Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Now explain how this movie is a parody, because merely saying the word does not make it so.
reinterpreting the Joker as a trans woman trying to break into the mob-like world of Gotham's stand-up comedy scene
reinterpreting the Joker as a trans woman trying to break into the mob-like world of Gotham's stand-up comedy scene
A - it's a comedic take. Both the lead character and the setting are being subverted - similarly to say, Bugsy Malone. [wikipedia.org]
B - no one would even ask for its "parody credentials" if its genre was a so called "porn parody". [wikipedia.org]
The movie stars Drew, who also wrote and directed, as Joker the Harlequin, a trans woman trying to break into Gotham City's underground comedy scene. Along the way, she joins forces with Oswald Cobblepot (aka the Penguin) and enters an emotionally manipulative relationship with a character based on Jason Todd, aka Robin, a trans man who was once Bruce Wayne's underage ward and was groomed to be his lover. The movie riffs on and quotes liberally from several Batman movies, with a special fondness for the campy, less-loved installments directed by Joel Schumacher, who earns equal billing with Drew's mother in the opening dedication. Schumacher's Batman Forever is the source of young Joker's trans awakening when she realizes, during a love scene between Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman, that she wants to be Nicole. (Drew said during the Q&A following the screening that an earlier version of the movie included scenes from 2019's Joker, which screened at TIFF in 2019, but they were cut out before the premiere.) But it twists those scenes to its own ends, as when it recreates Harley Quinn's tumble into a tank of acid from Suicide Squad but has the character plunge into a vat of concentrated estrogen instead. ... There's a Lorne Michaels stand-in who looks like a nude mannequin and is voiced by a female actor, who runs a weekly comedy TV show called UCB Live (the letters are short for United Clown Brigade). When Joker, before she's transitioned, goes to audition for UCB's feeder school, a computer simply scans her genitals and determines that, as a person with a penis, she's a good bet for success in the comedy scene. One running gag in the movie features aspiring comedians listing off comedy idols like Louis CK and Bill Cosby, reflexively adding, "before the unpleasantness, of course."
The movie stars Drew, who also wrote and directed, as Joker the Harlequin, a trans woman trying to break into Gotham City's underground comedy scene. Along the way, she joins forces with Oswald Cobblepot (aka the Penguin) and enters an emotionally manipulative relationship with a character based on Jason Todd, aka Robin, a trans man who was once Bruce Wayne's underage ward and was groomed to be his lover. The movie riffs on and quotes liberally from several Batman movies, with a special fondness for the campy, less-loved installments directed by Joel Schumacher, who earns equal billing with Drew's mother in the opening dedication. Schumacher's Batman Forever is the source of young Joker's trans awakening when she realizes, during a love scene between Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman, that she wants to be Nicole. (Drew said during the Q&A following the screening that an earlier version of the movie included scenes from 2019's Joker, which screened at TIFF in 2019, but they were cut out before the premiere.) But it twists those scenes to its own ends, as when it recreates Harley Quinn's tumble into a tank of acid from Suicide Squad but has the character plunge into a vat of concentrated estrogen instead. ... There's a Lorne Michaels stand-in who looks like a nude mannequin and is voiced by a female actor, who runs a weekly comedy TV show called UCB Live (the letters are short for United Clown Brigade). When Joker, before she's transitioned, goes to audition for UCB's feeder school, a computer simply scans her genitals and determines that, as a person with a penis, she's a good bet for success in the comedy scene. One running gag in the movie features aspiring comedians listing off comedy idols like Louis CK and Bill Cosby, reflexively adding, "before the unpleasantness, of course."
Legally speaking, "being funny" isn't enough to make something a parody. This cartoon is the classic example [tumblr.com]. A hilarious (or disrespectful, depending on your viewpoint) joke. Volkswagen thought it was disrespectful, sued, and won because it wasn't a parody, it was just funny.
I don't think this movie will be funny either. It's just a bunch of woke memes pasted over someone else's successful movie franchise. It really sounds like some film makers badly needed attention of any kind of boost their careers, and decided the best way to get that attention was to publicly provoke a big studio.
It's just a bunch of woke memes pasted over someone else's successful movie franchise.
It's just a bunch of woke memes pasted over someone else's successful movie franchise.
