542: The Simpsons Movie

[armenta]

Originally Posted by whatever4

If you look at the whois for the name the ownership information hasn't changed. Which means Keith was probably true to his word and has filed suit. This would stop anyone from being able to use the name.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Yooooooooooooooooooooooooou!
and welcome to the forums.


-Peesch

[thegoldencalf]

the whole debate seems so vague and subjective to even attempt to argue in a legal arena.
couldn't jessica and ashley equally argue that they were planning on making a documentary about themselves and therefore claim 'dibs'?
could keith claim to be be planning to make a documentary about them as well? how do you argue who takes precedence?
how did not having the dot com effect the outcome of the movie? who the fuck wouldn't just search google for info on the movie anyway? why wouldn't there just be a link off the simpsons or fox sites?
better yet, why not just pay keith the 5 figures and keep it all out of the press?

[bithead]

Originally Posted by thegoldencalf

better yet, why not just pay keith the 5 figures and keep it all out of the press?

Why should they have done that, when they could save the 5 figures AND get free advertising for their movie... ?

[thegoldencalf]

true, but doesn't this kind of press make them reek of fecal-douche rot when they are paying that much for commercials daily. i agree with you that it's free press and the whole 'no bad press' bit, but for them to play the 'poor little us' card seems hard for anyone to swallow.
on the flipside, it seems that the mentions of KATG on the news had to be well worth the domain registration. that kind of advertising isn't even for sale.
too bad dawn & drew didn't think of it first
awwwww (have a cheeto, swine)

[bithead]

Originally Posted by thegoldencalf

true, but doesn't this kind of press make them reek of fecal-douche rot when they are paying that much for commercials daily. i agree with you that it's free press and the whole 'no bad press' bit, but for them to play the 'poor little us' card seems hard for anyone to swallow.
on the flipside, it seems that the mentions of KATG on the news had to be well worth the domain registration. that kind of advertising isn't even for sale.
too bad dawn & drew didn't think of it first
awwwww (have a cheeto, swine)

Sometimes it's about not setting a bad precedent. i.e. they wouldn't want anyone to think they're willing to just roll-over on these matters... they'd become a doormat...

"that kind of advertising isn't even for sale" - absolutely.

[thegoldencalf]

i realize we are on the same page here, but i need to vent a little on this issue.
'a doormat' is truly a fitting metaphor. FOX waltzed right into the not so elaborate 'cardboard box w/ stick and string' style trap laid by keith (intentional?). they then made/ fielded phone calls to/ from the media and donated the greatest promotional campaign thus far for the show. (sorry, chemda, but even better than stickers and keychains)

reminds me of new porn shops getting picketed by concerned parents and religious folks airing on anytown, usa's local prime time news stations. these clueless idiots work harder than anyone you could ever hire to promote the new sex shop, that they despise, for free. fuck commercials. just piss off some christians and pocket your advertising budget.

if the fox/simpsons p.r. dep't had any foresight, they never would have said a word about KATG or dignified a question regarding the whole domain name SNAFUBAR (tm- i claim that phrase). besides the free promo for KATG, they exposed their shitty planning by naming and releasing a movie without securing the dot com.

you'd think that the longest running series in the history of television might be able to dream up an alternate name for a movie they spent millions of dollars and years making. i don't think 'oops' really covers it. it's like calling the pacific ocean "damp".

statistically, even a blind chicken pecks up SOME corn.
better luck next time, FOX