Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Animal Cloning Comes to Hollywood

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Dec 30, 2004 05:50 AM
from the ever-lasting-lassie dept.
Biotech News
Kate Thompson writes "A week after San Francisco's Genetic Savings and Clone revealed the sale of their first cat to a customer, the Boston Phoenix reports that GS & C acknowledges it has been hired by anonymous buyers in Hollywood to bank genes of show business animals."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Animal Cloning Comes to Hollywood 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday December 30 2004, @05:53AM (#11217585)


    They're already cloning all their scripts.

    • Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

      by b0r0din (304712) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:49AM (#11217728)
      Thank God that George Lucas rebelled against Hollywood, not only by creating a biting satire of their business (title of Star Wars II anyone?) but by doing what no one in Hollywood has ever done - continue to add more and more to his original movies.

      Let's examine, shall we? "Star Wars" obviously refers to movie stars and the battles they fight for supremacy of the movie industry. Obviously the Empire is Hollywood.

      Luke Skywalker - George "Luke"-as? He wrote himself into his own film. Also he walks on the sky, ie. he's better than everyone else. Something tells me George never got past this one. Insert cliched Greedo whine.

      Han Solo - Solo, as in "primadonna" - movie actors in general. Selfish assholes who would pretend to know what a parsec is.

      Princess Leia - Princess "lay ya"? The porn industry.

      R2D2 - Robots who make no sense, ie. movie producers.

      C3PO - Robots who act all pretentious and annoy the fuck out of you with english accents, ie. movie directors.

      Obi Wan Kenobi - Umm, best boy grip?

      Darth Vader - wears a big black mask, is evil. This is the producer Lucas couldn't sell his original script to.

      I could go on, but you get the point. Does this post have anything to do with cloning animals? Not really. But who cares about cloning animals when you can make up some random shit about Star Wars?

      • Re:Yawn... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Vampyre_Dark (630787) on Thursday December 30 2004, @08:35AM (#11218072)
        I would think C3PO would be the FCC?

        R2D2 - *beep beep bloop* (Make with the naked wookie chicks!)

        C3PO - My word, we can't do that now can we! We might offend those midwesterners! How un-american!

        Chewie - OOOWAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! (Hey, I AM a wookie CHICK, you insensitve clod!)
      • Thank God that George Lucas rebelled against Hollywood, not only by creating a biting satire of their business (title of Star Wars II anyone?) but by doing what no one in Hollywood has ever done - continue to add more and more to his original movies.


        And to think, with all that originality, Chapters 1 and 2 still sucked.
    • Now we know how Harrison Ford will star in all the upcoming Indiana Jones movies and how Arnold can star in the next twenty Terminator movies without a walker.
  • They gonna clone Brad Pitt now?

  • This might work for Babe: 3 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Thursday December 30 2004, @05:57AM (#11217596)
    That is, if they ever decide to make one. For the first two, they had to use a LOT of pigs, because they only look that cute for the first week or so of their lives.
  • I think that some of these animals are pretty 'talented' and it maybe hard to find an animal (like a movie bear or something) which has the potential to learn well and has the right 'personality'. Cloning the ones that just died ensures you that at least the animal is capable of learning the stuff you want to teach it.

    I am not bothered about the whole cloning issue, I think it is an inevitable thing, also with humans.

    • Doesn't work that way. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:14AM (#11217648) Homepage
      Look at identical twins - how many do you know who have *exactly* the same personality, interests, tastes, etc.? Allow for the similarity of upbringing (non-twin siblings are usually pretty similar), of course.


      The other problem is that, as we found with "Dolly the Sheep", cloned animals are inherently pretty unhealthy, because their cells age a lot faster (lies to children explanation). At two years old, Dolly had a lot of problems that would really only crop up in a much older animal, presumably because the cell's genetic "clock" was not "reset" (LTC again).


      Still, nice work if you can get it. Who's going to tell the difference, even if the animals are *not* cloned?

  • Nature versus nurture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beders (245558) on Thursday December 30 2004, @05:58AM (#11217599) Homepage
    Just because the cloned animal has exactly the same genes, doesn't mean that it will exhibit the same behaviour.

    The dog that played Benji might have had an ideal temperament for filming, but it's clone, brought up slightly differently might be a right little ankle biter.
    • Just because the cloned animal has exactly the same genes, doesn't mean that it will exhibit the same behaviour.

      Seems ideal to study nature vs nurture.
      • You don't need clones for that - identical twins suit the same purpose, and humans make rather better study subjects.

        In many cases, even when separated at birth (e.g. adoptions where twins are separated), identical twins show freakish similarities in things that you'd assume would be more a matter of "free will" or nurture.
    • Actually, even their phenotype (expressed genetics) might be different from the original due to environmental influences. This is practically guaranteed for female clones because they have a lot of extra genetic material in the second X chromasome that gets turned off during gestation. This can lead to some rather stark contrasts between 'originals' and clones - e.g., cloned cats with different color patterns. For instance, CC [wikipedia.org] is a tiger-tabby because her surrogate mother, not the original (a calico), wa

  • Presenting... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    LASSIE 2.0

    And now you can take your very own Lassie home after the movie! You send us the cash, we send you your very own Lassie in a box. Overnight delivery, we swear! The dog has food and water in the box, we assure you...
  • You can clone the animal, but not the intensive training required for participation in show business.

  • Obviously (Score:4, Funny)

    by obeythefist (719316) on Thursday December 30 2004, @05:59AM (#11217604) Journal
    So that they can keep the cute dog in the TV show sitcom alive for all 30 seasons.

    What I can't wait for is when Fluffy Clone #2726A flips out and eats the cute wisecracking kid.

    Bet they can't clone him....

