"AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies - Page 2

Flying Spaghetti Monster · November 12 2012, 08:56 AM

This might not belong in this thread, but I can't believe how unexcited I am for the Hobbit. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I remember months before it's release, there's just be still photos released, like photos of Gandalf in his pointy hat. Yet it looked great because for the first time, despite being a fantasy, the filmed looked and felt authentic. I'm sure Jackson will make this new film series look the same, but the excitement is no longer there. He isn't challenging himself anymore, and what we will see when it opens is nothing new at all. We all know the story, we all know how it will look, and all know that Smaug will appear merely as another CGI creation. It can only disappoint. This new trilogy is simply the a vanity project for Jackson who has been doing vanity projects for the past eight years

NCC-1701-B · November 12 2012, 09:03 AM

hmm, I watched the trailer for that asylum thing and I would be hard pressed to actually make any definitive connection other than the name. To be honest I believe they've only done themselves a disservice by releasing so close to the big budget film.

But to be honest the "owner" of the word Hobbit can go fuck themselves. The word was in use before Tolkien, and was also a unit of weight. The whole fact that a pub had to buy a license to use a name it had been using for more than 20 years is disgusting, the only motivation there is to get more money. Obviously when the hobbit is in the cinemas, I won't go and watch the film in the cinema, noo, I'll go to that pub instead. Absolutely ridiculous.

Kestrel · November 12 2012, 10:27 AM

throwback wrote:

A New Zealand professor has been banned by Saul Zaentz Company/Middle-earth Enterprises from using the word 'hobbit' in his lecture on Homo florensiensis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...istoric-hobbit

lolwut?

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

This might not belong in this thread, but I can't believe how unexcited I am for the Hobbit. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This new trilogy is simply the a vanity project for Jackson who has been doing vanity projects for the past eight years

I would never - never I say! - have expected to read such a comment from you after the last several months. Truly, I am thunderstruck.

MacLeod · November 12 2012, 12:27 PM

Dream wrote:

The major studios say Asylum intends to release its low-budget movie just three days before filmmaker Peter Jackson's first "Hobbit" movie opens in the United States, on Dec. 14.
The Asylum hopes to profit from "consumer confusion," get a "free ride on the worldwide advertising campaign" and "divert customers and potential customers away" from the major studios' film, according to the complaint.
"The Asylum's advertising for its low-budget knockoff also has been and is confusingly similar to advertising for and images from the plaintiffs' copyrighted films and trademarked products, including the font and style in which the titles appear and the overall look and feel of the images depicted in the artwork and packaging," the 35-page complaint states.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/09/52146.htm

YES! It has finally happened. I hope this means Asylum will finally stop making those crap ripoff movies.

Yes as a consumer, I'm really confused with a major cinema release and a direct to DVD movie. Not.

I wonder how many more people will be interested in taking a look at the Asylum movie now that a fuss is being made over it.

Alidar Jarok · November 12 2012, 02:33 PM

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

This might not belong in this thread

Well, yeah. We have a whole thread devoted to The Hobbit, which you have posted in.

Sindatur · November 12 2012, 04:25 PM

Alidar Jarok wrote:

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

This might not belong in this thread

Well, yeah. We have a whole thread devoted to The Hobbit, which you have posted in.

Posted that very same thing in, as a matter of fact (Well...maybe the part about Smaug is new, but, yea, the rest FSM has posted a few times in The Hobbit thread)

Mister Fandango · November 12 2012, 04:35 PM

I don't know. It seems more to me that New Zealand is desperately trying to cling to the movies' success far, far, FAR more than Warner Brothers is trying to take over a country's government. The latter is just kind of silly since they've been making big movies for decades, whereas New Zealand is a tiny little country that's suddenly getting huge injections of money from its production and tourism due to the movies.

I mean, if the government comes to you asking what they can do to help you make a huge profit and all but throwing themselves at the chance to jump through any hoops you want to hold up, why wouldn't you take advantage of that?

Mister Fandango · November 12 2012, 04:45 PM

NCC-1701-B wrote:

But to be honest the "owner" of the word Hobbit can go fuck themselves. The word was in use before Tolkien, and was also a unit of weight. The whole fact that a pub had to buy a license to use a name it had been using for more than 20 years is disgusting, the only motivation there is to get more money. Obviously when the hobbit is in the cinemas, I won't go and watch the film in the cinema, noo, I'll go to that pub instead. Absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah, I really don't get a lot of stuff like that. But in this case, it's clear that she named her pub after the fictional race and was intentionally trying to connect her pub with Tolkien's works which have been around far, far longer than 20 years.

Yet, oddly enough, if the owners of the Matrix movie franchise wanted to create a roleplaying game based on the movie, they'd have to get permission from the owners of Shadowrun who've had "Matrix" copyrighted (or trademarked; I always get them confused in cases like this) as the name of a computer network in an RPG since the 80s, even though the term is far more identified with the movies now.

Honestly, I think the whole copyright/trademark thing is way too limiting and restrictive, but at the same time I think its important to have if you're any kind of creative sort. Otherwise people could just rip you off however they liked without any repercussions. And I assure you, if you created something worth being ripped off, you'd be pretty pissed to see that happen whether for you or your heirs.

Then again, Tolkien ripped off old world mythology every which way, and the one race he did almost-kinda-but-not-really invented should all but be public domain in my personal opinion.

That said, how long until it does become public domain? Isn't there a time limit on that stuff?

nvek86 · November 12 2012, 05:37 PM

Mister Fandango wrote:

Then again, Tolkien ripped off old world mythology every which way, and the one race he did almost-kinda-but-not-really invented should all but be public domain in my personal opinion.

