Star Ballz Trumps Lucas

baby_head_rush writes: "The company that created pr0n cartoon Star Ballz won in court. George Lucas and company lost their first bid to stop its sale. A judge with some common sense. There is 'little likelihood of confusion' between Star Wars and Star Ballz." Not for young eyes.

Comments

Lets See Those Lightsabers!

[nexex]

A note posted on the starballz.com Website succinct in its evaluation: "Basically , it means...the judge reached the decision [Lucasfilm's] claims were a totally unfounded PILE OF CRAP."

Looks like Wank Solo will fly again!

Isn't that Goku?

[taliver]

If you go to the screenshots, I'd swear that was Goku. It seems that DragonBall Z would have a bigger claim to infringement.

And I must admit, it does look really stupid.

*closing eyes*

[Dan Crash]

I sense a grave disturbance in the force.

Re:*closing eyes*

[Erris]

OK, I've got a slow wit but did anyone else notice that the article title, "Star Ballz Trumps Lucas" could just as easily been "Lucas Bows to Star Ballz." ?!?!

Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:

[parliboy]

"Luke, I am your father."

Re:Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:

[schwatoo]

It may not look like much, but it's got it where it counts kid.

Re:Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:

[Dan Crash]

"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not. Hmm?"

Re:Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:

[SuiteSisterMary]

You've never seen THE LIST?

"Star Wars IV: A New Hope"

1. "She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid."
2. "Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
3. "Look at the size of that thing!"
4. "Sorry about the mess..."
5. "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought."
6. "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?"
7. "You've got something jammed in here real good."
8. "Put that thing away before you get us all killed!"
9. "Luke, at that speed do you think you'll be able to pull out in time?"
10. "Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care *what* you smell!"

"Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back"

1. "And I thought they smelled bad...on the *outside*!"
2. "Possible he came in through the south entrance."
3. "I must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh, kid?"
4. "Hurry up, golden-rod..."
5. "That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
6. "But now we must eat. Cum, good food, cummm..."
7. "Control, control! You must learn control!"
8. "There's an awful lot of moisture in here."
9. "Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?"
10. "I thought that hairy beast would be the end of me!"

"Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi"

1. "Rise, my friend."
2. "Open the back door!"
3. "Hey, point that thing somewhere else!"
4. "It's just a dead animal..."
5. "Not bad for a little furball."
6. "How can they be jamming us if they don't know we're coming?"
7. "Come here, I won't hurt you. You want something to eat?"
8. "Keep on that one, I'll take these two."
9. "I want you to take her. I mean it, take her!"
10. "I don't think the Empire had wookies in mind when they designed her, Chewie."

Top ten sexually tilted lines from the trilogy

10. "What could possibly have come over Master Luke?"
9. "Hey, point that thing someplace else."
8. "You're a jittery little thing, aren't you?"
7. "I never knew I had it in me."
6. "Someone must've told them about my little maneuver at the battle of Taanab."
5. "There is good in him, I've felt it."
4. "Grab me, Chewie. I'm slipping -- hold on. Grab it, almost...you almost got it. Gently now, all right, easy, easy, hold me, Chewie. Chewie!" (Han) with "A little higher, just a little higher."
3. "Short help's better than no help at all."
2. "Hey, Luke, thanks for coming after me -- now I owe you one."
1. "Back door, huh? Good idea!"

Re:Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:

[Pope Slackman]

That reminds me...
Golden-rod.

C-X C-S

What I want to know is...

[Corgha]

did Judge Claudia Wilken have to watch both movies to determine that there was little chance of confusion?

Re:What I want to know is...

[mughi]

did Judge Claudia Wilken have to watch both movies to determine that there was little chance of confusion?

Well, it looks like Lucasfilm's attorney didn't view it before filing suit, so MMG is pushing that as a sign of Lucas' weak position. And I take it that the judge had to at least review the work in question.

Parody & IP

[jaavaaguru]

Lucasfilm's spokeswoman said "This is a pornographic cartoon utilizing Star Wars intellectual property. We feel strongly that the law does not allow for parody to be a defense to a pornographic use of someone else's intellectual property, especially when that use is directed to children."

But regardless of being pornographic or now, people are allowed to use intellectual property for parody purposes, which is clearly what Star Ballz is doing. Well done to the Judge for not taking sides with the big corporation, but instead choosing what is right for people's freedom.

Re:Parody & IP

[YouAreFatMan]

Very true. If the court were to uphold the injunction because of the nature of the parody, then that opens the door on being able to quash any because you don't like it -- and very often, the targets of parody don't like how the parody is done.