  • Does this say something for originality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by baryon351 (626717) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:00AM (#11217609)
    Does this say something for originality, and the fear of showbusiness people that their talent and success is all wrapped up on the abilities of one cat, dog, pig, britney, whatever?
    • Rehashing an old joke -

      What do you call one Britney on the moon?
      Problem.

      What do you call 100 Britneys on the moon?
      Problem.

      What do you call 1,000 Britneys on the moon?
      Problem.

      What do you call 1 million Britneys on the moon?
      Problem.

      What do you call all the Britneys on the moon?
      Problem solved!!!

      You may now continue expounding Britney's talents. ;-)

  • Oh crap... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Guus.der.Kinderen (774520) <love@you@too.wxs@nl> on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:02AM (#11217616) Homepage
    In other news today: Warner Bros announces "Free Willy Again."

  • Obsolete technology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dannytaggart (835766) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:25AM (#11217670) Homepage
    By the time this cloning technology gets off the ground, it will be easier/cheaper to replicate the animal with CGI.

    • Will it really though? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lxt (724570) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:58AM (#11217760) Journal
      Genetic Savings & Clone are currently cloning cats for $50 000 - that's pretty cheap already compared to getting an effects house to create a photorealistic character. Sure, I havn't factored in the cost up bringing up the animal, but CGI is still comparatively expensive, and the results aren't always that believable - the best CGI effects work is typically on fictional characters (Gollum), where movements are a combination of motion capture and keyframing. You'd still need an animal to base movements on - I can't recall a recent film which had a believable CGI animal (that's a "realistic" animal, rather than a talking / exagerrated character). On a more practical front, I'm sure actors would actually prefer working with an animal (trouble that they may be), so they can realistically react to them - you just don't really get that with a CGI character (unless you get an actor to perform with the cast, and composite over. This may work for human like characters, but completely defeat the point for animals, because you'd still need one in the scene).

  • Glossing over the actual money maker. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by will_die (586523) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:30AM (#11217682) Homepage
    While selling back a physical looking animal will bring in a fair chunk of change, and really how big can that market be. How much work would they have to do to make a benji next year, the main thing would be the breed and same hair color and pattern ; thoses can be changed by dye and makeup.

    Where the big money will be is selling clones to the public. When a popular show/movie has a animal the sales of that animal almost aways increases. For example when the comedy Fraiser was on the air the Jack Russell terrier rose in popularity in the each year(in 2000 along by 21%). Now instead of purchasing any Jack Russell terrier you can purchase a clone of the actual one on the show. How much do you think people would pay for that?
    Granted costs will have to come down ALOT, but if you are thinking for the future this is the way to go.
    • How much would you pay for a copy of the tiger that tried to eat Roy Horn?
    • Given that a cloned animal is expected to have health problems and not live as long etc, I would pay less. Who cares that it doesnt have a spot in the exact same spot, Id rather have a healthy pet. People that want something that looks exactly the same may as well buy a stuffed animal, as they arent really buying the animal for the right reasons and would have to not care about its health etc.

  • Clone my wife! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:31AM (#11217684)
    Now, if Peter Jackson had been able to clone 100,000 copies of my wife he'd have had his Orc army without needing special effects.
  • Whatever happened to the Georce Carlin way of getting your old pet again?

    "The good thing about dogs is that they don't live too long...After a while, you can get a new dog - looks just like the old one. That way, you don't have to change any of your pictures. You go to the pet shop with a picture and say, 'Get me one a'dese!'"

  • genetics and environment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by max born (739948) on Thursday December 30 2004, @06:59AM (#11217763)
    Scientifically, this could make for some interesting "nature vs. nurture" experiments.

  • Clone Natalie Portman (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PsiPsiStar (95676) on Thursday December 30 2004, @07:23AM (#11217830)
    Well, someone had to say it. But seriously...

    I'm all for folks getting in on the cloning business. At the worst, it can't be more unethical than what many pet farms already are.

    This provides a financial incentive to refine the technology and make the whole thing more acceptable and familiar to people. Animal breeding has fewer ethical restrictions than medical cloning, so there are fewer ethical roadblocks.
  • Why wait till your favourite animal asset dies before reinvesting? Just make another one, train em up and get two going at once!! Two Flippers filming at once! too easy. at 50 grand its only a matter of time (probably about 3 months)

  • Clone Jenna Jameson (with genetic modifications) (Score:4, Funny)

    by Luscious868 (679143) on Thursday December 30 2004, @09:11AM (#11218287)

    1) Make clones of Jenna Jameson.

    2) Remove the "dirty slut" gene, replacing it with a modified version of the "obedient wife" gene (which morphs back into the "dirty slut" gene when she's in the sack with her husband). It might not hurt to genetically enhance her breasts while your at it so she won't have to pay for them later.

    3) Sell clones as mail order brides.

    4) Profit!

  • 1) Make the movie
    2) Clone for real a cat
    3) Clone Schwartzenegger
    4) Make Washington to approve the "6th day law"
    5) In press release, say "see? even sci-fi movies we produce becomes real"
    6) ...
    7) Profit!
    8) "The day after tomorrow" becomes real

  • Pet patents? DNA copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OwlWhacker (758974) on Thursday December 30 2004, @10:12AM (#11218742) Homepage Journal
    Since people started playing with DNA, it's obvious that people could start cloning things that belong to somebody else.

    Can you claim copyright on your pet?

    We've heard plenty about Intellectual Property (IP), but what about Physical Property (PP)?

    What if somebody cloned you? What legal issues could arise from this?
    • Sam: Where can I put this so it doesn't hurt anybody we know or care about?
      Max: Out the window, Sam. There's nothin' but strangers out there.

      *BOOM!*

      Sam: I hope there was nobody on that bus.
      Max: Nobody we know, at least.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.