Californication

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 25, 2007, 5:13 pm

Aslanna wrote:I don't watch previews. I think they're evil. I already know if I'm going to watch something next week so why would I want to know some of the things that are going to happen before they happen? They're like mini-spoilers really.

Battlestar Galalctica's 5 second picture flash through the episode about to air, played right after the credits bothered me. You're about to watch the show and they fast flash every scene right beforehand. Kinda stupid considering the person is already about to watch the show...there's no need for previews at that point.

Abelard · Post by **Abelard** » October 29, 2007, 10:38 pm

I think this sums up the season finale quite well.

Fuck Bill!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » October 30, 2007, 2:32 am

[Show]: Best line of the episode: "...'cause believe me, once you see the love of your life get hit in the face with another woman's ejaculate, your perspective changes."

I'm not sure that the ending is good for next season's episodes.

Abelard · Post by **Abelard** » October 30, 2007, 8:17 am

[Show]: Maybe so, but Bill was a huge dousche. So I'm happy he got his comuppins. Word on the quote, lol.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 30, 2007, 2:52 pm

Is there even talk about a second season? It kinda fits better as a one-shot season/series really.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » October 30, 2007, 3:01 pm

Yes, Showtime ordered a second season once they saw that the show was well received.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 30, 2007, 11:27 pm

I just watched the final episode. It was amazing. I openly wept at the end. Normally an emotional moment on a show or movie mgiht cause me to tear up, but I was actually crying. This will go down as one of my favorite shows ever.

Warheart · Post by **Warheart** » November 2, 2007, 12:28 pm

It made you cry?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 2, 2007, 2:53 pm

Warheart wrote:It made you cry?

Indeed.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 12, 2007, 7:12 am

I finally watched the last episode.

Nice ending. I agree with Bahnanna in that Californication works well as a single season show.

[Show]: The entire show was based around Hank getting the woman he loves back after making some bad decisions during their relationship. Season two couldn't be nearly as good as the first. Sure, the writers could dream up funny situations but the most important focus of the show is resolved. Everything else will be minor in comparison.

This is one of my favorite shows but I think it should end on a high note and remain a classic.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 12, 2007, 2:12 pm

Winnow wrote:I finally watched the last episode.

Nice ending. I agree with Bahnanna in that Californication works well as a single season show.

[Show]
The entire show was based around Hank getting the woman he loves back after making some bad decisions during their relationship. Season two couldn't be nearly as good as the first. Sure, the writers could dream up funny situations but the most important focus of the show is resolved. Everything else will be minor in comparison.

This is one of my favorite shows but I think it should end on a high note and remain a classic.

You're probably right, but I'll be watching anyway.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » November 20, 2007, 3:07 pm

Have been waiting for this for awhile: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157471 ... pers.jhtml

Red Hot Chili Peppers Sue Showtime Over 'Californication'
Anthony Kiedis says show appropriated name from 'signature CD, video and song of the band's career.'

I totally missed that the secretary was named Dani California. Wonder what they will name the show instead?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 20, 2007, 4:07 pm

Move the show to Texas!

Texasfagulation

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » November 20, 2007, 5:50 pm

I have a hard time seeing RHCP winning this one. Californication is a term that existed before these guys were flopping around in their socks and singing "True Men Don't Kill Coyotes." They may have brought the word to prominence, but I don't think that it entitles them to claim a word that they themselves borrowed. "Dani California" is a different matter, though, and there might be some resolution to that.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » November 20, 2007, 6:03 pm

Xatrei wrote:I have a hard time seeing RHCP winning this one. Californication is a term that existed before these guys were flopping around in their socks and singing "True Men Don't Kill Coyotes." They may have brought the word to prominence, but I don't think that it entitles them to claim a word that they themselves borrowed. "Dani California" is a different matter, though, and there might be some resolution to that.

I would agree with you, except that there has been a number of similar cases where RHCP would have won. Like the case a year ago where the NFL sued a church who were hosting a "Super Bowl Party" for use of the term "Super Bowl," and similarly, why everyone without direct permission from the NFL had to refer to it as "the big game".

