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

[Sindatur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Aragorn]

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]

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

 

[Set Harth]

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.

 

[Phily B]

^ Any examples?

Transmorphers!

 

[Dream]

Any reviews of this movie yet?

For these kinds of movies, the reviews tend to be much more fun reading than seeing the movie itself!

 

[JRS]

Any reviews of this movie yet?

For these kinds of movies, the reviews tend to be much more fun reading than seeing the movie itself!

Yes there is:
http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/age-hobbits-2012

Its actually getting 3-4 stars in some of the reviews I have seen, so it seems its better than their usual "quality". Though that might disappoint the hardcore fans of fans of Asylum, who expect it to be that "so bad its funny" kind of thing.

I might check this out myself, since I am fan of Bai Ling
plus having Christopher Judge in the cast helps, too.

I have not seen almost any of the Asylum films yet..but I am planning to get few in the future. Its very educational stuff for any film buff. Plus it is sometimes so much fun to just watch some really bad films.

 

[Tulin]

But Shearer questioned the value of the film to New Zealand tourism. He was surprised by figures that said only 1 per cent of people surveyed in 2004 gave The Lord of the Rings as their primary reason for coming.

I had ZERO interest in visiting NZ before I saw LOTR.

I went in 2009 and actually spent the bulk of my holiday on a tour run by a couple that have the license to visit LOTR locations and meet with quite a few people that worked on the film.

It's "Red Carpet Tours", btw and they do a FANTASTIC job!

Because of visiting NZ for that reason, I fell in live with the country - it REALLY is THAT beautiful! Breathtaking, in fact!!!

I call bollocks on that percentage!

 

[Pingfah]

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

Why, what's it to you?

I admire them, they are having a load of fun, making a ton of cash, and providing steady work for a load of people. Good on them. Half the films they are cashing in on are a load of shit anyway.

 

[Vendikarr]

Asylum is usually much more careful. But let's face it, even a lawsuit is publicity for them. And when they are faced to change the name, they can always refer back to the legal proceedings to try and confuse the public.

 

[Servo]

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

Why, what's it to you?

I admire them, they are having a load of fun, making a ton of cash, and providing steady work for a load of people. Good on them. Half the films they are cashing in on are a load of shit anyway.

This. OP needs to climb down of that high horse and not take life so seriously.

 

[jayceee]

^ Any examples?

Transmorphers!

I thought the two Transmorphers movies were ok for really low budget tongue-in-cheek parody movies.

The first one seemed to resemble a low budget version of Starship Troopers, Captain Power, Terminator, etc ...

The second one seemed like a parody of Maximum Overdrive.


Besides the obvious ripoff value, many of The Asylum's movies sorta remind me of "punk rock" style DIY values.

 

[JarodRussell]

LOS ANGELES (CN) - The studios behind "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and "The Hobbit" sued a production company that specializes in knockoffs to try to stop release of its straight-to-DVD movie, "Age of the Hobbits."
Warner Bros. Entertainment, New Line Cinema, New Line Productions, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and The Saul Zaentz Co. sued Global Asylum aka The Asylum of Burbank, in Federal Court.
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.

But, but, but nobody forces you to watch them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The problem with the Asylum films is that they are RIPOFFS. Not that they're bad - people love films that are (often intentionally) bad. But why should Asylum get a free pass on ripping off other films with titles that look to be intentionally made to confuse viewers? And releasing said ripoffs so close to the release dates of the films they target?

I'm sure fans have even bought those things on home video, thinking they ARE the films they ripped off (i.e. somebody buys Transmorphers but thinks it's Transformers). You don't think Asylum is deliberately trying to take advantage of that?