahead in early 2008 with Rendition director Gavin Hood at the helm. Released to kick off the summer May 1, 2009, Wolverine grossed $373 million worldwide and Magneto was essentially backburnered.

In the meantime, Schwartz (Gossip Girl, The O.C.) was hired by Fox in November 2008 to write a First Class script about the origins of the Xavier Institute for Higher Learning that would bring a younger vibe to the franchise. A year later Singer announced his intention to come back and direct First Class after writing a new, independent treatment that was then spun into a script by Moss.

Miller and Stentz were brought on after Moss. Then Vaughn, who had been attached to direct both X-Men: The Last Stand and Thor, came aboard to direct in May 2010, bringing his collaborator Goldman with him. The four of them worked on the shooting script in London before Vaughn and Goldman took over. Simon Kinberg, who is also a producer, did revisions during filming but didn't seek credit (nor did Goyer).

Schwartz did want credit, and he and Moss could appeal the result, but only if they can point to something improper in the process. Schwartz's original screenplay apparently hewed very close to the X-Men: First Class comic miniseries from 2006-07 that focused on characters from the first trilogy of films such as Jean Gray, Beast and Cyclops as teenagers. Most of those characters were ultimately booted in favor of a focus on the early relationship between Professor X and Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto. That didn't stop Schwartz from pre-arbitrating the credit situation in April of this year, so the argument may not be over. (As one of the participating writers cracked, "If you have a dog in the hunt, you go for it.")

As that transition occurred, material from the Magneto script became a strong fit for the new shape of the First Class story line, including the Nazi doctor villain on whom Magneto is seeking revenge. In August, Lauren Shuler Donner, who was a producer on both projects, said that Magneto was pretty dead but admitted that a lot of its material was subsumed by First Class.

More of these cross-pollinated debates could occur as Fox -- and Marvel -- continue to branch out into various niches of their overlapping character universes. Fox has a Deadpool spinoff in development being written by Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick that gained momentum after Wolverine's opening. And a Wolverine sequel is in development with a script being written by Christopher McQuarrie, while a fourth X-Men film is a possibility.

Future credit disputes are inevitable regardless. To paraphrase an exchange from the Magneto script that ended up in the climactic moment of the First Class trailer:

"The credits will not bring you peace."

"Peace was never an option."

John Shearer/Getty Images

The "Black Swan" director won the event's top prize for "The Wrestler" in 2008.