"The Incredibles": Why Doesn't Marvel Sue?
EGTea
got me to thinking: Has Marvel Comics taken any notice that in
Disney/Pixar's film "The Incredibles" three of the five members of a family
team of superheroes have powers that seem (to this observer) to have been
lifted, unaltered, from the Fantastic Four?
Helen Parr aka Mrs. Incredible has the same power as Dr. Reed Richards aka
Mr. Fantastic, i.e. both can stretch their bodiies like rubber bands.
Helen's daughter Violet Parr can become invisible and project inpenetrable
force fields, just like Reed's wife, Susan Storm Richards aka The Invisible
Girl.
Violet's baby brother Jack-Jack can generate spontaneous combustion that
sets his whole body aflame, without harming himself. So can Susan's baby
brother Johnny Storm aka The Human Torch.
Bob Parr aka Mr. Incredible, is not ugly and inhuman-looking like The
Fantastic Four's Ben Grimm aka The Thing, but both are incredibly strong and
impervious to pain. Considered in combination with the rest of these items,
it could be argued that The Incredibles' powers are a direct, uncredited
ripoff of The Fantastic Four's.
"The Karate Kid" was in no way like the comic book hero of the same name,
but the movie's producers did obtain permission from DC Comics to use the
title and acknowledged that it the credits. As far as I know, the producers
of "The Incredibles" did not ask permission of Marvel to turn their heroes
into virtual clones of The Fantastic Four.
Or did they? I'm asking.
MICHAEL PENA
adults.
"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:JS7ke.64565$IO.5...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
George Peatty
Sue? They ought to pay Pixar a fee for the free publicity. I heard someone
say elsewhere online that they had already seen the Fantastic Four movie.
It was called the Incredibles. The movie was an obvious homage to Marvel
Comics with Frozone as Iceman, Dash as Quicksilver, and Gazer Beam as
Cyclops. Plus, the all too-human foibles and everyday problems of the Parrs
is pure Marvel shtick ..
EGTea
"MICHAEL PENA" <mike...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:908ke.1940$yO1.1808@trnddc05...
> The film works as an action adventure for the kids and a satire for the
> adults.
The "satire defense" works when you're satirizing real people. but this more
closely fits the model of plagiarizing a work of fiction.
Novelist Alice Crandall tried a "parody defense" when she essentially
re-wrote "Gone With The Wind" from the perspective of a new character:
Scarlett O'Hara's secret half-sister, a black slave. Needless to say, the
Margaret Mitchell estate viewed the work less as satire and more as
intellectual-property theft. The Mitchell estate sued Crandall and her
publisher, dropping the claim when the publisher agreed to make an
unspecified donation to a historically black college.
Jay G.
> "MICHAEL PENA" <mike...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:908ke.1940$yO1.1808@trnddc05...
>> The film works as an action adventure for the kids and a satire for the
>> adults.
>
> The "satire defense" works when you're satirizing real people. but this more
> closely fits the model of plagiarizing a work of fiction.
> Novelist Alice Crandall tried a "parody defense" when she essentially
> re-wrote "Gone With The Wind" from the perspective of a new character:
> Scarlett O'Hara's secret half-sister, a black slave. Needless to say, the
> Margaret Mitchell estate viewed the work less as satire and more as
> intellectual-property theft. The Mitchell estate sued Crandall and her
> publisher, dropping the claim when the publisher agreed to make an
> unspecified donation to a historically black college.
Actually, the claim wasn't dropped, the ban was overturned by a US Appeals
court:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1352175.stm
-Jay
Peter Meilinger
>Sue? They ought to pay Pixar a fee for the free publicity.
Yeah, but Marvel's not usually bright enough to see it that
way. I'm amazed they didn't sue, to be honest. If I had to
guess, I'd say Pixar's popularity and success and especially
money had a lot to do with the decision.
Pete
John Harkness
Or, far more likely, Pixar's lawyers took a long lookover the script
and checked with Marvel's attorneys before they shot it.
It's Fantastic Four-like, but the conception and characters are
sufficiently differentiated that Marvel probably decided not to take
action.
Most things are that simple.
John Harkness
Warchild
None of the powers of the Fantastic Four were all that original with those
characters. Think 'Plastic Man', original 'Human Torch', 'Spectre',
'Superman'. The family dynamic was different, with the two teenage
children. Marvel didn't sue because their lawyers told them not to.
