×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LoTR Fan Film — The Hunt For Gollum

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the is-gollum-even-in-season? dept.

Lord of the Rings 157

stevedcc writes "This weekend sees the release of The Hunt for Gollum, a Lord of the Rings fan-film. It'll be available on the web for free. The BBC are running an article about the making of the film, with a budget of £3,000 (spent mostly on costumes and make-up). There were 160 contributors involved, many over the internet." I hope it lives up to the trailer (linked from the BBC story); the finished film is approximately 40 minutes. memoryhole supplies links to YouTube for both the full trailer and a second trailer. Reader jowifi adds a link to NPR's story on the film, writing, "NPR discussed the legality of this type of creation with EFF lawyer Fred Von Lohman, who said it's not clear if such a production violates the copyright for Tolkien's work."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

157 comments

Skeptical (4, Interesting)

heyitsjon (1544855) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781329)

I'm a bit skeptical of the movie. I guess the reason I loved the movie series was the basis on the books (given it wasn't 100% accurately followed). With no great input from J.R.R., it will be interesting to see what direction this goes in.

Re:Skeptical (2, Insightful)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781389)

The cool thing about fan films and fan series is that you don't have to like them or even watch them if you don't wish.

Re:Skeptical (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781589)

The cool thing about fan films and fan series is that you don't have to like them or even watch them if you don't wish.

As opposed to big budget Hollywood films where you better watch 'em, and you better like 'em, or else some guy comes for your knee caps?

Re:Skeptical (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781623)

Yes! If you dont watch their movies, bbuy their DVDs & drink their Kool-Aid they sue you for downloading stuff, complain to governments and lobby them to pass stupid draconian laws that restrict your freedoms.

downloading "stuff" (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784067)

They don't sue you for downloading "stuff". They sue you for allegedly* downloading their movies that you supposedly don't watch, and apparently don't buy the DVDs for (or, you know, rent).

I'm sure they would have a MUCH bigger issue with everybody just downloading completely free movies - then they get neither direct money, nor anything valid to complain about - but they'd also have a much bigger problem formulating laws to deal with that sort of thing.

Thankfully, for them, yea olde pirate LIKES the hollywood blockbuster type movie far too much for them to switch to downloading only free content (at which point they wouldn't be pirates anymore anyway).

* (IANAL and most certainly not yours) I do stress allegedly as their evidence is usually pathetically weak from a legal viewpoint.

Re:downloading "stuff" (2, Insightful)

geordie_loz (624942) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784709)

Yeah but they also use the fact that no-one is consuming their crappy drivel as a means of proving that their low sales are about piracy.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27784161)

> As opposed to big budget Hollywood films where you better watch 'em, and you better like 'em, or else some guy comes for your knee caps?

No, otherwise they call you a pirate for not wanting to buy or watch their film.

Re:Skeptical (5, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781489)

I'm a bit skeptical of the movie. I guess the reason I loved the movie series was the basis on the books (given it wasn't 100% accurately followed). With no great input from J.R.R., it will be interesting to see what direction this goes in.

Do you realize the Peter Jackson movies were made without input from JRR, as he has been dead for some time?

Hopefully the fan films will be made by people who have actually read the books they are translating to film.

I read the trilogy + pretty much everything released by Tolkien's estate through the years. I am still trying to figure out what books the Peter Jackson movies were based on.

Re:Skeptical (4, Informative)

emarkp (67813) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781609)

And thus you expose your ignorance. /sarcasm

The Lord of the Rings was not a trilogy. That is all.

(Oh, and I don't have any trouble seeing what Jackson's films were based on. Perhaps you need glasses?)

Re:Skeptical (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781697)

Just to let you know, I read your post in comic book guy's voice.

Re:Skeptical (3, Funny)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781861)

Impossible. Comic Book Guy's voice does not implement /sarcasm.

Re:Skeptical (1, Insightful)

timothy (36799) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782069)

I would like point out that I am reading the entirety of this thread in the so-called "Comic Book Guy"'s voice. Including this post!

timothy

Re:Skeptical (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782571)

Comic Book Guy's voice IS /sarcasm.

And what's all this about "LoTR was not a trilogy"? I can hear a whooshing sound but I'm not sure what it is. :(

Re:Skeptical (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782943)

And what's all this about "LoTR was not a trilogy"? I can hear a whooshing sound but I'm not sure what it is. :(

It was originally planned as a one volume companion to the Silmarillion - but was published from the beginning as a trilogy.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27784479)

<pedant>Actually, strictly speaking it isn't a trilogy, it's six "books" and an appendix which were originally published in three volumes, the first publication date of each volume being several years apart. Since then it has been reprinted in the original three volume format and in a single volume both with and without the appendix. As far as I know the six books have never been published individually.</pedant>

Re:Skeptical (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781883)

And it was all based on The Ring of Niblung by Wagner.

