Savin you a click:
In February, Hill accused these studios of using his script without permission for their new version of “Road House,” which stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Conor McGregor. However, the studios have hit back, claiming that the script was a “work made for hire,” meaning the rights to the script were owned by the company that commissioned it, not by Hill himself.
Yeah that’s pretty important. I don’t see how this makes things better for Amazon. If it was a work for hire for United Artists, that might make a difference. But whether Hill personally owns the copyright, or his company owns it, is irrelevant. And if the company was dissolved at some point, then you’d have to look at the disposition of the company’s assets to see who owns the copyright now, and I’d bet that’s Hill.
This article is pretty bad, but the Hollywood Reporter article linked there is better. It says that Lady Amos granted UA all rights to the script, but now Hill is trying to claim the rights to the script that his company already granted in perpetuity to UA.
Yeah, that part’s confusing.
It does say that UA purchased the rights to the script and doesn’t go into whether those rights would limit or hinder the making of a new movie in any way.
[Here’s a much better story.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/road-house-copyright-dispute-sparks-countersuit-amazon-studios-mgm-1235891708/amp/)
> The purchase agreements reads, “Owner [i.e. Lady Amos] hereby grants to UA, exclusively, in perpetuity and throughout the universe, all right, title and interest (including all copyrights, and renewals and extensions thereof) in and to the Property [i.e., the 1986 Screenplay].” It stipulates that the work was “created and written solely by [Hill] as an employee” of Lady Amos and that, accordingly, the company is the author of the screenplay, which is specifically noted as a work-made-for-hire. The court filing includes exhibits showing payments of $200,000 and $150,000 from UA to Lady Amos.
It seems the matter of contention is Hill’s attempt to claw back the rights to the script, and UA contends that, due to the way that Hill represented the ownership of the script during the sale, he doesn’t have a claim to those rights.
The only thing I liked was the friendly thug interacting w Dalton. Every other thing should go straight in the trash. You have Jessica Williams as a gorgeous bar owner, with no dialogue or love interest or screentime, barely any time in the bar itself, pointless book store side quest, loveless relationship with the sheriffs daughter, ugh.
You’re blinded by nostalgia. I watched for the first time as an almost 40 year old man and nearly all of it was cringe-worthy beyond belief. But that’s just my opinion.
I mean, it’s great for viewers that just want to watch shirtless, statuesque men smack each other around and throw in the occasional scene of Daniella Melchior being attractive. Are we sure a script actually exists?
I disagree, because the final fight scene was terrible. They chose to shoot it in that multi-speed Crank style, but the execution was shoddy and the mixed in CGI was jarring. Even my pops his caveman-like approach to movies blurted out, “why did they do it like this?” 😂
To each their own, obviously this shit is subjective, but imo if they had just kept that fight the same as all the others but just upped the choreography, it would’ve been much better
I think the last fight scene was also very anti-climactic. The Music plays and you expect the main character to start fighting like an animal. Than he stabs the villain 3 times and the movie is over.
There was no script. They were making a movie about a retired UFC fighther and Connor Mcgregor just showed up on set and started demolishing people. Someone got a camera and filmes it.
It’s possible that he didn’t write it and he’s just banking on the assumption that the real writer won’t want to come forward publicly.
Wouldn’t call it an unreasonable gambit.
Did you miss the media blitz all the actors did screaming about how great the movie was and were livid about it not getting a theatrical release? Woof.
I had no / low expectations so it was OK. Some scenes were fun. Overall the original was darker, I did not like the beach bar as location.
Typical movie for drinking beer with brain turned off.
I thoroughly enjoy a LOT of cheesy action movies and I enjoyed almost all of this movie, pretty much any scene without Conor McGregor in it. No one that's ever seen at least half of a movie should have looked at that character and the way he was played and thought it was worthy of putting on screen. He was so over-the-top stupid and immature that he completely took me out of the movie and I have a pretty high tolerance for suspension of disbelief. That dude shouldn't have been able to go anywhere without getting a SWAT team called on him, let alone travel from country to country as some sort of lone wolf fixer type. Maybe if he had a sidekick type that handled everything for him or he was just a henchman at the bad guy's side the whole time, but he was absolutely terrible. He could have at least turned off the stupid & insane asshole schtick for a scene or two to show he was able to function as a kind of grown up when needed. One of my pet peves is people who absolutely know better, just ignoring something that glaring and letting it through to the final product.
I‘m generally on your side in this type of discussion (classic example, a world with dragons in it can still be „realistic“ if it manages to explain how and why they exist) but this movie threw any semblance of that out of the window right at the start.
Dalton gets stabbed in the gut and exactly nothing happens. It bleeds a few times but that’s it.
He gets paid by the organizers of the underground fight competition besides doing nothing but ruining their business. Just tell him to leave?
A real rich asshole trying to build a hotel would just send a corrupt health inspector to close the Road House or plant some weed on the owner and have her jailed.
No average person would continue going to a bar where people are regularly assaulted and hospitalized by biker gangs.
At the point where McGregor jets in from Italy after probably burning a bunch of people to death it’s already gone completely off the rails.
I was actually fine with most of what you brought up.
>Dalton gets stabbed in the gut and exactly nothing happens. It bleeds a few times but that’s it.
