Last night, my girlfriend (and TheRalphRetort.com contributor) Kat started telling me a story about Cabin in the Woods. She knew I was writing about Whedon, but I didn’t include it in the article because I was already done. We’d both went to see the movie together, since she’s a big fan of his. But as it turns out, it looks like he stole the entire thing from some struggling writer there in California. What goes around comes around, Joss.

I was actually writing this story yesterday, but something came up and I only got the other two pieces out. But this shit was just too good to let go by the wayside. Here’s The Wrap with more details:

“Comparing the Book to the Film, the plots, stories, characters, sequence of events, themes, dialogue, and incidents portrayed in the two works are fictional and, in many respects, the elements in the two works are virtually identical,” the complaint claims.
 
Among the alleged similarities that the suit claims: “Like the book, ‘Cabin in the Woods’ tells the story of five friends (three guys and two girls) between the ages of 17 and 22 who take a trip to a remote cabin in the woods. The cabin’s previous inhabitants were murdered by the father of the family, who returns to terrorize the group of friends.
In the end, it is revealed that the friends are being filmed and manipulated by persons behind the scenes, thus becoming inadvertent characters in a real-life horror show for the enjoyment of others.”
Gallagher even says that the two main female characters in his book are named Julie and Dura, whereas in the film they’re named Jules and Dana.
Well, it sounds like you have a problem on your hands, Joss. I imagine you or the studio will shell out a couple million to settle this, but it’s still not a good look to be stealing someone else’s work wholesale, with no credit whatsoever. I guess when you’re an SJW the rules the rest of us play by don’t exist.
26 comments
  1. This is going to be a tough case.

    Asshole he may be, but Whedon is very big in Hollywood and could have a lot of legal options.

    If this situation turns out to be completely true, Whedon’s cred it going to take a massive hit.

    But be wary. Right now, we readers have nothing more than the other person’s word that their work was stolen.

    1. Well and if the book was published or demonstrated to have been written well before the movie was made.

      At the same time, cabin in the woods horror stories are hardly original. The similar names is a bit suspect though.

      1. If the ‘swerve’ from the film is set up the same way as in the book, though, things might get a trifle uncomfortable in Casa Whedon.

  2. ” I guess when you’re an SJW the rules the rest of us play by don’t exist.”

    That’s it right there.

  3. I totally posted a link to an article about it in the Joss whedon post… You must have missed it.

    Also, Anita’s apparently a time influential person

  4. Despite my love for the Avengers, Firefly and Serenity, I’ve really gotten fed up with Joss’s ignorance towards anything that’s not pro SJW. Maybe this little debacle might straighten him out a bit.

    1. No, he’s an ugly, fat, nerdling who thinks the only way to be popular is to have a lot of girlfriends by putting them on a pedestal. It’s the tactic employed by a lot of people who fail to attain the “toxic view of masculinity.” Their theory is that once they abolish the idea of real men, all the sweet sweet ladies will swoon at their pokemon collections.

    2. Fuck Firefly and Serenity. You want to talk about ripping things off? Yeah, there was a “space western” about a gang of misfits who went around having adventures, hopping planets…it was called Outlaw Star.

      I’m no weeaboo, I just know enough about Firefly to know it isn’t original.

      And Serenity was a fucking bore.

      1. Many things wind up getting recycled. Sometimes it works quite well — Magnificent Seven, for example, was a Western remake of the Seven Samurai. And Star Wars (A New Hope) was a restyling of the Kurosawa classic ‘The Hidden Fortress’. That’s art for you.

  5. I think this is more someone jumping on his upcoming movie to try and get an out of court settlement for bad publicity.

    1. Not impossible. I remember when Harry Potter really hit it big, and some lowlife troll came out of the woodwork insisting Rowling had ripped her off. I don’t recall how that ended but I believe Rowling took ’em to the cleaners.

  6. this just confirms my theory, all SJW’s has some skeletons in their closet they don’t want to get out, they say they are against GamerGate because they believe it’s a hate group, they know damn well what we are, this is exactly the reason why they are against it and try to fight it, they’ve seen the digging power of our collective call for better ethical standards, and as our movement grows so does our strength in finding nasty business decisions.

    1. Well, to give them credit, it does sound better to be against misogyny then to be against a push for ethics. Though, if you’ve done unethical things you wish to hide, you could admit to them and reform your actions, or double down and be unethical again, this time slandering thousands online and blatantly ignoring facts in favor of feels.

      1. I thought about the kind of sjw’s there are, I had three, can remember two.

        1. ones trying to cash in on social justice
        2. people with mental problems

          1. I remember it now, but it’s different though than the one you posted with an extra one 🙂

            1: The Scammers: people scamming the ideologues
            2: The Ignorant: people who has not invested enough time but just believes what the media tells them without thinking more about it, a lot of normies are ignorant, same with people who have some kind of authority complex (feels beneath people in power/success, the media holds this power and thus can not be questioned)
            3: the corrupt: people who wants to hide something unethical
            4: The crazies: they have a mental problem and need to get some help.

  7. There are some similarities, but seeing as it is not the exact same plot, as well as Whendon being a rich fucker with a more successful career… Well, I don’t want him to win, but I can’t in good faith say that he will fail in court.

  8. “Hey, I read this book last night that has this great premise, but I didn’t think it was well presented. Let’s make a movie like that, but way better!”

    Movie is made but sits on shelf for two years.

    Three years pass and author finally sues movie makers.

        1. my post was sarcastic, also do you know when the author discovered the copyright infringement?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.