David Johnston
>Reading a magazine article about the upcoming film of "The Fantastic Four"
>got me to thinking: Has Marvel Comics taken any notice that in
>Disney/Pixar's film "The Incredibles" three of the five members of a family
>team of superheroes have powers that seem (to this observer) to have been
>lifted, unaltered, from the Fantastic Four?
>
>Helen Parr aka Mrs. Incredible has the same power as Dr. Reed Richards aka
>Mr. Fantastic, i.e. both can stretch their bodiies like rubber bands.
>
>Helen's daughter Violet Parr can become invisible and project inpenetrable
>force fields, just like Reed's wife, Susan Storm Richards aka The Invisible
>Girl.
>
>Violet's baby brother Jack-Jack can generate spontaneous combustion that
>sets his whole body aflame, without harming himself. So can Susan's baby
>brother Johnny Storm aka The Human Torch.
Marvel has been doing similar pastiches of DC characters for a good 30
years. Knowing that they have kept on the right side side of the
boundary between "tribute" and "infringmement" they would know that
the Incredibles have done the same and it would be a waste of money to
sue. Their prospects would be grim.
Peter Meilinger
>None of the powers of the Fantastic Four were all that original with those
>characters. Think 'Plastic Man', original 'Human Torch', 'Spectre',
>'Superman'.
The original Human Torch was also Marvel's, but good point.
Still, though, as far as I know the combination of invisibility
and force fields originated with and is still unique to Susan
Storm/Richards. Speedster, Strong Guy and even Strecthy-Type
can be seen as generic archetypes. Invisible Force Field
Girl, not so much. Put that together with a Strong Guy and a
Stretchy-Type in a family? Oy.
You and others have put forth good reasons Marvel wouldn't
want to sue. And I have absolutely no idea if they would
have won had they gone to court. But can anyone really
say that the Incredibles wasn't heavily influenced by
the Fantastic Four? I mean, sure anyone can say that.
Could you keep a straight face while saying it, though?
I sure couldn't.
"Influenced by" is by no means the same as "stolen from,"
of course. I'm still amazed Marvel was smart enough not
to sue, though. Doesn't seem like their style, these days.
Pete
Jordan
called an Homage, not a Ripoff though. :^)
Of course the people making the FF movie are equally screwed either
way.... :^)
- Jordan
EGTea
"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:d6t8i7$fv7$3...@news3.bu.edu...
(snippage.. Just to speed things along)
> Still, though, as far as I know the combination of invisibility
> and force fields originated with and is still unique to Susan
> Storm/Richards. Speedster, Strong Guy and even Strecthy-Type
> can be seen as generic archetypes. Invisible Force Field
> Girl, not so much. Put that together with a Strong Guy and a
> Stretchy-Type in a family? Oy.
>
The Fantastic Four are also a family , except for the strong guy (the others
are man, wife and brother-in-law) That, along with everything else, crosses
the line from homage into theft.
> You and others have put forth good reasons Marvel wouldn't
> want to sue. And I have absolutely no idea if they would
> have won had they gone to court. But can anyone really
> say that the Incredibles wasn't heavily influenced by
> the Fantastic Four? I mean, sure anyone can say that.
> Could you keep a straight face while saying it, though?
> I sure couldn't.
>
> "Influenced by" is by no means the same as "stolen from,"
> of course. I'm still amazed Marvel was smart enough not
> to sue, though. Doesn't seem like their style, these days.
>
The following is lengthy. Be patient with it.
Ever hear of a guy named Harlan Ellison? He's a writer, and he's absolutely
brilliant. Just ask him.
Seriously, Harlan Ellison has been enormously successful with short
stories, novellas, plays, screenplays, teleplays, criticism, and on and on.
His passion for the sanctity of his work has established two reputations:
1. While Ellison admits to being a literary whore who does a lot of
writing strictly for money, he will take his name off any Hollywood project
he doesn't like, substituting the pseudonym "Cordwainer Bird."
and
2. He'll sue anybody he suspects of using as much as a semicolon he's
used before.
One theme Ellison has touched on repeatedly in his work is that of time
travellers who go into the past with a plan to change their own history. He
wrote, among other things, the original "Star Trek" episode "The City on the
Edge of Forever." That's the one in which Dr. McCoy is accidentally sent
back in time, where he changes history in such a way that the Enterprise and
the Federation never existed. Kirk and Spock are forced to go back in time,
find out what McCoy did and prevent hm from doing it.
Ellison didn't write "The Terminator," or have anything to do with it,
but he sued the producers of that film, saying the film's theme of a robot
sent back in time to kill the mother of the soldier who defeated its machine
army was too much like "City on the Edge..." and other examples of his work.
Ellison won his lawsuit. Part of the settlement was that the cable and home
video editions of "The Terminator" include a screen credit acknowledging
Ellison's works as the inspiration of the story. The settlement stipulates
that Ellison's credit be as large as the screenwriter's and stay on the
screen for the same amount of time.
Petty? Certainly. But it is an example of the legal principle of specific
performance. Money isn't the only thing one can win in a lawsuit. In this
case, Ellison got the court to compel a film producer to publicly (in the
form of a screen credit) praise Ellison for his contribution to a project he
Ellison nothing to do with! To use the title of an Ellison story, he is "The
Man Who Was Heavily Into Revenge."
Stephen Cooke
On Tue, 24 May 2005, EGTea wrote:
> Ellison didn't write "The Terminator," or have anything to do with it,
> but he sued the producers of that film, saying the film's theme of a robot
> sent back in time to kill the mother of the soldier who defeated its machine
> army was too much like "City on the Edge..." and other examples of his work.
I think the main pieces of work he alleged that it borrowed from were a
couple of Outer Limits episodes, Soldier (in which two soldiers from
the future are sent back to the present day) and Demon With the Glass Hand
(in which Robert Culp is a cyborg from the future sent back in time to
save the human race from aliens intent on wiping it out).
swac
Invid Fan
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.105...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Stephen Cooke <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
And the fact Cameron joked he stole the story from "a couple of Outer
Limits episodes" helped Ellison to win the case.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
heynony
> And the fact Cameron joked he stole the story from "a couple of Outer
> Limits episodes" helped Ellison to win the case.
Ellison had no case otherwise.
Paraphrasing what Heinlein said from time to time when the blatant
stealing of his ideas for other stories/scripts was brought to his
attention: my only "right" to those ideas is that I stole them first.
David Johnston
>
>"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
>news:d6t8i7$fv7$3...@news3.bu.edu...
>(snippage.. Just to speed things along)
>
>> Still, though, as far as I know the combination of invisibility
>> and force fields originated with and is still unique to Susan
>> Storm/Richards. Speedster, Strong Guy and even Strecthy-Type
>> can be seen as generic archetypes. Invisible Force Field
>> Girl, not so much. Put that together with a Strong Guy and a
>> Stretchy-Type in a family? Oy.
>>
>
>The Fantastic Four are also a family , except for the strong guy (the others
>are man, wife and brother-in-law) That, along with everything else, crosses
>the line from homage into theft.
Nonsense. They made use of nothing that was or could be trademarked
and they didn't use any Fantastic Four plotline.
EGTea
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.105...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca..
.
Thanks for the specifics. Ellison's work is voluminous, and I couldn't
dredge the "Outer Limits" eps out of my memory at the late hour I wrote that
message. But I knew that Elloson wrote "City on the Edge..." and a short
story called "Escapegoat" that also used the "solders from the future seek
victory in the past" formula.
Harlan Ellison also sued ABC and the producers of two series aired on
that network _ a drama called "FutureCop" and a sitcom called "Holmes &
Yo-Yo". Both shows dealt with the theme of a veteran police officer, known
among his colleagues for his mistrust of technology, who is assigned to
train an experimental android cop as his new partner.. Ellison claimed it
was too much like "Brillo," a story written by Ellison and Ben Bova. A
Google search suggests that Ellison won that lawsuit, soo, but all the
citations I see here use the exact wording, so I consider it a one-source
citation (therefore, I wouldn't consider it more reliable than rumor.)
David Johnston
>Thanks for the specifics. Ellison's work is voluminous, and I couldn't
>dredge the "Outer Limits" eps out of my memory at the late hour I wrote that
>message. But I knew that Elloson wrote "City on the Edge..." and a short
>story called "Escapegoat" that also used the "solders from the future seek
>victory in the past" formula.
> Harlan Ellison also sued ABC and the producers of two series aired on
>that network _ a drama called "FutureCop" and a sitcom called "Holmes &
>Yo-Yo". Both shows dealt with the theme of a veteran police officer, known
>among his colleagues for his mistrust of technology, who is assigned to
>train an experimental android cop as his new partner.. Ellison claimed it
>was too much like "Brillo," a story written by Ellison and Ben Bova. A
>Google search suggests that Ellison won that lawsuit, soo,
He didn't exactly "win" in the sense of being ruled right in a court
of law. They settled. After all, they weren't going to fight to the
last ditch on behalf of shows that were already cancelled.
John Harkness
>
>"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.105...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca..
>.
>>
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005, EGTea wrote:
>>
>> > Ellison didn't write "The Terminator," or have anything to do with
>it,
>> > but he sued the producers of that film, saying the film's theme of a
>robot
>> > sent back in time to kill the mother of the soldier who defeated its
>machine
>> > army was too much like "City on the Edge..." and other examples of his
>work.
>>
>> I think the main pieces of work he alleged that it borrowed from were a
>> couple of Outer Limits episodes, Soldier (in which two soldiers from
>> the future are sent back to the present day) and Demon With the Glass Hand
>> (in which Robert Culp is a cyborg from the future sent back in time to
>> save the human race from aliens intent on wiping it out).
>>
>> swac
>>
>
>Thanks for the specifics. Ellison's work is voluminous, and I couldn't
>dredge the "Outer Limits" eps out of my memory at the late hour I wrote that
>message. But I knew that Elloson wrote "City on the Edge..." and a short
>story called "Escapegoat" that also used the "solders from the future seek
>victory in the past" formula.
The Outer Limits episodes -- in the season two box -- are Soldier and
Demon With a Glass Hand, and there's all sorts of little things in
them that turn up in Terminator.
I'm quite willing to believe that Cameron didn't sit down and watch
those episodes and steal the stuff, more likely that they were things
that lodged in his brain when he was watching the show and popped up
without attribution tags when he was making Terminator.
John Harkness
EGTea
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4292e905...@news.telusplanet.net...
In civil court, the standard of proof is preponderence of evidence. You
don't have to steal *all* of a copyrighted work to be found liable _ just
*enough* of it to satisfy the court that the similarities are more than mere
coincidence.
"Doc Savage" predates "Superman" Both deal with a hero who is known in
everyday life by the first name Clark. Both are physically perfect and can
perfrom physical and mental feats that most humans would regard as
miraculous. Both have only one living relative, a female cousin who shares
many of their talents. And both have a secret, fortified retreat in the
Arctic that they both call their "Fortress of Solitude."
That's quite a preponderance of evidence that "Superman" plagiarized
large parts of "Doc Savage."
But I would not recommend a lawsuit. Superman is an extraterrestrial,
and his powers are so great that he has no need of the weapons and gadgets
that Doc Savage relies on. Superman doesn't have a commando team of
genius-scientist sidekicks. And Superman turns the crooks he catches over to
the proper authorities, whereas Doc Savage illegally imprisons them at his
own facility and performs lobotomies on them to "cure" them of their
criminal tendencies.
So while there's a lot of Doc Savage that the creators of "Superman" may
have lifted, there's also a lot they left alone, and a lot they changed to
make their work their own.
Doc Savage and *BUCKAROO BANZAI*, Now *that's* another matter!
I hope by now you know I'm just joking around. I know there's no case of
"Incredibles v. Fantastic Four" The linchpin difference is that The
Incredibles wear masks and value their privacy in a world that makes it
illegal to be a superhero. The Fantastic Four live totally in public, and
add nonstop celebrity to their daily burdens.
It did make a diverting discussion, which was what I had in mind. (It's
similar to trolling, but for good, not evil.) Thanks.
Warchild
"heynony" <nos...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:240520051017031226%nos...@noway.com...
Where does this leave Sophia Stewart?
I mean really, the number of off-the-wall blogs messages devoted to this
sorry loon is amazing. A true artifact of the Internet Age!
Warchild
There are specifics to these Ellison cases that are not touched upon in
these recollections. Ellison and Bova had optioned 'Brillo' to the
production company, which went ahead a produced a similar idea without
Ellison/Bova. That is the reason that Ellison/Bova won the lawsuit - a
provable attempt to defraud on the part of the production company. The
'Terminator' action resulted in the settlement because people involved in
the film trumpeted being influenced by Ellison's work for 'The Outer
Limits'.
Warchild
"John Harkness" <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ukm691hd0cbmm9pmt...@4ax.com...