Uphold this, and parody will soon be dead as a right, since everyone who has parody directed against their "intellectual property" will be able to convince a judge that there is something "dangerous" about the content.

The only standard is whether it actually could cause confusion over their trademark. And it's refreshing that the judge stuck to that.

Re:Parody & IP

[BadDoggie]

Actually, it wouldn't. Had the judge sided with Lucas based on the type of parody, it would have been bitch-slapped down by the appellate courts, based on the bitch-fest between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell, "Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell", US Supreme Court Case No. 86-1278 back in 1988.

OK, something to see here, but not that much. The US Supreme Court decided this not long enough ago that the current Court could change it easily.

woof.

Yes, the movie was pretty accurate.

Re:Parody & IP

[Rogerborg]

• people are allowed to use intellectual property for parody purposes, which is clearly what Star Ballz is doing

People are allowed to use IP for "fair use", of which parody is one example, the one the creators are claiming here. But parody is defined as "for comic effect or ridicule".

Some hentai can be viewed as funny, but you can say the same for some musicals. This looks like either hentai in a Star Wars style, or (as Lucasarts claimed) Star Wars in a hentai style. I don't think comedy is a primary goal in either case.

Ridicule implies commentary or criticism, as in "Spaceballs" or "Troopers". Perhaps there's some of that here, but from the shots it looks very much like a character-for-character, scene-for-scene remake, only with large animated sexual organs.

We'd need to watch it to be sure, but I don't see it as being that clear cut, not at all.

Re:Parody & IP

[mizhi]

Hmmm... was there this much controversy when Spaceballs came out? I'm too young to remember, but I don't think so... I suspect that the pornographic nature of this parody is what really has Lucas in a tizzy. Not the ip issues...

That said, a few lines from Spaceballs that would easily translate into Starballz are:

"I see that your schwartz is a big a mine!"

"SUCK SUCK SUCK"
"She's gone from SUCK to BLOW!"

"That... is my virgin alarm. It's designed to go off before you do!"

:-)

Re:Parody & IP

[parliboy]

Ummm... no not likely to overturn, if you read the decision at all. This was 8-0 with one dissent (in a court where anything stronger than 5-4 is a holy shit moment), and four of the justices from then are still on the bench.

Re:Parody & IP

[Rogerborg]

• if you bothered to look at the clip, you would see it is nowhere near a "character-for-character, scene-for-scene remake"

Ooh, the Anonymous Coward has taken the moral high ground. I guess that blows my researched and reasoned arguments and refernces out of the water. Next time I'll be sure to wait until after the /. effect has died down before posting references to give other people context before they make up their minds. No, wait... wouldn't that be utterly pointless? Sigh.

Re:Parody & IP

[Rogerborg]

• Actually, it looks like comedy is the intended effect. Otherwise they wouldn't be using Goku, Sailor Moon, and (sortof) Matrix effects, and Darth Vader wouldn't have Mickey Mouse ears

Yes, it's a tough call, but these are practically mandatory in hentait/anime. If you made an opera out of Star Wars, you'd have a large woman playing Leia, right?

Perhaps, perhaps. Trouble is, it would cost $19 to find out, and commercial profit is one of the criteria for finding against fair use.

On balance, the judge probably got it right, I'm just saying that it's not entirely a black and white proposition.

Lucas might want to make a deal with these guys...

[Tickenest]

because whatever it is that "Star Ballz" is gonna be, from the looks of things, it's going to be better than Episode 2!

Reach Behind, Extract Panties

[headkick]

Everyone loves a good parody, especially something as familiar as Star Wars. If I recall correctly, I saw Star Wars Intellectual Property being parodied on a recent Celebrity Death Match. It's not that big of a leap from CDM to anime porn. Besides, I wasn't the only one who lusted over the Princess when I was twelve. This had to happen sooner or later.

I bet...

[Greyfox]

MMG just got more hits on their web site from this story than they ever would have had Lucas left them alone.

How many hits from Slashdot will result in sales of the video just because MMG's pissing in a big studio's corn flakes?

Re:I bet...

[neonstz]

How many hits from Slashdot will result in sales of the video just because MMG's pissing in a big studio's corn flakes?

At least one sale :)

one-sentence movie review

[kitts]

Star Ballz: The plot, dialogue and characterization are no better than Episode 1, but at least the chicks get naked.

