legal action against suspiria remake

[blood vamp]

did argento sell the copyrights to the weinstein brothers? if not, is he not taking any legal action against this remake?

[Slow]

Companies don't remake movies they don't have the rights to.

[dwatts]

Why would he sue? I'm sure he'll enjoy the money a remake would generate (even if it's only through increased sales of the original).

[X-human]

According to reports Argento has personally gone out of his way to try and stop previous remakes, how much influence he might really have isn't for me to say. I would assume he doesn't have direct control of the rights so I doubt any lawsuits would be possible.

[Shannafey]

This is one film I wish would never get remade. They can't even come close to doing the original justice, but I'm sure fans say this stuff all the time when they remake one of their favorite films!

[Katatonia]

The Weinsteins and a remake?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/donotwant.jpg

[KR~!]

oh great, another remake I will never watch.

[MrVess]

Argento spoke about the remake last year. In one sentence, to be precise: "It will be shit, of course - but that won’t be my fault".

[Crystal Plumage]

Basically (IMO) the original question could easily be asked in one of the several "Suspiria Remake" threads.
But it's just IMO :)

[Jeremy]

To me, the Suspiria remake is even more pointless than any of the other recently produced or announced remakes. Suspiria is a masterpiece, but only because of Argento's unique and inimitable direction. I mean, let's face it - the film's plot is simple and its screenplay lacks in terms of characterization and development. In the hands of another director, the exact same script could have been easily turned into yet another drab 70's horror movie that nobody really remembers or cares about. But because it's Argento at the helm, the movie has become a modern classic.

The point that I'm trying to get at is that the real strength of Suspiria is Dario Argento, and there's no other director out there who is quite like him. With a different director at the helm, I don't see a remake as being able to match the quality of the original, even if they re-work the story.

[skmastaz]

This doesn't really bother me, I'll just not watch it and won't have to worry about anything.

[dwatts]

The plot of Suspiria - which is what we're talking about remaking, not the style - isn't unique to Argento. So........................

[rxfiend]

Companies don't remake movies they don't have the rights to.

yeah they do. the recent Night of the Living Dead remake is a good example of this. Speaking of, this ever hit theaters? didn't really hear much about it.

[Slow]

yeah they do. the recent Night of the Living Dead remake is a good example of this. Speaking of, this ever hit theaters? didn't really hear much about it.
NOTLD is public domain so in a sense everyone has the rights so any remake of this movie done by a human being would be done by the owners of the rights.

[Luna]

The Weinsteins and a remake?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/donotwant.jpgBwahaha.
I also echo this sentiment. Also...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Nummymuffin/Funnies/lold.jpg

[rxfiend]

From what I've ready, NOTLD isn't in PD. It's just assumed it is.

[Jeremy]

Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Under American copyright law at the time, a creative work needed to have a copyright notice affixed to it in order for protection to be granted, and that's exactly what the original theatrical distributor forgot to do when they changed the title (original title was Night of the Flesheaters). The same thing happened to several major films like Charade and McLintock, which slipped into the public domain.

However, there are a few horror films out there which are widely assumed to be in public domain (in particular, Godzilla vs. Megalon and The Satanic Rites of Dracula) which really are copyrighted.

[X-human]

Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. Under American copyright law at the time, a creative work needed to have a copyright notice affixed to it in order for protection to be granted, and that's exactly what the original theatrical distributor forgot to do when they changed the title (original title was Night of the Flesheaters). The same thing happened to several major films like Charade and McLintock, which slipped into the public domain.

Just to clarify, NOTLD itself is not in the public domain, just the film prints that don't have the copyright notice. Any film print of NOTLD with the copy right on it is not in the public domain.

This is why I seriously doubt the 3D remake has any leg to stand on, the intellectual property of NOTLD is still Romero/Russo's. This is probably why a few theatrical showings were done but no real distribution has taken place.