It's not woke memes. It's a serious attempt to portray how the world looks from a trans point of view. It's similar to the Angry Inch.
If that is what it is, it wouldn't pass for a parody. I think Batman & Robin (the one with George Clooney, featuring suit nipples and codpieces, and the most exaggerated/bad Hollywood cliches imaginable all packed into 90 minutes) would qualify as a parody before that would.
It's not woke memes. It's a serious attempt to portray how the world looks from a trans point of view. It's similar to the Angry Inch.
It's not woke memes. It's a serious attempt to portray how the world looks from a trans point of view. It's similar to the Angry Inch.
If it's a serious attempt, then by definition, it isn't a parody. This is what's known as a "parody error" (sorry).
It's one thing to push the boundaries of an established Intellectual Property (and make no mistake, Batman is DC's IP) to tell a tale, even subversively, for effect or social commentary-- See Frank Miller, who I'm genuinely not a fan of.
It's another to just stomp all over those established characters to tell the story you want to tell.
The classic example is the Star Trek episode "City on the E
If you have a story to tell, either tell it within the boundaries of the existing franchise, or create your own unique story-- People shouting that there has to be a female James Bond or a female Doctor Who, or any other established character, should create their own unique secret agent or Time Lord that can be looked up to, instead of appropriating someone else's creation for their message.
If you have a story to tell, either tell it within the boundaries of the existing franchise, or create your own unique story-- People shouting that there has to be a female James Bond or a female Doctor Who, or any other established character, should create their own unique secret agent or Time Lord that can be looked up to, instead of appropriating someone else's creation for their message.
LOL. 0wn the copyright, and you can tell all the woke or anti-woke memes you want.
You're probably right, but rather than discussing it, I'm more interested in why you don't like Frank Miller.
"Funny" is subjective. Thus mere attempt at humor qualifies something as a parody.
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
As for Volkswagen... That's simply the case of mo-$$$ mo-la'. Also, it was settled out of court. They didn't win anything. Not even the thing they settled on. Clearly.
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/1... [nytimes.com]
A $30âmillion defamation and copyrightâinfringement suit by Volkswagen against National Lampoon, a satirical magazine, was settled yesterday by an agreement that included a recall of 135,000 copies of a special issue that attempted to spoof Senator Edward M. Kennedy's 1969 Chappaquiddick accident. Lawyers for Volkswagenverk and Volkswagen of America, Inc., signed the agreement with counsel for National Lampoon less than a week after the auto maker filed a Federal court suit calling a mock advertisement of a Volkswagen in water "tasteless publication of tragic mishap." In return for the recall of all outstanding copies of The National Lampoon Encyclopedia of Humor and removal of page 29 from 10,000 hardâcover copies, destruction of printing plates, a "forthwith" press release by the publisher and corrections in the next issues, Volkswagen agreed to release National Lampoon from all claims.
A $30âmillion defamation and copyrightâinfringement suit by Volkswagen against National Lampoon, a satirical magazine, was settled yesterday by an agreement that included a recall of 135,000 copies of a special issue that attempted to spoof Senator Edward M. Kennedy's 1969 Chappaquiddick accident.
Lawyers for Volkswagenverk and Volkswagen of America, Inc., signed the agreement with counsel for National Lampoon less than a week after the auto maker filed a Federal court suit calling a mock advertisement of a Volkswagen in water "tasteless publication of tragic mishap."
In return for the recall of all outstanding copies of The National Lampoon Encyclopedia of Humor and removal of page 29 from 10,000 hardâcover copies, destruction of printing plates, a "forthwith" press release by the publisher and corrections in the next issues, Volkswagen agreed to release National Lampoon from all claims.
It's just that NL people had no balls to take them to the court over a fake add that's clearly covered by the First Amendment.
What you've described sounds like the movie is goofy. I don't see any parody there.
Parody is criticizing specific elements of the original work. When Weird Al sings "it's hard to sing with marbles in my mouth", he's making fun of the fact that the original vocals sound like the vocalist has a mouthful of marbles. That's parody.
If you're old enough to remember Madonna's cone bra, you probably saw the late night shows and others parody it with versions four times the size.
Does making Joker trans comment on an
To understand why it has to be commenting on the original in order to be parody and therefore fair use, consider this:
A film maker can make a goofy movie about trans comic book villain falling into a vat of estrogen, without calling it "Joker" or otherwise copying the Batman characters. Everything described about the movie could be done with their own original character.
