- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/16/15 at 2:27 pm to Tigris
quote:
Awesome - it's now $1,999 new or $2,237 used.
Well now there's no need to buy it because this lawsuit is basically one giant spoiler after another for the book.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 5:20 pm to blueboy
quote:
He's the plaintiff. He doesn't need any money to sue.
You do to litigate. He's gonna get buried in motions in a few weeks, and needs a war chest to fight it.
quote:
Used to be that you avoided getting your story idea stolen by publishing a book instead of floating a screenplay around town. I guess those days are over too.
This is a guy claiming his work was stolen because he sold his book in Beverly Hills and Whedon lives there. That is a laughably poor causation argument. It won't survive summary judgment.
Also, the who point of Cabin in the Woods is that it puts stereotypical characters in stereotypical situations (until the third act). His complaint shows all of the similarities are in the first act. So he's essentially argued his work is a stereotypical horror story that Whedon was making fun of. (Though Whedon has been accused of thievery before, more convincingly in regards to Firefly)
I mean.... good luck.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 5:42 pm to Baloo
quote:Meh, he could get an attorney to pick up the bills in exchange for a large contingency of any amount they get.
You do to litigate. He's gonna get buried in motions in a few weeks, and needs a war chest to fight it.
quote:Yeah, like I said, one of the key elements is a direct connection to the material by the defendant, which doesn't seem likely proven, unless someone confesses, possibly destroying their own career in the process.
This is a guy claiming his work was stolen because he sold his book in Beverly Hills and Whedon lives there. That is a laughably poor causation argument. It won't survive summary judgment.
quote:Where did you read that? The article seems to suggest that the guy's book is about stereotypical characters in a satirical situation in which they find objects similar to those in the movie and are monitored by people with hidden cameras.
Also, the who point of Cabin in the Woods is that it puts stereotypical characters in stereotypical situations (until the third act). His complaint shows all of the similarities are in the first act.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the guy's idea was stolen. It happens all the time, but I do agree that proving it will be nearly impossible.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 5:59 pm to blueboy
quote:
The article seems to suggest that the guy's book is about stereotypical characters in a satirical situation in which they find objects similar to those in the movie and are monitored by people with hidden cameras.
The article uses the term "strange items" which makes me want to know what those objects were in the book. In the movie the objects in the basement (of a house ripped straight from Evil Dead) are clearly direct references to various types of/specific horror films.
"Strange items" is an incredibly vague descriptor that could mean any number of things.
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 4/16/15 at 6:06 pm to Dr RC
Yeah, but the hidden cameras element seems to be consistent.
Either way, I'm not buying his book to find out.
Either way, I'm not buying his book to find out.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 6:16 pm to blueboy
quote:
Yeah, but the hidden cameras element seems to be consistent.
Sure, but like I said earlier, movies where people find hidden cameras and realize they are actually in a secret show created for the entertainment of their captors isn't exactly a new thing.
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 4/16/15 at 7:41 pm to Byron Bojangles III
The article points out a handful of similarities, but there are probably way more differences. This is not that unique of a concept. I always assume the one suing is just looking for free money. I always go back to the mayor of a city called Batman in the middle east, so named in the 50's, who sued Warner Brothers for some ridiculous amount for the Dark Knight trilogy somehow getting the name of Batman from his city. That was obviously thrown out.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News