Anthony Kiedis and the rest of the Chili Peppers aren't in this for money. They simply do not want the show associated with their music, especially when it refers to such an important song (to the band members themselves). Over the years, even before Blood Sugar Sex Magik, they would consistently refuse for their songs to be used in movies, commercial, etc if they did not feel the song fit, or simply if any member of the band didn't like the song.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » November 20, 2007, 6:38 pm

Aardor wrote:Anthony Kiedis and the rest of the Chili Peppers aren't in this for money. They simply do not want the show associated with their music, especially when it refers to such an important song (to the band members themselves). Over the years, even before Blood Sugar Sex Magik, they would consistently refuse for their songs to be used in movies, commercial, etc if they did not feel the song fit, or simply if any member of the band didn't like the song.

I agree with this. I've been a big fan of theirs forever, and I agree that it's not a money issue for them. Even so, I'm forced to wonder how much influence Time Warner, HBO's parent and owner of RHCP's label, had in the decision to bring this suit. Either way, I don't think they'll be able to claim exclusive use to a word that they didn't invent. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 20, 2007, 7:29 pm

I like the RHCP and wish they'd compromise and make Californication the theme song for the show instead.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 20, 2007, 8:09 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if they had no desire to be associated with that show.

I think they're trying to distance themselves from their reputation as asshole sex-and-drugs party boys (John Frusciante claims to be celibate!). Californication (the show) is about an asshole who has lots of (depending on your perspective) soulless and degrading sex. It's kind of the exact opposite of the peace-love-and-meditation message the chili peppers are trying to get out there now.

Also, I think many musicians would be disappointed to see one of their preeminent creations reduced to something so trite.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 20, 2007, 8:23 pm

Sueven wrote:Also, I think many musicians would be disappointed to see one of their preeminent creations reduced to something so trite.

Californication is a portmanteau of California and fornication, written about in Time on August 21, 1972 and seen on bumper stickers in the U.S. states of Colorado, Oregon and Idaho. It refers primarily to a "haphazard, mindless development that has already gobbled up most of Southern California", which some attribute to an influx of Californians to other states in the Western U.S.

I guess they should have named their song something else then. Doesn't sound like the word 'belongs' to them.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 21, 2007, 3:33 am

Interesting concern the RCHP have considering the intro and verse of their single "Dani California" is as close to a direct lift as you can get of Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' "Mary Jane's Last Dance."

I'm a huge fan of both parties here. I think it's a stupid lawsuit. They don't own that word, therefore they have no legal rights as to it's use.

I wasn't aware that Dani's last name had ever been stated on the show, and even so I don't believe there are any legal rights to a name of a fictional character.

If these legal proceedings lead to the show being cancelled, i'll be immensely pissed, and finished with RHCP.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 21, 2007, 12:16 pm

Aardor wrote:
Xatrei wrote:I have a hard time seeing RHCP winning this one. Californication is a term that existed before these guys were flopping around in their socks and singing "True Men Don't Kill Coyotes." They may have brought the word to prominence, but I don't think that it entitles them to claim a word that they themselves borrowed. "Dani California" is a different matter, though, and there might be some resolution to that.
I would agree with you, except that there has been a number of similar cases where RHCP would have won. Like the case a year ago where the NFL sued a church who were hosting a "Super Bowl Party" for use of the term "Super Bowl," and similarly, why everyone without direct permission from the NFL had to refer to it as "the big game".

Sueven or someone with an actual legal background would have to confirm, but it seems like that's a totally different issue. The Super Bowl is a term owned by the NFL, referring to a specific event, and the parties being advertised were unquestionably for said event. Same date and time, etc. The reason the NFL gets upset about those things is that people are using their trademark in advertising for an event that they'll make money off of that the NFL doesn't see a dime of. But the important part is that the NFL created and owns the event.

As noted above, "Californication" is a term that has existed in the lexicon for 30 years. I can't imagine the RHCP should be able to win this case.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 21, 2007, 3:08 pm

I can't really confirm because I don't know anything about this area of the law.

My hunch would be that the standard is not a cut-and-dried one... so the fact that the Chili Peppers did not create and trademark the word "Californication" is probably not an absolute bar to recovery.

