[REMOVE ADS]




Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51
  1. #1

    What David Ruffin wanted to rename The Temptations to...

    Just saw this on Lipstick Alley but apparently this is what David wanted to rename the Temptations to:

    David Ruffin and The Temptations featuring Eddie Kendricks.


    Don't know how true it is but if it is, I wonder if it was around the time they reunited in '82 (and I'm guessing it is because in '67, he wanted it to be The Temptations featuring David Ruffin or David Ruffin and the Temptations)?

    Talk about some messy drama lol


  2. #2
    I read about this in Tony Turner's book on the Tempts (page 31). Make of that what you will.

    In any event, Turner wrote that after Diana received separate billing, David wanted the same. It made sense to him as Motown had Diana Ross and..., Smokey Robinson and..., Junior Walker and..., etc. So he was going to propose the billing you wrote above. Supposedly he also felt there should be some uniformity to these names at the company, so he was going to speak to Wanda Rogers about having her group renamed Wanda Rogers and the Marvelettes.

  3. #3
    Oh. LOL

    But in the film, it did seem like that was David's intention.

    I think in the Temptations' book, he mentioned saying "I'm David Ruffin and these are the Temptations" so he was indeed trying to state his case like "Smokey, Diana, Martha and Junior Walker named their groups, why can't I?!"

  4. #4
    With the passage of time, it's hard to survive drama, be it from drugs, sex or ego (money). Very few groups can last when one of these three is bound to pop up. Makes me wonder how the Tops, Whispers, Dells, Manhattans and Spinners were able to last for as long as they did.

  5. #5
    Where David was coming from was understandable to a certain degree, but he overlooked one important fact. The Temptations were a five member group with three lead singers. They didn't have to rely strictly on his talents as a vocalist to be credible entity. Whatever it was he couldn't do or refused to do could be done by someone else. The other groups didn't have that luxury, if the lead singer left it could be dangerous. The Miracles survived without Smokey and had their biggest hit afterwards, but it wasn't the same. I will say that David had the greatest influence as one of it's premier singers, but Dennis certainly carried the torch when David was dismissed. The change came right on time too, as Norman Whitfield was about to evolve as a producer. David was reminded many times that he was no God in the Tempts,even by Ivy Jo Hunter. Had the group had a feature name out front they would've made more money. But it would've meant more cash for Motown and their conflict of interest as opposed to the group.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    With the passage of time, it's hard to survive drama, be it from drugs, sex or ego (money). Very few groups can last when one of these three is bound to pop up. Makes me wonder how the Tops, Whispers, Dells, Manhattans and Spinners were able to last for as long as they did.
    Loyalty and lack of huge egos.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    With the passage of time, it's hard to survive drama, be it from drugs, sex or ego (money). Very few groups can last when one of these three is bound to pop up. Makes me wonder how the Tops, Whispers, Dells, Manhattans and Spinners were able to last for as long as they did.
    You're right about how the inner workings or surrounding environment of the entertainment industry can knock talents off it's square. The groups you mentioned all had internal problems at one point or another, but history, respect and discipline is what ultimately kept them together.

    Death shattered The Tops original lineup when Lawrence Payton died. Motown did want Levi to go solo, but he lovingly declined. If you had been with a group of guys since you were a teen and you're in your thirties when a split is suggested would you leave?

    The Whispers had history on their side also. The one stalling block is when one of the guys developed a drug addiction and left to get his head straight. That suit was always there for him.

    The Manhattans original lead singer died of a brain tumor after an accidental fall. Before he passed he gave Gerald Alston his blessing. The issue was when Columbia Records no longer considered them an asset and let them go. Gerald Alston then wanted to try a solo career and tried his best, but returned when it didn't work out. Love, History, Respect.

    The Spinners core had been in place previous to Motown in the Harvey/Tri Phi era. They weathered many a storm though. Being ignored at Motown for the most part, but scoring a hit towards the expiration of their contract. The only way they got to keep their name was through G.C. Cameron staying with the company. His cousin Philipe Wynne helped propel the group,decided things were moving too slow and left against Thom Bell's advice and concern. Didn't stop them though and they forged ahead as brothers.