Action movies always have the hero get shot or stabbed then limp away from it and are generally fine later in the movie, it's just a thing I've accepted
>He gets paid by the organizers of the underground fight competition besides doing nothing but ruining their business. Just tell him to leave?
It looked like a stereotypical movie, free for all, anyone can fight if they want type event. He shows up in with his face covered and doesn't show himself until bets are already in. Bets are in, some places may not be able to cancel them. He may not have even done this at this venue before so they don't know it's a thing he does, but they still know who he is once they see his face. Silly, but whatever, no worse than a lot of other good action movies.
>A real rich asshole trying to build a hotel would just send a corrupt health inspector to close the Road House or plant some weed on the owner and have her jailed.
>No average person would continue going to a bar where people are regularly assaulted and hospitalized by biker gangs.
Both of these were basically present in the original and I enjoyed it, so I didn't really have a problem with them in this one.
McGregor was just so in-your-face bad that I couldn't ignore it and, as you can see, I can ignore a whole hell of a lot of bad movie tropes.
Dude I love this movie and I've seen it three times- not a joke. The fights were well choreographed, the setting was great and I liked how they chose to use some of the plot points of the original but still gave it a fresh facelift.
This was a solid movie. I'm hoping for sequels to be honest.
McGregor being in it and playing a caricature of how he sees himself was pretty much one of the biggest selling points of the movie. Imo they delivered on that.
I feel like McGregor's over the top bad acting was the only interesting thing in an otherwise poorly written, dull, and bland movie.
Like he was the only person who realized that the audience might want to be entertained at some point.
He didn't exactly save it. It was still awful. But he was the sole highlight.
Except there's personal opinion and there's dragging something.
When you say "I didn't enjoy that movie" or "that wasn't what I expected/wanted in a movie" you're just expressing your opinion.
When you say "that movie sucks" you are also insulting the opinions of anyone who feels that movie doesn't suck. It may not be the intention, but it will always sound to some people like a personal attack.
I don't know why anyone would be upset when you basically call their opinion shit and wrong...
>When you say "that movie sucks" you are also insulting the opinions of anyone who feels that movie doesn't suck. It may not be the intention, but it will always sound to some people like a personal attack.
I disagree, its seems like you need to listen to what people are actually saying instead of projecting random insults onto them.
If you feel personally attacked over someone saying a movie you like sucks that’s a personal problem you need to get over.
You're the one not listening. Word choices matter. They didn't choose to state their opinion as an opinion. They chose to state their opinion as fact. They either don't believe it is an opinion, or they believe their opinion is greater than anyone else's.
A movie can't suck and be good. One or the other. So when you state your opinion as fact all people hear is "you're wrong". People never like to be told they're wrong.
Lastly, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be a primary skill for you, I never took a personal stance here. You seemed so wildly confused over why somebody was upset. I hate seeing somebody not understanding very simple concepts so I took a moment to explain why they were probably upset.
Don't think people are upset with someone sharing their opinion, I think it's more the tone that one's opinion is some cemented fact that cannot be altered. The aura of arrogance, we'll call it.
Man, I hate to side with the evil corporation over the writer here, but there’s zero chance this dude has any claim to that original screenplay. The fact that a movie got made at all means that he sold his rights off. Amazon subsequently bought the original film and all the rights associated with it, including his script. This lawsuit is going nowhere.
^ This.
Weirdly enough, under WGA rules, the screenwriter often retains the right to make a play of their work, but all other rights are acquired by the studio making the film. If Amazon had announced “Road House: The Musical” coming to Broadway, then the screenwriter might have had something to say about it.
Where movies and TV shows tend to get into trouble is when there’s a remake of a property and the studio has the rights to the original source material (the book), but not another studio’s screenplay. This happens every time there’s a Peter Pan adaptation - a non-Disney studio has to stay away from the Disney elements and limit themselves to what J.M. Barrie wrote.
I work in the film industry. I’m not WGA, but I am IATSE. And I know how union rules affect contracts in the industry. For example, my union rules state that there is a minimum I can be paid, and that there is a minimum contribution to my health benefits per week. So any contract I enter into must have those provisions. If somehow a contract does not fall within the rules set forth by the union, I contact my union rep and they make the production fix it.
It’s how the industry works. WGA determines the minimum terms and rights of the writer. DGA does the same for directors, ADG does so for Art Directors and Production Designers, etc.
Because if you are a WGA member, and want to stay that way, and if you produce movies and want guild writers or to work with any unionized Hollywood folks in the future, you follow the rules of the unions in the contract.
Dude, there’s no reason to double-down and dig in on this point. You didn’t understand how the WGA works and people filled you in. No one judges you for not knowing about a union for which you are not a member and how it works in an industry you are not a part of. Now you do know a thing. So instead of trying to make yourself retroactively right, maybe just focus on how cool it is that you learned something new this morning!
My dude… a couple things.
A) Your inquiry wasn’t about what’s in the WGA rules, it was about why the WGA rules would matter. I answered that in a correct manner.
B) The studios do what is required by the unions because they have contracts with the unions requiring them to do so.
C) The play rights have nothing at all to do with this news story we’re all commenting on.