Re:Skeptical (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782755)

Niblung?

You mean: "Der Ring des Nibelungen"

That translates to: "The Ring of the Nibelung"

Re:Skeptical (1)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783855)

Actually it translates to "The Ring of the Nibelungs"

(since Nibelung is a proper noun, I'm just going to assume it's regular.)
(and before you flame me, you might want to check what I do for a living: www.benglisch.com )

Re:Skeptical (5, Informative)

Bobb9000 (796960) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781681)

Well, I think the GP meant that the story of the Lord of the Rings is pretty well delineated in canon, so Jackson knew pretty well what the story was, even if he elected to change some things.

This movie is based on a few lines in the appendix of LOTR that discuss Gandalf and Aragorn pursuing Gollum between the events of The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. That's much less to go on than a whole narrative hundreds of pages long.

Doesn't mean it's going to be bad, just means that they don't have as much canon to work with.

Re:Skeptical (2, Interesting)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782049)

Very true...

I've actually been waiting for this to come out for quite some time - one of my friends did a bunch of the promotional stuff for them - the amazingly talented Jeff Hayes [plasmafiregraphics.com] (check his "One Sheet Design" pages), whom I work with on Star Trek New Voyages [startreknewvoyages.com]. Hope this episode is as well done as his promotional graphics for it.

Re:Skeptical (4, Informative)

Repton (60818) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782589)

There's more detail on the hunt for gollum in Unfinished Tales [wikipedia.org]. Still not a lot, to be honest.

The most interesting thing is the explanation of how Gollum escapes from Thranduil. Basically, Sauron had been unable to completely break Gollum - perhaps because of Gollum's hobbit heritage. So Sauron had let Gollum go, in the hope that Gollum would find his way to the Shire or Baggins - both names Sauron had got out of him, but both things Gollum didn't know the location of. So Sauron let Gollum go, but kept an eye on him.

Then Aragorn captured Gollum, just outside Mordor. Now, Sauron knew (from Gollum) that the One had been found, but he did not realise anyone else knew this. So he was now worried that Gollum's new captors would discover this information, and thus Sauron would lose an advantage. Hence he arranged for an orc-raid to capture or kill Gollum. However, Gollum escaped. There were also Nazgul in the area, searching for the Shire in the guise of black riders, so in terror of the orcs and the black riders, Gollum hid in Moria./p.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782243)

I am still trying to figure out what books the Peter Jackson movies were based on.

The ones that had a hope in hell of recouping a $400M production investment?

Re:Skeptical (2, Insightful)

stephenhawking (571308) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783781)

The reason the differences from the Jackson films vs the books don't bother me, is that these are tales from a legendarium as Tolkien called it. To be told and retold, as legends are. He retold many of the stories in various formats, and with variations in the stories. So for me the movies are just a variation on the war of the ring legend, and for the most part damn good.

Re:Skeptical (1)

c0p0n (770852) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784819)

Judging by the trailers, the production is of remarkable quality, especially for a fan film.

Jokes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781353)

What's the only thing worse than a dead baby in a garbage can? Ten dead babies in a garbage can.

What's the only thing worse than ten dead babies in a garbage can? One dead baby in ten garbage cans.

What's the difference between a nigger and a bucket of shit? The bucket.

Four faggots walk into a gay bar. The bartender only has one stool. So what's he do? He turns the barstool upside-down.

Re:Jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781885)

Please cease existing. Thanks.

Additionally (1)

heyitsjon (1544855) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781375)

Think about all the things that made the trilogy great: soundtrack, acting, special effects, etc... I for one, loved the soundtrack. Just a small aspect that added to the movie, but made it great.

Re:Additionally (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781679)

Uh, no. A movie score should subtly underline the visual action. The HEY LOOK AT ME! BIG MUSIC TIME, GOSH, ISN'T THIS VERY EPIC AND DRAMATIC! soundtrack was a huge distraction, but give what a mess the other parts of the movies were, I guess it's no real loss.

--A snobby purist and proud of it.

Re:Additionally (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782073)

That's not a troll, that's my real opinion you fucking fanboi moderators. The LotR movies were an insult to the series.

Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (5, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781457)

We got in touch with Tolkien Enterprises and reached an understanding with them that as long as we are completely non-profit then we're okay. We have to be careful not to disrespect their ownership of the intellectual property. They are supportive of the way fans wish to express their enthusiasm.

Looks like tim is trolling just a bit.

Though, in general, LotR should be public domain. It's a definite part of our cultural heritage, and these sort of copyright issues are about as insulting as someone claiming copyright on the Shakespeare Canon.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (4, Funny)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781507)

I happen to be the owner of Shakespeare's Cannons Inc. and your infringing on my trademark, you insensitive clod!

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781583)

Though, in general, LotR should be public domain.

It is not a matter of opinion. Copyright is Life + 70 in the USA. Tolkien passed in 1973. In 2043, his work will enter public domain.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781693)

Though, in general, LotR should be public domain. It's a definite part of our cultural heritage

It is a part of our cultural heritage only because Tolkien chose to create it and to publish it --- on his own terms.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (5, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781903)

It is a part of our cultural heritage only because Tolkien chose to create it and to publish it --- on his own terms.

Then again, its position as a major part of our cultural heritage is in quite some part because pirate publishers in the US printed it without Tolkien's permission, following a tradition of American respect for copyrights going back at least to Dickens; the first paperback edition was entirely unauthorised. And cheap.

As a result it became hugely popular over there in the 1960s - the reason for a generation of hippie children called things like Pippin Galadriel Moonchild, and graffiti all over the place saying FRODO LIVES. Without that it would likely be a much more obscure work to this day.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782553)

Y'know what. My parents worked their whole lives and invested their money, then they died. I paid their debts with their investment and reaped the rewards of what remained.

Tolkien worked his whole life and invested his money and then he died. His children paid his debts with their investment and reaped the rewards of what remained. And then continued to rape rewards from his the work he did while he was alive, despite his no longer being around.

What is the difference? The difference is my parents invested their money and gave what they could. I benefited from those investments and their work via those investments. Tolkein's children and the organizations that own his copyrights benefited from his investments, but, in addition, continue to benefit from his work as if he is still working.

I am sorry, but when you die, your work dies with you, it becomes public domain, what you invested - your children may keep - but the remainder, no way. It does not make sense to continue to benefit from his work as if he is still working, when he is not.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (5, Interesting)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781695)

Indeed. When Tolkein set about writing LotR his specific aim was to write an english folklore of our very own, since what we had was very disjointed compared to the strength of norse and roman myths. I think he would find the idea of one company 'owning' his work to be totally against the central idea behind his work. Myths are there to be told and retold.

Unfortunately, we can't ask him as he has been dead 36 years now. The idea that anyone might own the sole rights to something written by a man long dead is definitely a strange one to get your head around.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (4, Interesting)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781863)

OTOH Tolkien was very protective of his copyrights during his own lifetime; he once complained that he couldn't copyright the name "Shadowfax", to keep it from being used as the name of a hydrofoil! (For anyone who has the published volume of his letters, the relevant one is #258.) And of course, there was his outrage at the Ace pirate edition ("Dealings one might expect of Saruman in his decay rather than from the defenders of the West".) But as you say, it's anyone's guess what he'd think about violation of his copyrights today, now that even "courtesy (at least) to living authors" is no longer at issue.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784729)

OTOH Tolkien was very protective of his copyrights during his own lifetime; he once complained that he couldn't copyright the name "Shadowfax", to keep it from being used as the name of a hydrofoil!

Instead of complaining, perhaps he should have read a lawbook. To protect a name from being abused, you have to trademark it, not copyright it.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (1, Interesting)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781865)

Wasn't a lot of Tolkein's work very similar to those Norse legends you mentioned ?

[citation not available, this is Slashdot, heresay will suffice]

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (5, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781911)

Nasty, nasty fanses! The fanses violates the preciouss.... the preciousss copyrightses!

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783167)

Indeed. When Tolkein set about writing LotR his specific aim was to write an english folklore of our very own, since what we had was very disjointed compared to the strength of norse and roman myths.