    I think it all came down to love and unwavering loyalty at the end if the day. Everything else was secondary and that was the glue that held them together.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
    You're right about how the inner workings or surrounding environment of the entertainment industry can knock talents off it's square. The groups you mentioned all had internal problems at one point or another, but history, respect and discipline is what ultimately kept them together.

    Death shattered The Tops original lineup when Lawrence Payton died. Motown did want Levi to go solo, but he lovingly declined. If you had been with a group of guys since you were a teen and you're in your thirties when a split is suggested would you leave?

    The Whispers had history on their side also. The one stalling block is when one of the guys developed a drug addiction and left to get his head straight. That suit was always there for him.

    The Manhattans original lead singer died of a brain tumor after an accidental fall. Before he passed he gave Gerald Alston his blessing. The issue was when Columbia Records no longer considered them an asset and let them go. Gerald Alston then wanted to try a solo career and tried his best, but returned when it didn't work out. Love, History, Respect.

    The Spinners core had been in place previous to Motown in the Harvey/Tri Phi era. They weathered many a storm though. Being ignored at Motown for the most part, but scoring a hit towards the expiration of their contract. The only way they got to keep their name was through G.C. Cameron staying with the company. His cousin Philipe Wynne helped propel the group,decided things were moving too slow and left against Thom Bell's advice and concern. Didn't stop them though and they forged ahead as brothers.

    I think it all came down to love and unwavering loyalty at the end if the day. Everything else was secondary and that was the glue that held them together.
    Posts like this are what makes this forum such a wonderful escape for me. Thanks, Quinn.

  9. #9
    Forgot to mention that during The Whispers' original run with Gordy Harmon, they would've likely kept him had he not had that accident that effed up his larynx. Leavill Degree (sp?) replaced him and despite the fact he (unknowingly) committed a crime in 1980, they not only forgave him but kept paying him! As he said in their Unsung, "WHO DOES THAT?!" He expected them to ditch him and they didn't. That's LOYALTY!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
    Where David was coming from was understandable to a certain degree, but he overlooked one important fact. The Temptations were a five member group with three lead singers.
    David Ruffin overlooked another important fact; Motown was not in favor of renaming the group to spotlight him. While Motown recognized his talent as a singer, BG felt that 'no man is more important than the group' when it came to The Temptations.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    With the passage of time, it's hard to survive drama, be it from drugs, sex or ego (money). Very few groups can last when one of these three is bound to pop up. Makes me wonder how the Tops, Whispers, Dells, Manhattans and Spinners were able to last for as long as they did.
    In the case of the Four Tops, Dells, Manhattans and Spinners, they all grew up together and had pretty much had the same values. The Temptations did not.
    Last edited by marv2; 08-08-2018 at 08:57 AM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Motown Eddie View Post
    David Ruffin overlooked another important fact; Motown was not in favor of renaming the group to spotlight him. While Motown recognized his talent as a singer, BG felt that 'no man is more important than the group' when it came to The Temptations.
    Also, it was understood by BG already before David even came in the picture that the Temptations were to have NO designated lead vocalist since Otis wanted his group to have equal leads. Otis said that before the group began to really have success, they were pretty independent on how they handled things. Also David couldn't really get away with having his name in front of the billing since Paul and (most definitely) Eddie were still getting leads. The Temptations (along with the Marvelettes) were the only acts where one or more leads contributed to the hits as well as album songs.

  13. #13
    "nobody's coming to see you Otis" how true. They could have pulled the janitor of 20 Grand on stage in his place and no one would have noticed...better yet they even could have put the mop in his place.

    Sorry I just have an extreme dislike for Otis lol

  14. #14
    ^ LMAO XD

    You ain't right...

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by floyjoy678 View Post
    "nobody's coming to see you Otis" how true. They could have pulled the janitor of 20 Grand on stage in his place and no one would have noticed...better yet they even could have put the mop in his place.

    Sorry I just have an extreme dislike for Otis lol
    No disrespect to Otis at all, but it chapped me in the Temptations movie that he was the only member who had no warts. And then, at the end Melvin's mother pulled him to the side to tell him "Thank you, Otis. You have always been there for the boys." Of course, Good Guy Otis was a producer of the project but I don't suppose that had a bearing on how he was portayed...