I would guess that there's a standard along the lines of "is there a substantial likelihood that a reasonable consumer would think that there was an association" or something like that.

The Tom Petty issue has absolutely zero to do with this. That's something to be dealt with in an entirely separate legal proceeding (if Tom Petty cares). Has no relevance here.

I think it's probably obvious that the word 'Californication' is heavily associated with the Chili Peppers, especially prior to the creation of the TV show, and hearing the word likely calls to mind the band/album/song (that's what I immediately thought of when I first saw ads for the show). In combination with the use of the name Dani California (which is also pretty clearly associated), I think it's a totally reasonable lawsuit. I have no idea whether they'll win or not-- that depends on what the actual standard is-- but it's absolutely understandable for the band to think that this was an infringement on their artistic creation and turn to the legal system to adjudicate it.

I've never understood why people hate other people simply for filing lawsuits.

In America, people have legal rights.
However, other people sometime violate your legal rights.
If your legal rights have been violated, and you care, you must file a lawsuit to enforce your rights.
If the lawsuit is frivolous, you will lose, and probably waste lots of money and time.
If someone wins a lawsuit, and you think they shouldn't have, blame the legal regime which granted them the legal rights you disagree with, not the person for enforcing their legitimate rights.
Save your anger for those who find and exploit loopholes in legal systems, not those who ask for straightforward applications of legal rights.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 21, 2007, 5:29 pm

Sueven wrote:The Tom Petty issue has absolutely zero to do with this. That's something to be dealt with in an entirely separate legal proceeding (if Tom Petty cares). Has no relevance here.

Well of course, it has no relevance to this particular case. I brought it up because they're crying about some supposed plaigarism when they're at least as guilty of the same thing.

Seriously, they're claiming rights to a word they used to name an album that sold well for them. Of course that word is associated with them, and their album. But it's not THEIR word. They should probably have thought of that before using an existing word to associate with some portion of their work. Especially if they were going to get righteous about what could be associated with them and what couldn't.

As to the Dani California referrence (again, ooc i'd like to see where her last name was mentioned in the season, cause I don't remember it at all)...this show is completely full of musical referrences and nod's. Covers, quotes, mentions of various band performances, not to mention some of the episode titles. It's the writer's way of giving shoutouts to music they like and respect. I also see zero similarities between the two characters outside of the name. Are names protected grounds now? Should the estate of Charles Dickens be suing the pants off of David Copperfield?

I'm not really sure who you're addressing in your last bit. I'm not sure I've seen anyone in this thread matching the description of hating people for filing lawsuits.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 8, 2008, 2:48 am

I really dug the last 2 episodes.Looking forward to next season!

PS: Red Hot Chili Peppers fucking suck and Anthony Keadis(sp) is a whiny twat.They didn't even invent the term....buncha sock-puppet asshats

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 14, 2008, 5:18 pm

David Duchovny won a Golden globe for this. Not bad! Funny though, he is pretty much the same character in everything he is in.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 14, 2008, 6:39 pm

Canelek wrote:David Duchovny won a Golden globe for this. Not bad! Funny though, he is pretty much the same character in everything he is in.

Nice! Well deserved IMO. This was my favorite series of 2007 with BSG right behind it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 16, 2008, 1:03 pm

Canelek wrote:David Duchovny won a Golden globe for this. Not bad! Funny though, he is pretty much the same character in everything he is in.

Mulder is very different from this character. Not sure what you're saying here.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 16, 2008, 2:28 pm

Sort of different, sort of the same. He is very deadpan and displays similar mannerisms. Perhaps the most similar character is that flick where he is a junkie doctor that winds up working for the mob.

Dry humor is his schtick. Not a knock on him--I really enjoy most of his work.

and really looking forward to next X-Files movie!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 16, 2008, 5:30 pm

<nod> I get you.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 27, 2008, 7:21 am

Kim Walker, head of intellectual property at Pinsent Masons, points out that the band should have registered Californication as a trademark. Instead, the only application for such was filed in April, 2007 in the US, by Showtime. The mark has not yet been registered. Walker further notes:

"Successful songs, albums and movies can become brands in themselves. What's really surprising is how few songs and albums are properly protected," said Walker. "The Chili Peppers could almost certainly have registered a trade mark for 'Californication', notwithstanding Time's article. They made the word famous, but it doesn't automatically follow that they can stop its use in a TV show." "If they had registered the title as a trade mark covering entertainment services, I very much doubt we'd have seen a lawsuit. The TV show would have been called something else," he said. "As it is, the band faces an uphill struggle."

