The Hangover Part II is beginning to seem like a litigation magnet. The latest lawsuit was filed last week in federal court in Los Angeles according to Entertainment Weekly. It alleges that filmmakers mimicked a script that aspiring scribe Michael Alan Rubin based on his own marital misadventures in Asia. Plaintiff Rubin claims The Hangover II “is copied from the treatment … and also from the real life incident of the Plaintiff, because the protagonist … travels from the United States to an Asian country to marry his Asian girlfriend.” How did they get his script, you might wonder? Rubin claims his ex-wife gave the filmmakers his story, and furthermore accuses them of defaming him with descriptions of Ed Helms’ character’s drug-fueled antics including sex with a transsexual prostitute. Rubin is representing himself. Back when The Hangover became a hit in summer 2009, you may recall, Deadline revealed that the original movie was loosely based on the Las Vegas escapades of producer Tripp Vinson. Meanwhile, a previous lawsuit filed by the tattoo artist who designed the ink adorning Mike Tyson was settled, and another filed by a stunt man injured during the making of the film is pending.


Is filling frivolous lawsuits over movies becoming the modern equivalent of throwing oneself in front of a moving car in order to sue the driver? I say yes.
It’s amazing how many folks here are ready to rush to judgement and call the suit frivolous. What ever happened to due process?
While I’m sure the vast majority of suits like this turn out to be crap, every once in a while there is a legit case. I’ll bet lots of people thought Art Buchwald’s Coming To America suit was frivolous at first. Until a judge said it wasn’t.
It’s amazing how many folks here are ready to rush to judgement and call the suit frivolous. What ever happened to due process?
That’s because PT Ryan works for Hangover. Studios, film companies, etc. do their own PR stunts to baffle the story from the truth.
No one stole “Coming to America” from Art Buchwald. He just happened to win his case, based on substantial similarity. Most of these cases are simply: 2 writers coming up with similar stories at the same time. Just look at the Mall Cop case; you will be blown away by the APPEARANCE of intellectual property theft, but it was just coincidence. No experienced producer is dumb enough to steal an idea outright.
I think some experienced producers are dumb enough, or arrogant enough, to do a lot of things they shouldn’t be doing.
Seriously, experienced producers steal ideas, steal projects, steal green-lighted movies, all the time.. period. If you haven’t been the subject of someone’s leverage in this town, you likely don’t work in here. Hollywood, largely, works off the basis of leverage. Not what’s right, what’s fair or what’s moral, but what one can get away with.
That said, the idiot whom is representing himself has a tough road ahead of him. And that’s likely why no lawyer would take his case.
Everyone here needs to remember that no one can steal a simple idea. It’s the execution of that idea that determines protection from theft, etc.
So, can you give an example?
That’s funny…I heard the original Hangover was suing The Hangover II for stealing its story.
Exactly.
I was just about to say that.
Haha! I was about to post, “how is it that Hangover 2 was a ripoff but the first one wasn’t, considering they were the same f’n movie?”
I hope this guy’s case goes beyond just marrying his gf in Asia. How much of it would have to be true though to be stealing it from his life? 25%? Half? Cause I don’t really know that someone would actually survive more than 10% of the crap that happened to them in the movie.
Oh, oh…what if he had the experience after the first HO movie, so they could counter sue him for stealing ideas for his life from their film?
Oh this one time, I came up with this story, about these guys who go to vegas and all this crazy stuff happens, I wrote the treatment in 2002. I guess I better lawyer up to get some of that HANGOVER 1 money.
Does this lawsuit explain why the movie is so terrible? How can the first one be so funny and then the second one is the same fricking story and it’s so, so bad. Somebody should sue them for that.
Really? It’s April 1st already? Damn i missed Christmas!
I call dibs on THE HANGOVER PART III stealing events from my life that haven’t happened yet.
The Hangover I & II have made 1.1 billion dollars worldwide, not including DVD’s! It makes sense that some opportunist tattoo artist or this moron try and sue. This is America, it’s what we do.
For all you aspiring screenwriters out there, take note: This is why no one will read your scripts in Hollywood. Fear of some frivolous lawsuit down the road. Blame this guy and others like him.
To be fair. The film did use the tattoo artists original and very well know n piece of work. He had a righteous claim for some kind of compensation for a film company making millions from something he designed. They made it a major part of the promotion of the film also.
True. The tattoo artist’s lawsuit was far from frivolous.
First rule of litigation: don’t look for blame, look for a balance sheet.
If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick.
A person who represents himself in court has an idiot for a lawyer.
He should have posted his movie idea on reddit. He’d be rolling in the dough right now!
I bet he actually did have sex with a tranny and is suing as an overblown masculinity defense mechanism. Be cool dude, we’ve all done it.
Was the drug-fueled tranny sex scenario in Rubin’s treatment? If it was, how would that be defaming him when he already put it in his own script and tried to make a movie about it? If it was not in Rubin’s treatment, his case is even more weak than I thought because that was a big part of the plot. Either way Michael Alan Rubin is the loser in this story. I have a feeling he will come out of this lawsuit with zero settlement $ and a brand new reputation as a ladyboy f*cker.
It’s amazing, that in the entire history of Hollywood…screenplays; pitches, etc., have never once been stolen. Yeah, too bad Art Buchwald lied his ass off and got busted for it. Too bad there just aren’t any thieves in hollywood at any level at all. Guess the safest way is just quit writing original specs; don’t do pitch meetings, and write your scripts as novels and / or graphic novels. Adaptations of your own original work. Now there’s an idea.