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    No disrespect to Otis at all, but it chapped me in the Temptations movie that he was the only member who had no warts. And then, at the end Melvin's mother pulled him to the side to tell him "Thank you, Otis. You have always been there for the boys." Of course, Good Guy Otis was a producer of the project but I don't suppose that had a bearing on how he was portayed...
    You have to keep in mind that it was Otis' version of the story. They used his book, then throw in Suzanne DePasse and you got what you got! LOL! Melvin didn't even die at his mother's house, he was in the hospital. We did a thread listing all of the inaccuracies and just plain made stuff for that movie.
    Last edited by marv2; 08-08-2018 at 11:41 PM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
    You're right about how the inner workings or surrounding environment of the entertainment industry can knock talents off it's square. The groups you mentioned all had internal problems at one point or another, but history, respect and discipline is what ultimately kept them together.

    Death shattered The Tops original lineup when Lawrence Payton died. Motown did want Levi to go solo, but he lovingly declined. If you had been with a group of guys since you were a teen and you're in your thirties when a split is suggested would you leave?

    The Whispers had history on their side also. The one stalling block is when one of the guys developed a drug addiction and left to get his head straight. That suit was always there for him.

    The Manhattans original lead singer died of a brain tumor after an accidental fall. Before he passed he gave Gerald Alston his blessing. The issue was when Columbia Records no longer considered them an asset and let them go. Gerald Alston then wanted to try a solo career and tried his best, but returned when it didn't work out. Love, History, Respect.

    The Spinners core had been in place previous to Motown in the Harvey/Tri Phi era. They weathered many a storm though. Being ignored at Motown for the most part, but scoring a hit towards the expiration of their contract. The only way they got to keep their name was through G.C. Cameron staying with the company. His cousin Philipe Wynne helped propel the group,decided things were moving too slow and left against Thom Bell's advice and concern. Didn't stop them though and they forged ahead as brothers.

    I think it all came down to love and unwavering loyalty at the end if the day. Everything else was secondary and that was the glue that held them together.

    Salute !! Good post.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    No disrespect to Otis at all, but it chapped me in the Temptations movie that he was the only member who had no warts. And then, at the end Melvin's mother pulled him to the side to tell him "Thank you, Otis. You have always been there for the boys." Of course, Good Guy Otis was a producer of the project but I don't suppose that had a bearing on how he was portayed...
    Not only that but had his own mama (who was ill) say "you're not only a success in music but as a man as well".

    It's like:

    1.) Didn't this same man not keep his original group together or at least the originals who made the group famous?
    2.) Didn't he fire Richard Street after he got ill?
    3.) Didn't he cheat on his only child's mother? (I mean in the film, they showed his wife catching him holding hands and kissing Flo!)

    Didn't help that he probably over exaggerated his issues with Eddie (the film had Eddie being softer than he was; Otis even recounts that last time Eddie was with the Temptations, he and Otis were going to fight; Otis claimed Eddie knocked on the door like he was ready for it and Otis wouldn't leave his room because that would mean The Tempts would cancel their Copa gig that night and Eddie just left without saying a word and he was out of the group).

    Also, how is he gonna okay producers saying David Ruffin was dropped by someone in a car and also as "unidentified"? I mean it wasn't that hard to recognize DAVID RUFFIN now!

    Had Melvin dying in his mama's house as some "symbolic gesture" rather than where he really died at (in L.A. at a hospital and he died from a SEIZURE).

    Yeah I looked at him sideways after that. I think he contributed greatly to the Temptations as he helped them maintain their relevance in a changing music world even with revolving members but he didn't do his brothers justice in the film.

  19. #19
    According to otis,david called a meeting in[66]and mentioned the name change and got shot down and otis says that he backed down...for a time!

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    just saw this on lipstick alley but apparently this is what david wanted to rename the temptations to:

    david ruffin and the temptations featuring eddie kendricks.


    don't know how true it is but if it is, i wonder if it was around the time they reunited in '82 (and i'm guessing it is because in '67, he wanted it to be the temptations featuring david ruffin or david ruffin and the temptations)?