That said, how long until it does become public domain? Isn't there a time limit on that stuff?

I think it's death of the author plus 70 years in the UK. Which would mean that Tolkien's work goes into public domain in 2043.

Sindatur · November 12 2012, 05:47 PM

Mister Fandango wrote:

NCC-1701-B wrote:

But to be honest the "owner" of the word Hobbit can go fuck themselves. The word was in use before Tolkien, and was also a unit of weight. The whole fact that a pub had to buy a license to use a name it had been using for more than 20 years is disgusting, the only motivation there is to get more money. Obviously when the hobbit is in the cinemas, I won't go and watch the film in the cinema, noo, I'll go to that pub instead. Absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah, I really don't get a lot of stuff like that. But in this case, it's clear that she named her pub after the fictional race and was intentionally trying to connect her pub with Tolkien's works which have been around far, far longer than 20 years..

Yet, oddly enough, if the owners of the Matrix movie franchise wanted to create a roleplaying game based on the movie, they'd have to get permission from the owners of Shadowrun who've had "Matrix" copyrighted (or trademarked; I always get them confused in cases like this) as the name of a computer network in an RPG since the 80s, even though the term is far more identified with the movies now.

Honestly, I think the whole copyright/trademark thing is way too limiting and restrictive, but at the same time I think its important to have if you're any kind of creative sort. Otherwise people could just rip you off however they liked without any repercussions. And I assure you, if you created something worth being ripped off, you'd be pretty pissed to see that happen whether for you or your heirs.

Then again, Tolkien ripped off old world mythology every which way, and the one race he did almost-kinda-but-not-really invented should all but be public domain in my personal opinion.

That said, how long until it does become public domain? Isn't there a time limit on that stuff?

Yes, there is a time limit on stuff goig into Public Domain, but, depending upon who owns it, they often "purchase" extensions. Anything owned by Disney will probably never be allowed to reach it's Public Domain date.

Alidar Jarok · November 12 2012, 06:31 PM

Mister Fandango wrote:

Yeah, I really don't get a lot of stuff like that. But in this case, it's clear that she named her pub after the fictional race and was intentionally trying to connect her pub with Tolkien's works which have been around far, far longer than 20 years.

This is the important part. It's not about whether it's a real word or not. Sky and Rim are real words, but I can't make a fantasy based video game called "Sky Rim" without getting called on it.

Mr. Adventure · January 11 2013, 02:09 AM

Saw this in the video store today, does this mean Asylum prevailed with the case?

Aragorn · January 11 2013, 02:28 AM

Mr. Adventure wrote:

Saw this in the video store today, does this mean Asylum prevailed with the case?

With Age of the Hobbits as the title? Because it got renamed Clash of the Empires.

Mr. Adventure · January 11 2013, 02:55 AM

^ Yeah, maybe they let them keep the title on the original stock and the later ones have the new title?

Set Harth · January 11 2013, 03:01 AM

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

We all know the story, we all know how it will look, and all know that Smaug will appear merely as another CGI creation. It can only disappoint.

By this ironclad reasoning the LOTR films can only disappoint.

Oh, wait.

November 12 2012, 08:56 AM	#16
Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Location: Flying Spaghetti Western	Re: "AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies This might not belong in this thread, but I can't believe how unexcited I am for the Hobbit. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I remember months before it's release, there's just be still photos released, like photos of Gandalf in his pointy hat. Yet it looked great because for the first time, despite being a fantasy, the filmed looked and felt authentic. I'm sure Jackson will make this new film series look the same, but the excitement is no longer there. He isn't challenging himself anymore, and what we will see when it opens is nothing new at all. We all know the story, we all know how it will look, and all know that Smaug will appear merely as another CGI creation. It can only disappoint. This new trilogy is simply the a vanity project for Jackson who has been doing vanity projects for the past eight years __________________ *"This is a violation of the ruddy Incarceration Act... and I will not be the subject of criminal abuse!!"*

November 12 2012, 09:03 AM	#17
NCC-1701-B Captain Location: Liverpool	Re: "AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies hmm, I watched the trailer for that asylum thing and I would be hard pressed to actually make any definitive connection other than the name. To be honest I believe they've only done themselves a disservice by releasing so close to the big budget film. But to be honest the "owner" of the word Hobbit can go fuck themselves. The word was in use before Tolkien, and was also a unit of weight. The whole fact that a pub had to buy a license to use a name it had been using for more than 20 years is disgusting, the only motivation there is to get more money. Obviously when the hobbit is in the cinemas, I won't go and watch the film in the cinema, noo, I'll go to that pub instead. Absolutely ridiculous. __________________ ____________________________________________ Hellooo...

November 12 2012, 04:35 PM	#22
Mister Fandango Commander	Re: "AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies I don't know. It seems more to me that New Zealand is desperately trying to cling to the movies' success far, far, FAR more than Warner Brothers is trying to take over a country's government. The latter is just kind of silly since they've been making big movies for decades, whereas New Zealand is a tiny little country that's suddenly getting huge injections of money from its production and tourism due to the movies. I mean, if the government comes to you asking what they can do to help you make a huge profit and all but throwing themselves at the chance to jump through any hoops you want to hold up, why wouldn't you take advantage of that?

January 11 2013, 02:09 AM	#27
Mr. Adventure Admiral Location: Mr. Adventure	Re: "AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies Saw this in the video store today, does this mean Asylum prevailed with the case?

January 11 2013, 02:55 AM	#29
Mr. Adventure Admiral Location: Mr. Adventure	Re: "AGE OF THE HOBBITS": Asylum finally sued for making ripoff movies ^ Yeah, maybe they let them keep the title on the original stock and the later ones have the new title?

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US