On the other hand, it's impossible to make fun of Darth Vader's voice and costume without referencing Darth Vader. Parody (critical comment
When Weird Al sings "it's hard to sing with marbles in my mouth", he's making fun of the fact that the original vocals sound like the vocalist has a mouthful of marbles. That's parody.
When Weird Al sings "it's hard to sing with marbles in my mouth", he's making fun of the fact that the original vocals sound like the vocalist has a mouthful of marbles. That's parody.
Following your logic, most Weird Al songs are "actually" not a parody as they are not directly referencing the original song's lyrics or singer. E.g. Neither Foil, [youtube.com] Canadian Idiot, [youtube.com] Party in the CIA [youtube.com] nor Handy [youtube.com] reference neither the original song's lyrics nor the singer. Hell... I don't even know who's he parodying in Handy, except that it is some annoying pop-crap and his version is much better.
Sorry. It doesn't work the way you think it does. Here's a simple definition of parody.
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
Do note the terms "imitation of
I don't really want to start dissecting the actual legal texts, but I think there is some thing there about the amount you can steal in your "parody". You can do a funny stand up Joker or Mario impression, because you take a tiny little part of the copyrighted work, but you cannot create a "Mario" video that is basically the same as the original, but with slight comical changes mostly because this game would directly compete with the original.
I completely agree that every single scene of the Illegal Joker m
You cannot just take LoTRs and disrespect the plot, world, and story and make it fair use.
You cannot just take LoTRs and disrespect the plot, world, and story and make it fair use.
You very much can do EXACTLY that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
wisnoskij explained: You cannot just take LoTRs and disrespect the plot, world, and story and make it fair use.
You cannot just take LoTRs and disrespect the plot, world, and story and make it fair use.
You cannot just take LoTRs and disrespect the plot, world, and story and make it fair use.
Prompting denzacar to protest, thusly:
You very much can do EXACTLY that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You very much can do EXACTLY that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Exactly how dense are you?
Wisnoskij is absolutely correct - and you have failed entirely to grasp his point. Bored of the Rings is parody (and therefore legally protected speech). PJ O'Roarke systematically changed every placename and character cognomen so as not to infringe on his source material, while, at the same, time carefully choosing substitutes for maximum humor value and easy recognition (by the reader) for which LotR character or setting they were standing in
I'd like to see the owners argue in court that since there is no shark American superhero comics has not jumped at least once, parody is indistinguishable from the real thing, and thus can't be permitted in this case.
Wrong. Your post is an example of "Someone who clearly has never studied law, pontificating confidently about it on the internet."
To be parody, they would have to avoid violating and capitalizing on the identities/brands under copyright that DC spent so much to create. Especially since DC probably considers the content of the parody damaging.
For example, rather than People's Joker, they could have called it People's Jester (even just "The Jester" would probably be safe) and probably have gotten away with
Disney is Marvel comics, not DC. Warner Brothers is the media conglomerate that is relevant here (as mentioned in TFS as DC's parent company).
It's sounds they are takeing a successful IP and stealing a DCs brand to reach wider audiences than it normally would. I'm not a huge fan of copyright, but this is a clear example of what it's intended for. If you're going to release content, use your own creativity and don't steal/monetize other brands. I suppose the other possibility is that this was all a ploy to get free publicity for a crappy movie no one would have seen otherwise.
It's sounds they are takeing a successful IP and stealing a DCs brand to reach wider audiences than it normally would. I'm not a huge fan of copyright, but this is a clear example of what it's intended for. If you're going to release content, use your own creativity and don't steal/monetize other brands. I suppose the other possibility is that this was all a ploy to get free publicity for a crappy movie no one would have seen otherwise.
Yes, it's about appropriating a well-established, global brand.
No, it's not about copyright. It's about TRADEMARK infringement.
The director/writer of the movie in question unquestionably understands the distinction, but she's canny enough to understand that the vast majority of people - including you - don't. So she's purposefully conflating the two to take advantage of the widespread, general (and well-justified) hostility towards current, worldwide, flagrantly-abusive copyright terms in
to be censored you do need to actually have something to say. this is all just a load of bullshit on all parts involved, i would hardly call it censorship: the producers just wanting to be controversial for the sake of it by taking a nab at the ip holders, and the ip holders just being jerks for the sake of it because it clearly doesn't compete with their product. there was no necessity at all to involve batman for this movie, and there was no necessity at all for batman's owners to be jerks about it.
