Society & Culture Things in life you just don't understand

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Why someone waits 23 years to sue The Simpsons creators for basing a character on a character he played in a movie

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainm...haracter-for-250-million-20141023-11aose.html

Oh wait I see why,nobody has given him a job since 2008.So he either needs the money or publicity.


Fat Tony won't be happy
louie-the-simpsons.jpg
 
Why someone waits 23 years to sue The Simpsons creators for basing a character on a character he played in a movie
i guess you wait until you can claim maximum damages....

but lets say the simpsons did create the character louie based on the frank carbone character $250M's seems like not just a stretch... but a massive stretch. there is a likeness i reckon, but just about every simpsons character is based on someone else. and just about every movie/tv character is based on someone else.
 
i guess you wait until you can claim maximum damages....

but lets say the simpsons did create the character louie based on the frank carbone character $250M's seems like not just a stretch... but a massive stretch. there is a likeness i reckon, but just about every simpsons character is based on someone else. and just about every movie/tv character is based on someone else.

I don't get how they can allow this suit to proceed, at this level. I mean, $250M? Is this guy for real? Even if I was his lawyer, I'd be laughing at him. Surely lawyers themselves wouldn't want to hinge their credibility on these kind of farcical suits.

Not only would that character not have made The Simpson's franchise that much money, but having the character 'lifted' hasn't cost that guy this much money, surely. I know The Simpson's is a very valuable franchise, but it's stupid to try and sue for this much IMO. Just paints an impression of ridiculousness in everyone's mind before it even gets to court.
 
I don't get how they can allow this suit to proceed, at this level. I mean, $250M? Is this guy for real? Even if I was his lawyer, I'd be laughing at him. Surely lawyers themselves wouldn't want to hinge their credibility on these kind of farcical suits.

Not only would that character not have made The Simpson's franchise that much money, but having the character 'lifted' hasn't cost that guy this much money, surely. I know The Simpson's is a very valuable franchise, but it's stupid to try and sue for this much IMO. Just paints an impression of ridiculousness in everyone's mind before it even gets to court.
As said it's a huge stretch. But I guess if you're going to sue someone you might as well go the hole hog and see what happens.

Somewhat ironically if the Simpsons where to lift a character from you, it would probably make you more money than if they hadn't.
 
Somewhat ironically if the Simpsons where to lift a character from you, it would probably make you more money than if they hadn't.

In that sense, it could all just be a publicity stunt.

Probably won't actually earn him any money though, but it's probably more publicity than he's ever really had. I mean, what non-film nerd even knew what this guy's name was two days ago?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Foo Fighters.

I'm being subjected to hundred-syllables-a-second, ad-flogging, sell-out commercial radio and far out, how bad are these pricks? This new song of their follows that same formula all their other ones did. It just starts with this guitar line, goes into some drum pattern I cannot even recall such is its blandness, while it culminates in this wall of utensil-rock distortion with Dave Grohl gravelly-yelling some cliche. Hasn't this been done before? Doesn't Taylor Swift change vocal melodies, arrangements, song structures, and instrumentation? I know bogans like saccharine alcohol like Jim Beam and piss-water beer like Carlton Cold, but jesus, how can they see any of the Foo Fighters stuff as good?

It is just shocking stuff. Dave Grohl is so lame. Kurt Cobain would be turning in his grave if he heard of the kind of album titles his band's side project would be spewing out... what a tainted world we inhabit. People make Nickleback jokes but Foo Fighter (and Coldplay) jokes should be on that same level. Just pontification of what's true n real n gritty n emotional by guys who's true, real, gritty, and emotional is coke at Charlize Theron's and being turned down a Calvin Klein model and settling for a YSL one. Our culture is gutted
 
Foo Fighters.

I'm being subjected to hundred-syllables-a-second, ad-flogging, sell-out commercial radio and far out, how bad are these pricks? This new song of their follows that same formula all their other ones did. It just starts with this guitar line, goes into some drum pattern I cannot even recall such is its blandness, while it culminates in this wall of utensil-rock distortion with Dave Grohl gravelly-yelling some cliche. Hasn't this been done before? Doesn't Taylor Swift change vocal melodies, arrangements, song structures, and instrumentation? I know bogans like saccharine alcohol like Jim Beam and piss-water beer like Carlton Cold, but jesus, how can they see any of the Foo Fighters stuff as good?

It is just shocking stuff. Dave Grohl is so lame. Kurt Cobain would be turning in his grave if he heard of the kind of album titles his band's side project would be spewing out... what a tainted world we inhabit. People make Nickleback jokes but Foo Fighter (and Coldplay) jokes should be on that same level. Just pontification of what's true n real n gritty n emotional by guys who's true, real, gritty, and emotional is coke at Charlize Theron's and being turned down a Calvin Klein model and settling for a YSL one. Our culture is gutted
Hm.

You don't rate Coldplay at all?
 
Never got the love for Dave Grohl or the Foo Fighters either.

They were actually a quality power-pop/alt rock band and somewhat interesting pre-2000. Since then they've been pretty bland though.

Still, if Grohl is still selling out arenas and keeping my Mum happy (she loves the guy), can't knock him too much.
 
Hm.

You don't rate Coldplay at all?
Your favourite artist is Bruce Springsteen so I understand your digging of arena-rock bands who make big melodies and anthems as suitable for Safeway Aisle 6 as sporting montages. And Coldplay fit in there. But if Bruce and Foo Fighters are the 10pm vodka-shots and "whee-hey! Lads!" and arm-swingin footy club sing-a-longs, then Coldplay are the 2am: burnt out, quivering, insipid, and moaning and bitching about some girl who doesn't like them or how we're all just the same and how we should hang out sober or something
 
Your favourite artist is Bruce Springsteen so I understand your digging of arena-rock bands who make big melodies and anthems as suitable for Safeway Aisle 6 as sporting montages. And Coldplay fit in there. But if Bruce and Foo Fighters are the 10pm vodka-shots and "whee-hey! Lads!" and arm-swingin footy club sing-a-longs, then Coldplay are the 2am: burnt out, quivering, insipid, and moaning and bitching about some girl who doesn't like them or how we're all just the same and how we should hang out sober or something
It was a genuine question, didn't have to be an ass about it.
 
Both Coldplay and the Foo Fighters were perfectly tolerable for their first 2-3 albums. A Rush of Blood to the Head and There is Nothing Left to Lose are still their zeitgeist moments for me, a lot of the rest is just bland go-away-already familiarity. Coldplay obviously had a bit more going for them, although Foo Fighters have the odd good song.

Both were never acts I took much interest in, but my younger brother lapped up all that kind of stuff in high school (Grinspoon, RHCP, Powderfinger, Eskimo Joe, etc.), and therefore I gained a feel for their most palatable and least palatable albums.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top