How do you get away with making a movie called "Titanic II," which is in no way related to "Titanic" (1997), or any other film, as far as I can tell? I imagine that if they were so inclined Fox/James Cameron could have sued over the title. Why didn't they?
share Maybe you can't own something that is a historical name.
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff
I believe that's true, but putting "II" on the end suggests that this is a sequel to a movie called Titanic. Which as far as I can tell, it isn't. Which means that calling this "Titanic II" as opposed to "Titanic" or "Titanic: [Generic Subtitle]," was meant to create an association in the mind of the potential consumer between this movie and the ludicrously popular "Titanic" directed by James Cameron. Thus, I don't think a lawsuit would be out of line here.
I mean, how many people, upon hearing about a movie called "Titanic II," didn't immediately think of the James Cameron movie, and say to themselves, "How the hell would that work?"
[deleted]
In the film, the ship is called the Titanic II. it has nothing to do with James cameron.
The chick has a pink iphone. The ship sinking is caused by "Global Warming" of an ice berg melting.
It's horrible -10 out of 0.
*** Wait For The DVD ***
Because the ship in the film is called Titanic II they have valid reason to call the film that.
shareRead the plot. You're obviously not talking about this movie. This one blatantly discusses the movie "Titanic" in the plot section as well as carries the tagline "Nothing on earth could prevent a sequel." There is no ship called "Titanic II."
You're thinking of the movie listed here, from 2010: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/
[deleted]