Not really, to be censored you don't really have anything to say. All that matters is that whoever gets pissed at what you want to say has the means to censor you, whether you actually have anything to say is entirely optional.
Here is the trailer [youtube.com]. The acting looks high quality, the production pretty good for amateur. The story is an exploration of what it means to be trans in a world of supervillains. The story looks like fanfiction from the Joaquin Phoenix Joker, which was high quality in every way. Joaquin Phoenix really did a nice job imagining the Joker as a real person.
Do you know the Sout Park episode Free Willzyx? It is an exploration of what it means to be a whale in space.
Mainly, though, I'm thinking it could be fun watching lawyers and writers going off on extensive interpretations of dialogue to make esoteric points,
Mainly, though, I'm thinking it could be fun watching lawyers and writers going off on extensive interpretations of dialogue to make esoteric points,
That sounds like a good movie. If you direct it, I will watch it.
Here is the trailer [youtube.com]. The acting looks high quality, the production pretty good for amateur.
Here is the trailer [youtube.com]. The acting looks high quality, the production pretty good for amateur.
LOL. If you could give me $10 for every good trailer I watched that turned out to be a bad movie, I'd have enough to feed myself for a year.
Cesar Romero wasn’t trans!
But Im happy for them to have their own interpretation.
I'm not 100% sure about Victor Buono [fandom.com], though...
It's difficult proving a negative and Hollywood is Hollywood after all.
Why would we instinctively assume the preferences of humans we don't personally know intimately? Why would we care who or what they boff in their private life?
Looking at the story, I don't see how this is a parody at all. Parodies are legal because to make fun of (or comment on) a work of art, you necessarily need to copy the work of art. For example, Spaceaballs makes fun of Princess Leia's hair [youtu.be] in a way that wouldn't be possible without copying Star Wars. So that ends up being fair use.
To be clear, I think fan-fiction should be legal.
However, where is the parody in this? The creator says, "if the purpose of myth is to learn about the human experience and grow and also chart your progress let's actually do that earnestly with these characters,” But that's already been done multiple times in Batman movies. The latest Pattinson Batman was trash, but it did in fact chart his progress has he learned and grew.
So the key is to find something that can't be easily said without using the Batman movies. To be legal under current laws, it needs to be more than just fan fiction.
Spaceballs wasn't sure, so they went so far as to ask permission. It saves you a few million in legal fees after you've spent a few million more on production.
The point of this film seems to have been to draw copyright infringement claims. The poster called it illegal. Someone might think getting right up to the edge of a cliff is art. TIFF decided it was a little too close for them.
What you are observing here is the impact of Poe's Law on the concept of parody.
That is to say, the DC comic world has been "REINVENTED!!!" so many new and 'edgy' ways, that the Joker's back story is now so offbeat and bizarre, that even the most absurd attempt at parody is indestinguishable from something DC might actually pull-- Thus satisfying the requirements for Poe's Law.
The fact that Poe's Law is active, does not change the fact that this is a parody.
See also, Landoverbaptist.org It is a parody of s
That does not remove the intent-- Intent is a significant part in a determination of copyright violation.
That does not remove the intent-- Intent is a significant part in a determination of copyright violation.
I don't see what intention they had that was parody. They aren't even trying to make fun of joker, unless you consider "joker is trans" to be some kind of mockery. I don't, and it seems they don't either.
You do have a point that the 1960s Batman already did seem like a parody.
As others have pointed out, this is a "Social commentary" type lampoon parody, in which The Joker is a struggling legitimate comedian. (Rather than a "Deranged Humor" themed comic book villain)
This is still "Running foul of Poe's Law", since DC could legitimately decide to reinvent The Joker this way. (as opposed to the "In commision of crime, falls into OSHA violating open vat of industrial chemicals, and humorously ends up with a permanent smile" backstory).
Basically, what DC is end-running here, is an a
Basically, what DC is end-running here, is an attempt at complete ownership of the entire idea space of "Person uses humor cliche in acts of villainy, featuring permanent smile motif."