George should take some ideas from Star Ballz...

[Calle Ballz]

...and have Natalie Portman in a sex scene so all these damn /. trolls will finally shut up!

And the disturbance is...

[Accelerated Joe]

I sense a grave disturbance in the force.

The disturbance you're referring to is George Lucas.

The Children

[The Gardener]

"We feel strongly that the law does not allow for parody to be a defense to a pornographic use of someone else's intellectual property, especially when that use is directed to children."

Of course. Always invoke the children. That justifies any measure.

The Gardener

Mr. Brooks

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

I wonder if Mel Brooks have an arguement then.

"I bet she give GREAT helmet."

You CAN here that in a pr0n flick, after all... :-)

This looks great!

[xg0blin]

A star wars related movie with no muppets or N'Sync. No wonder Lucas wants to sue, I want to see this more than episode 2: star wars 90210.

This is what Hustler did....

[MosesJones]

People v Larry Flint, he did exactly that he created a porno parody of a religious guy. Flint won at the Supreme Court.

Parody is enshrined within that judgement as being allowable, and indeed a cornerstone of US Law. Supporting Hustler and Flint in that case were NYT, Washington Post and others who you wouldn't normally see on the same shelf as Hustler.

Pikachu too

[Pegasus]

From the screenshots i'd say that someone figured out that hentai can be a well selling stuff :)

Simply hilarious!

[psavo]

Hey, I think these guys are simply cool..
Check out this BSA guy.. =D

Not the first time

[tweakt]

It's not like its the first parody with "Balls" in the name ;-)

This little Gem from the 80's is just great!

Re:Am I the only one?

[fishebulb]

those people violated the law, what does that have to do with slashdot? They clicked on a website, they broke a law.

This is a court case about parody use of IP, forget that its porn/starwars. Slashdot has a history of news relating to parody work and IP.

SEE! THe world isn't going to hell!

[BoneFlower]

Finally- someone decides for the people.

How much you want to bet that this judge never rises over her current position?

Not so much parody as poaching, perhaps.

[Rogerborg]

Starballz claims this is a parody. Really? Parody, says Websters is "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule." Case law shows that criticising or commenting on the original is also fair use (although not necessarily parody).

Having your own original characters do a Matrix freeze-orbit scene is parody for comic effect (please, enough, stop doing this now). Borrowing the characters, but spoofing twenty two other works and making very cutting critital points about "moichandising, moichandising" leaves you mostly clear, as Mel Brooks showed, and in agreement with the very informative overview of fair use and parody laws at publaw.com

But this... well, I dunno. It's commercial, it's not commenting or criticising that I can see (not is it primarily comic per se, it's part of a well defined genre of its own, like musical), it uses substantial portions of the original (characters, scenes and plot). That only leaves the effect on the original which is, to be fair, minimal. But in three out of the four criteria that a court should use to decide fair use, it appears to fall down.

Perhaps it does comment on or criticise the original. Of course, we'd have to watch it first to find out. And perhaps Lucasarts should have done so too:

• Their disregard for legal procedure is underscored by the fact that Lucasfilm's attorney admitted that he did not even watch Starballz prior to filing suit

It's hard to sympathise with a lawyer getting bitchslapped at the best of times, but this, if true, is probably karmic enough to cancel out any actual moral transgretion.

Re:Not so much parody as poaching, perhaps.

[K8Fan]

In "Two Live Crew vs. Estate of Roy Orbison", the Supreme Court ruled that the parody didn't have to be funny to be protected. TWC's moronic cover of "Pretty Woman" wasn't funny, but that didn't have anything to do with the intent. Thankfully, we don't have courts trying to judge if something is funny or not - look at the wonderful job they've done with erotica.

Re:Not so much parody as poaching, perhaps.

[King_TJ]

Let's look at the definition again:

"a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule."

By the mere fact that this animated porn is *animated* and taking ideas from the Star Wars movies, for use in a completely different context - I'd say that it qualifies autoamtically!

As it was already pointed out, "comic effect" doesn't necessarily mean you personally find it humorous. It only means that it's potentially humorous to some people.

In almost every case I can think of where a work is imitated by another work, with the storyline changed enough that it makes the viewer look at what's taking place in a different light - it's done at least partially for comic effect. (Might not be hilariously, laugh-out-loud funny, but at least it makes people snicker to themselves, because they're smart enough to understand where the original came from and what's being done to it.)

Re:Not so much parody as poaching, perhaps.