    Talk about some messy drama lol

    haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    Not only that but had his own mama (who was ill) say "you're not only a success in music but as a man as well".

    It's like:

    1.) Didn't this same man not keep his original group together or at least the originals who made the group famous?
    2.) Didn't he fire Richard Street after he got ill?
    3.) Didn't he cheat on his only child's mother? (I mean in the film, they showed his wife catching him holding hands and kissing Flo!)

    Didn't help that he probably over exaggerated his issues with Eddie (the film had Eddie being softer than he was; Otis even recounts that last time Eddie was with the Temptations, he and Otis were going to fight; Otis claimed Eddie knocked on the door like he was ready for it and Otis wouldn't leave his room because that would mean The Tempts would cancel their Copa gig that night and Eddie just left without saying a word and he was out of the group).

    Also, how is he gonna okay producers saying David Ruffin was dropped by someone in a car and also as "unidentified"? I mean it wasn't that hard to recognize DAVID RUFFIN now!

    Had Melvin dying in his mama's house as some "symbolic gesture" rather than where he really died at (in L.A. at a hospital and he died from a SEIZURE).

    Yeah I looked at him sideways after that. I think he contributed greatly to the Temptations as he helped them maintain their relevance in a changing music world even with revolving members but he didn't do his brothers justice in the film.
    The thing that gets me is that it would make him look better in retrospect to admit the things that he did wrong than it does to gloss over it. I constantly try to remind myself of my mistakes so I can be better. When you watch a biopic and it leaves out stuff that's public knowledge, it makes you question whether the things they show you are even close to accurate. In the end, the movie was more entertaining than it was informative or credible.

    And that's too bad.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The thing that gets me is that it would make him look better in retrospect to admit the things that he did wrong than it does to gloss over it. I constantly try to remind myself of my mistakes so I can be better. When you watch a biopic and it leaves out stuff that's public knowledge, it makes you question whether the things they show you are even close to accurate. In the end, the movie was more entertaining than it was informative or credible.

    And that's too bad.
    The problem I have is knowing what I know about the real story, younger people who do not know may watch the movie and believe every word of it! They didn't even film it in Detroit. They did it in Pittsburgh!

  23. #23
    The[tv] movie was almost comical for the real[temps]fans,that's why someone has to remake their story with the truth[as much as we know]being told.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by marv2 View Post
    The problem I have is knowing what I know about the real story, younger people who do not know may watch the movie and believe every word of it! They didn't even film it in Detroit. They did it in Pittsburgh!
    Yep. Although I enjoyed "Get On Up", it barely skimmed over James Brown's story. I could have written the script for the movie without doing any research because I know so much about his life. And even being a two-hour+ movie, it left out almost as many significant events as it displayed. And if that was the case telling the story of one man, imagine trying to detail decades in the lives of a group (with a changing lineup).

    I know that movies have only so much time to tell a story but as a fan, I was not satisfied with either movie. In the end, there wasn't enough music to make either project really worth the time. Especially when I have all the music already.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    The[tv] movie was almost comical for the real[temps]fans,that's why someone has to remake their story with the truth[as much as we know]being told.
    But "truth" is subjective. Otis is the hero of his story. Dennis the hero of his. Melvin the hero of his. Multiply this by all of the members of the Temps and you'll never have a movie that tells the story objectively.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    But "truth" is subjective. Otis is the hero of his story. Dennis the hero of his. Melvin the hero of his. Multiply this by all of the members of the Temps and you'll never have a movie that tells the story objectively.
    For some reason I believe that Eddie would have told the whole, warts and all because that was the type of guy he was. He was tough, actually very tough hehehehehehe, but had a heart and was not into BS. I think he learned to become more diplomatic as he got older, but he was a straight shooter and would have even told of his own shortcomings.

  27. #27
    "Get On Up" was done from JB's point of view. They did cover the ONE TIME he was physically violent but he was much harsher than what the film portrayed. JB didn't want the full truth out on him. A lot of music biopics are done with some cake covering for the subject. That's why when stuff gets revealed, it's shocking to hear.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The thing that gets me is that it would make him look better in retrospect to admit the things that he did wrong than it does to gloss over it. I constantly try to remind myself of my mistakes so I can be better. When you watch a biopic and it leaves out stuff that's public knowledge, it makes you question whether the things they show you are even close to accurate. In the end, the movie was more entertaining than it was informative or credible.

