Again, I have no idea what this means - no movie can show stars? No movie can have a plot about a man not wanting to be a father? No movie can use the Jurassic Park music?
Or are they trademarking these shots so that they get paid if someone else uses them? I guess I don’t understand what they’re trying to protect here. Why would Roland Emmerich trademark the number 44?
Geez, literal much? It just means that it’s someting that the director inserts in most of his films, not that he actually trademarked it. Spielberg films often have men struggling with fatherhood. The number 44 appears somewhere in most Emmerich films, for whatever reason.
Alfred Hitchcock’s “trademark” was his cameo. It just means that there is something, some plot device, some object that has meaning to the director, and is inserted into most of his/her films.
I don’t know if you’re joking, but it doesn’t literally mean that the director has trademarked it. It just means that it’s something that the director features in many of his films. Trademarks are one of the ways that you can look at a film and clearly see that the film was made by a particular director - much like Hitchcock’s cameos or John Landis’s “See You Next Wednesday”.
I don’t believe that’s a trademark in the legal sense - it’s more of just something a director does in most movies. John Woo and doves is another example - it’s not that no one else is allowed to have doves in slow-motion in their movies, it’s just that John Woo traditionally does so - a trademark, if you will.
Not only did you get the number wrong, you got the director wrong as well. THX 1138 was directed by George Lucas, and it’s a Lucas trademark to have the number 1138 featured in his films.
