"Goldmember" GONE as title for Austin Powers 3! (1 Viewer)

[John Berggren]

Never Say Member Again has already been authorized according to the CNN article cited above. Whether or not it is the title of this episode ( I do hope they continue as long as the quality and hilarity can be maintained ).

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that WB is fairly flexible on intellectual property rights where New Line is concerned. You'll note that 75% of New Line's DVDs come in snapper cases. 3 guesses as to why... :>.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

of course WB is flexible, New Line is a WB subsidiary. it would be no more difficult for NL to get permission for a WB property than it would be for Fox TV to get permission to use a clip from a Fox film.
DJ

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Never Say Member Again...not only is it a funny title, but the little story that led to the name change also makes it a hilarious inside joke.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Damin-

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Malcolm R]

From CNN: In the end, however, it seems cooler and more practical heads prevailed. While MGM and UA can block "Goldmember," parody law provides them with no control over any number of other Bond-spoofing titles. Among the approved titles waiting in the wings are "Live and Let Shag," "You Only Shag Thrice," "Never Say Member Again" and "License to Shag."

I hope NL gives MGM the cold shoulder and takes up the new, properly cleared title. Let them wallow in their own spite. If MGM could make a decent movie, they wouldn't have to resort to cheap tricks like blackmail to get their trailers before popular films.

(Edited for further clarification)

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, MGM protecting their "rights" as was argued earlier, though CNN clearly says that parody law would allow MGM to get their asses handed to them.

But even worse is MGM's REAL motivation, which was speculated from the beginning...if you don't put our trailer in front of your films we are going to take our ball and go home. The solution now - run our Bond trailer in front of New Line property and you can use Goldmember.

MGM could give a shit about it's Bond "image"... they wanted trailer slots all along. That's what made it so "petty" as I said before. It was all BIZ and no ART.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It was all BIZ and no ART.

of course. trademark law isn't much about artistic integrity, it's about the ability to, among other things, make a famous name for a product/brand/company/etc. and economically exploit that name (and to insure, therefore, that the name doesn't become confused or tarnished - not for artistic integrity, but for economic viability). trademark law provides MGM with the ability to get an economic gain from those who wish to license marks what they own. here, MGM is apparently getting a benefit as a result of an agreement. this is exactly the sort of market mechanism that trademark law is designed to allow. and, in addition, the fact that an agreement was reached is evidence that MGM forcefully protects their marks; this is an important element to prevent trademark abandonment.

and, yes, i know that no trademark suit was ever at issue here. but as i said earlier in the thread, even MPAA arbitration has trademark impacts. and, perhaps more importantly, the same rationale in protecting valuable property applies.

it's very easy to criticize a company for doing these things. you'd likely get a different perspective if you were in the shoes of the company in question. companies exist for economic profit; in order to insure profit, protection of valuable trademarks simply isn't optional, it's a necessity. an attorney would almost certainly be committing malpractice by advising against taking action when a very popular multi-million dollar film intends on using a modification of one of those marks. to sit back and do nothing is to risk far too much; like i said, criticizing them for protecting their intellectual property is very easy if you've never had a multi-million dollar property at risk yourself. saying that a company is all about business isn't an insult, it's redudant.

DJ

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I think NL should hold onto the Never Say Member Again title and use it for the 4th installment (assuming there is one). And if it makes it to a fifth, I vote for GoldenRod

 

[Clint B]

Perhaps this has already been reported here on HTF, but I heard the other day that MGM and New Line have settled their dispute. Therefore, "Goldmember" is back as the title of AP3.

 

[Michael Boyd]

Never Say Member Again is indeed a funny title to all of us who know the history behind it. However I dont think Never Say Never Again is as recognized by the general public as Goldfinger. And how many people going to see a 3rd Austin Powers have any idea of the studios fighting it out behind the scene? Its a joke only us geeks would be in on. Im glad Goldmember is back personally.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

For those interested in such things (like me), the Goldmember website has been launched:
http://www.austinpowers.com/

 

[Seth Paxton]

Just noticed that the original Goldmember poster that we all picked up is going for $50 at All-Posters.
So it does have more worth than what I put into it it seems.
edit - Nevermind, they are a dime a dozen at Ebay. :frowning: :b

 

[Richard WWW]

If Goldmember does well, can we look forward to 'Thunderballs'?