[Rogerborg]

• By the mere fact that this animated porn is *animated* and taking ideas from the Star Wars movies, for use in a completely different context - I'd say that it qualifies autoamtically [as "for comic effect"]! As it was already pointed out, "comic effect" doesn't necessarily mean you personally find it humorous. It only means that it's potentially humorous to some people.

It's a very close call. The important word is "for comic effect". The intention matters. AFAIK, people don't primarily make or watch hentai as or because it's funny, they make and watch it as and because it's porn.

Sailor Moon as well

[BoneFlower]

Sailor Moon as Princess Leia..

Great.

[martij2]

This is so stupid, I can't even make myself sit through the preview. If Lucas hadn't sued odds are no one would have even heard of this.

George Lucas' original response to Star Ballz

[Anonymous Coward]

How Wude.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Quixote]

Am I the only one?

Probably. Next question?

Re:Am I the only one?

[J'raxis]

Yes, its unsuitable, and its inappropriate and unthinkable and unconscionable and and wont somebody please think of the children!?!?

Has anyone actually watched this crap?

[Mofo196]

I downloaded the sample clip and hoo-boy is that terrible. I can appreciate a good parody even ones that rely on cock and ball humor, but this is god-awful. I don't even know why Lucas felt there was anything to worry about. It's not like anyone is actually going to buy this.

Re:Has anyone actually watched this crap?

[mliu]

Yup. Just from the amount of publicity this POS is getting on /., they've probably already ensured that this is more people than would ever have seen this crap.

They only open their mouths like in one scene in the whole two demos, and that was enough to get me to groan out loud......

If Lucas had just let well enough be, natural selection would have taken its natural course on this piece, and no more than 10 people (the 10 friends of the dudes who made this thing) would ever have watched it, or even heard of it.

Re:Has anyone actually watched this crap?

[(void*)]

That is true. But then LucasFilm does the have the right to do as they have done. Becuase it is status as a parody is questionable.

In the same vein, you could say that slashdot should never have put that on the front page, giving these guys their notoriety.

Re:Has anyone actually watched this crap?

[Bodrius]

I can't help but say it: DO NOT talk about groaning out loud in this context.

Some of us can live without that mental image.

Does that mean that it's an open door...

[pinkpineapple]

...for more parodies like that? I have to admit that watching a re-run of "Thunderbirds" on DVD last night, my mind drifted for a moment fantazing about Lady Penelope and Tintin taking care of the 5 sons while the father and Tintin had some fun too and GranMa was watching and cheering up Tintin's father having taken off her denture.

I hope that people with animation talent won't be shy experiencing new ways to bring us joy and visual pleasure.

In a country drown by puritanism and religion, I am impressed about the open mindness verdict the judge has demonstrated. New lifestyles are reaching our country. This is re-assuring.

Kuddos to these guys for protecting US citizen rights by having taken the chance to fight Lucaz.

To these guys and the judge: You've got ballz! I know about a lot of people who would have comply with what ever big corp. would have order them to do (cough! Lindows cough!)

PPA, the (bi) girl next door.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody's grasp of English is extensive enough to understand what pr0n or "not for young eyes" might mean.

That's why it's in the dictionary...

pr0n

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You can't say that, really...

[Greyfox]

Unless you've actually watched it. Have you watched it?

Re:You can't say that, really...

[(void*)]

Why should you have watch anything to see that it is not worth your time? Do you read every book in the bookstore? Do you surf every website out there?

Re:You can't say that, really...

[(void*)]

What? And pay $19 bucks for that? Of course one goes to the site in question first and looks at their advertising. If their advertisement is not impressive, what more can you expect?

Re:You can't say that, really...

[Rogerborg]

• Unless you've actually watched it. Have you watched it?

Strangely enough, I made it perfectly clear in my post that I hadn't. I also talked in terms of probabilities based on the available evidence. Perhaps you could brush up on your reading comprehension, and consider adding some value to the debate rather than just noise.

This may be the stupidest movie I have ever seen.

[Have Blue]

See subject.

What does this mean for Fan Fiction?

[Gerad]

If a work like this, which can only questionably be catagorized as a a "parody" is defended by the courts under fair use, does that mean that we're likely to find Fan Fiction defendable under the same defense?

Then again, the company in question being sued probably had enough money to hire some skilled lawyers. Individual fan fiction writers may just find themselves killed by legal fees, not by legal decisions, which is rather unfortunate.

Porn protected, political speech not.