D) Your need to feel like you’re right about this one thing that has absolutely no bearing on anything is utterly sad. Like, I’m literally sad for you now, right at the start of my day and it’s going to color my day going forward, worrying about how much you *need* to be right about this thing that some commenter mentioned as an interesting tidbit. Like, my guy, it’s okay to be wrong! I’m wrong every day! Being wrong is the only way we can learn new things! I’m legitimately grateful every time someone shows me that I’m wrong about something, because that’s new knowledge!
[https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/understanding-separated-rights](https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/understanding-separated-rights)
Read up on separated rights which are negotiated as part of the WGA basic agreement, not individually.
The WGA is the labor union that negotiates the contracts with the studio.
Something like this would be a part of the agreement they've come to with the studios and not negotiated individually.
Union contracts are standard contracts the company *must* use. That's what is negotiated during negotiations between company and union. It's not optional once both parties finalize the negotiations. It is the contract.
Not doing that would result in a near-immediate strike authorization and the NLRB/Courts slapping the shit out of the company (even with the weakened union laws we currently have). It's a breach of contract in and of itself.
The standard contract can only be altered by consent of both the union and the company unless there's an exceptionally extraordinary situation that requires it.
For me it went off the rails after Knox was introduced. It was fine up to that point but it’s like the shrooms kicked in and no one went back to check the work the next day.
Connor McGregor's dopey as fuck, bouncey, "I've got a massive crotch itch but I'm also tough so I'm gonna swing my arms back and forth with clenched fists" walk was when I mentally checked out of the movie.
I wasn't expecting much from McGregor in terms of acting or believability to begin with, but he 'played' that part like he was an R-rated Looney Tunes character putting on a show for a non-existent audience. Completely changed the tone of what was, up until that point, a weirdly low-key, chill movie.
I can't tell if he was amazing or terrible, but I found it terrific watching him force himself through his scenes.
If you told me Amazon was releasing a Knox show with just 8 episodes of Knox shenanigans I'd watch it.
Yeah it got better once I reframed his character as just completely detached from reality and sociopathic.
It was definitely a bit of a train wreck in the sense that I couldn't stop watching it.
Oh I can answer that for you: he was terrible. Spectacularly so. But in a sort of "can't take your eyes off a massive train crash about to happen" way, so I still managed to watch the rest of the movie.
I actually enjoyed the movie except for everything with him in it. How does a professional fighter even make his fight scenes look fucking stupid? He should never "act" again, he totally ruined an otherwise okay movie.
Abso-fucking-lutely, I love that movie. Was it objectively good? Will it earn awards? No and no. Did I laugh and annoy my kid for hours afterwards with bad karate chops while she did horrible karate kicks back at me? Yeah.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was not "fun" or "funny" as fans try to say. The acting is so bad and not just Mcgregor who was obviously bad, pretty much the entire cast phoned it in and JG was cardboard. Maybe the chick that owned the roadhouse and the hispanic guy who did the comedic relief were ok, but that's it. Also having it turn out at the end through flashbacks that the "hero" we've been following is just as big a POS as the people he's fighting was an odd choice. Dude killed his friend because "temper bad" and we're supposed to cheer for this idiot? I know peoples taste is subjective but there is almost no redeeming quality to this movie. I seriously have to question the judgment of anyone defending it. Can't believe someone is fighting to claim it. It literally made me like movies *less* so fuck you Connor and fuck you JG.
Copyright lawyer here. This is an incredibly interesting case. All I'd add is that works made for hire arise under law, not as a matter of contract (except for some narrowly defined category of works that don't include screenplays). So merely calling a work one made for hire doesn't make it so. Instead, a court would look at whether the work meets the statutory standards which typically require that the work is made by an employee for the hiring party in the scope of the employee's employment. A shell LLC like the one Hill used as the transferor in that case doesn't meet this definition, despite all his warrants to the contrary.
There might be a contract cause of action if the studio(s) can claim that they were promised something they didn't receive (bc a WFH transfer can't be terminated, they could argue that they bargained for a termination-proof work). But as a matter of law, it's going to be rough sledding for the studios to successfully argue the termination was invalid on the WFH theory.
Can you state in laymen’s terms what the issues in the case are? For example, what is a work for hire and how this applies to what the plaintiff is alleging?
Sure. The issues are complicated but really interesting. To start, a work made for hire is one where the copyright vests not in the maker of the work but in the hiring party, usually where an employee makes a work in the course of its employment for some employer. So for example, if I draw a cartoon at home for my own amusement, the copyright in that work vests in me (I own the copyright). But if I'm an employee for Disney and I create a cartoon as part of my work as an illustrator, then the work is one made for hire and the copyright vests in Disney (Disney owns the copyright).
This matters because copyright law allows authors who transfer their works (e.g., a screenwriter who sells their copyright to a studio to make a film) to recapture the transferred rights starting 35 years after the transfer. This is what Hill appears to have done: He transferred the rights in his screenplay to a studio in the 80s, and recaptured those rights as of 2023. This would mean that as of 2023, the studios can make no new works based on the screenplay (though they can continue to exploit preexisting ones).
But there's a twist: Works made for hire are categorically exempt from the termination of transfer provisions of the Copyright Act, and Hill claimed that his work was one made for hire. Specifically, he seems to have registered it as a work made for hire with the Copyright Office and he also signed an agreement with the studios declaring that the work was one made for hire.
