r/SubredditDrama • u/grizzazz • Jan 23 '17

Snack Some threads are born dramatic, some threads achieve drama, and some threads have drama thrust upon them. Great Big Siege of /r/IamA begins when maker of film titled "Catch 22" admits to having never read the novel of the same name

Upon reading the title of this AMA (this link is full comments; look to the later links for the drama), some Redditors were expecting to learn more about a reimagining of Joseph Heller's classic war novel, or perhaps a reimagining of the reimagining that was the 1970 film adaptation. However, it turns out the movie in question is completely unrelated. In fact, the filmmaker has never gotten through the book, which has "too much fluff." Is it okay to name your film after a more popular work if that work coined a popular idiom? What if your interpretation of the idiom isn't exactly congruent with the original author's usage? Unfortunately, instead of digging into these questions and justifying his choices, the filmmaker simply says he came up with the title "on the shitter."

Later on, a different user claims to have never even heard of the book until this movie came along. Does this make them an "uncultured swine?"

57 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

22

u/superfeds Jan 23 '17

Is there a good reason why he's reusing titles from more popular movies?

Just seems dumb and kind of confusing.

I could maybe see the use of an idiom if you're trying to make a point with the title but even then I'd want something to differentiate my work from other more popular films.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '17

I'm vaguely offended he is using the title in a state of oblivious incomprehension of the very famous novel and movie, but it's more like how I feel when JJ Abrams brags about not understanding Star Trek and then makes a terrible Star Trek movie that fails to even exploit fan nostalgia competently.

2

u/HeartyBeast Jan 23 '17

JJ Abrams brags about not understanding Star Trek

Did he?

→ More replies (1)

12

u/BZH_JJM Jan 23 '17

And it's not even a movie about a guy with a 9mm and and three piece suit in Keasbey?

5

u/CleaveItToBeaver Jan 23 '17

I heard his next big film would be entitled "Reel Big Fish", in which an enterprising young lad tries to start a fishing business and runs afoul of pirates. It is equally unrelated to anything. /s

2

u/BZH_JJM Jan 23 '17

Certainly not related to any movie by Tim Burton.

7

u/KillerPotato_BMW Jan 23 '17

Based on the novel Push by Sapphire.

7

u/NotZombieJustGinger Jan 23 '17

I'm kind of glad I wasn't aware of this. Catch 22 is my favorite book of all time and I'm afraid I would have broken a finger rage-typing.

2

u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 24 '17

That's kind of an interesting question, since it is both the name of a book and idiomatic. Would that make it generic (trademark-wise)?

2

u/Existential_Owl Jan 24 '17

Copyright law is what matters here, but titles cannot be copyrighted. While it's usually unwise to re-use a title from a more popular work, it's not illegal.

For a recent example, see Birth of a Nation (2016).

2

u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 24 '17

I went toward trademark because the name of the book/movie (you're right) wouldn't be copyrightable.

But it can certainly be trademarked. And it would be one of the stronger kinds of marks absent having become an idiom. I'm not sure why you think that copyright law (as opposed to trademark) "is what matters here".

Which, since he isn't actually adapting it would mean he doesn't infringe on the copyright. So it's trademark or nothing.

Hence musing about trademark rather than copyright, which doesn't matter here.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Sadsharks Jan 27 '17

The book created the idiom so that's probably an important distinction

1

u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 27 '17

Maybe. That's kind of true of any generic mark, though.

Asprin became generic because people came to associate that brand drug name with the broader "acetylsalicylic acid." Murphy bed, same thing. The original product created the meaning of the term, which then became the generic term.