chat

8603 readers

237 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Sulvy@hexbear.net

oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

LeninWeave@hexbear.net

abc@hexbear.net

Remember how there were two completely unrelated Ghostbusters cartoon shows in 1986 (hexbear.net)

submitted 5 months ago by Erika3sis@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ghostbusters, also called Filmation's Ghostbusters, was the sequel to the 1975 live action kids' show The Ghost Busters; and The Real Ghostbusters was the sequel to the 1984 film Ghostbusters starring Dan Aykroyd. These two cartoons had diddly squat to do with each other except that they both involved busting ghosts, yet the whole naming issue nevertheless still ended up impacting me 20+ years after the respective cartoons came out, as my parents ended up buying me the wrong one as a kid. And so I said while looking at my chonky iPod Classic on a plane over the Atlantic in the 2000s, "Who the heck are these people?! WHY'S THERE A GORILLA?!"

…I don't know if I'm really going anywhere with this other than Copyright Delenda Est.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There's still an incentive in that a concept might be popular enough to warrant a number of projects. Capialists monetize this already in the real world with IP-free concepts like Sherlock Holmes, Jane Austen novels, and Robin Hood. You might argue that these don't often attempt to confuse the buyer but the Disney knockoff trend of the VHS/DVD eras did just that, with hastily made cartoons of Beauty and the Beast or Tarzan

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago

half of asylum's business model was making adaptations of the same public domain works as movies you might actually want to see

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Disney still has a copyright on their versions of public domain stories, though. Whether a particular copyrighted work is entirely original or adapting public domain material, the fact remains that the copyrighted work is an artificially scarce product, and that that's where the profit comes from.

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And if they didn't, knockoff companies would gladly give Beast and Tarzan the exact designs seen in the Disney versions to exploit the confusion even better

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If Disney movies didn't have copyright, I'd think that "knockoff companies" would sooner just sell the Disney versions outright than go through all the effort of making knockoffs.

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Okay, that makes sense actually

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

See, I'm not crazy! I've thought this through!