Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech News

Animal Cloning Comes to Hollywood 159

Posted by samzenpus from the ever-lasting-lassie dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Animal Cloning Comes to Hollywood More

Animal Cloning Comes to Hollywood

Comments Filter:

  • Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @06:53AM (#11217585)


    They're already cloning all their scripts.

    • cloned scripts, then comes cloned animals, followed by cloned actors and ended with a cloned film watched by cloned audience... that's what they could have shown in 'the 6th day'...

    • Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:49AM (#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 @09:35AM (#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!)

      • Re:Yawn... (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > 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?

        +6 Funny this post was. The Slashdot zeitgeist is with you. A new Slashmeme have we? It matters not, so long as we can make up some random shit about Star Wars.

      • Re:Yawn... (Score:3, Funny)

        by mizhi ( 186984 )
        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.
      • Maybe you should write the script for Lucas' next picture. Already I can see you would be a far better screenwriter :-)
    • 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.

  • Oh boy! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Phidoux ( 705500 )
    They gonna clone Brad Pitt now?
    • Ooh! I've always wanted a bare knuckle boxing pikey! Besides I'm going to buy a car soon; I think he could be instrumental in the negotiation process.

  • lassie and others (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Seems breeding for specific roles is more likely to be productive then depending on genetics. If animals are anything like people, success often is followed by sloth.

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

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @06:57AM (#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 @07:14AM (#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?

      • Temperament of the parents plays a large role (but not the only factor) in what the temperament of the offspring will be. That's why dog breeders et al don't just choose the prettiest animals, but also the smartest and least agressive (at least in theory).

  • Nature versus nurture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beders ( 245558 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @06:58AM (#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...

  • Coming soon! (Score:1, Funny)

    by ez_TAB ( 235649 )
    Lassie Returns (again)
    Flipper Returns (again)
    Mister Ed Returns (again)
    Benji Returns (again)

    etc...

  • All right, then. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Scoria ( 264473 )
    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 @06:59AM (#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....

    • Re:Obviously (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It might actually work pretty well. Imagine a Collie version of Shining, with the dog coming trough the door yelling "Here's Lassie!"
    • then maybe cloning won't be too bad and they can replace the kid with someon useful?

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

    by baryon351 ( 626717 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:00AM (#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 ) <guus.der.kinderen@NOsPam.gmail.com> on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:02AM (#11217616)
    In other news today: Warner Bros announces "Free Willy Again."
  • U can bet the Osbournes will never again run low on 4 legged $hit spreaders.. and there must be plently of others who would be up for keeping their own pets forever.. that'll be where the money's at for the service...
  • All those dogs and cats in the Homeward Bound movies can now carry on the legacy for generations to come! Rejoice!
  • So what happens when the clone starts having flashbacks of a time when his predecessor accidentally killed a prostitute and burned down the motel to cover up the crime?
  • let's clone a new one!

  • Obsolete technology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dannytaggart ( 835766 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:25AM (#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 @07:58AM (#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 @07:30AM (#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.

  • Clone my wife! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:31AM (#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.
  • I've got dibs on Montecore! [usatoday.com]
  • 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!'"
  • it's only a matter of time now before they start cloning the Olsen Twins... not that i would object.

    • Like every other guy on the planet I eagerly awaited tehir 18th birthday. Why? I don't know. Perhaps they'd appear in Playboy or something. But now that the time has come and gone, I'm quite disappointed in the two of them

      Thin as rails, strungout and still making shit for movies. What a disappointment. And to think.. they had more potential as sex symbols than any other pair of girls.. perhaps ever!

      BTW, I'm a scant 22 years old. I'm allowed to lust after 18 year olds. You 40-somethings need to knock that

  • genetics and environment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @07:59AM (#11217763)
    Scientifically, this could make for some interesting "nature vs. nurture" experiments.
  • "Here Lassies! Come over here Lassies!"

  • Clone Natalie Portman (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @08:23AM (#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)

    • Could you seriously tell the difference between one dolphin to the next? In fact a cloned one would look even less like the original because it would obviously be younger.
  • ...I whipped past this one and thought it said "Animal Crossing Comes to Hollywood", and wondered why in God's good name anyone would want to make a movie out of that game.
  • But my mates and I came up with the best use for genitic engineering (while stoned). Imagine minature animals of all species. How cool would it be to have little crocadiles in your fish tank say 10cm long. Little elephants and giraffes as pets. Awesome
  • we dont' say clone - we say body-double, you insensitive clod!

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

    by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @10:11AM (#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!

  • Giving credibility to movies... (Score:3, Funny)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @10:23AM (#11218378) Homepage Journal
    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 @11:12AM (#11218742) 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?
    • This "do you own yourself" question has actually been an actual, practical problem for over a decade now.

      I'm too lazy to look it up, but there was at least one case of a subject in a research study sueing the researcher for a share of the profits of a genetically engineered treatment/product that was developed from his tissue samples.

      I don't remember what the outcome was, but I suspect that nothing was clarified.

      • This "do you own yourself" question has actually been an actual, practical problem for over a decade now.


        Alcohol. Drugs. Abortion. Prostitution. It's been a problem for a wee bit more than a decade.
    • I doubt it... since YOU as a person did not create your pet (I seriously hope you did not genetically splice your pet), you merely own it, you cannot claim intellectual property rights. However, you may sue if they took samples of your pet without consent and develope something out of it. Not sure what the penalty is thou.

      However, if someone clone you without your consent, then you can sue. I remember there's a law somewhere about tissue sample collection. It basically state that for someone to acquire
  • I recently saw a TV-program about cloning pets. Cloned cats doesn't get the same pattern on the fur as the original. Some of the clones doesn't even get close to the same colour on the fur. In showbiz, shouldn't that make the clone useless?
    • It does, but remember we're dealing with executives and producers, and I doubt they have an in-depth understanding into genetic cloning. They "believe" that cloning means the ability to reproduce identical looking thing (plant, animal, etc). However, any scientists dealing with cloning know that later environmental condition might create a different outcome.

      I remember there's a good example somewhere... can't remember where.
  • Well the 2 make a great match. I mean hollywood to buy cloning and cloning is such a loved/hated technology. Atleast this can get the ball rolling. Hollywood has so much money behind it that it is also a great test market. We can eventually find out about cloning defects because hollywood is also one of the most watched industries. Well good luck to those who fork over their cash for a new tech. We all know how that goes. Every geek for his own.
  • "I'll be back"
  • Another Fiddler on Another Roof
    The Day After the Day After Tomorrow
    Revenge of the Godfather
    The Matrix: Reloaded; Revisited
    The Thing, Yet Again

  • Useless Technology (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vettemph ( 540399 )
    They should be spending their money on promoting the idea of saving sheltered and stray animals. We don't need more puppy mills. We need to save the ones that are going to get killed tomorrow because they shopped at the puppy mill today. Pure breeds with papers should be down played while saving the sheltered should be turned into a status symbol. Hollywood could fuel this change if they wern't such pompus assholes.
    I have an idea, Lets clone Britney so we can put Madonna "down".
    • There are several problem for this in Hollywood

      1. They need a look alike animal.
      2. The animal need to be trained from a relative young age (harder to train older animals).

      For the above two problem, using sheltered/stray animals might be somewhat impossible, unless they're lucky. And for most part, they don't their next movie depend on whether there's is a look alike puppy in an animal shelter.

      On the other hand, there are already cases where a former sheltered dog became a acting dog for commercial and p
  • Siegfried & Roy's Royal White Tigers!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close