Would have been great if he had actually set some of those myths in England. Or maybe he did, I don't know. From my point of view, they have more of a European flavor than English.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (4, Interesting)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783897)

As a Cornishman, I can definitely say you're wrong there! :)

At least geographically and culturally, large bits of Middle Earth appear to spring directly from Britain. The Shire, for example, well, it IS the Westcountry.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784027)

Interesting. I always figured middle earth, at least from the map, was a map of Europe before......well, from a long time ago.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27784915)

I live in Birmingham(UK) and since tolkien was a local lad it seems that several local places gave the inspirations Eg i think that Moseley marsh inspired fangorn and there are a couple of large chimneys from the industrial revolution around there that were supposedly the origin of the Two Towers. Places were near where he lived for a time.
Not quite the same, but I am sort of glad we arent over run by Orkses, Urok-Hai and Nazgul here in the sunny (at least for the last 15 minutes) Midlands.

Not quite correct about the English Myth thing (1)

ed (79221) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784117)

That was kind of Tolkien's idea with the bundle of notes that formed what was published as the Silmarillion, but it wasn't true for Lord of the Rings and by the time the Silmarillion was in a state that Tolkien thought he could refine it into a publishable state the English myth idea had been abandoned.

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (2)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782211)

Shakespeare's work is hundreds of years old, Tolkien's is not. I believe that copyright on a particular work should expire upon an author's death (or very shortly thereafter... 7 rather than 70 years) but my beliefs are completely irrelevant. Tolkien's work is still copyrighted under current law.

Under your logic, it could be argued that pretty much any work with a household name would fall into the public domain (The Simpsons, Harry Potter, Windows XP...)

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784221)

I believe that copyright on a particular work should expire upon an author's death (or very shortly thereafter... 7 rather than 70 years)

Why not a short copyright period, like twenty years after publication?

Re:Seems like Tolkien is playing nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782313)

"Though, in general, LotR should be public domain. It's a definite part of our cultural heritage, and these sort of copyright issues are about as insulting as someone claiming copyright on the Shakespeare Canon."

So if it's popular enough it should be public domain?

Say what? (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781515)

"NPR discussed the legality of this type of creation with EFF lawyer Fred Von Lohman, who said it's not clear if such a production violates the copyright for Tolkien's work."

It's as clear as a pane of glass.

The character is recognizably Tolkien's creation.

The universe he inhabits. The voices. The dialog. The languages.

The maps. The character designs.

The story.

The film can't honestly be described as anything other than a derivative work.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781653)

From bbc news;

Have you been in contact with the Tolkien family or New Line Cinema?

We got in touch with Tolkien Enterprises and reached an understanding with them that as long as we are completely non-profit then we're okay. We have to be careful not to disrespect their ownership of the intellectual property. They are supportive of the way fans wish to express their enthusiasm.

Not so clear. (3, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781675)

The character is recognizably Tolkien's creation.
The universe he inhabits. The voices. The languages.
...The character designs.

The film can't honestly be described as anything other than a derivative work.

None of those things are covered by copyright, and thus cannot be a derivative work. Some of them could be covered by trademark, but that is an entirely different matter.

The dialog. The maps. The story.

These are covered by copyright, but they are not being used (maybe the maps are I don't know). It is a fan-flick: a new story with new dialog based on the characters and word created by Tolkien.

Re:Not so clear. (5, Informative)

Bobb9000 (796960) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781729)

Actually, the characters are protected by copyright too. It's pretty clearly a derivative work. The question is whether it's fair use and/or not enforceable. In any case, the filmmakers talked to the Tolkien estate and got permission, so long as the film was non-profit.

Re:Not so clear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781829)

Characters cannot be protected by copyright, only their expression (actual descriptions of them, dialogue, narrative). However, the characters may be trademarked.

Re:Not so clear. (4, Informative)

Bobb9000 (796960) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781957)

No, characters can be subject to copyright.

Try using google, if nothing else:

Protection of Fictional Characters [publaw.com]
How can I tell if a character I have used is copyright protected? [chillingeffects.org]

And yes, aspects of them can be trademarked, too.

Re:Not so clear. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782511)

Ya, it's a land grab. Again. And that's the problem with copyright law.

Re:Not so clear. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782565)

Kudos, you have a whole pharmacy of pills next to your name: Foe, Fan, Friend of Friend, Foe of Friend. I haven't seen that particular combination before.
 
On topic: it was Disney pushing for copyright extensions to keep mickey mouse (a character) under copyright. So characters are most definitely under copyright/trademark protection.

Re:Not so clear. (1)

HUKI365 (1113395) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783337)

So characters are most definitely under copyright/trademark protection.

There is a whole WORLD of difference between copyright and trademark law.

Re:Not so clear. (1)

Bobb9000 (796960) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782567)

A land grab that happened almost eighty years ago, though. I don't think it's an unreasonable extension of copyright law given a copyright term of reasonable length. With life + 70 it's a problem.