Basically, what DC is end-running here, is an attempt at complete ownership of the entire idea space of "Person uses humor cliche in acts of villainy, featuring permanent smile motif."
Err no, the character is not just a villain with a permanent smile. He's literally got the distinctive style and colouring of the Joker, and ... wait what was it?.... Oh right is called "Mr. J" along side a lot of other copyrighted villains who share the exact name as DC characters, in a movie which has Joker literally in the fucking title.
This isn't DC owning everything. This is DC owning the specific things used in this movie, the only defense of production would be for the movie to fall under fair use pa
You are confusing Trademark [uspto.gov] and Tradedress [cornell.edu] for Copyright.
They are distinct and separate areas of law. Joker's attire and signature makeup are trademarked and are subject of trade dress.
However, there could be suitable provisions for parody of such trademarked or trade dressed properties. I am not a trademark attorney, and am not well versed in those rules.
However, by copyrighting basically every single evolution of the ideaspace, they end up owning all of the more obvious variants on the theme-- which then leaves no effective room for any kind of parody.
However, by copyrighting basically every single evolution of the ideaspace, they end up owning all of the more obvious variants on the theme-- which then leaves no effective room for any kind of parody.
Unfortunately, parody is just one of the four factors that are used for determining fair use.
The fourth factor to be considered is "the affect on the potential market value for the product." Basically, the court will consider whether this movie affects DC's ability to make money from a "Trans Joker" movie, and if it does harm their ability, then it's not fair use. (To be more precise, that factor weighs against it being fair use, and parody weighs in favor of it being fair use).
The difference is that Warner had a contract with DC comics. This film maker did not. https://amp.theguardian.com/tv... [theguardian.com]
Under copyright law, no contract is *NEEDED* for works of parody. It is an explicit carve out in the law.
> Basically, there is no real way to clearly and obviously "Make fun" of the DC universe anymore
That's blatantly not true. The LEGO movies and games parody Batman quite well. They take the characters, exaggerate them, and make fun of how serious Batman is, or all the silly schemes of the villains. So obviously there is a way, and it's also not hard to do.
If anything, I'd say that the Marvel universe is harder to make fun of. The movies already make so much fun of themselves that it would be hard to make
Both the Marvel and DC comic universes canonically consider an "infinite multiverse" to be a feature of themselves.
This means, by definition, the lego parodies are in fact a canon incarnation of their IP, just a fringe expression there of.
Any parody made, immediately infringes their "Intellectual Property", because their property consumes the totality of the ideaspace.
This is why Poe's Law hits so hard.
In normal classes of copyright hearing you would be correct, but **NOT** for fair use, which works of parody most certainly are.
In such cases, the intent of the accused's creation, the scope of its monetary or market impact, and other factors *DO IN FACT* play an integral role in determining violation.
https://law.lclark.edu/live/fi... [lclark.edu]
It would be interesting to see how this holds up in a court of law, though I don't think we'll get to that.
It's true that, just based on the trailer and articles, this doesn't seem like it parodies The Joker, or Batman in general. The movie is supposed to be a comedy or satire, but it also seems to just use Batman characters as background, not really ridicule them. Of course, without watching the movie it's not entirely possible to judge this, but it does seem to be the case from evidence available.
Without seeing it you can't tell if parody or some serious derivative work.
I don't know if time length plays a factor, but parody would chafe at its bounds if it were longer than an SNL skit.
They are using the Joker because the character brings a lot of expectations and understanding, which they can then expand or subvert as they please. It saves them filing a load of origin material too, by using established characters. That's exactly what Nolan did, the Joker just appears out of nowhere but the audience already knows who he is because he's the most famous villain in comic books.
This sort of thing is often done in comics by having characters that are very similar to existing ones. Batman is of
This is fan fiction, not parody. I'm not even sure it's possible to do a full movie as parody, you can take elements, but successful parodies tend to be shorter media like Weird Al songs [wikipedia.org].
I also agree fan fiction should be legal, modern stories take up a lot of our culture and fans should have some ability to express themselves in terms of those stories.
However, I'm not sure how you properly define a film as fan fiction. There's a lot of indie film makers who make movies with very little expe
It's about someone who is already mentally ill (because they're trans), who then spirals into deeper mental illness? The trailer didn't seem like it was making fun of Joker as a parody. It seems like they were seriously trying to re-tell it using a trans person.