Your hilarious sarcasm is choking the meaning out of your point Mark. What are you trying to express?
Does this lawsuit explain why the movie is so terrible? How can the first one be so funny and then the second one is the same fricking story and it’s so, so bad. Somebody should sue them for that.
Comment by Ben — Monday October 17, 2011 @ 6:40pm PDT REPLY TO THIS POST
<<
Confused… According to you the First Hangover is "so funny", but the second one has "the same fricking story and it's so, so bad." Are you a moron or just having problems with understanding the English language? If the second one had the same story, and you consider it so bad, then wouldn't deductive reasoning dictate the first one is bad as well? Reading comprehension… look into it.
Oh, Dan. You’re getting way too worked up about this but I’ll explain — I was wondering WHY they share the same narrative and yet one is funny and one isn’t. If you notice, I start the sentence with the word “how”. You are correct I didn’t punctuate it properly — that sentence should’ve ended with a question mark. Sorry, bro. Still doesn’t explain why you’re so testy about it. Just take it down a notch — it’s not like I’m a bank president or a child molester. But yes, same story in both. One funny. One not. I am wondering why that is…I can’t explain it….
Ironically, not unlike the movie the guy’s wedding was extremely well attended but no one claimed to have enjoyed it afterward.
The point I was subtlety making was that neither of them were funny. Lowest common denominator humor in both. And I wasn’t testy. Just weary of the masses flocking to low brow humor. And logic is logic, if you say one is funny and the other is the same, but NOT FUNNY, then there appears to be a violation of the communicative law of mathematics.
Dan, you can’t lay down a phrase like “violation of the communicative law of mathematics” and expect to drop the mic and walk off the stage. I was a cum laude English major and never heard of that shit. Ben’s point was that the story in part one worked on a comedic level (sure, debatable) and that the second one has a similar story yet did not work comedically. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp: ‘Psycho’ with Perkins – scary. ‘Psycho’ with Vaughn – not scary. ‘Caddy Shack’ with Murray and Knight – genius. ‘Caddy Shack 2′ with Aykroid and Mason – not genius. And this happens all the time. So you’re inability to grasp this leads me believe that A. you just like stirring up trouble or B. you’re an imbecile. Whichever one it is, stay off this site so we can keep the bar up. Thanks a mill.
‘Caddy Shack with Murray and Knight’ – genius. Are you kidding me? Do you recall another member of the cast? Rodney something-or-other? Ring any bells?
Success has many fathers. Especially, pretender, litigious 1′s.
Failure is an unencumbered orphan.
What’s with all the High Brow/poetry sprouting jerks on here today?
‘Failure is an unencumbered orphan?’
Judging those of us who enjoyed the Hangover as the lowest denominator?
Sorry to drag you here with us, the huddled masses, away from your novels, pipes and elbow patches. Oh, wait: We never asked you to be here.
As for this whole story, the one way to judge this would be to make Rubin’s script available online. Considering he’s never written a thing that’s been made, and has starred in several Bollywood films after meeting a producer, I’m sure it’s a real peach of a screenplay.
And PS: Hollywood has been stealing ideas for a LONG time, this year more than others:
They’re called remakes.
LOL, wow. This is the blowhard-iest post in a thread of blowhards.
LOL!
I was praising the Hangover producers w/ a well know adage for having so many wannabees attempting to get their undeserved piece of pie.
Stop dragging your defensive, ignorant knuckles, Robert.
You’re making a mess.
I am rather perplexed that majority of these screenwriters sues movies and yet they never copyrighted theirs with the writer’s guild of america. I mean they might have a case then.
Just a point of information. There is no such thing as copyrighting something with the WGA. You copyright something with the U.S. Copyright office (copyright.gov) and can register something with the WGA. The WGA can do what they can do to defend a claim made on something registered through them (threaten a signatory’s status), but a copyright attorney will tell you that if you actually want to take something into court, you have to have it copyrighted.
Excellent advice. For a high concept story, it’s best to BOTH register and copyright a script. But if you’re going to do only one (the cost is about equal), then go with federal copyright. It has real legal teeth, whereas WGA registration doesn’t. And, it’s annoying the way WGA registrations expire.
Further point of information: (in the United States) by virtue of the fact that you wrote it down in a “permanent” medium (like on paper or a hard drive) a script is copyrighted. You may record your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office as notice to the world of the existence of your copyright (and as a prerequisite to suing for statutory damages and receiving attorney’s fees as part of the damages awarded in an infringement suit) or you may deposit a copy with the WGA as proof of the existence of a particular draft on a particular date.
Representing himself.
‘Nuff said.
Say for example a studio exec reads a script and hates it – poorly written, sucky story line, whatever. But there was a kernel of an idea that the writer simply didn’t nail.
Should the exec pay that writer Guild minimum for a script that only contained one sentence that rang true?
I believe that writer should be compensated. It’s a lot easier than dealing with the mess of a lawsuit five years down the line. And it would generate good will in the industry.
How about the fact the original Hangover was really stolen from a film executive’s actual bachelor party!?!?! The movie is really based on his story and someone who he told the story too basically developed it without him. No such thing as friendship in Hollywood. At least make the guy an ep.
Dan be gettin’ owned,yo.