Press "Enter" to skip to content

Author: Bryant

Ask me no questions

October 14, 2003
Leave a Comment

There is always more White Wolf v. Sony. Here’s Danny McBride’s declaration, as promised (the third screenwriter).

I also have White Wolf’s interrogatory of 9/18 for you. The relevant bit seems to be the five questions asked, which I will reproduce for those who scorn PDFs:

  1. Identify all sources for the items listed for Underworld on the comparison chart attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

  2. Identify all documents read, references or used at any time by anyone with any involvement in creating or contributing to the script, screenplay, treatments, character studies, script or production notes, movie, comic book or novel for Underworld.

  3. Identify all persons involved in the creative process for any version or draft of the script, storyboards and/or script or production notes for any version of Underworld.

  4. Identify all vampire and werewolf books or sources reviewed (including Internet search engines), read or consulted by Wiseman, McBride, Grevioux or any other person involved in the creative process for the script(s), storyboards and/or script or production notes for any version of Underworld.

  5. Identify all persons who may be used by you at any hearing in this case and/or upon the trial of this case to present evidence under Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and provide the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

And a few notes:

Exhibit A is a long list of purported similarities. It’s more or less the same as the list in White Wolf’s original complaint, except that it cites specific pages in both White Wolf’s books and in the script. It’s at the end of the PDF linked above.

It strikes me as slightly odd that question 2 doesn’t specify computer games, since the subtitle “Bloodlines” is one of White Wolf’s claimed points of similarity.

Rule 702 says expert witnesses may testify, Rule 703 describes when an expert witness can testify, and rule 705 says an expert witness can testify in terms of opinion or inference without first testifying to the underlying facts. Rule 26(a)(2) calls for disclosure of expert witnesses. I.e., if you’re gonna call expert witnesses, you gotta tell the other side in advance.

Petals and smoke

October 13, 2003
Leave a Comment

Worthy of note: Kip Manley’s City of Roses kicked off today. If you don’t recall, it’s a piece of “urbane fantasy” (his coinage as far as I know, and a lovely one) provided to us with webcomic pacing but not in webcomic form. I.e., we’ll get a piece of it on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; and it’s text, not pictures. Eloquent text.

The setting is Portland. The magic is indeterminate. I expect it to be very good, because Kip can write.

Within the pale

October 12, 2003
4 Comments

I’ve been chewing over these two posts from Kevin Drum about the Texas Republican Party platform. First off, I agree with him: the platform as a whole is pretty damned radical. I would certainly be interested in hearing President Bush, who presumably has signed a similar document, talk about whether or not he supports all those positions. And much of the platform is way the hell out of the mainstream.

However, it’s wrong to say that the platform has no place in American politics. For example, there is absolutely no reason to recoil from the sight of a politician who wants to return to the gold standard. It might not be a bright thing to do, but it hardly signifies the destruction of the republic. Most if not all of the economic planks fall into that bucket. Dumb ideas? Maybe. Radical? Sure. Shouldn’t be discussed in polite company? Uh…

Now, when you get to creationism being taught in public schools and eliminating separation of church and state, there I’m more or less in agreement. But even the anti-abortion plank isn’t something you can just sweep away with a magisterial comment or two. Democrats should realize that whether or not they like that position, it’s a position which is fully in the mainstream. Sure, it’s disturbing that the Texas wing of the Republican Party has so much influence, because their platform as a whole really is scary. However, when you point at it and say “look, radical ideas!” you just alienate a pretty big section of America.

And it’s healthy to be able to discuss ideas. Just about any idea. You can’t gain consensus by squashing dissent, even wacky radical right wing dissent. The country’s better off for having dissenting voices, even those we really don’t like.

Remarkably tacky

October 12, 2003
5 Comments

The implication of this Metafilter post is that someone is providing soldiers with pre-written letters which they simply sign and send to newspapers. Or, according to this article, someone is signing the letters for them.

This kind of thing has been nicknamed astroturf — i.e., a fake grassroots. The Republican Party is fairly fond of it.

I think it’s more than usually repugnant when it’s used to misrepresent what our soldiers think, however. The men dying in Iraq deserve better than to have their views hijacked by a public relations flack.

First the downbeat

October 12, 2003
Leave a Comment

Nobody but Tarantino could have made Kill Bill. Which, if you have a taste for the coppery scent of Tarantino’s oeuvre, is about all the review you need. It helps to have seen Switchblade Sisters.

Um.

OK, so it’s insane grindhouse cinema turned up a few notches. The extended Japanese scenes are an homage to Japanese samurai flicks. The Texas scenes taste like Sergio Leone, just a bit. There’s a touch of blaxsploitation. She’s wearing Bruce Lee’s jumpsuit.

There is no plot. Apparently all the plot comes in the second volume of the movie. That’s OK, because there’s plenty of kickass fight scene in this. There’s also a lot of blood, and by a lot, I mean “more than you think.” Like a lot of other people, I seriously don’t understand how this movie avoided an NC-17 rating.

Four months till the second half is the suck.