any1 seen borat?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 11, 2006 | 04:14 PM

#16

TorqueDog

Experienced GTcars Poster

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,608

From: Calgary, AB

Rep Power: 817

That's not what I meant, I put "Hollywood Law" in quotes for a reason.
This movie was produced by 20th Century Fox, and I am damn sure their lawyers will see to it that these kids get the absolute minimum. "Hollywood" (again in quotes) tends to get a fair bit more leniency than the average Joe.

Nov 11, 2006 | 04:35 PM

#17

archemedes

GTcars - Post God !

Joined: Apr 2004

Posts: 15,868

From: Saraland AL

Rep Power: 1125

archemedes street rep is low. keep going

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

not really, most studios get hammered in courts (I get some video trade mags, and see how often studios lose especially fox who is the little kid with a big mouth)

Nov 11, 2006 | 05:16 PM

#18

TorqueDog

Experienced GTcars Poster

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,608

From: Calgary, AB

Rep Power: 817

I make my prediction right now, those kids get a small settlement.

Nov 11, 2006 | 05:34 PM

#19

archemedes

GTcars - Post God !

Joined: Apr 2004

Posts: 15,868

From: Saraland AL

Rep Power: 1125

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I make my prediction right now, those kids get a small settlement.

define small

Nov 11, 2006 | 07:48 PM

#20

TorqueDog

Experienced GTcars Poster

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,608

From: Calgary, AB

Rep Power: 817

Quote:

Originally Posted by archemedes

(huge mistake that will end up costing him every penny the movie makes)

Definitely not that much.

Nov 11, 2006 | 07:51 PM

#21

TorqueDog

Experienced GTcars Poster

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,608

From: Calgary, AB

Rep Power: 817

Quote:

The plaintiffs -- listed as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 -- were allegedly assured the film would not be shown in the U.S. and their identities would not be revealed.

They were both selected to appear in the movie and, according to the suit, taken "to a drinking establishment 'to loosen up' and provided alcoholic beverages." They claim they signed the movie releases after "heavy drinking."

So originally they weren't given releases, and now they claim they signed release forms AFTER drinking?

I'm sorry, but historically, "I'm drunk and therefore I'm not responsible for my actions" does not stand up in a court of law.

Source -- http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/09/borat-lawsuit-high-five/

Nov 11, 2006 | 08:21 PM

#22

archemedes

GTcars - Post God !

Joined: Apr 2004

Posts: 15,868

From: Saraland AL

Rep Power: 1125

actually it does quite often stand up, impaired judgment is a basic defense

Nov 11, 2006 | 08:58 PM

#23

blue89vert

~~~ SITE SPONSOR ~~~

Joined: Nov 2005

Posts: 6,374

From: northwest IN

Rep Power: 875

blue89vert street rep is low. keep going

movie looked stupid in the previews. i might see it anyways

Nov 11, 2006 | 11:57 PM

#24

TorqueDog

Experienced GTcars Poster

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,608

From: Calgary, AB

Rep Power: 817

It does and it doesn't. I'd say with the level of stupidity involves with these kids, I'd say it doesn't hold up.

Nov 12, 2006 | 12:58 AM

#25

rickjames343

~~ Hardcore Newb ~~

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 141

Rep Power: 742

rickjames343 street rep is low. keep going

My girl wanted to see it, and I would just because she wanted to. I ended up loving it and she was highly dissapointed. I feel almost proud though, in a weird way. Those frat boys are from USC which is about 15 min away from my house. Thank god I'm not going there though.

*SMALL SMALL SPOILER*
I love when he drops the bag with the chicken and it goes "brrrgawwwk!"