A few days ago, I saw the theater retweet a clarification from the director on Twitter, to the effect that "the film is inspired by the stage play "GHOST IN THE BOX!" by the theatre company PEACE, but I still think the film is my own pure original work. I hope the conflict with the troupe can be resolved perfectly."
So I checked it out, and it turned out that the director of the theatre company PEACE accused the film of being unoriginal in a magazine. After checking various reports and blogs of relevant people, organize the timeline:
In 2011, the stage play "GHOST IN THE BOX!" was staged for the first time.
In 2013, the stage play was staged for the second time. In one of them, "Don't stop the camera!" The director of the film watched the play as an audience.
In 2014, the troupe PEACE disbanded.
In 2015, "Don't stop the camera!" The director of the film and member B of the troupe, who had already known each other before, started the project of making a stage play into a film. Later, A, one of the screenwriters of the stage play, was invited to write the script for the movie version. However, the project was unfortunately aborted.
In 2016, with the blessing of the new producer, the plan was re-opened by the director alone. The director only expressed his intention to "continue to do the movie version of "GHOST" to B, who has no actual ownership relationship with the stage version. (B probably "agreed")
In 2017, the film production was completed. After the completion, the director expressed "the signature is added" to A, one of the screenwriters of the stage play. However, A stated that during the process of rewriting the script into the actual film, there was no contact at all for permission. The actual movie is released, and the positions of A and B's signatures are in the "Planning and Development Assistance" column.
In late July 2018, after watching the film, the director of the troupe contacted the film party to get a signature, and the reply was, "Although I created it together with A and B at the beginning, after the project died, the final result was complete". Another thing', so it can't be included in the "original". If the works used as reference must be signed, the works of Koki Mitani must also be included in the ranks of "original works". Later, the director had a face-to-face dialogue with the film side represented by the filmmaker. As the film announced its expansion, The film side finally proposed to use the "original" instead of the "original" signature as the first step, on the grounds that it had to decide on the issue of signature on that day, and then judged whether it was the "original" later. As a result, at the end of the expanded version, the signature of "Original Case: Theater Company PEACE "GHOST IN THE BOX!" (screenwriter: A Director: Ryoichi Wada)" was added, and the theater troupe owner was added in the special thanks column. The name of the manager and Tian Liangyi. The film party later contacted and said that the final result of the judgment could only be the "original case", and sent a "original case utilization contract", which stipulated that the director of the troupe would no longer have the right to his own creations. The original stage play has the right to be filmed, re-staged, etc. for re-production.
On August 21, 2018, the real name of the troupe director was interviewed by the weekly magazine "FLASH". The key to the problem is also clear, whether it is the choice of "original work" or "original case".
( From here to the end are all in-depth spoilers, the consequences are at your own risk )
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Although it is impossible to see the original stage play now, the general plot setting, form composition, etc. of the original stage play can be seen through the evaluation of the stage play rating website:
On the 2nd floor of an abandoned building , a young woman was suddenly killed. However, it was immediately revealed that this was actually a filming group in a certain university . At this time, I joined a biology researcher, a photographer of abandoned buildings, and a novelist. The biology researcher mentioned that this place was once used as a place for human experiments . Immediately afterwards, various strange murders occurred, many of which were murder methods that did not conform to the logic of the facts, until the culprit was finally revealed. The first half of the horror mystery drama is over.
The stage was rearranged, and the venue was changed to the 3rd floor of this abandoned building. Various characters who had just appeared and those who had not appeared came in and out. It turned out that the horror-colored reasoning drama just now was a scene in real cinematography. . In different scenarios, everything that just happened is recreated from scratch . Then it explained how the terrifying strange sound came from, what unexpected situations occurred , and the improvisations of the corresponding staff and actors , as well as the revealing of the killing methods that did not conform to the logic of facts. Comedy style in the second half , the whole play ends.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Ruins, it is rumored that human experiments have been carried out, the drama in the play, the first half of the finished product and the second half of the decryption, the first half of the horror and the second half of the comedy. According to the director of the troupe, there are still some lines, and the line "Don't stop the camera" in the title is also part of the lines of the stage play. At the very beginning, the actress shouted "Please, please, don't," and the director shouted "cut" to show that the background is the filming of the film, and it also overlaps.
If the similarity in some settings can be barely ignored, it is a pity that the similarity in structure is so high. In fact, if it is just a drama within a drama, it is also very common in film and television works, but even the presentation form and content of the drama in the drama are events that occurred during the filming of the film, and the overlap of the drama in the drama is too high.
The difference is that the reasoning drama is changed to a zombie drama, and the finished movie is changed to a live show, adding more inspirational backgrounds for family members. Changed to the form of live broadcast, it can be said that it has borrowed from Koki Mitani's "broadcast time". Of course, the broadcast is not impactful enough, so there is a live TV program.
The most interesting thing about the movie is the structure of the movie. I believe that not many people like zombies and inspirational elements the most. There are many "situations" in the film, and most of them should be original, but these original parts do not confirm the originality of the work as a whole. There is also a part to be commended that the film presents the charm of images, but it may be because it is a film rather than a stage play that it brings more heavy image charm that the stage play cannot well present.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Since the incident came to light, the director and producer issued a denial that day. From the beginning of the negotiation to the present, we can see that their propositions are nothing more than, "Just inspired, not copied" "The final movie is completely different from the original stage play" "If this is an original work, Koki Mitani's work should also be Forget it (the subtext is probably that Sangu didn't look for me, are you qualified to come to me?)" "My director, screenwriter, and editor are my pure original works." Movie fans have also accused the director of the troupe of touching porcelain, jealousy, and wanting money, and dug out his black history to whitewash the film party's suspicion of theft.
In the end, whether or not it counts as an "original work" has nothing to do with whether the film is good or not, whether it has nothing to do with whether you are the director, screenwriter, or editor, and it has nothing to do with the original intention of the rights defender and the past. It is still necessary to compare the two in various dimensions. similarity. Whether or not it counts, maybe only the director himself knows. Whether it can be counted depends on the outcome of further negotiations or even litigation. (The mainstream tendency of the media is still relatively difficult to define, and I am not optimistic about the success of rights protection)
As a viewer, I think after a preliminary comparison of the two, everyone has everyone's answer. But I have to say that the director's "pure original" rhetoric from beginning to end is obviously not tenable. The expectations for the director's next work can only be lowered by several grades through this incident.
View more about One Cut of the Dead reviews
