No, it’s pretty odd. Warner Bros has just been fucking up how it handles their superhero movies for so long that the current situation (multiple versions of the same characters on screen; tossing out Cavill, maybe the one element of all the films that just about everyone liked; having Gunn blow all the Snyderverse time…

I haven’t read through the ruling itself, but it’s interesting that it doesn’t discuss the moral problem of AI, namely that it has to use human artists’ work in order to generate anything.

And this is the real danger- its not that AI is going to kill the ability for people to create. It’s that it’s going to calcify the existing distribution structures so much by flooding the market with utter crap that it’s going to be exponentially harder for anyone new to break through the noise.

You already see this…

I don’t think there’s much daylight between our last two comments- they’re basically saying the same thing.  Yay for internet agreement?

I mean, we’re getting into legal weeds here, but to the best of my non-lawyer understanding, that is not how it works.

Anything the new movie uses that comes from the 1937 film (music and costumes, for example) will still fall under the original copyright, set to expire in 2032.

The AVClub: “So... ten more articles then?”

Oh, they get way nerdier (Dragonforce, Hammerfall, virtually any prog rock band), but I’ll give you probably no one with mainstream name recognition.

It doesn’t mean anything for the copyright. Those expire on a finite deadline— though Snow White was already public domain when Disney made the movie, so it only applies to the specifics of the film (design, original songs, dwarf names, etc).

Now, whether or not they have the iconic blue, red and yellow outfit trademar…

So you’re saying you always have three links set up for your Zoom meetings?

Good grief.  To think the Simpsons has been around so long that Elizabeth Taylor was a guest voice on the show.

At this point, I’m pretty sure I’d be willing to try it.

Yeah.  I’m no lawyer, but FFS, even I would have caught that and said “hey, this needs to be specified better”.

Yeah, this article is peak current AVC- or would be, if they could get a bot to write snark effectively.  It’s willfully misunderstanding context and meaning both on the sentence level and in the larger context of what De Bont is trying to say.

I think he’s talking about the reality of having actual wind and ice interacting with actual human actors, and the response that creates in both the actors and the audience.  The original article has a little more context, but the AVClub has chosen easy snark over basic attempts at understanding, let alone benefit of…

God, are people really this dense?

It says it right in the article: “the 79-year-old director believes the new iteration will be largely different from his own vision. That’s primarily due to the advances in visual effects technology, which mostly prevent any inventive practical shots from taking place today.”

He’s…

Probably came off as more attacking than was warranted, sorry. I really just don’t understand the thinking there.

Is it really? He made a joke- probably one that half the people wearing masks were making amongst themselves-because people make jokes about stuff.

I am curious how they choose which shows to do this for.  Like, it made sense 10 years ago, in the heyday of GoT, to have two simultaneous recap articles for one show.

But now? GoT probably had more crew members than this show has consistent viewers.  Maybe it’s just residual HBO loyalty that keeps them doing the…

Haha.  I don’t make the rules, I just pedantically enforce them on the internet.

It’s idiotic that he claimed he never pulled the trigger, but unless he said that under oath, you can’t prosecute people for stupid lies.