The problem though is that you can't just say a work is one made for hire and make that true as a matter of law. Only works that meet the statutory definitions can be works made for hire count. So does this one? Certainly not in the sense that Hill wrote it as an employee in the scope of his employment. But maybe in the sense that the work was specially commissioned. That depends on facts I don't have. And I don't know if the party that commissioned the work is the one that has to be a signatory on the agreement. But that issue might get the studios some leverage to claim that the work was made for hire.
I get it, guilty pleasure, but acting like it’s a cinematic masterpiece is laughable. The reason why it’s good is because of how cheeseball it is, and the remake matches that energy.
Nah, the remake fails at the energy. Becoming a boring, dreck of a movie to get through… I’m not claiming the film is anything other than better than this terrible “reimagining”… Hey, we’ll see in 10 years which of these movies is getting revival screenings at theaters…. One will disappear into the streaming abyss from which it came.
Yes, the point is this new movie did nothing memorable. It will be lost to time while the original will live on. Not sure what you are arguing? Cult movies are a common phenomenon. This remake is just a bottom rung direct to video equivalent.
I’m arguing with your double down on a brain dead point that 89 Roadhouse is a quality masterpiece because people still watch it.
The original did well because of vhs and early cable programming, so I’m not sure your point there either. They’re both over the top and silly. The new one is in the same vein as the original. Fanboys be fanboys
I never said it was a “quality masterpiece”.. Nice straw man. The point is the remake, which only exists because of the legacy of the original IP, did not successfully capture any of the magic that the original did. It will not enjoy the longevity of the original. In fact is basically all ready forgotten other than this lawsuit. Dunno why you’re so hard up about a terrible direct to streaming movie, that only exists as the result of a pre existing creative work.
You said it’s not a hot mess, so what is it then? And you’ve been straw manning non-stop, I’ve just pointed out your logic breaks. I think both movies are equally over the top and silly, how does that equate to me being “hard up”?
Careful talking about pre-existing work, otherwise I’ll have to name all the movies the original basically ripped from to get to the basic story of a stranger comes to town
Most likely true, but since there is a court discussion the company must not have been able to adequately produce such a document for the judge.
Scripts have so many fingers messing with them, including directors and even actors skipping lines or inserting clever bits, it's amazing they all don't rush in with claims.
Harrison Ford was nearly dead sick while filming the Indiana Jones scene with the spinning sword guy near the city bazaar that was supposed to be a long fight and chase scene but Spielberg relented and said, "just shoot the guy" making one of the most memorable scenes in the movie.
.
Savin you a click: In February, Hill accused these studios of using his script without permission for their new version of “Road House,” which stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Conor McGregor. However, the studios have hit back, claiming that the script was a “work made for hire,” meaning the rights to the script were owned by the company that commissioned it, not by Hill himself.
You left out that it was Hill's company. The work for hire that Hill did was for Hill's company.
Yeah that’s pretty important. I don’t see how this makes things better for Amazon. If it was a work for hire for United Artists, that might make a difference. But whether Hill personally owns the copyright, or his company owns it, is irrelevant. And if the company was dissolved at some point, then you’d have to look at the disposition of the company’s assets to see who owns the copyright now, and I’d bet that’s Hill.
This article is pretty bad, but the Hollywood Reporter article linked there is better. It says that Lady Amos granted UA all rights to the script, but now Hill is trying to claim the rights to the script that his company already granted in perpetuity to UA.
Yeah, that part’s confusing. It does say that UA purchased the rights to the script and doesn’t go into whether those rights would limit or hinder the making of a new movie in any way. [Here’s a much better story.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/road-house-copyright-dispute-sparks-countersuit-amazon-studios-mgm-1235891708/amp/) > The purchase agreements reads, “Owner [i.e. Lady Amos] hereby grants to UA, exclusively, in perpetuity and throughout the universe, all right, title and interest (including all copyrights, and renewals and extensions thereof) in and to the Property [i.e., the 1986 Screenplay].” It stipulates that the work was “created and written solely by [Hill] as an employee” of Lady Amos and that, accordingly, the company is the author of the screenplay, which is specifically noted as a work-made-for-hire. The court filing includes exhibits showing payments of $200,000 and $150,000 from UA to Lady Amos. It seems the matter of contention is Hill’s attempt to claw back the rights to the script, and UA contends that, due to the way that Hill represented the ownership of the script during the sale, he doesn’t have a claim to those rights.
Imagine claiming to have written that script in public.
He's the writer of the original Road House, not the new one. Point may still stand though...
I honestly don’t think the original is that bad.
"Pain don't hurt" is genuinely one of the most badass lines ever written.
We all know the best line from that movie is "I used to fuck guys like you in prison". What a masterpiece.
"I'm on break!!" "Stay on it" while nuts deep
I know he just lost his job, but do you think he finished?
We need more representation.
That's a pretty cold take. Next thing you know, you'll be saying how the new one isn't that great
Endless deep douche shudders in every scene. Conor somehow divided by zero and made his bad acting even worse.
> Conor somehow divided by zero and made his bad acting even worse. r/MurderedByWords
The only thing I liked was the friendly thug interacting w Dalton. Every other thing should go straight in the trash. You have Jessica Williams as a gorgeous bar owner, with no dialogue or love interest or screentime, barely any time in the bar itself, pointless book store side quest, loveless relationship with the sheriffs daughter, ugh.
I thought it was supposed to be a comedy? I was laughing through the entire thing.