    And that's too bad.
    Yeah when I first watched it at 14, it was definitely entertaining but even then I thought "some things are a miss" but I couldn't put my finger on it. Over a decade later and the discovery of the internet and you find out more stuff that definitely makes the film looks like a fantasy film than a biopic lol

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    According to otis,david called a meeting in[66]and mentioned the name change and got shot down and otis says that he backed down...for a time!
    The way Otis describes it, David and them had a meeting and was business like. I imagine this is how it went.

    DAVID: Guys, I've been thinking. Since Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson and Martha Reeves got their names in front of the bill, I thought of renaming this one as David Ruffin and the Temptations. Change for me and change for y'all.
    OTIS: Not on my watch.
    MELVIN: You crazy.
    PAUL: We were the Temptations before you showed up, Ruff.
    EDDIE: We sing lead too. Not happening.
    DAVID: OK then. [Laughing] Call me when it's time for rehearsal. [Walks out]

    Instead, the film had David turning into "I'm David Ruffin, b***h" LOL

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    "Get On Up" was done from JB's point of view. They did cover the ONE TIME he was physically violent but he was much harsher than what the film portrayed. JB didn't want the full truth out on him. A lot of music biopics are done with some cake covering for the subject. That's why when stuff gets revealed, it's shocking to hear.
    How do you present a man who was both deserving of great respect and also one of the most reprehensible people to deal with? That's a complex, human story. A great script and great director could handle it. The same is what would have been necessary to pull off a good movie about the Temptations and we didn't get either.

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    How do you present a man who was both deserving of great respect and also one of the most reprehensible people to deal with? That's a complex, human story. A great script and great director could handle it. The same is what would have been necessary to pull off a good movie about the Temptations and we didn't get either.

    It came off as if it were about a Country group or something. The Temptations' story was a very urban story once they all were young and in Detroit. This movie didn't have the grit I would expect about one of the top Soul groups of the sixties that came out of Detroit! The real Temptations were city slick as were almost everyone around them. This film was just too wholesome to be about the Temptations. They made David Ruffin look like a totally misfit which wasn't true. True, he was born in Mississippi, but he was from the streets. The other great inaccuracies were how Paul Williams and Eddie Kendricks were depicted. If this is what Suzanne DePasse really thought of them, then it is no wonder why they weren't invited to participate in "Motown 25".
    Last edited by marv2; 08-09-2018 at 09:51 PM.

  32. #32
    Not to throw a crack into the damn but you do realize that Otis had no real input into how the movie was presented. You remember how many people tried to sue Otis and lost

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    How do you present a man who was both deserving of great respect and also one of the most reprehensible people to deal with? That's a complex, human story. A great script and great director could handle it. The same is what would have been necessary to pull off a good movie about the Temptations and we didn't get either.
    Very complex. James Brown is one man that can be equally described as:

    1.) The greatest musician and performer of all time (and even then, he'll have few who would rise above him arguably)
    2.) A great humanitarian and somewhat good activist (some of his beliefs I couldn't get by like supporting Nixon and Reagan. No sirree Bob!)
    3.) One of the most horrible individuals to deal with via friends, girlfriends and wives.

    It's also telling that a lot of our legends were very imperfect, flawed people. We look up to them as symbols and half the time don't realize they're just like us in a lot of ways. The Temptations were like that too.

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by blackguy69 View Post
    Not to throw a crack into the damn but you do realize that Otis had no real input into how the movie was presented. You remember how many people tried to sue Otis and lost
    Otis WAS listed as a producer though... that's why he got sued to begin with. If the judge really didn't think he had no input, he would've dismissed the case saying "are you nuts? You're suing a man who wasn't the producer? He just provided them with his book! No, case dismissed." Instead, he tried it because Otis was a producer. There WERE legit reasons why they sued but the judge probably thought at the end they sued the wrong parties (Otis) but they sued NBC too and they got off so IDK. I get what you're saying, but obviously being a founding member, you'd think he tell them "yo, that's not how they were". He didn't. But that's his excuse. I just wish we heard from the four that died (well two; Otis and Melvin remained tight until the end and Paul and Otis remained close even as he decided to leave for a solo career the year of his death; but Eddie and David's books would've been something else lol).
    Last edited by midnightman; 08-09-2018 at 09:21 PM.

