Borat... omg what? - TTLG Forums

Stitch on 10/11/2006 at 17:54

Assuming the claims are accurate, they liquored up these kids, lied to them about the nature and scope of the documentary, and then broadcast the results worldwide, protected only by a release form signed under false pretenses.

Were I one of those kids, that wouldn't seem all that frivolous to me.

Para?noid on 10/11/2006 at 18:01

They haven't got a fucking leg to stand on - they gave permission to be used in the film and they probably signed a contract, too. Seriously. Even doing a student documentary I have to ask permission to film in Bristol. Shit, if I film anyone where you can identify their face, I have to ask their permission and if, oh god IF I were to give an interview and have someone's voice I would have to ask them to sign a contract saying that the intellectual property and mechanical recording rights which would in all other cases belong to the individual is now mine so I can use it in the fucking film

They haven't got

a

fucking

leg

to

stand

on

pavlovscat on 10/11/2006 at 18:08

Perhaps, if I were one of them, I might agree. But, if they were all that drunk, how can they accurately remember what was allegedly done to mislead them? Any drunken revels I had, with or without someone else cheering me on, were never remembered very clearly. I just think it's a bit like the people who get burned by spilling coffee in thier laps & go back to sue the place that sold them the HOT coffee.

Turtle on 10/11/2006 at 18:20

Saying bigoted shit that you don't think your friends and family will see doesn't mean it's okay to say bigoted shit.

Gingerbread Man on 10/11/2006 at 18:30

"Someone should ask those South Carolina fratboys if they have any Girls Gone Wild videos"

- Starrfall

Stitch on 10/11/2006 at 19:12

Quote Posted by Turtle

Saying bigoted shit that you don't think your friends and family will see doesn't mean it's okay to say bigoted shit.

Agreed, but that's not really the issue here. I have no sympathy for the fratboys as human beings, but I do have some sympathy for their case.

As to whether or not they have a leg to stand on, that depends on how valid a release form is if presented under false pretenses. Assuming their claims are even true, of course.

I'm not a lawyer, I really have no idea how strong their case is.

Rug Burn Junky on 10/11/2006 at 19:18

Quote Posted by Para?noid

Shit, if I film anyone where you can identify their face, I have to ask their permission and if, oh god IF I were to give an interview and have someone's voice I would have to ask them to sign a contract saying that the intellectual property and mechanical recording rights which would in all other cases belong to the individual is now mine so I can use it in the fucking film

Thing is, that presupposes that you're being fundamentally honest with them.

If the producers were really lying about the facts related to the movie itself, they could argue that they were fraudulently induced into signing the release.

Plus, if their judgment were significantly impaired - especially at the prompting of the producers - then the act of consent may be invalid.

I'm not saying I'm sympathetic to them, but there is at least a basis for them to complain.

Quote Posted by pavlovscat

I just think it's a bit like the people who get burned by spilling coffee in thier laps & go back to sue the place that sold them the HOT coffee.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised seeing ignorant shit pop out of your posts, but let's just say you probably don't know what you're talking about with respect to this one:[INDENT]

Quote Posted by Me in 2002

The fact is, if you spill coffee on yourself, you expect to get burnt. You do NOT expect to need skin grafts from the excessive burns. McDonald's did act irresponsibly for serving their coffee this hot. Evidence at trial established that other restaurants generally served coffee at about 135 - 140 degrees and that this is also the temperature that most home coffeemakers brew at. [...] McDonald's routinely brewed their coffee at higher temps, with reckless disregard for the results (as can be established by the HUNDREDS of previous burn claims regarding their coffee).

She put forth a settlement offer before trial of only $20k, presumably to cover medical expenses, and they only went to trial because McD's <i>turned down</i> this reasonable settlement offer. While the jury award may have been a bit excessive (and thus, subsequently reduced on appeal) I find it hard to believe that any right thinking person has sympathy for McDonald's on this issue.

[/INDENT]

Printer's Devil on 10/11/2006 at 19:52

IIRC, Cohen's production company crafted unusually dense release forms that were supposed to cover the 'false pretense' angle of litigation. I imagine that there was reference to the fictional nature of Borat and the fact that it was not a documentary. Whether it will survive scrutiny is anyone's guess.

TheGreatGodPan on 10/11/2006 at 20:47

Quote Posted by Stitch

Even if everything they claim is correct, I'm still calling it frivolous. Yeah, there's a strict legal definition of the word "frivolous" or whatever, but that's what I consider it.

pavlovscat on 10/11/2006 at 20:53

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised seeing ignorant shit pop out of your posts, but let's just say you probably don't know what you're talking about with respect to this one

Ah, hugs & kisses to you too. Fair enough assumption, though this time, I was well aware of the facts in this incident. I do not sympathize with McDonald's since they'd had hundreds of previous complaints about this problem which they chose not to address. They are largely at fault here. But, even the jury in that case found that a portion of the injury was indeed the customer's fault and lowered the damages awarded by 20%. (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm) Here is just one article remarking on the reduction of the settlement. So, in this case, I am not wrong. I just did not elaborate why I chose that example for comparison, so you may have mistaken my intention as putting all the blame for the incident on that lady which was not my intent. I'm not saying what happened was right, or that McDonalds shouldn't have paid her something for her pain, just that people rely too much on lawsuits to protect them without taking any preventative measures for themselves.