Cameron opened his mouth and said that he was influenced by those shows. It
got into print. He then tried to deny it.
>
> John Harkness
Warchild
These specific examples tend to leave out all of the other influences on
these works, such as Wylie's 'Gladiator'.
Mark Steese
news:42930203...@news.telusplanet.net:
>>Harlan Ellison also sued ABC and the producers of two series aired
>>on that network _ a drama called "FutureCop" and a sitcom called "Holmes
>>& Yo-Yo". Both shows dealt with the theme of a veteran police officer,
>>known among his colleagues for his mistrust of technology, who is
>>assigned to train an experimental android cop as his new partner..
>>Ellison claimed it was too much like "Brillo," a story written by
>>Ellison and Ben Bova. A Google search suggests that Ellison won that
>>lawsuit, soo,
>
> He didn't exactly "win" in the sense of being ruled right in a court
> of law. They settled. After all, they weren't going to fight to the
> last ditch on behalf of shows that were already cancelled.
ABC was probably happy to pay Ellison for voluntarily claiming that he was
partially responsible for "Holmes and Yo-Yo,"
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Bill
"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote:
The fact that The Incredibles is essentially a comedy allows more leeway
than usual, and I would guess that the similarities to the Fantastic
Four were deliberate, to enhance the comedic effect. I don't think The
Man from UNCLE could have been accused of ripping off James Bond because
the connection was carried to ridiculous extremes. At some point you can
just claim tha something is a "genre." Whoever made the first
body-switching movie doesn't seem to have sued all the imitators.
But in court these things can be awfully subjective. DC sued Fawcett
claiming that Captain Marvel was a ripoff of Superman because he was
strong and could fly and had an alter ego as a reporter. Never mind
Greek mythology or Wylie's Gladiator or the other 85 superstrong heroes
that had popped up along the way. If having three things in common is
enough, Phil Nowlan's estate could have sued George Lucas because his
movie had spaceships, ray guns and robots.
OTOH, when the writers of the song "Pittsburgh, Pensylvannia" sued
Malvina Reynolds over "Little Boxes," she brought in musicologists who
demonstrted that the tune had been around for a hundred years or so.
Mark Steese
news:ws21-FFDB69.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu:
[snip]
> But in court these things can be awfully subjective. DC sued Fawcett
> claiming that Captain Marvel was a ripoff of Superman because he was
> strong and could fly and had an alter ego as a reporter. Never mind
> Greek mythology or Wylie's Gladiator or the other 85 superstrong
> heroes that had popped up along the way. If having three things in
> common is enough, Phil Nowlan's estate could have sued George Lucas
> because his movie had spaceships, ray guns and robots.
Captain Marvel and Superman had a few more than three things in common.
Like the fact that they were both comic book characters with similar
costumes, similar physical appearance, similar urban milieu, etc.
Admittedly, the character wasn't swiped as blatantly as Paul Terry's "Super
Mouse" character (which he redesigned and renamed Mighty Mouse after
National's lawyers came after him), but it's pretty obvious that Cap was
'inspired' by Superman. The irony is that Captain Marvel comics were better
and more popular than Superman comics. No wonder National was pissed.
MICHAEL PENA
EGTea
"Bill" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-FFDB69.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
James Bond works for MI6, the Britush military counterintelligence unit,
which exists in real life.
Napoleon Solo and his partner Illya Kuriakin works for the United
Network Command for Law and Enforcement, a fictional organization made up of
law enformcement officers representing all major governments. UNCLE's
mission was to promote peace and political stability throughout the word.
Unlike MI6, UNCLE did not exist, and it could not have existed. In the idea
that an American agent and a Soviet agent would work together toward common
political objectives with the cooperation of both governments was
ridiculous. The only way UNCLE could have operated was as an arm of the
United Nations, and the UN made it clear to the producers that they didn't
like UNCLE's name, its logo or any suggestion that it was a UN agency.
I don't think anyone could have mistaken James Bond for an UNCLE agent.
OK, there *was* that "Man From UNCLE" tv movie in which Napoleon Solo
was in a fix and was rescued by a stranger in a heavily armed Aston-Martin
DB5. When the day was saved, savior was revealed to be George Lazenby, the
forgotten James Bond actor.
"An honor, Mister Bond," Solo said, saluting his savior.
"A pleasure, Mister Solo," the stranger said, before driving away.