How come Asylum never gets sued? - Titanic II (2010) Discussion

[–] elinake 14 years ago

I don't get the point of Asylum. I mean, all they do, is take a well-known movie, change the plot like 5%, change a title a little and make an awful movie of it. What is the point? I would understand if they made parodies or comedies, but no, they are actually trying to do MOVIES :))). Don't they know that they suck at it? Their special effects are always like made on a home computer and acting is like actors don't even care they're not believable. So why do they bother at all? :)

reply

[–] Pika122689 14 years ago

they hit a niche market of people that like this type of low quality/budget movies. they are usually just fun watches. it's the same as watching a low quality indie flick.. i guess without the originality haha. entertainment is still entertainment even with the varying levels of quality haha

reply

[–] bartblommaert 10 years ago

Because they make money. Most if not all their movies actually turn a profit (which is 't hard because of the low budget used)

reply

[–] ManuPF26 14 years ago

why come up with a original story if u can rip one off and it seems to work out for them ....

reply

[–] jmgindiana 14 years ago

On the original subject, probably big studios don't think it's worth the trouble. Asylum's share on the market is probably very, very small, and the kind of crap they produce is gone and forgotten in a matter of a few weeks, if not less. And let's say they sue them, what they would get as a result? Perhaps they could be forced to change the titles, but they couldn't be forbidden to film movies (even if they SHOULD).

However, I think that with THIS particular flick they may have trouble. Cameron doesn't seem to be an easygoing guy, and the title "TITANIC II" clearly suggests itself as a sequel of his own movie. I don't think even Cameron can trademark the name "Titanic", but they should force Asylum to change the title into something that distances itself from Cameron's flick.

reply

[–] HALs_eyeball 14 years ago

They should change the title to "Don't Even Watch this for a Laugh Because It's Simply Not Funny"

It's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful.

reply

[–] ewd76-944-614898 12 years ago

the title "TITANIC II" clearly suggests itself as a sequel of his own movie.

You've got to be kidding.

-----------------------------------
I could care less, but I don’t care enough to bother.

reply

[–] FunnyCide1996 12 years ago

not a movie name made up by Cameron or whoever. Titanic II also is a ship name. Lets say there was a reason for arguements sake. Why would they go after this no money movie and studio???

reply

[–] fosterbeck-1 12 years ago

You have to understand a little about copyright law and how it works to understand how the Asylum gets away with it. They happen to know the law very well when it comes to this stuff and have never been effectively sued. They have a lawsuit pending now for American Battleship but will probably be tossed out for all of these reasons below.

According to copyright law in regards to stories is that you can't actually copyright a story premise itself. It's the fine details that make up the story (i.e. specific plot points, very specific scenes, character interactions, etc.) that are copyrighted. You can't just go out and make the exact same movie that someone else made or you would be violating their copyright. However you can go out and make another movie that has a similar premise (i.e. Deep Impact Vs Armageddon, Volcano Vs Dante's Peak, Bug's Life Vs Antz, etc.). As long as the movies do not intersect too closely then the original copyright owner has no legal grounds to stand on. Now if you actually watch an Asylum movie (which unfortunately I have) their plots typically are nothing like the movie they imitate. What they ultimate like to do is copy off of and piggyback another bigger movie's advertising and marketing and there's nothing really illegal about that.

You could argue that their movie titles are so close to what they emulate except that a movie title can not be copyrighted either. That's why you never see a copyright after a title. A title can only be trademarked which are pending until the trademark holder can prove that their title is deserving of a trademark. Meaning a large enough audience or part of our popular culture and that there is some sort of brand significance. So we will get something like Star Wars or Superman which is trademarked due to them being a brand and their extreme popularity. Otherwise without a trademark you can name your movie whatever you really want as long as the plot for your movie and theirs is not the same. Look at how many movies are simply called, The Woods on imdb for a good example of this.

As far as Titanic II I'm sure James Cameron probably wasn't too happy about it considering his reputation however it's pretty obvious that he has no trademark on Titanic considering it is a matter of history and therefor in public domain. In fact anyone could make a movie about Titanic and James Cameron could say nothing about it (other than maybe badmouth how bad of a movie it was). In fact James Cameron's Titanic is basically a remake of A Night to Remember and the 1950's version of Titanic combined into one movie.

reply

[–] Strike_Eagle 12 years ago

First of all, I can't believe that I am posting on a Titanic II Board, but here I am.

@fosterbeck-1, what you said is true if copying is the issue. But the issue as I see it is not the Asylum copied Cameron's ideas of the first movie, but made a sequel to Cameron's movie while I am sure that James owns the sequel rights to Titanic. When Producers (and that is really what Jim is here) make any movie, be it Titanic, Pulp Fiction, or Alien they negotiate all sorts of things such as remake rights, sequel rights, play rights, radio rights (yes radio plays are still negotiated) and so on. I could see Cameron suing and winning on this basis if he wanted to and felt that Titanic II's plot could be considered a sequel. Although since I am sure that Leo's character is not in this one, maybe they got around this as well?

reply

[–] Kunovega 11 years ago

1. James Cameron does not own the rights to a historical event (the sinking of the Titanic), it's a historical event in the public domain. Anyone can tell that story so long as they do not copy directly the dialogue of another film

2. This isn't a sequel to Cameron's film. The title is derived from the name of the ship in the film which is named after a historic event, not after Cameron's movie

The film is about the ship named: Titanic II; the ship in the story is built 100 years after the (real) events of the Titanic sinking.

While this movie may suck, they've broken no laws.

James Cameron's Titanic borrows as much or more from previous films as this one does. (while also changing enough to not be breaking any copyright laws)

reply

[–] WaterMonkey 12 years ago

Wow, thanks for such a detailed post! I just learned something new. :)

reply

[–] TyLee896 12 years ago

That's why they make a few minor alterations to the title. But that's why people love asylum, they get millions of fans for making mockbusters.

reply

[–] cold_sky 11 years ago

Obviously no one's watched A Night to Remember. Cameron's Titanic was basically a retelling of THAT movie (and of history) and he even lifted shots straight from it. Not proven fact, just something I noticed when watching it.

It didn't bother me any, Cameron's films aren't usually that original, but they're fine quality and fun to watch. A Night to Remember is pretty incredible in terms of effects and story as well.

I'm sure other Asylum films may be something to question, but here, Cameron's Titanic is, in effect, a better "Asylum film" of A Night to Remember :P

i.imgur.com/U4CUcwP.jpg

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]