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    Otis WAS listed as a producer though... that's why he got sued to begin with. If the judge really didn't think he had no input, he would've dismissed the case saying "are you nuts? You're suing a man who wasn't the producer? He just provided them with his book! No, case dismissed." Instead, he tried it because Otis was a producer. There WERE legit reasons why they sued but the judge probably thought at the end they sued the wrong parties (Otis) but they sued NBC too and they got off so IDK. I get what you're saying, but obviously being a founding member, you'd think he tell them "yo, that's not how they were". He didn't. But that's his excuse. I just wish we heard from the four that died (well two; Otis and Melvin remained tight until the end and Paul and Otis remained close even as he decided to leave for a solo career the year of his death; but Eddie and David's books would've been something else lol).
    producer isn’t a director. Producers usually put up the $$ but doesn’t have much input on how the material is presented.

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by blackguy69 View Post
    producer isn’t a director. Producers usually put up the $$ but doesn’t have much input on how the material is presented.
    I've always looked at this as a Suzanne DePasse/Otis Williams story of "The Temptations".

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by blackguy69 View Post
    producer isn’t a director. Producers usually put up the $$ but doesn’t have much input on how the material is presented.
    Producers have 100% say in the material presented - the director brings it to life.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac View Post
    Producers have 100% say in the material presented - the director brings it to life.
    not quite. He already admitted that he didn’t have much input on the presentation of material. Everyone here can say what they want but a court of law cleared him not once but twice ( when it was appealed)

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by blackguy69 View Post
    not quite. He already admitted that he didn’t have much input on the presentation of material. Everyone here can say what they want but a court of law cleared him not once but twice ( when it was appealed)
    Do you think he was given a chance to preview the film before it was aired?

  40. #40
    For reference, here is the link to the thread where we discussed the inaccuracies in the Temptations movie. From the Fall of 2015?

    https://soulfuldetroit.com/showthrea...ptations+Movie

  41. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    Very complex. James Brown is one man that can be equally described as:

    1.) The greatest musician and performer of all time (and even then, he'll have few who would rise above him arguably)
    2.) A great humanitarian and somewhat good activist (some of his beliefs I couldn't get by like supporting Nixon and Reagan. No sirree Bob!)
    3.) One of the most horrible individuals to deal with via friends, girlfriends and wives.

    It's also telling that a lot of our legends were very imperfect, flawed people. We look up to them as symbols and half the time don't realize they're just like us in a lot of ways. The Temptations were like that too.
    I actually enjoyed "Get On Up", I just didn't take anything away from watching the movie. The documentary "Mr. Dynamite: The Rise of James Brown" was much more comprehensive and showed the various facets of him than the biopic did.

    I didn't read the judge's decision on the lawsuits but typically, if the basis of the suit is that you don't appreciate someone's opinion of you, you're not going to win. Unless they show you shooting someone and laughing about getting away with murder, there's plenty of rope for artistic license in movies and books. I am going to look up the decision tomorrow, though.

  42. #42
    Yeah I forgot what the judge based his decision on. Doubt it was just about opinion? But heck, what do I know? I've never been in court! So blackguy and you could be right.

  43. #43
    Speaking of eddie,how many know that he wanted to leave the temps as far back as[67]? As for the book i have no problem with what otis says,he just tells the story of the group as does blue in[meet the temptations-the motown story-1984]the movie makes them look like a bunch of soft guys and one tough one[ruffin].

  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    Yeah I forgot what the judge based his decision on. Doubt it was just about opinion? But heck, what do I know? I've never been in court! So blackguy and you could be right.
    Okay, here's what I learned about lawsuits brought by David Ruffin's mother and kids, Melvin Franklin's mother, Otis Williams' ex-wife and his ex-manager.

