Movies titled "Safe," "The Deep Blue Sea" and "Bully" were all released in 2012 — and in 1995, 1999 and 2001, respectively. This kind of cinematic déjà vu, involving identical or near-identical titles, has happened before: whether with "Crash" (1996 and 2004) or "Kicking and Screaming" (the 1995 Noah Baumbach ode to slackers and the 2005 Will Ferrell ode to soccer dads). But the past year seemed especially packed with new movies recycling old names.
Novelists understand — and often speak about — the significance of the title; many can't write until the right one arrives. In film, however, recycled titles remind us that the title is, first and foremost, a piece of marketing. And as evidenced by the parade of sequels, prequels and reboots, when it comes to movie marketing, familiarity is considered an asset, not a concern.
For viewers, this kind of recycling can be confusing, even irritating, but it isn't exactly illegal, as titles cannot be copyrighted. According to the entertainment lawyer Aaron J. Moss, serials and franchises may be granted trademarks, but any filmmaker who wants a single title protected has to prove that any titular doubling-up would cause consumer confusion and that the title is evocative enough to carry "secondary meaning." That's why you probably couldn't call your new film "Star Wars" — but the production company behind "The Illusionist" (the 2006 Ed Norton version) couldn't manage, despite a lawsuit, to halt the 2010 release of "The Illusionist," a feature-length animated film.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The 6th Floor Blog: The Case of Cinematic Déjà Vu
Dengan url
http://koraninternetonline.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-6th-floor-blog-case-of-cinematic.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The 6th Floor Blog: The Case of Cinematic Déjà Vu
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The 6th Floor Blog: The Case of Cinematic Déjà Vu
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar