Dead Rising 2 Delayed by... Romero?!?

[Usumgal]

Don't think this has been posted as of yet, but it turns out GAR decided to sue Capcom over Dead Rising almost 2 years after it came out ( and despite the obvious disclaimer in the begining saying its not at all connected to Dawn or GAR). This is why there is no news on a sequel yet. Its officially only in talks. Capcom is countersuing GAR demanding he make a public statement admitting that it has nothing to do with him or DotD.

Never thought GAR would be so petty.

Here's the article:

Capcom Sued Over Dead Rising
Posted by: Deven
Posted on: 03/13/2008

Apparently the whole Zombies-attacking-a-Mall thing has been done before. Much, much earlier in 1979 to be exact, by MKR Group’s George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. MKR have seen fit that a lawsuit is in order, despite the opening of Dead Rising clearly stating that “This game was not developed, approved or licensed by the owners or creators of George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead.”.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Monday, reads:

“Both works are dark comedies. In both, the recreational activities of the zombies and absurdly grotesque ‘kill scenes’ provide unexpected comedic relief. Both works provided thoughtful social commentary on the ‘mall culture’ zeitgeist, in addition to serving up a sizable portion of sensationalistic violence."

Capcom have declined to comment, who only two weeks ago filed a case against MKR, seeking a declaration that the game did not infringe on any of MKR’s intellectual property rights (read: Dawn of the Dead). Capcom also sought an injunction to prevent the situation we have now.

MKR are suing the Japanese company, as well as two US units for copyright and trademark infringement, amongst other things. Apparently the title is no longer being produced according to Capcom, likely because of this new lawsuit.

Dead Rising was originally released in August 2006 and has gone on to sell over one million copies. It’s a hugely popular game, with a sequel hoped to be in production somewhere. Even at the time people suspected this would happen, but nearly two years later seems almost pointless. Perhaps the rumours of a Dead Rising 2 prompted it? Either way, let’s hope this gets cleared up quickly so Dead Rising 2 can indeed be finished in a timely fashion.

http://www.deadrising2.net/news/207455833.php:(

[MikePizzoff]

Actually, there was a thread about this in February. However, you're new here so I'll let it slide... although (before Hells flames ya) make sure ya use the search feature in the future when posting old(ish) news.

Original thread: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=9764&highlight=dead+rising

[Khardis]

Stupid Romero, cant make a decent film anymore so he wants to sue people with talent who are using similar ideas the way George himself should be using them.

[Redman6565]

Stupid Romero, cant make a decent film anymore so he wants to sue people with talent who are using similar ideas the way George himself should be using them.

This is the world we live in.Peoplesue over anything and everything. Maybe GAR is a little bitter. He needs to focus on his next movie seeing as how he didn't with Diary. I think 'Left 4 Dead' will be a better game than DR 2.

[AcesandEights]

I think 'Left 4 Dead' will be a better game than DR 2.

Probably. I really wanted a strong co-op component for Dead Rising, but we'll see how Left 4 Dead does.

[acealive1]

rockstar needs to get on the dawn of the dead game and make it a dedicated version of the original movie. free roam though

[Griff]

Firstly, its not just Romero but the MKR Group. And there's nothing petty about this lawsuit. Dead Rising has made over 100 million dollars and a sequel, potentially worth a 100 million more was in the works.

Zombies in a shopping mall? Try telling anyone it isn't a DAWN rip-off. Disclaimer or not, its still intellectual property theft.

The game sucked by the way. Taking photos of zombies... only the Japanese could come up with something so quirky. The demo is all you need.

[Redman6565]

Yea, the game blew. The AI of the people you have to save was really bad. Come on, you have a weapon in a mall full of dead folks trying to eat you and they do not follow you. PLEASE.

Why do these idiots make games where you have to save people? That killed the game along with taking pictures. Stupid.

As for the law suit, I don't know. What's going to happen with Left 4 Dead? You are running through a city trying to stay alive. There are movies that cover this as well. If anything DR may have helped create new fans for GAR's movies. A real Dawn game would be cool though. If done well. I'd like to see Ubisoft do it Rainbow 6 style. I'd buy it.

Is anyone turned off by the new trailers for the RE 5 game? I know I am. I'm not to high on 'octo-zombies'. Capcom has lost their way. I think I am going to pass on it.

[EvilNed]

Romero's human, but I have a hard time, being the independent guy that he is, seeing how he would really care about this. But then again, the ONLY thing keeping Dead Rising from being the "official" Dawn of the Dead game is it's title.

[Yojimbo]

I thought it wasn't Romero behind this, rather another one of those grubby moves by Rubenstein.


I did like the Dead Rising game, but yeah the AI was crappy and the entire photo thing was a ridiculous waste. I am with the posters that want a Dawn of the Dead 1978 game - I would buy that!

[MinionZombie]

Romero's human, but I have a hard time, being the independent guy that he is, seeing how he would really care about this. But then again, the ONLY thing keeping Dead Rising from being the "official" Dawn of the Dead game is it's title.
...and the wasp-things you can capture in a jar, smash on the floor to make all the nearby zombie's fall down and die, their heads exploding...

...and the chainsaw-wielding clowns...

...and the terrorism plot...

...and the special ops army guys with flying drones...

...and the sheer volume of people in the mall to rescue...

...and that the zombies get stronger at night and have red, glowing eyes...

...and the cult of yellow-sou'wester-wearing, bomb-loaded, green-mask-wearing nutters...

...and the focus on violence, e.g. lawnmowers, rototillers, chainsaws, bowling balls, golf clubs, shopping carts, katana's, uzi's and so on, used against zombies to make hilarious gore...

...and that, really, the only similarities are zombies and a mall, that's it...

The mall doesn't look the same, it has no references to Dawn in it, there are no Dawn characters, the zombies aren't the same, the plot is not the same beyond 'zombies in a mall', which is pretty f*cking wide open really.

I think it's a pretty weak case generally, there are many more differences than similarities ... it's like saying you can't have a movie with a killer robot in it without it being a complete and total 100% rip-off of The Terminator. :rolleyes:

Also, all I've heard it's mainly been led by Rubinstein, I don't think GAR's even mentioned it ... and probably wouldn't be that fussed about it.

Also - a sequel wouldn't even take place in a mall, so then it's a game about zombies ... and that's even wider from the mark. :p

[Griff]

If Dead Rising is so unlike DAWN, why did the makers put a disclaimer on the game? The Resident Evil series, also by Capcom, never felt so inclined.

Dead Rising is irrefutably based on Romero's idea, his concept, that of humans vs zombies in a consumer playground. Sh*t, I'd say Dead Rising is even closer to DAWN than the DAWN remake. They pretty much ignore the fact they're in a shopping mall in that movie and just sit around like a bunch of aimless slobs, waiting for the zombies to make the first move. It might as well have been set in a school or an office block. Dead Rising, on the other hand, makes full use of its mall environment, just like in the original DAWN did.

[Danny]

how can you use a site like that as a source of valued information?

1:it has no information that isn't "rumors"

2:its a fan made ".net" and somehow its gotten this information that a sequel is even in the works before any of the big sites.

3 the developers have gone on record dozen's of times now that there is no sequel in the works. period. the only "news" otherwise is a "rumor" that "some western developer" has picked it up, but there's not one shred of proof to support it, and that site is either using rumor's to support fan wishes or just doing a "surfergirl" and making up a load of bollox to get traffic, it definitely would not be the first time.

nothing to do with the legal article i know, but there's so many sites out there feeding rumor as fact that you cant take stuff like this at face value.

[MinionZombie]

Griff - because of people who look no further into it that "mall + zombies = Dawn of the Dead". :rolleyes:

If you actually look at Dead Rising, you'll quickly see that that is it, in terms of similarity. It steals no characters, and no story (and no "zombies attack" is not enough of a story to breach copyright, which is obvious anyway) from the original movie. It doesn't use the name "Dawn" nor even "of the Dead" in the title, yes it uses "Dead", but so do a shedload of other zombie movies - so again, no issue there.

I think Yawn04 did pay plenty of attention to the setting - they played basketball, they watched TV, they used the bed store, they hung out at Hallowed Grounds all the time, there was a whole bit in the parking lot, they were hanging out on the roof, they used the loading docks etc ... so they definitely used the mall in that ghastly name-raping remake.

Also, there's been essentially bugger all talk about the apparently lawsuit, so for all we know it was thrown out ages ago because there's no significant basis for copyright infringement.

You cannot copyright the zombie, and nor can you copyright the use of a mall ... and even if you put them together, I'd still not even call it copyright infringement - plus it's further removed as it's two different mediums.

It was fine for Zombie Nosh to pilfer the entire Romero zombie back catalogue for ideas, it was fine for Lucio Fulci to call his flick "Zombi 2" and so on.

The case for copyright infringement, once you look beyond "mall + zombies = Dawn of the Dead" which is such an insanely thin argument in itself, is null & void.

...

Now, if Dead Rising was called "Dead Rising of the Dead", and featured two white blokes, a white woman who was up the duff and a big black guy, as well as panic in a TV studio, them all stealing the chopper from the TV studio, blocking the mall doors with trucks, playing tennis on the roof, coming into contact with a biker gang led by Tom Savini, whilst dropping lines like "the only person who could miss with this gun, is the sucker with the bread to buy it" ... then yes, that would be copyright infringement ... but it doesn't, so it isn't.

Christ, you might as well say Dead Rising is an illegal rip-off of Dawn of the Dead because they both feature cameras. :rolleyes::lol::sneaky::D

[mista_mo]

Minion hit it on the head with the solid gold hammer of the moderatus. He nailed the **** out of the case against it, and caused it to come back for more.

That dirty slut.

But yea, the lawsuit is ridiculous and any case against this would be dropped (by a sane person anyway), mainly because the setting is so open to ideas.

But hey, every zombie media that takes place in a mall copies off of dawn and is copy right infringement. Just like Every mother f*cking science fiction universe that features heavy use of "powered armour" is ripping off of Starship troopers, and should be sued into the ****ter because of it.

Props to whoever enacted this suit, be it Romero, Rubenstien, or the company they are associated with, for being a class one f*cktard.

[Griff]

Yes, MZ's vast knowledge of copyright law and its inherent intracies is certainly astounding. Its no wonder he can argue with such absolute assuredness of his own arbitration. With MZ on the case, this frivolous lawsuit was over before it even started. I am truly humbled...

[mista_mo]

Yes, MZ's vast knowledge of copyright law and its inherent intracies is certainly astounding. Its no wonder he can argue with such absolute assuredness of his own arbitration. With MZ on the case, this frivolous lawsuit was over before it even started. I am truly humbled...


I'll humor you here, beyond "DEYZ GOT XOMBIEZ IN A MAL!!1 IT R STOLD FROM ROMERO!1!?"

Is there any substance at all too this? Because I sure as hell can tell the similarities pretty much end after zombie+mall.

[MinionZombie]

Yes, MZ's vast knowledge of copyright law and its inherent intracies is certainly astounding. Its no wonder he can argue with such absolute assuredness of his own arbitration. With MZ on the case, this frivolous lawsuit was over before it even started. I am truly humbled...
Yeah I know, I rock. :p:D

Mista - lulz were had indeed, bravo sir. :)

I don't know a lot about copyright law mind, just the simple aspects ... I mainly go by common sense - or as one might rightly point out, my assertion of common sense at the very least, if that point was ever to be argued - anyway ... just looking at it more closely, then it becomes a pointless and unwinnable lawsuit essentially ... unless the Wookie defense gets brought out, then everybody is boned. :p

L'il South Park reference there for youze lot. :)

We have a lot of debates at home, so I've kinda grown up under an environment where things get examined from multiple angles, like "what do they mean by this sentence really..." and so on, so I kinda argue something back and forth within my head ... it's kinda annoying now and then mind ... hmmm ... gotten off on a tangent here, err ... aye, pointless lawsuit it is, if it's even continuing.

Smells more to do with money than anything else, if it's still on - or even was on in the first place - because once you look beyond the simple "mall + zombies = Dawn" theory, which doesn't hold water as I've previously argued, it's all pointless.

Right, I'm off to go and see if I can become a part-time, highly paid lawyer without having to do any studying...:p

...additional...

Also, here's another way of thinking of it.

Think of all the slasher movies in the 1980s. After the first 'teenagers in the woods getting hacked up by a nutter' movie, all others after it with the same plot would then be copyright infringing.

But they're not...different characters, locations, names, style etc.

You can't copyright a location, and you can't copyright a fictional monster as 'generic' (if you will) as a zombie.

Plus ... it would be a bit rich, cos Romero freely admits to being more than a little bit inspired by I Am Legend, when writing Night of the Living Dead.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

[Griff]

The funny thing is that apparently the MKR Group had been threatening Capcom with a lawsuit ever since before the game even came out. Finally, after refusing to yield or work out some kinda deal, Capcom tried to have any legal action against them blocked which, I guess, provoked MKR to go ahead with their claims.

Personal opinion is rarely relevant in such convoluted legal matters. MKR believe there's a case and are evidently willing to bet their money on it.

I think there's no doubt that Dead Rising sought to capitalize on DAWN OF THE DEAD's concept and popularity. Whether its a concept that protectable by law, is another matter.

I know that I'm not alone in that I bought Dead Rising because it struck me as the closest thing to a DAWN OF THE DEAD game ever likely to come along. If perhaps MKR can convince the court that Capcom deliberately sought to capture the public's mindshare of MKR's property, then Capcom might have to pony up some dough.

We all want an official DAWN OF THE DEAD game but now that we've had Dead Rising come along, it would be somewhat redundant. It would simply be too similar to Dead Rising to make it a worthwhile, financially-motivated pursuit.

[bassman]

I don't think they would ever win the case, anyway.

Now maybe someone can make a game based on the movie with all the actors reprising the roles. That would be awesome....

[MinionZombie]

I think there's no doubt that Dead Rising sought to capitalize on DAWN OF THE DEAD's concept and popularity. Whether its a concept that protectable by law, is another matter.

That may be, and indeed I do partially think of Dead Rising as the closest thing to a Dawn of the Dead game that I'll get - that said, it's not that close at all for all the reasons I suggested before, which all come along after you get beyond that old "mall + zombies = Dawn" chestnut.

Look at Zombi 2 - nout to do with Romero's flick, but because Romero's was called Zombi in Italy, Fulci & Co come along with their zombie flick which has cack-all to do with GAR's, call it Zombi 2 to drag in the punters who saw Dawn (Zombi), and that was fine.

But surely people viewing Dead Rising in light of Dawn is purely reliant on the person having seen Dawn of the Dead. If they haven't, they don't have that point of reference and it's just what it is - which is also a fact that ties in with my list of points as to how and why DR isn't at all like Dawn.

I'll be quiet now. :)

[capncnut]

I think there's no doubt that Dead Rising sought to capitalize on DAWN OF THE DEAD's concept and popularity.
Just like 99% of the missions in GTA 1-4 are exactly like Scarface, Goodfellas, The Godfather, etc. All set on the US streets with nigh-on identical plots. No one else is moaning about that are they?


We all want an official DAWN OF THE DEAD game but now that we've had Dead Rising come along, it would be somewhat redundant.
Well GAR had his chance with City Of The Dead and that fell flat on it's arse, didn't it?

[Danny]

Just like 99% of the missions in GTA 1-4 are exactly like Scarface, Goodfellas, The Godfather, etc. All set on the US streets with nigh-on identical plots. No one else is moaning about that are they?


Well GAR had his chance with City Of The Dead and that fell flat on it's arse, didn't it?

oh god yeah "its gonna be like a if burnout was a first person shooter with zombies" :rolleyes:

[acealive1]

maybe romero should partner with rockstar games. oh wait,it wont happen cuz it'd actually make sense

[SymphonicX]

Isn't this more Rubinstein's bag than Romero's? Doesn't RR own the rights to Dawn and Latent Image stuff?

Anyway the disclaimer on the front is a fallacy - "this game is in no way assosciated with Dawn of the Dead" - it's a blatant attempt at creating an assosciation with the ****ing movie!!! I might not have looked twice at the game if it wasn't for that disclaimer....

Also in terms of similarities - no one seems to have noticed that the helicopter at the beginning is all ripped off from Dawn of the Dead - same colours, same shots from below...similar music on that scene too.....anyone who doesn't see this game as at least a homage is blind.

As for them sueing, I think that's just petty but I blame Rubinstein more than Romero - we all know Romero has lacked control of his "dead" films for quite some time so it wouldn't be outlandish to believe that Dawn of the Dead is one of them.

[DubiousComforts]

Gosh, another retarded thread that requires debunking. Who'd thought it possible?

Important Fact #1 - George A. Romero has no claim to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead, so he cannot file a lawsuit regarding the property.

Important Fact #2 -The MKR Group, Inc. owns all rights to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. According to the trademark record: "the name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies a particular living individual, whose consent(s) to register is submitted."

Important Fact #3 - There is a difference between trademark and copyright.

MKR Group, Inc. specifically owns a registered trademark to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead for (this is important, get ready, here it comes): "CD-ROMs featuring entertainment related to films; computer game software; computer game software and manuals sold as a unit; computer video game software; computer video game software and manuals sold as a unit; interactive video games; interactive computer games, downloadable computer game software; downloadable interactive entertainment software for playing computer games, downloadable interactive computer game software for playing video games; mouse pads; photographic slide transparencies; magnetically encoded telephone calling cards and transportation fare cards."

All of this information is readily available online through the US Trademark and Patent office. Capcom wasn't born yesterday; they have attorneys that are aware of these trademark records and how to read them. Anyone ignorant of the difference between trademark and copyright who still thinks it's OK to mouth off about the "frivolous" nature of the lawsuit is a blatant idiot. :p

Be more SMARTER! :D

[SymphonicX]

hehe nicely slayed DC

[Yojimbo]

Not that I think this case has any real value or is legally viable, but it occured to me last night that perhaps there would be a case for GAR to argue that the concept of the dead coming back to life as ghouls and zombies in order to eat the living was invented by him, and as such any other films which utilize the same concept - that is: every dead body that is not destroyed gets up and kills and partially devours their victims, and the people that get killed get up and kill and partially devour their victims - perhaps are in fact in violation.

Surely, there were zombie stories and zombie movies before NOLD, however, if I am not mistaken, the concepts of them eating their victims and killing them only by destroying the brain is completely Romero's invention. Not that GAR is interested in filing a claim, mind you, but it seems that he would have a decent argument there.

For example, if I were to go out and make a movie in which I have a character that was burned horribly and wears a glove with blades on it's fingers and inhabits your nightmares making it possible to be murdered in your sleep, I would be infringing on someone's copyright (I would assume).

Again, not in favor of this case (and again it sounds like another Rubenstein affair, not GAR's idea) but just curious what you all think.

Addendum: Since I am not familiar with copyright law, I am probably using the terms "copyright" and "trademark" interchangably, albeit incorrectly so. Please excuse my ignorance on this terminology.

[Danny]

yeah, but the origional flick isnt copyrighted, its public domain, so im pretty sure hes not the first one who copyrighted that idea, but one of the imitators that followed.

now ghouls in the night of anubis however;)

[Yojimbo]

yeah, but the origional flick isnt copyrighted, its public domain, so im pretty sure hes not the first one who copyrighted that idea, but one of the imitators that followed.

now ghouls in the night of anubis however;)

Excellent point, hells.

I have always wondered about that public domain issue, though, whether that is actually public domain because they omitted the copyright notice, or if it is just "common sense nonsense"

[Danny]

i wrote a report on it for uni, it is, and when you compare merchandising for night adn dawn its pretty obvious, night has like 7 times every media format ,comics, dvd's, laserdiscs, vhs, ect. than dawn and hardly any two things are made by the same person.

[DubiousComforts]

For example, if I were to go out and make a movie in which I have a character that was burned horribly and wears a glove with blades on it's fingers and inhabits your nightmares making it possible to be murdered in your sleep, I would be infringing on someone's copyright (I would assume).
No, you wouldn't unless you also call your character "Freddy Krueger," title your movie A Nightmare on Maple Street and had nearly the same characters and story as any of the original films, etc., etc. Even though your film might not be very original, the bottom line is that you can't copyright an idea (i.e. the dead returning to life and eating the living). However, if your movie begins to have too many similarities to another copyrighted work and/or trademarked character, image or name, that's where you get into trouble.

Trust me, Rubinstein has a very good case because of the way that trademark protects goods and services, and it doesn't matter one bit if we believe that he hasn't done a very good job in licensing the property. The only thing worse than not effectively marketing your trademark is not enforcing your rights to the registration.

The problems with Night of the Living Dead stem from the filmmakers not having the legal clout to enforce their copyright. It's a similar situation to the way that Charlie's Angels ripped off Ted Mikel's The Doll Squad. It's an academic point 40 years later, but I don't believe for one second that Night of the Living Dead actually fell into public domain.