What Law/theories apply to movies?
610376
There's this creative writing theory about "suspension of disbelief" that says that readers/moviegoers will maintain their attention as long as the ideas presented are not too far off from reality.  So you would have trouble with a movie about a completely alternate existence where nothing approximates human life and completely different laws of nature and physics and reality apply.\n\nAlternatively, it could be something as simple as someone that - for no reason whatsoever - likes someone that hits them in the head or cuts them... Might be good for satire or comedy, but makes no sense in drama unless we're talking Wuthering Heights.
749184
The power to act with a specif law
1160698
There are open source and copyleft movies to be found at Archive.org.\n\nCheers,\n\nArne S.
198889
No, the movies are related because that's what the people want to see. Eventually people will want something else so that's where they'll go. All in good time.
1042891
They don't call it a Law for nothing you know.\nWherever you look, you will always see an action-reaction paired up.  Newton's 3rd Law fits nicely in with another law which we know holds true in all cases...the Law of conservation of momentum.
734755
huh????\nwhat does this have to do with movies???
1141220
You really answered your own question -- "Movie Science".\n\nMovie makers rarely consult with real scientists when making your average movie, because incorporating reality would ruin their concept of how things should go.
159157
law,history,sci and philosophy
317009
Clean Flicks purchases movies on tape, and then edits out all the sex, violence, and "bad" language before renting them out to customers. The rental chain is seeking a court declaration that its practices are perfectly legal - and not a violation of federal copyright law, as the directors reportedly believe.\n\nThe chain has emphasized its First Amendment rights. But the government is not a party to the case, as is generally required under the First Amendment; it is the directors, not the state, who the chain anticipates will try to stop its editing practices. Accordingly, the chain's best defense probably does not come directly from the First Amendment. Rather, it derives from the First-Amendment-inspired "fair use" exception to the copyright law, and similar exceptions to related laws under which the directors can sue.\n\nUnsurprisingly, The Directors' Guild of America believes that what Clean Flicks is doing is far from "fair use." Indeed, it has decried the suit as an effort "to legitimize the unauthorized editing and alteration of movies."\n\nWhich side is correct? Does Clean Flicks have the right to edit properly purchased movies as it sees fit, before renting them out? Or does a director have the right to ensure that a movie remains edited in the ways he or she has approved?\n\nPut another way, what Clean Flicks is doing may be anathema from an artistic point of view (I certainly believe that to be the case), but is it also illegal? I will argue that the legal question is much more difficult than it may seem at first, because Clean Flicks's practices resemble many long-accepted examples of "fair use" in important ways.\n\nThe Directors, Studios, and Actors Have Strong Legal Claims\n\nSince the DGA has not yet filed a countersuit, it is not clear exactly which claims it will bring against Clean Flicks. But it has already raised a number of possible bases for a suit, several of which appear to be strong.\n\nFirst, the DGA can argue that Clean Flicks' business amounts to an ongoing violation of copyright laws. By editing out content from certain movies before renting them out, Clean Flicks arguably exceeds its license to use the copyrighted movies it had purchased.\n\nSecond, the DGA can argue that Clean Flicks, in marketing its edited films, violates trademarks. Phrases such as the studio's name, or a certain tag line used to promote the movie on the video box, are trademarked, and Clean Flicks is arguably using them deceptively if it connects them with a movie edited to be substantially different from the one the studio made.
513181
First off, there is no such thing as a "natural law."  There are only natural events that always seem to happen when certain conditions are present.  The word "law" implies that the event must occur.  It would be better to ask: what is a mathematical expression of a "natural phenomenon?"  \n\nA list of many such expressions can be found at the link below.  Take your pick.
941583
What exactly do you mean?\n\nThe "overall influence" IN Hollywood...(i.e, their "motivation")...?\n\nOr...do you mean...\n\nThe "overall influence" OF Hollywood...(i.e., influence on the world)...?\n\nEDIT:  Thank you - I think I fixed the problem - I was linked to a very old e-mail address that no longer exists.\n\nI'm sure there is some effect worldwide....I wish this was not true.  It would be like me drawing conclusions about India from "Bollywood" musicals.\n\nIt is unfortunate that movies have this kind of power....but - it's there.
1090043
A theory is used to DESCRIBE natural phenomenon. No matter how many times a theory corroborates a natural phenomenon it can not be come a law on its own.\n\nA law is used to PREDICT natural phenomenon. A law is developed from quantitaively measuring the phenomenon.\n\nThat is why there is both a theory and a law of gravity. The theory tries to explain why matter attracts other matter, the law describes the observable affects of gravity.
25544
If you mean to imply that certain events which occur in the film are justified on a subtectual level of causality, much in the same way that, for instance, naughty girls in slasher horror films get killed because of the very fact that they are naughty, and not strictly because of the situation in which they find themselves in, then you might be correct.  Are you afraid this kind of subliminal discourse will have a negative impact on someone's view of inter-racial relationships?  I think whatever the spectator walks away with will simply reinforce whatever they already believe.  I personally think sentiment in favor of inter-racial relationships is obvious in Peter Jackson's KING KONG.
41518
Yes. All theories exist. When a theory is proven, it becomes a law or a fact.
20139
Note:  This answer treats the question as a hypothetical.  No one can give you legal advice unless s/he is a lawyer licensed to practice in the jurisdiction applicable to your question.\n\nSomeone cannot retain a copyright or patent in an idea.  An idea (such as "make a movie out of this book") is not intellectual property that can be protected.  So even if someone retained a lawyer, that person could not form any basis on which to be compensated --the person could get a lawyer and try to get a company to sign that they will not follow up on the idea without paying the person -- but they would not be obligated to pay the person anything if they did choose to pursue the movie.\n\nEnding Note:  Giving legal advice is severly restricted by law.  Practicing law without a license is illegal. This is not meant to be legal advice.  I am assuming you are talking hypothetically.  If you did have a real question and this wasn't hypothetical, you need to talk to an attorney about your legal options.  If you actually have an idea for a movie, ignore my advice as well as anyone else who answered this question, and consult an attorney.
985996
Has to have a good plot...if there's nothing to follow, then I am not going to want to watch it. It also helps to have some twists and turns to keep me interested...and some comic relief, if possible. The movies that really get me thinking make some of my favorites: Seven is a good example.
832437
Watch that black & white movie about how a Bill becomes a law.