|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
Mocks in other genres
What about "mockbusters" in other moving picture genres (or even other media such as books, comics, websites, etc.)? For instance The Big Bang Theory has a Belarusian knock-off. Are such copies called mockbusters as well? --Abdull (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The answer is that nobody knows because this is an article created around a loosely defined term in relatively uncommon usage. Taking the article in its present state as evidence, somebody, for instance, sees it as covering almost any space opera-type film released around the same time as Star Wars as a "'mockbuster' of Star Wars", regardless of the extent of similarity in plot/imagery. Obviously successful films start trends; how is a trend-following film supposed to be distinguished from a "mockbuster"? Somebody else in the intro thinks "mockbuster" refers only to a parody of a successful film, but there are are already plenty of words to refer to that genre (eg Space Balls is a spoof of Star Wars, and nobody called it a mockbuster when it was released), and the rest of the article doesn't refer to parody-type films. I for one have heard the term used by actual people only with reference to pretty egregious and obvious cash-ins/rip-offs like Transmorphers or the Brazilian pixar knockoffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- A Mockbuster is just a qualitative inferior doubleganger of a Blockbuster as cash-in/rip-offs not for intentional parody. --Bothary (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Who made up this word?
I never heard this word before. It's obviously a useful term describing a common phenomenon, but somewhat ironically, if it was invented for a wikipedia article, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Eric
- It wasn't, the word has been used before and is well documented. If someone did create a word solely for a Wikipedia article the article would have been deleted. Google Mockbuster to see. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, Googling something is not proof, and the results do not prove that the term wasn't invented for Wikipedia. There are dozens upon dozens of articles in Wikipedia that have no business existing, simply because no one is patrolling to nominate these for deletion. The word requires a source certifying that it didn't originate here. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Simple solution, look at the original version of the article. In it, (2007) it specifically references older articles from 2006 and before that specifically use the word "Mockbuster". So yes, the term did predate the Wikipedia article. Mushrom (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just as proof that the term came before the wikipedia article (created in 2007) is this 2006 . Ravendrop 10:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the first two sections, this "article" is just a list of examples (most of them unsourced) in paragraph form. Some extensive cleanup is needed, along with source citations for anything that is kept. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there can be some more changes that can be made to the page. These are just a couple of questions I'm looking over: 1) Do Mockbusters have a legitimate claim to make such movies under “artistic license”? As surprising as this sounds there is actually a genre called “bad movies” and has its own loyal fan group. These Mockbusters are released Direct to DVD and intended for purchase specifically by these groups. Do they thus have a claim under artistic license? Using a few examples to analyze this: Transmorphers and Little Cars. 2) Why are such movies considered to be illegal/i.e. what are the copyright infringements they present? 3) Analyzing a recent case. More specifically the case of WB versus The Hobbit (from both perspectives – Universal Studios and Asylum Studios. Consequences of creating a precedent through a legal ruling. 4) What differentiates Mockbusters from a Mockumentaries and why is one acceptable in the eyes of the IP industry? Summary: A Mockumentary is a parody of real life events presented in a documentary style. Truly speaking a Mockumentary is an original piece. E.g. “All you need is Cash” is a mockumentary about the Rutles – based upon the true story of the Beatles and consumerism in society. A Mockbuster follows somewhat the same story line but could have different variations. Do these minor edits make it an original adaptation?
Also some interesting sources of info on the Mockbuster issue "Outcome of the Warner v Asylum Case" "Legal Opinion of Hobbit Case" "IP issues in Hobbit Case" "Defending Mockbusters" "Summary of the Issue in Hobbit Case" "Legal Contentions in Hobbit Case" "Do Mockbusters confuse viewers?" "How do Mockbusters benefit from Hollywood movies" "Netflix and Mockbusters"
I don't think this article is very visually inviting. It's lots of blocks of text, some of the paragraphs are too long. There is little "eye relief" (white space, charts, lists, illustrations). This article would be greatly enhanced, both visually and in terms of content, if an editor added in 3 or 4 images that would serve not only to break up the text but also illustrate the movies you are referring to.
Right now, I read the first two paragraphs, scrolled down to see how long it was, and came here to post a comment. In terms of laying out content, you need to have variety if you want to appeal to readers who will read your entire article. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)