Thanks for the great reply Andrew. I hear what you’re saying. But I don’t see how this particular film is commenting on the original. There is one line in the film where Van Der Beek’s character says something about the dangers of training children to be killers. I think that is the strongest case they would have for this particular story being a commentary on the original property. You could probably also make the case of the black guy’s “kid karate” videos being a critique on the original property. But IMHO, those seem weak. Both of those lines/scenes are kind of throw-aways. The crux of this story is about revenge, ambition, love and opportunity. Those are all great themes and this film is so well done in that regard. I just don’t see the whole as a commentary on the original PR. I don’t feel you come away from this film in deep reflection about what the original PR was about.

I think if the story focused on the “training kids” to kill aspect, there would be much stronger argument for this as satire on the original PR. For instance, what if the storyline centered around a new team of Rangers being recruited and the old team trying to stop it because of what it turned them into. Make the focus the Power Rangers existence and its affect on children. You could introduce a whole meta element where the commentary is both on kids in the universe being affected by the Rangers program, and kids in real life being affected by shows like PR. THAT to me would scream “fair use” and critical commentary.

What do you think?

“It’s funny… I’ve seen repurposed stuff on the Internet where they take a property that’s serious and make it even more so, like a Batman fan film or something like that, or a video game or whatever. I’ve actually seen stuff like where they’ve taken ridiculous stuff like Mario Brothers and then tried to make the dark and gritty version, and they obviously play it for laughs.

I think the trick that I really wanted to do with this was to make that dark and gritty version that everybody keeps talking about, but really do it. Really see if I could totally accomplish it with essentially a really incredible incredibly silly property.”

So does it not count as satire because we didn’t get it? I think a lot of times we automatically view parodies in the light of a Weird Al album…that they have to be silly. But a parody is any imitative work created to comment on an original work. Kahn seems to fall firmly into this category.

That being said I completely agree with the fact that he will profit from the publicity on this. Immensely.

I totally agree with you Bernard. 100%. Ideally, it would be great if copyright holders created publicized guidelines for fan fiction (books or films), sort of like the guidelines that agencies create for the brand clients. Then fans could make their fiction to their hearts’ content without fear of reprisals.

The issue comes down to how a copyright holder wants his/her IP represented in the public. Your Batman and Robin example is excellent. Someone could make a very high production film and powerful story about a story like that, and DC should have every right to have it removed.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

I think Saban’s main reason would be they don’t want their IP to be taken to such a different level especially since their main audience are still kids.

DC apparently gives their blessings to filmmakers to make fan films, but I’m sure if someone made a controversial short that goes viral… say Batman and Robin in an underage relationship… I’m sure DC will want that taken down too.