[Erris]

Woopy, the right to make a buck prevails again. The government has protected a purveyor of porn against another movie maker in a squable over who owns darth vader. So what? It's a victory, but not a usefull one. Feel free to parody fantisy to your heart's content, just make sure you might be making money at it.

Far more serious free speech issues are going the wrong way. How about accademic freedom? The University of South Florida is canning a computer science teacher for saying bad things about Israel (see this Salon story). How about DeCSS? How about encryption rights? How about Digital Rights Denial? In all matters of real importance, the US federal government has proved itself wrong headed recently. So while the publishing giants feel free to swear on the public airways they own, place naked people on billboards, and do whatever else they think they can to make a buck, you and me are being stripped of the right to utter dissaproval in any meaningful way. Your comminications will be monitored (carnivore and local ISP caches), your house will be searched unreasonably(USA and Patriot acts), your property will be confiscated (standard proceedure), and you will be quiet.

Re:Porn protected, political speech not.

[(void*)]

What you really have to realize is that colleges havent been about education or advancement of the arts
and sciences in a very long time. They are money making enterprises, and anything that gets in the way of
that will be stomped.

When was this? Give me a date.

Re:Porn protected, political speech not.

[BoneFlower]

Any victory, however small, is good.

No argument there. But again, this decision is a small step in the right direction.

Some of these monitoring actions I may have done on me anyways(comes with my former job as a Military Intelligence analyst) but they aren't nearly as widespread as people think... While the government has decreased the amount of evidence it demands before a search, that hasn't been entirely removed.

And anyways... the real problem isn't the government. Its the people that roll over like sheep and take it. Don't preach about government abuses here, don't preach it to the government, preach it to the masses. Granted we need a larger margin than most people think to elect a president, but there are the people to do it. Get the average person involved. That is our only hope. If most people in this country think that these invasions of privacy and rights are a good idea, then by the preamble to the constitution the government has a duty to implement them, as its what the people want.

Remember, the masses still hold the power to change the government. The only way to stop things before they get worse is to open their minds and get the masses to use the power they have, before they are convinced to give it up.

There's a simple solution to this...

[Tsar]

Just go to Preferences and under Exclude Stories from the Homepage, select the Topic Porn. Oh, wait, there's no such topic...

Then again, considering the level of dialog in most of the discussions, I suppose limiting the vulgarity at the story level would be moot, something akin to locking the case of a Windows XP box.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"Directed to children"

[Robotech_Master]

What gets me is the "directed to children" bit. Um, what? Where does it say that the parody is directed to children? On the Star Ballz website, where there's a clear "this website contains material unsuitable for those under 18" disclaimer? By watching the thing? (Oh, wait, no, they didn't, did they?)

I know! It's because it's animated, and as everybody knows, animated vids are only for kids, regardless of content! Ha ha, right, all those Mangle Video animes with people getting naked (and peoples' brains getting shot out) that they release instead of getting around to Giant Robo are all to keep the little kiddies entertained!

Bleah. That mindset makes me sick.

Re:"Directed to children"

[revscat]

What gets me is the "directed to children" bit. Um, what? Where does it say that the parody is directed to children? On the Star Ballz website, where there's a clear "this website contains material unsuitable for those under 18" disclaimer? By watching the thing? (Oh, wait, no, they didn't, did they?)

To be fair, I think that the statement was referring to Lucasfilm's IP, not to the cartoon. It was a poorly written sentence, not to mention the fact that IP isn't "directed" towards any demographic. That's just doublespeak.

- Rev.

Re:"Directed to children"

[Robotech_Master]

No, it's a quite clearly-written sentence. There are no dangling or misplaced modifiers; it quite clearly conveys a message. I read it over several times before I posted; there can be no mistaking. (Whether she misspoke and meant to say that Star Wars was directed to children, I'm not qualified to say--but the experience that I have had, as an anime fan, with the "anime is kiddie stuff" prejudice leads me to believe that she meant every word she said.)

The article says (emphases mine) "a pornographic use of someone else's intellectual property, especially when that use is directed to children." The word "use" is used only once in the sentence prior to "that use," thus, "that use" modifies "a pornographic use".

If she'd said "when that property is directed to children," she could have been referring to Lucas's IP, which is to say, Star Wars. But it is grammatically quite clear that she is referring to the pornographic use--the Star Ballz anime--as having been directed to children. That is to say, made with children as a target audience.