Re:Not so clear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781927)

"Actually, the characters are protected by copyright too."

That's trademark, not copyright.

Re:Not so clear. (3, Insightful)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784547)

Well that shouldn't be too hard. According to New Line Cinema, none of the original movies made a profit either.

Re:Say what? (1)

tiananmen tank man (979067) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781983)

Why worry about the legality of this, that is just bitching about who is right and wrong. We should make it so stuff like this is clearly legal. Copyright reform is needed.

I read some of the comments on the youtube link for the trailer and more than one person was saying how they loved reading LotR grade school, clearly a long time ago. Our present situation makes me sad.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782157)

but Gollum dies in his universe. this is totally different.

Re:Say what? (4, Interesting)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782435)

ACTUALLY...

It is true that fictional characters, places, etc. are protected by copyright.
http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html [publaw.com]

HOWEVER,

Many foreign works briefly fell into the public domain here in the US.

Congress attempted to "correct" that problem by putting all those works *back* under copyright with a law in 1994.

A federal court of appeal recently ruled that this law violated the first amendment.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars [arstechnica.com]

The Lord of The Rings is one of those foreign works (Tolkien is English).

So.... yeah. Not so clear, actually.

LOTR may be public domain, in which case these fan-fiction authors could tell everyone to *screw* and proceed to make all the profit they want.

I'm assuming that the first amendment case will go to the SCOTUS..

Fucking fun sponge! (0, Flamebait)

kramulous (977841) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784533)

For fucks sake. Read the summary ... read the article and go to the site. Everything is legit.

Just enjoy the fucking movie. Or not, just shut up about it. I just heard of it, watched the trailers and am actually pretty excited about it.

What? Just because it doesn't have hollywood's seal of approval you assume it's crap? Take your copyright "expertise" to another thread. I wanna see nerds fight over their knowledge of the Tolkien world.

Fucking fun sponge.

Server Budget (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781605)

Some of that budget should have went to preparing for a slashdot post ... it's slashdotted :p

I'm anxious to see the trailer

Re:Server Budget (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782891)

It is clear (4, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 4 years ago | (#27781647)

That the technology revolution has almost overtaken feature films. The trailer looks almost as good as the real thing. Pretty soon it will be hard to tell fan fiction from the real thing. Hell, some of the fan fiction might end up being better than the real thing.

Than won't Hollywood and the RIAA be in a bind.

Re:It is clear (3, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782171)

If YouTube is any indication, Hollywood will be safe for years to come.

Re:It is clear (2, Insightful)

biovoid (785377) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782855)

And if "Dude, Where's My Car?" is any indication, Hollywood is screwed.

Re:It is clear (3, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783641)

And if "Dude, Where's My Car?" is any indication, Hollywood is screwed.

That is actually why Hollywood is screwed. Their idea of how to make films to fill in all the gaps involve the like of "Dude, Where's My Car." The thing is - a reasonably talented YouTube hack could probably do something just as good - even better. For less. And get the full rewards. With no Studio cut.

Re:It is clear (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 4 years ago | (#27784495)

If the Matrix sequels are any indication, Hollywood will be safe for years to come.

I mean, it was nice of the Wachowski brothers to help produce and market fanfics, but I'm not sure it was the best idea.

Re:It is clear (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782291)

Than won't Hollywood and the RIAA be in a bind.

No, not really. It takes a lot more than computers and good cameras to make even a mediocre film.

Conversely, there have always been good films that never had a Hollywood or MPAA logo on them.

Re:It is clear (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 4 years ago | (#27782397)

Writing (like, textual writing) technology is the same for fan fiction as for professional writing. Yet it's still not hard to tell fan fiction from the real thing.

Re:It is clear (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#27783403)

Yes, but most holywood scripts are so poorly written in the firt place that the only real difference is the technical aspects -- camera work, sound, etc. That and the fact that you're probably not going to get the Royal Shakespeare Company either way.

Re:It is clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782413)

Yeah the technology is cheap & abundant, but fan acting hasn't caught up with the real thing.

Re:It is clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27783215)

Except for the dodgy acting, obvious CG terrain, and (barely) passable costumes...

And one ring to fool them all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27781967)

www.boredoftherings.co.uk/

Why is this tagged "story" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27782843)

Of course it's a story! No shit it's a "story"! Everything on Slashdot is written by someone, and someone ends up reading it. Everything could be termed a story.

For real: why are people/who are the people tagging tags as "story"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...