    David Ruffin's mother, Earline, sued over the movie's depiction of his death and showing his body was left unclaimed at the morgue for a week. The suit also contended with the suggestion that she was a prostitute, hinted at by Ruffin saying he was given to a pimp as payment for a debt. Earline Ruffin was not David's birth mother. The movie also allegedly defamed him when it showed the other members to have wives and children whereas Ruffin was depicted to be single and childless.


    Melvin's mother, Rose, sued over the depiction of his death, which was (as previously stated) not at her home but in the hospital.


    Otis' wife, Josephine Miles, sued over the fact that Otis (as I stated) was depicted as Father of the Decade and the movie also incorrectly depicted her as a cheater. She said he was a dog and she didn't cheat.


    Specifically, the bases for the lawsuits ere (A) Right of Publicity (B) Unjust Enrichment (C) Defamation and (D) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. I read the summary of the appeal which stated that there was no tort statute under Michigan law that permitted them to prevail regarding their right to publicity.

    The court also determined that the producers had a right to tell a story that involved his acquaintances, so there was no unjust enrichment.

    Earline Ruffin died before her case completed its run through the system and under Alabama law, defamation claims do not survive death of the plaintiff.

    Finally, the court determined that there was no way to prove that the producers altered events depicted in the movie with the intent of causing the plaintiff's pain and/or emotional distress, let alone that there was a conclusive way to show how the pain was manifested.

    So, all claims were dismissed upon initial hearing and again upon appeal.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1408617.html

  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    Speaking of eddie,how many know that he wanted to leave the temps as far back as[67]? As for the book i have no problem with what otis says,he just tells the story of the group as does blue in[meet the temptations-the motown story-1984]the movie makes them look like a bunch of soft guys and one tough one[ruffin].
    Eddie claimed 1965 in one of his last interviews was the year he wanted to leave IIRC.

  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Okay, here's what I learned about lawsuits brought by David Ruffin's mother and kids, Melvin Franklin's mother, Otis Williams' ex-wife and his ex-manager.

    David Ruffin's mother, Earline, sued over the movie's depiction of his death and showing his body was left unclaimed at the morgue for a week. The suit also contended with the suggestion that she was a prostitute, hinted at by Ruffin saying he was given to a pimp as payment for a debt. Earline Ruffin was not David's birth mother. The movie also allegedly defamed him when it showed the other members to have wives and children whereas Ruffin was depicted to be single and childless.


    Melvin's mother, Rose, sued over the depiction of his death, which was (as previously stated) not at her home but in the hospital.


    Otis' wife, Josephine Miles, sued over the fact that Otis (as I stated) was depicted as Father of the Decade and the movie also incorrectly depicted her as a cheater. She said he was a dog and she didn't cheat.


    Specifically, the bases for the lawsuits ere (A) Right of Publicity (B) Unjust Enrichment (C) Defamation and (D) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. I read the summary of the appeal which stated that there was no tort statute under Michigan law that permitted them to prevail regarding their right to publicity.

    The court also determined that the producers had a right to tell a story that involved his acquaintances, so there was no unjust enrichment.

    Earline Ruffin died before her case completed its run through the system and under Alabama law, defamation claims do not survive death of the plaintiff.

    Finally, the court determined that there was no way to prove that the producers altered events depicted in the movie with the intent of causing the plaintiff's pain and/or emotional distress, let alone that there was a conclusive way to show how the pain was manifested.

    So, all claims were dismissed upon initial hearing and again upon appeal.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1408617.html
    Ah OK.

    No wonder it got dismissed then!

  47. #47
    It would have been a mess of trouble if they had put wanda name in front of the marvelettes especially with gladys there, katherine would have had an issue with this as well unfortunatley

  48. #48
    I did not like how they could Kell Osborne (The Primes) and Betty McGlown and Barbara Martin (The Primettes) completely like they never existed.

  49. #49
    These are the kind of facts i'm talking about.

  50. #50
    The movie was for all intents and purposes, “The Otis Williams Story”. They just called it the Temptations so people would watch it. Even if Eddie, Paul, David and Melvin were gone by this point, their families could of had some involvement.
    They also could have given Dennis and Richard more depth as well!

    While the Temptations are the better group over New Edition, it’s THEM that have the better movie!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.