Which is clearly quite stupid, but apparently there are still people out there who believe that anything animated is meant for kids. And unfortunately, some of them are even judges.

Some lines from the movie

[JonCats]

[ROT 0 encoded for the sensitive Slashdot reader]

Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?
Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?
Hey, point that thing someplace else! Put that thing away before you get us all killed!
Look at the size of that thing!

I look forward to completing your training. In time you will call me master.

Hurry up, golden-rod...
Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!

Luke, at that speed do you think you'll be able to pull out in time?

Back door, huh? Good idea!
Wedge! Pull out! You're not doing any good back there!

Grab me, Chewie. I'm slipping -- hold on. Grab it, almost... you almost got it. Gently now, all right, easy, easy, hold me Chewie."
I thought that hairy beast would be the end of me!

I must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Am I the only one?

[redhog]

It is more like, what about the under-18 US citizens who may have just violated their country's laws by clicking that link? You know, you'r not the most liberal country in the world when it comes to sex, and you for sure get more upset in your country about it, than most people in e.g. europe does... Anyway, this is what actually belongs here under the "Your rights online" departement; it is about a lawsuit where Lucasfilm atempted to supress parody based on moralism. If you don't like "morally wrong" things, then just stay out of that departement!

By trying to kill them...

[Xaroth]

Lucasfilm has made them even more powerful than they could ever have imagined.

"The power of the /. is strong with this one..."

This is all PRELIMINARY

[Robotech_Master]

Keep in mind that this is just the opening round. There hasn't even been a trial yet; the judge has just said that, on the face of it, she doesn't see any reason to stop the sales of the film until the thing has been hashed out. It could still turn into a Lucasfilm victory in court.

So it doesn't open the door to anything yet. And it may not, in fact.

Re:This may be the stupidest movie I have ever see

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think star wars was that bad.

you're thinking TM's

[yerricde]

This is because corporations must protect their intellectual property otherwise it will be deemed to be in the public domain

Note that this applies only to the trademarks on "Star Wars," the movie titles, and the character names and likenesses. Copyrights on the expression of the movie and patents on the methods used to make the movie need not be defended as rigorously to maintain their validity; not pursuing infringers effectively amounts to granting an implicit license that can be pulled at any time.

"What a piece of junk!"

[prototype]

Okay, I'll admit. I was curious in looking at the clips. The screenshots looked interesting even if it was anime pr0n. I downloaded and watched the demo clip and frankly the animation isn't half bad. I used to work in animation and some of the movement isn't bad. There are some horrible parts, but for the most part (again, besides that it's pr0n) it's actually a half-decent effort.

Animation wise.

Sound wise. Well, that's a whole 'nuther story. The dialog is pathetic, the music equally worse and the sound effects are pretty much non-existant. If the filmmakers just turned their efforts in making a real anime short instead of this lame-ass ripoff then it would be something to be admired. Get a half decent sound engineer and some music to play that's appropriate and a decent script and they'll be laughing.

liB

Bad hentai, no donut

[Animats]

It's probably legitimate parody, but it looks like bad anime.

On a related note, the usual "fortune" at the bottom of this page says "Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat." Is that a bug, or a parody of a bug?

Re:Bad hentai, no donut

[Catbeller]

...it looks like bad anime.

Isn't the adjective "bad" redundant?

Good for them

[tcc]

Lucas just gave them the biggest publicity and exposure they would have gotten even if they would have been called Star Wards, this is what over-reacting, misjudgment caused by greed will bring you.

I am all for trademarks and all,. but not when common sense is out of the picture. Next thing you'd know is they would have sued school when they do history lessons about the "star wars" project of US vs Russia... I'm glad a judge finally put them in their places. Lucas should focus on how to kill Jarjar in the most suffering and inhuman ways for episode II instead of suing anything that has Star in it.

We perpetuate it too, you know.

[SuperRob]

We're partially to blame. Every time we point to a Nintendo console as being "kiddy" because games are using cartoon graphics instead of being hyper-realistic, we perpetuate that belief.

Of course, when I say WE, I really mean all of you. :)

Re:Preliminary restraining orders flow like water

[Tassach]

Also, if the plaintiffs lose the lawsuit, they should have to pay for all the legal expenses of the defendants

They should also be held financially liable for any lost sales for the period the restraining order was in effect. If there were some actual financial penalty for filing bogus lawsuits, there would be A LOT less of them. The way it is now, there's almost no incentive NOT to sue over the most trivial dispute, especially if you already have a stable of lawyers on the payroll.