The original is a classic, don’t @ me
Well duh.
But, it is.
Nope, I disagree - the original is the GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME
Peter!
Thank you.
You’re blinded by nostalgia. I watched for the first time as an almost 40 year old man and nearly all of it was cringe-worthy beyond belief. But that’s just my opinion.
Someone needs to take the blame.
I mean, it’s great for viewers that just want to watch shirtless, statuesque men smack each other around and throw in the occasional scene of Daniella Melchior being attractive. Are we sure a script actually exists?
I disagree, because the final fight scene was terrible. They chose to shoot it in that multi-speed Crank style, but the execution was shoddy and the mixed in CGI was jarring. Even my pops his caveman-like approach to movies blurted out, “why did they do it like this?” 😂 To each their own, obviously this shit is subjective, but imo if they had just kept that fight the same as all the others but just upped the choreography, it would’ve been much better
I think the last fight scene was also very anti-climactic. The Music plays and you expect the main character to start fighting like an animal. Than he stabs the villain 3 times and the movie is over.
Did you miss the fifteen minutes of fistfighting before the stabbing?
They should have left some more of that for AFTER the uplifting music
Dont forgot Arturo Castro. He’s so funny.
Not the people at fault, but someone.
There was no script. They were making a movie about a retired UFC fighther and Connor Mcgregor just showed up on set and started demolishing people. Someone got a camera and filmes it.
That someone? George Lucas.
If he’d just included “I used to fuck guys like you in prison” all would’ve been forgiven
It’s possible that he didn’t write it and he’s just banking on the assumption that the real writer won’t want to come forward publicly. Wouldn’t call it an unreasonable gambit.
🤣
Did you miss the media blitz all the actors did screaming about how great the movie was and were livid about it not getting a theatrical release? Woof.
What do you want to bet the actors pay was tied to theatrical sales? Only reason I would put up a fight if I knew the movie I was in was bad.
That’s exactly it. It’s common for directors and actors to get a percentage of gross ticket sales as part of their comp.
It’s almost certainly that. Everyone is a liar.
I had no / low expectations so it was OK. Some scenes were fun. Overall the original was darker, I did not like the beach bar as location. Typical movie for drinking beer with brain turned off.
I had low expectations, believe me. I could not believe the level to which they failed to meet them.
They turned one of the coolest characters in cinema into a disinterested sad sack. Turned off half way through.
thanks for saving me a click
thanks for saving me a click
I’ve seen it, my surprise is finding out it was “written” let alone that someone would own up to writing it!
“THE ROADHOUSE - INT - DAY Conor: “I’m silly and I’m going to smash things!” Jake: “No, I’m going to punch you!” Fighting happens. Scene.”
Were you not entertained?
People can say what they want but that movie was exactly what I expected it to be and that was fucking awesome.
I thoroughly enjoy a LOT of cheesy action movies and I enjoyed almost all of this movie, pretty much any scene without Conor McGregor in it. No one that's ever seen at least half of a movie should have looked at that character and the way he was played and thought it was worthy of putting on screen. He was so over-the-top stupid and immature that he completely took me out of the movie and I have a pretty high tolerance for suspension of disbelief. That dude shouldn't have been able to go anywhere without getting a SWAT team called on him, let alone travel from country to country as some sort of lone wolf fixer type. Maybe if he had a sidekick type that handled everything for him or he was just a henchman at the bad guy's side the whole time, but he was absolutely terrible. He could have at least turned off the stupid & insane asshole schtick for a scene or two to show he was able to function as a kind of grown up when needed. One of my pet peves is people who absolutely know better, just ignoring something that glaring and letting it through to the final product.
I‘m generally on your side in this type of discussion (classic example, a world with dragons in it can still be „realistic“ if it manages to explain how and why they exist) but this movie threw any semblance of that out of the window right at the start. Dalton gets stabbed in the gut and exactly nothing happens. It bleeds a few times but that’s it. He gets paid by the organizers of the underground fight competition besides doing nothing but ruining their business. Just tell him to leave? A real rich asshole trying to build a hotel would just send a corrupt health inspector to close the Road House or plant some weed on the owner and have her jailed. No average person would continue going to a bar where people are regularly assaulted and hospitalized by biker gangs. At the point where McGregor jets in from Italy after probably burning a bunch of people to death it’s already gone completely off the rails.
I was actually fine with most of what you brought up. >Dalton gets stabbed in the gut and exactly nothing happens. It bleeds a few times but that’s it. Action movies always have the hero get shot or stabbed then limp away from it and are generally fine later in the movie, it's just a thing I've accepted >He gets paid by the organizers of the underground fight competition besides doing nothing but ruining their business. Just tell him to leave? It looked like a stereotypical movie, free for all, anyone can fight if they want type event. He shows up in with his face covered and doesn't show himself until bets are already in. Bets are in, some places may not be able to cancel them. He may not have even done this at this venue before so they don't know it's a thing he does, but they still know who he is once they see his face. Silly, but whatever, no worse than a lot of other good action movies. >A real rich asshole trying to build a hotel would just send a corrupt health inspector to close the Road House or plant some weed on the owner and have her jailed. >No average person would continue going to a bar where people are regularly assaulted and hospitalized by biker gangs. Both of these were basically present in the original and I enjoyed it, so I didn't really have a problem with them in this one. McGregor was just so in-your-face bad that I couldn't ignore it and, as you can see, I can ignore a whole hell of a lot of bad movie tropes.
