Interesting.
:smack:
Sorry, just read this:
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
Plus I don’t think they’re the Wachowski “brothers” any more anyway.
One would lament the poor quality of the media these days, but only if one thought that a school paper was a paragon of journalism.
Sounds to me like a preliminary motion (summary judgment, most likely). The standard to beat one is that you can marshal anything more than a scintilla of evidence to support your side of the case. That’s a rather low standard, although by no means a meaningless one.
–Cliffy
Wow. Every movie that’s made (IIRC) is sued by everyone who has a story even tangentially releated to the film. While this case appears to have more merit than the standard, “I thought of JINGLE ALL THE WAY,” I’m still surprised to see that it was resolved in favor of the prosecution.
IT WASN’T!!!
–Cliffy
Also, “prosecution” isn’t applicable in the civil context. The prosecution refers to the government when it brings someone up on criminal charges.
–Cliffy, again
Are they the Flying Karamazov Brothers now?
Thanks to some recent surgery, more the Wachowski siblings, now. Or so I hear.
Is the script for “The Third Eye” available anywhere for us to scrutinize?
The Wachowskis (and the other defendants in the case, including James Cameron) attempted to have the case dismissed on grounds of Statute of Limitations and laches. The court decided that they didn’t apply.
And for some reason everyone who’s covering this story is presenting it as though she won the case, not that the defendants failed to have it dismissed. I wonder if this is sensationalism or shadenfreud.
That would be my question.
Exactly what is the standred for plagerizing fiction, anyway? It’s not like there are a whole lot of new and original ideas out there as far as stories go(God knows I’ve noticed this as an aumetuer writer). So does that mean shakespeare can sue over every story about a boy and a girl killing themselves over lust?
Considering how silly the later two movies were, I’m not sure I’d want to make a claim of creative input.
The money, though, might be nice.
Huh? Not following you.
Actually the media is doing a meta film criticism. You can’t belive the image that they present to you about this case, just as you can’t belive the image presented to you of reallity in the Matrix movies.
Keep in mind that most jounalists were liberal art majors, this is the kind of shit they pull when they get bored. Makes them feel deep.
The scuttlebutt is that one of the former Wachowski Brothers switched teams from a pitcher to designated catcher, with all new new equipment.
This is not the correct standard. You have to bring more than a scintilla of evidence for every issue for which you bear the burden of persuasion.
I too would dearly love to scrutinize a script (or even a story treatment) for The Third Eye, to see if they are substantially similar.
As much as I love the idea of a “Sophia” being the “Mother of the Matrix” (explanation here, and in far too many other posts to that thread) Ms. Stewart comes off like a subliterate loon when stating her case:
Nebuchadnezzar is equivalent to “Space Star”, how? Apart from being a proper noun, it transliterates as “Nebu, defender of the border.” What is she trying to say, that it’s a rip-off because it kinda-sorta rhymes? “OMG! The number 3 is associated with the antagonists in a vague kind of way! Plagiarism!” “Dome and Zion are exactly the same, except that they’re different. Do you see? Do you see?!”
I don’t see a whole lot of valid comparisons being made between her story and The Matrix.
Loolooloolooloolooloolooloo!
I’ve heard that rumor, but cannot find a cite.