So Cabin in the Woods (that movie that was good but not very popular) is getting sued.
Well, not the movie itself – I mean the guy, Joss Whedon, who made it. And who allegedly plagiarized a book about – what else but – a cabin… in the woods… with monsters spying on and recording the foresty vacationers staying there. On the one hand, I kinda sorta get it – I mean some of the similarities were a bit too uncanny for my liking (i.e. how many dudes and bishes were there, and the striking samesies-ness of the two lead chicks’ names).
But on the other, that’s dwarfed by how much else made the movie different enough to be considered non-copycat.
And, naturally, since the book was written in 2006, everyone-point-everyone sparring in the internet’s comment trenches keep asking the sardonic inquiry of “Ooooh… why’d it take you three years to realize your shit’d been nicked?” Here’s another question: Stop asking stupid stuff mayhaps? I’d’ve done the same thing if I thought I could make a case and believed I’d really been scammed. And, no, I haven’t forgotten how many other movies have followed this same plot. People have loved wilderness murder ever since the dawn of cavemen watching it on mud scrawled walls while eating their paleo popcorn (“Bob, did you draw more of your kindergarten horseshit on our movie screen again?!”) Besides, how could I forget – when everyone’s also asking that with equal snarkiness? Yes, poor Jason Voorhees is probably reading his lawsuit letter through a tear filled hockey mask right now, too. But, let’s be serious. Cabin was an optimal target and the timing was good because A.) It was surprisingly less of a cult classic than I’d expected it to be (see meme above) and B.) well, how are you gonna sue for ten mill before their movie earns that much (I’m guesstimating) via DVD and movie ticket sales? Takes a few years, mmmyes?
Maybe the book is tres-similar and maybe the difference is as vast as me pre-matcha-latte and post matcha-latte.
But I’m too lazy (and a little put off) to read the work of this dude whining over Whedon’s success to find out.
But I can tell you straight off – even without reading it – that there are gonna be some epic-level disparities that make the film unique. All’s I’m saying is that if this Gallhager guy can effectively brain paint that last scene from the film – with all the creepers emerging in horrifying synchroncity from the elevators, along with that calm-before-the-blood-tsunami that ensued a second later – in literary form (with the entertainment equivalent performed with word sorcery), then he has a case. But half the movie was based on that kinda over-the-top-ness and derpy dialogue about husband-bulges and the kinda comic relief that’s achieved only via in-the-flesh human medium. If he manages all’a that as well in his novella, then sure. I’m all for his little lawsuit.
Otherwise, he’d better be Xeroxing and sending out those suit letters to every bad cabin creature stalker B flick dating back to the black ‘n white ones, like a new bride slaving over thank you notes and realizing she’s just signed up for a real life horror film herself.
2 Comments
Sam
All due respect, all you did was explain why he’s innocent because you’re a fan. You aren’t even being objective. At all. More mindless Joss Whedon droning. You don’t care about the truth, you just care about swaying people into believing what you want them to believe because OMG, Joss Whedon.
Should “It Follows” be the new high school sex-ed film? | Miss Ashley Pants
[…] haven’t-seen-this-before hair raiser. Cabin in the Woods (despite what some have to say about its originality) was a fantastic example of exactly that – and I’ve been looking to give something new the time […]