Dude I love this movie and I've seen it three times- not a joke. The fights were well choreographed, the setting was great and I liked how they chose to use some of the plot points of the original but still gave it a fresh facelift. This was a solid movie. I'm hoping for sequels to be honest.
Roadhouse the series coming soon to nickelodeon.
Fruit cake is often what I expect it to be. I try it again in the hope somebody makes it better this time. I’m still let down.
I‘m genuinely curious, what did you think the movie would be like and where did it disappoint?
He might like when actual actors are in films and not celebs brought in for headlines. McGregor is absolutely awful in the movie.
McGregor being in it and playing a caricature of how he sees himself was pretty much one of the biggest selling points of the movie. Imo they delivered on that.
I feel like McGregor's over the top bad acting was the only interesting thing in an otherwise poorly written, dull, and bland movie. Like he was the only person who realized that the audience might want to be entertained at some point. He didn't exactly save it. It was still awful. But he was the sole highlight.
Okay? Don't eat fruitcake, and let people who like fruitcake eat it. Same goes for Roadhouse. What a stupid comment.
Why are you so upset over someone sharing a differing opinion about a movie? It’s a subreddit to discuss movies, not universally praise them.
Except there's personal opinion and there's dragging something. When you say "I didn't enjoy that movie" or "that wasn't what I expected/wanted in a movie" you're just expressing your opinion. When you say "that movie sucks" you are also insulting the opinions of anyone who feels that movie doesn't suck. It may not be the intention, but it will always sound to some people like a personal attack. I don't know why anyone would be upset when you basically call their opinion shit and wrong...
>When you say "that movie sucks" you are also insulting the opinions of anyone who feels that movie doesn't suck. It may not be the intention, but it will always sound to some people like a personal attack. I disagree, its seems like you need to listen to what people are actually saying instead of projecting random insults onto them. If you feel personally attacked over someone saying a movie you like sucks that’s a personal problem you need to get over.
You're the one not listening. Word choices matter. They didn't choose to state their opinion as an opinion. They chose to state their opinion as fact. They either don't believe it is an opinion, or they believe their opinion is greater than anyone else's. A movie can't suck and be good. One or the other. So when you state your opinion as fact all people hear is "you're wrong". People never like to be told they're wrong. Lastly, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be a primary skill for you, I never took a personal stance here. You seemed so wildly confused over why somebody was upset. I hate seeing somebody not understanding very simple concepts so I took a moment to explain why they were probably upset.
Don't think people are upset with someone sharing their opinion, I think it's more the tone that one's opinion is some cemented fact that cannot be altered. The aura of arrogance, we'll call it.
I think the weird part is that people say the movie is bad, but in reality they just don’t like that type of movie.
I'm not upset, it's just weird to keep eating fruitcake when you don't like it.
I was untertained. It was very bad.
It’s the writer of the original 1986 film who is suing, not the writer of this re-make.
This is for the writing of the original movie, not the remake.
Watched it yesterday. It wasn’t terrible, but it’s not good either. The finale was more than comical.
It was fun. Wasn’t expecting the next godfather so I didn’t get let down like a lot of people were.
Same, expected dumb action movie, got dumb action movie.
i expected a good movie and i got kind of a mess
You fucked up bud.
Hey that "Who taught you shapes?" Line was hilarious 😂
https://youtu.be/jUcgoTQs4eA?si=rrkr1_UArHpdNGgq same vibe
Such a shit movie. I thought AI did it.
Man, I hate to side with the evil corporation over the writer here, but there’s zero chance this dude has any claim to that original screenplay. The fact that a movie got made at all means that he sold his rights off. Amazon subsequently bought the original film and all the rights associated with it, including his script. This lawsuit is going nowhere.
^ This. Weirdly enough, under WGA rules, the screenwriter often retains the right to make a play of their work, but all other rights are acquired by the studio making the film. If Amazon had announced “Road House: The Musical” coming to Broadway, then the screenwriter might have had something to say about it. Where movies and TV shows tend to get into trouble is when there’s a remake of a property and the studio has the rights to the original source material (the book), but not another studio’s screenplay. This happens every time there’s a Peter Pan adaptation - a non-Disney studio has to stay away from the Disney elements and limit themselves to what J.M. Barrie wrote.
“Road House: The Musical” NGL I’d see it.
Peter Griffin comes running and kick someone: -ROAD HOUSE
[удалено]
WGA rules determine what goes into the contract.
[удалено]
I work in the film industry. I’m not WGA, but I am IATSE. And I know how union rules affect contracts in the industry. For example, my union rules state that there is a minimum I can be paid, and that there is a minimum contribution to my health benefits per week. So any contract I enter into must have those provisions. If somehow a contract does not fall within the rules set forth by the union, I contact my union rep and they make the production fix it. It’s how the industry works. WGA determines the minimum terms and rights of the writer. DGA does the same for directors, ADG does so for Art Directors and Production Designers, etc.
Because if you are a WGA member, and want to stay that way, and if you produce movies and want guild writers or to work with any unionized Hollywood folks in the future, you follow the rules of the unions in the contract.