The matter remains unresolved.

Over a year has passed and the only thing settled is that Red Hot Chili Peppers still suck.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » December 27, 2008, 11:43 am

Aslanna wrote:
Kim Walker, head of intellectual property at Pinsent Masons, points out that the band should have registered Californication as a trademark. Instead, the only application for such was filed in April, 2007 in the US, by Showtime. The mark has not yet been registered. Walker further notes:

"Successful songs, albums and movies can become brands in themselves. What's really surprising is how few songs and albums are properly protected," said Walker. "The Chili Peppers could almost certainly have registered a trade mark for 'Californication', notwithstanding Time's article. They made the word famous, but it doesn't automatically follow that they can stop its use in a TV show." "If they had registered the title as a trade mark covering entertainment services, I very much doubt we'd have seen a lawsuit. The TV show would have been called something else," he said. "As it is, the band faces an uphill struggle."

The matter remains unresolved.
Over a year has passed and the only thing settled is that Red Hot Chili Peppers still suck.

Hells yeah sista! They are better off making songs for carnival rides and piped through a rusty Wurlitzer.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 9, 2024, 7:19 pm

I have retrieved all the seasons and have been considering rewatching this. Who is with me?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 10, 2024, 4:44 pm

Is it not available on Showtime's streaming platform or something? I like that show and have thought about going back to watch it as well. For whatever reason, I semi-frequently think about Charlie's "Who pissed in my pants" line and quote it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 11, 2024, 3:42 am

I've rewatched it at least once. It's worth a rewatch. I download 100% of what I watch even if I own a streaming service so I have no idea where some shows originate from or is currently available.

Watch Shogun before rewatching something you already have seen. 3 Body Problem as well. Those are two recent high quality series if you have access to them. Shogun is a 10 episode stand alone series based off best selling novel by James Clavell. 3 Body Problem is produced by the Game of Throne producers (who do a good job when there is content, then sucked in GoT when the book material ran out.) 3 Body Problem has 3 books so they're good for at least 3 seasons. You'll recognize several cast members from GoT in 3 Body problem.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 21, 2024, 7:53 pm

Season 1 done. My original statement stands that I'd be fine with this being a single season show. But I will continue on. It's not on the top of my list so mainly when I have ~30 minutes to spare and there's nothing else I want to watch.

And yeah. Fuck Mia. Evil woman!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 3, 2024, 7:28 pm

Season 2 done. It starts off a bit slow but I think the back end of the season holds up pretty good.

Other than the Runkle and Daisy storyline. I thought that was pretty weak and I could have done without that.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 22, 2024, 7:07 pm

Season 3 done. If I recall I think it started out decent but by the last episode I found the whole Hank/Karen On/Off again thing getting tedious. I was getting whiplash by the end. And of course Mia comes back for the last couple episodes to make it even worse.

Moved on to Season 4. So far more Mia than I care for. Which would be zero Mia.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 19, 2024, 6:36 pm

Season 4 finished and it seems like the Mia story line is over, thankfully. I think the writers were over it, and probably regretted having it in the original season, since it was settled and moved on from pretty fast.

I don't remember everything but I suppose if I had to rate it I'd go 7.5 or 8. Not terrible.. But a lot more of the same thing you're used to.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 10, 2024, 8:22 pm

Series finished! I don't really have a summary for seasons 5-7 since it was a lot of the same stuff over again.

Although I did think the final season was fairly weak, especially the final episode.

Overall I'd say stick with just Season 1. It can stand on its own. If you don't mind future seasons being a lot more of the same then sure, keep watching. If you were watching for the nudity then that's also a good reason to stick to earlier seasons. Not a lot of that later on. But it's the internet age. If you want nudes then find that elsewhere, perv.