I understand that some people may hate woke culture, but making fun of mentally ill trans person isn't helping (it is really is a parody). It's like making fun of crack heads. Might be funny to watch but it's still sad.
Sorry you felt you had to post this as AC. Yep, it's all kind of up to 11 these days. Yep, just like everything else, saturation leads to exhaustion.
Hope you feel better soon. Just unplug for a bit. Listen to some old school music, or really just anything from your youth, and reattach a bit. Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once and a while, you could miss it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If making the joke trans makes it a parody, does that mean trans are parody?
It could be.. but depends on the circumstance.
See for instance, if you portrayed the tradcath reddit posters as all being trans but in denial about it.
The PROBLEM, is if you honestly try to make such a parody, and it comes out indistinguishable from the real thing anyway (such as when poe's law is active), it stops being OBVIOUS parody.
See for instance, portraying batman and robin as a top/bottom gay duo.
Then DC went and made robin bisexual m/bottom.
Is 'ambiguously gay duo' still parody? Did the intent chan
Being so edgy and all... your bed must be a solid slab of stainless steel.
I'm not even gonna try to imagine your clothing situation. Adolescence must have been a bitch.
He's a pizza cutter -- All edge, no point.
If making the joke trans makes it a parody, does that mean trans are parody?
If making the joke trans makes it a parody, does that mean trans are parody?
No. On all counts. The trans bit is social commentary which has nothing to do with the work being a parody.
The work is a parody because it's a comedic commentary on the source material. You can think of parody as a kind of criticism. That is, it is a parody because it tries to tell us something about the thing being imitated in a funny way.
Think about it. If George Lucas had retained the copyright to Star Wars, Disney wouldn't have been able to crap all over it. Look at how Christopher Tolkein protected his father's work from being ruined and now that he's passed away you have Amazon crapping all over it.
It's fine that these people like the Joker but the Joker isn't theirs and for better or worse he is Warner Communications property and theirs to define and develop as they see fit.
Yeah, anybody with half an ounce of copyright/trademark knowledge would have known this'd be a legal mess.
They should have licensed The Room. They could have made a perfectly good transgender remake.
Think about it. If George Lucas had retained the copyright to Star Wars, Disney wouldn't have been able to crap all over it.
Think about it. If George Lucas had retained the copyright to Star Wars, Disney wouldn't have been able to crap all over it.
Yeah but it would mean George Lucas would continue to crap over it, and honestly I'm not sure what is worse. Disney is doing some good things with the IP. The new movies are shit, but they aren't "mesah crap movie!" level modern George Lucas shit like Episode 1-3.
That is not what copyright is for. It is something that modern copyright holders (sometimes) do, but copyright was created to give creators an incentive to create by giving them a temporary monopoly over the distribution of their work. It means that only the creators of Star Wars, for example, are allowed to make copies of Star Wars. Other people have to get the permission of the Star Wars creators to make a copy, and usually that involves purchasing a license to make the copy. This also covers "derivat
Wikipedia page on useful arts [wikipedia.org]. Not sure how that got stripped out.
The clause in question contains the word "Authors", which we traditionally regard as people who have written something. So if we'd go for a literal interpretation of the constitution, this could easily mean that copyright doesn't cover movies and sound recordings (which hadn't been invented yet), as well as paintings and the performed arts, since their makers weren't and still aren't commonly called "authors".
Did anything happen here or did some activists cancel their own movie for publicity? This summary says that no action has been taken by DC?
Sounds like something I should get into.. make a movie announcement, then say it was cancelled a few days later - free publicity, and no need to make the actual movie as no-one will see it!
Seems to be the point... make a film infringing IP with a heavy Trans slant, movie gets cancelled... queue the " OMG, Warner is a Trans Phobe outrage... and wait for the free press coverage
If this film were deemed legal and implicitly allowed by DC, Vera Drew would of owned a copyright to trans Joker. Which is clearly ridiculous, when that is very clearly a possible character DC might want to actually use on the future.
Parody has to stray far enough outside of reality that the copyrighted holder cannot ever conceive of needing to use the plot line you are "parodying" or it simply is not parody.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Oil Industry Executives Privately Contradicted Their Public Statements on Climate, Files Show
Ask Slashdot: What Was Your First Computer?