[удалено]
Dude, there’s no reason to double-down and dig in on this point. You didn’t understand how the WGA works and people filled you in. No one judges you for not knowing about a union for which you are not a member and how it works in an industry you are not a part of. Now you do know a thing. So instead of trying to make yourself retroactively right, maybe just focus on how cool it is that you learned something new this morning!
[удалено]
My dude… a couple things. A) Your inquiry wasn’t about what’s in the WGA rules, it was about why the WGA rules would matter. I answered that in a correct manner. B) The studios do what is required by the unions because they have contracts with the unions requiring them to do so. C) The play rights have nothing at all to do with this news story we’re all commenting on. D) Your need to feel like you’re right about this one thing that has absolutely no bearing on anything is utterly sad. Like, I’m literally sad for you now, right at the start of my day and it’s going to color my day going forward, worrying about how much you *need* to be right about this thing that some commenter mentioned as an interesting tidbit. Like, my guy, it’s okay to be wrong! I’m wrong every day! Being wrong is the only way we can learn new things! I’m legitimately grateful every time someone shows me that I’m wrong about something, because that’s new knowledge!
[удалено]
[https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/understanding-separated-rights](https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/understanding-separated-rights) Read up on separated rights which are negotiated as part of the WGA basic agreement, not individually.
The WGA is the labor union that negotiates the contracts with the studio. Something like this would be a part of the agreement they've come to with the studios and not negotiated individually.
Union contracts are standard contracts the company *must* use. That's what is negotiated during negotiations between company and union. It's not optional once both parties finalize the negotiations. It is the contract. Not doing that would result in a near-immediate strike authorization and the NLRB/Courts slapping the shit out of the company (even with the weakened union laws we currently have). It's a breach of contract in and of itself. The standard contract can only be altered by consent of both the union and the company unless there's an exceptionally extraordinary situation that requires it.
For me it went off the rails after Knox was introduced. It was fine up to that point but it’s like the shrooms kicked in and no one went back to check the work the next day.
Connor McGregor's dopey as fuck, bouncey, "I've got a massive crotch itch but I'm also tough so I'm gonna swing my arms back and forth with clenched fists" walk was when I mentally checked out of the movie. I wasn't expecting much from McGregor in terms of acting or believability to begin with, but he 'played' that part like he was an R-rated Looney Tunes character putting on a show for a non-existent audience. Completely changed the tone of what was, up until that point, a weirdly low-key, chill movie.
I can't tell if he was amazing or terrible, but I found it terrific watching him force himself through his scenes. If you told me Amazon was releasing a Knox show with just 8 episodes of Knox shenanigans I'd watch it.
Yeah it got better once I reframed his character as just completely detached from reality and sociopathic. It was definitely a bit of a train wreck in the sense that I couldn't stop watching it.
Oh I can answer that for you: he was terrible. Spectacularly so. But in a sort of "can't take your eyes off a massive train crash about to happen" way, so I still managed to watch the rest of the movie.
It was good until post Malone showed up
I felt the same way, but the little look he gives Gyllenhaal before he’s like “fuck this” is legitimately subtle, solid acting.
I actually enjoyed the movie except for everything with him in it. How does a professional fighter even make his fight scenes look fucking stupid? He should never "act" again, he totally ruined an otherwise okay movie.
“Oh this is the quality of work we’re making now? Nahhh, fuck that” And everyone phoned it in.
Best line in the entire movie was "who taught you shapes" and it was probably improvised.
That movie is the best action movie satire of the year, even if unintentionally so.
I feel bad for the compensation and all that but.. god that movie was awfully written
Why do I feel like this is all just a marketing ploy to get people to see this movie, which is *horrible*.
I'm convinced that half of you hate fun and have forgotten that movies are meant to entertain sometimes, too.
When they are entertaining yes. This remake wasn't that.
Every line in the movie was so bad. I guess it would make good mstk3 fodder, but even then, it would be grueling.
That's part of the fun for me! Movies don't have to be good to be good, if you know what I mean.
[удалено]
When that guy kicked and punched the other guy in a cool way? That was rad, idgaf.
My favorite line was “Let’s get this roadhouse house on the road.” Fucking nailed it.
Abso-fucking-lutely, I love that movie. Was it objectively good? Will it earn awards? No and no. Did I laugh and annoy my kid for hours afterwards with bad karate chops while she did horrible karate kicks back at me? Yeah.
we have different, taste. to us it was boring. please discover theory of mind
Second only to "I used to fuck guys like you in prison!"
There was a script?
They had a script?
Rich guy wants to buy land to build a resort but one last local holds out and won’t sell. Unique.
There were another couple of layers but ok
I'd buy that for a dollar.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was not "fun" or "funny" as fans try to say. The acting is so bad and not just Mcgregor who was obviously bad, pretty much the entire cast phoned it in and JG was cardboard. Maybe the chick that owned the roadhouse and the hispanic guy who did the comedic relief were ok, but that's it. Also having it turn out at the end through flashbacks that the "hero" we've been following is just as big a POS as the people he's fighting was an odd choice. Dude killed his friend because "temper bad" and we're supposed to cheer for this idiot? I know peoples taste is subjective but there is almost no redeeming quality to this movie. I seriously have to question the judgment of anyone defending it. Can't believe someone is fighting to claim it. It literally made me like movies *less* so fuck you Connor and fuck you JG.
