Comments on: Hollywood Hypocrisy: The Case of David Cronenberg http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/ Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:15:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert Sykes http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-1114 Robert Sykes Tue, 20 May 2008 04:00:43 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-1114 One of the last pieces I am reading in "The Secret Parts of Fortune" is "Dead Ringers" and I was wondering if this was the first article on the twins. The Wikipedia piece on "Dead Ringers" mentioned no connection until I searched for "Ron Rosenbaum"+"Dead Ringers" (writers for the screenplay and the book "Twins" are credited). Thought if the article was the originating piece, Ron must have made a nice chunk off the movie; but to see this article, it characterizes the insect hive flow of Los Angeles. Imagine how many unpublished ideas are stolen (worked for Cervantes and Boccacio). Never have seen the "Dead Ringers" film, and the only Cronenberg movie I can rewatch is Videodrome (James Woods French Canadian Post Modernism). From what I hear, a screenwriter has to now be incorporated and larger companies read material or listen to pitches with witnesses. Cronenberg owes Ron the sportscar, even if it only exists in the Videodrome. One of the last pieces I am reading in “The Secret Parts of Fortune” is “Dead Ringers” and I was wondering if this was the first article on the twins. The Wikipedia piece on “Dead Ringers” mentioned no connection until I searched for “Ron Rosenbaum”+”Dead Ringers” (writers for the screenplay and the book “Twins” are credited). Thought if the article was the originating piece, Ron must have made a nice chunk off the movie; but to see this article, it characterizes the insect hive flow of Los Angeles. Imagine how many unpublished ideas are stolen (worked for Cervantes and Boccacio). Never have seen the “Dead Ringers” film, and the only Cronenberg movie I can rewatch is Videodrome (James Woods French Canadian Post Modernism). From what I hear, a screenwriter has to now be incorporated and larger companies read material or listen to pitches with witnesses. Cronenberg owes Ron the sportscar, even if it only exists in the Videodrome.

]]> By: GLenn Kenny http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-658 GLenn Kenny Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:18:00 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-658 Yes. That's why I added "or its singular variant." Yes. That’s why I added “or its singular variant.”

]]> By: Jude http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-657 Jude Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:57:08 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-657 The Bette Davis title was Dead Ringer, not Dead Ringers. <strong> Yes!</strong> The Bette Davis title was Dead Ringer, not Dead Ringers.

Yes!

]]> By: Glenn Kenny http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-656 Glenn Kenny Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:00:57 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-656 Well, I can't speak for Cronenberg, and I understand why you would be ticked off. But the title (or its singular variant) had been common currency in Hollywood for a while (e.g. the Paul-Heinreid-directed Bette Davis thriller), so maybe he, or the legal department of the production company, didn't see it as a big deal. I'm actually a little surprised that he's so indignant about the "Crash" business (I object too, but this sort of thing happens, as he well knows), but my larger point is that he's one of the more honest brokers in the field so I'm betting the slight to you , while thoughtless, was unintentional. <strong>Well, I'd like to believe it was unintentional and I know, legally titles can't be copyright, but the Bette Davis movie wasn't about identical twin gynecologists, was it?</strong> Well, I can’t speak for Cronenberg, and I understand why you would be ticked off. But the title (or its singular variant) had been common currency in Hollywood for a while (e.g. the Paul-Heinreid-directed Bette Davis thriller), so maybe he, or the legal department of the production company, didn’t see it as a big deal. I’m actually a little surprised that he’s so indignant about the “Crash” business (I object too, but this sort of thing happens, as he well knows), but my larger point is that he’s one of the more honest brokers in the field so I’m betting the slight to you , while thoughtless, was unintentional.

Well, I’d like to believe it was unintentional and I know, legally titles can’t be copyright, but the Bette Davis movie wasn’t about identical twin gynecologists, was it?

]]> By: Glenn Kenny http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-655 Glenn Kenny Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:24:12 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-655 It probably makes no difference to you, but the story I heard was that Cronenberg changed the title as a personal favor to his old friend Ivan Reitman, an early colleague from Canada, who was producing the DeVito/Schwarzenegger film. THe sports car would have been more a "thank you" gift than a form of compensation. Cronenberg cites your article on the case in an interview: "Very good article," says he. Before citing a few more. <strong>Thanks for the info. What I can't fathom tho is how he can get so self-righteous about having his title taken--how is it different from what he did to us? Seems like he felt doing a favor for a friend (with possible later profit for him) meant more than doing the right thing for journalists (like even asking us as a favor) who spent a year doing a story, had the most detailed account of any, but aren't Hollywood cronies. All the more reprehensible.</strong> It probably makes no difference to you, but the story I heard was that Cronenberg changed the title as a personal favor to his old friend Ivan Reitman, an early colleague from Canada, who was producing the DeVito/Schwarzenegger film. THe sports car would have been more a “thank you” gift than a form of compensation. Cronenberg cites your article on the case in an interview: “Very good article,” says he. Before citing a few more.

Thanks for the info. What I can’t fathom tho is how he can get so self-righteous about having his title taken–how is it different from what he did to us? Seems like he felt doing a favor for a friend (with possible later profit for him) meant more than doing the right thing for journalists (like even asking us as a favor) who spent a year doing a story, had the most detailed account of any, but aren’t Hollywood cronies. All the more reprehensible.

]]> By: Jude http://pjmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood_hypocrisy_the_case_o/#comment-654 Jude Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:16:01 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/30/hollywood-hypocrisy-the-case-of-david-cronenberg/#comment-654 Ron, This reminds me of my recent complaint about Don DeLillo's novel Falling Man. Of course the near-award-winning Esquire article called The Falling Man (and now the National Geographic special of the same name), have nothing to do with DeLillo's book, not counting a 9/11 connection. But DeLillo stole the title. And his book is not about a literal fall as the article and doc are. If I were the book publisher, I would want clarity and distinction with my title. Not borderline confusion. Anyhow, keep up the good work online & at Slate. However, as a card carrying Edgy Enthusiast, I must say I miss the NYO column...Sincerely, Jude Ron,
This reminds me of my recent complaint about Don DeLillo’s novel Falling Man. Of course the near-award-winning Esquire article called The Falling Man (and now the National Geographic special of the same name), have nothing to do with DeLillo’s book, not counting a 9/11 connection. But DeLillo stole the title. And his book is not about a literal fall as the article and doc are. If I were the book publisher, I would want clarity and distinction with my title. Not borderline confusion. Anyhow, keep up the good work online & at Slate. However, as a card carrying Edgy Enthusiast, I must say I miss the NYO column…Sincerely, Jude

]]>