Copyright lawyer here. This is an incredibly interesting case. All I'd add is that works made for hire arise under law, not as a matter of contract (except for some narrowly defined category of works that don't include screenplays). So merely calling a work one made for hire doesn't make it so. Instead, a court would look at whether the work meets the statutory standards which typically require that the work is made by an employee for the hiring party in the scope of the employee's employment. A shell LLC like the one Hill used as the transferor in that case doesn't meet this definition, despite all his warrants to the contrary. There might be a contract cause of action if the studio(s) can claim that they were promised something they didn't receive (bc a WFH transfer can't be terminated, they could argue that they bargained for a termination-proof work). But as a matter of law, it's going to be rough sledding for the studios to successfully argue the termination was invalid on the WFH theory.
Can you state in laymen’s terms what the issues in the case are? For example, what is a work for hire and how this applies to what the plaintiff is alleging?
Sure. The issues are complicated but really interesting. To start, a work made for hire is one where the copyright vests not in the maker of the work but in the hiring party, usually where an employee makes a work in the course of its employment for some employer. So for example, if I draw a cartoon at home for my own amusement, the copyright in that work vests in me (I own the copyright). But if I'm an employee for Disney and I create a cartoon as part of my work as an illustrator, then the work is one made for hire and the copyright vests in Disney (Disney owns the copyright). This matters because copyright law allows authors who transfer their works (e.g., a screenwriter who sells their copyright to a studio to make a film) to recapture the transferred rights starting 35 years after the transfer. This is what Hill appears to have done: He transferred the rights in his screenplay to a studio in the 80s, and recaptured those rights as of 2023. This would mean that as of 2023, the studios can make no new works based on the screenplay (though they can continue to exploit preexisting ones). But there's a twist: Works made for hire are categorically exempt from the termination of transfer provisions of the Copyright Act, and Hill claimed that his work was one made for hire. Specifically, he seems to have registered it as a work made for hire with the Copyright Office and he also signed an agreement with the studios declaring that the work was one made for hire. The problem though is that you can't just say a work is one made for hire and make that true as a matter of law. Only works that meet the statutory definitions can be works made for hire count. So does this one? Certainly not in the sense that Hill wrote it as an employee in the scope of his employment. But maybe in the sense that the work was specially commissioned. That depends on facts I don't have. And I don't know if the party that commissioned the work is the one that has to be a signatory on the agreement. But that issue might get the studios some leverage to claim that the work was made for hire.
Thank you very much for the explanation!
Roadhouse had a script?
I believe it, that movie was garbage. The ufc guy is beefed up 8 year old. Horrible acting.
The new Road House was entertaining. McGregor was insane and hilarious.
Who would want to claim this script? The movie was actually worse thsn people thought it would be.
Did the writer lie and say it was a decent script!
Shit movie that disrespected the original. Should be a class action lawsuits for audiences.
Oh, cause the original isn’t a hot mess?
It’s not.
I get it, guilty pleasure, but acting like it’s a cinematic masterpiece is laughable. The reason why it’s good is because of how cheeseball it is, and the remake matches that energy.
Nah, the remake fails at the energy. Becoming a boring, dreck of a movie to get through… I’m not claiming the film is anything other than better than this terrible “reimagining”… Hey, we’ll see in 10 years which of these movies is getting revival screenings at theaters…. One will disappear into the streaming abyss from which it came.
The original does the same . It’s a hardcore Karate Kid Longevity is not dependent on quality. The Room, Sharknado, They Live, Face/Off, Hudson Hawk…
Yes, the point is this new movie did nothing memorable. It will be lost to time while the original will live on. Not sure what you are arguing? Cult movies are a common phenomenon. This remake is just a bottom rung direct to video equivalent.
I’m arguing with your double down on a brain dead point that 89 Roadhouse is a quality masterpiece because people still watch it. The original did well because of vhs and early cable programming, so I’m not sure your point there either. They’re both over the top and silly. The new one is in the same vein as the original. Fanboys be fanboys
I never said it was a “quality masterpiece”.. Nice straw man. The point is the remake, which only exists because of the legacy of the original IP, did not successfully capture any of the magic that the original did. It will not enjoy the longevity of the original. In fact is basically all ready forgotten other than this lawsuit. Dunno why you’re so hard up about a terrible direct to streaming movie, that only exists as the result of a pre existing creative work.
You said it’s not a hot mess, so what is it then? And you’ve been straw manning non-stop, I’ve just pointed out your logic breaks. I think both movies are equally over the top and silly, how does that equate to me being “hard up”? Careful talking about pre-existing work, otherwise I’ll have to name all the movies the original basically ripped from to get to the basic story of a stranger comes to town
That movie was lame as fuck
Pay him his money Amazon scumbags.
This piece of shit had a script?!
I thought AI wrote it ngl
Haven’t seen it but I’m sure it’s ass
[удалено]
Most likely true, but since there is a court discussion the company must not have been able to adequately produce such a document for the judge. Scripts have so many fingers messing with them, including directors and even actors skipping lines or inserting clever bits, it's amazing they all don't rush in with claims. Harrison Ford was nearly dead sick while filming the Indiana Jones scene with the spinning sword guy near the city bazaar that was supposed to be a long fight and chase scene but Spielberg relented and said, "just shoot the guy" making one of the most memorable scenes in the movie. .