MPAA drops Oscar screeners to fight piracy

And the Oscars lose yet another credibility point. Good news for the major studios, I suppose, but for independent films hoping for Oscar recognition, this is a death knell.

Uncool.

This years nominess are now:

Finding Nemo
Pirates of the Carribean
Return of the King
Matrix Revolutions
School of Rock

This is a big win for the studios.

This year's nominees will all have been released in December.

I hate, I hate, I HATE Jack Valenti.

It's not just this, but he is tied with Jon Peters as most hated figure currently working in Hollywood today. He's a troll and a creep and a censor.

I hope that there is some big backlash against this led by the smaller studios and this ruling is overthrown. It's ridiculous and it squeezes out the smaller pictures to a point of non existence. Miramax was built on the success of those smaller pictures, possibly those screenings, they should be all over this like flies on shit.

Pipe dreams...

According to the article, only MPAA affiliates, i.e., the big studios, will be bound to this rule, so this is actually good for the indie studios, who can mail whatever they want to whoever they want.

"Ironically, the films likely to suffer most will be those from the majors whose MPAA membership will now prohibit them -- but not competing non studio-affiliated independents -- from mailing DVDs. "

Yeah that is very good. I admit that I have watched some DVD rips of Oscar nominated movies because I had to wait for months for them to be released in my country. This will prevent piracy to some extent. I at least would never watch crappy bootlegs (those recorded in a cinema).

Didn't read the article, just heard a blurb about it on the news last night. My mistake.

I can't find any specifics, but that article is fairly vague on what constitues "studio affiliation." So Sony itself can't send out DVD screeners, but can Sony Pictures Classics? What about foreign films that have domestic distribution handled through a U.S. studio?

The groups that will suffer the most from this are the mid-tier independents like Miramax, Fox Searchlight, Fine Line, etc. Granted, they aren't independents, exactly, but it's going to be hard for them to put out product that will be found by the Academy member. If there are "prestige" pictures coming down the pike, the filmmaker might even want to consider getting away from the subsidiary studios and just go after the Big Kahunas.

AMERICAN SPLENDOR just got a whole lot more likely to be skipped over, though, which sucks. Granted, I haven't seen it, but I hear Paul Giamatti is Oscar-caliber in it.

Also, those medium-tier indies are going to have to spend some serious budget money on promoting their product now, and that's going to sting their budgets. It will make it less likely that they'll look for those films at Sundance or other festivals, because they simply won't be able to afford to carry those films for Oscar time.

It's a shame, because I think piracy has to be addressed, but it just got a hell of a lot harder for independent film.

Fucking Valenti.

Any studio-owned affiliates are also barred from sending screeners, such as Fine Line, Fox Searchlight, Miramax, Sony Pictures Classics, etc.

I can understand the logic--I'm sure those Acadamy screeners are a common source for boots--but it just seems like the studios are causing themselves more headaches than they're solving. As for this giving a boost to indie films, I can't imagine what films would even be considered for Oscars that aren't distibuted by Mirimax, New Line, Searchlight, etc.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make copy-proof DVD screeners? Or embed some sort of digital serial number onto each screener, so any leaks could be traced back to the source?

The worst possible aftermath from a decision like this could see the studios becoming less and less willing to finance low-budget "prestige" pictures. It won't happen anytime soon, but watch Miramax go a few years without any Oscar nominations and I guarentee you they will start channeling their money elsewhere. Sort of a "Well, if we can't make people watch it, it won't win Oscars, and if it won't win Oscars, there's no reason to make it in the first place" line of reasoning. And that would be far more damaging to the industry than any paranoid fear that some kid in Bangkok is selling shoddy bootleg screeners on the streetcorner.

Fuck Valenti. He's about due for some Death.

Goodbye Indie Oscar nominees! frown

So what else is new?

In all seriousness, though, this sucks. I could understand cracking down on smear campaigns for Oscar nods, but this is just stupid. I'm waiting for the day that trying to stop piracy instead of figuring out how to work it to their advantage comes to bite Valenti in his pruned ass.

What about using self destructing DVDs?

well, so much for completing my hattrick of LotR screeners. I loved the fact that I had a good quality DVD/Super VCD of FotR and TTT to tide me over till the official DVDs arrived and didn't have to go to see them a fifth time in the cinema...

LOTR screeners? PIRATE!!!

(That's scarcasm)

Looks like the Independent Film Community came out against the ban shortly after it was announced.

<a href="http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=2003100100596 2&newsLang=en" target="_blank">Article</a>

They cited many of the reasons offered here. Mainly, that such a restriction would reduce the chances of smaller films being recognized and, as a result, remove much of the incentive for studios to finance riskier films.

I Think L7 was referring to the new "disposable" DVDs that Disney is test marketing. They come in sealed packages and once open the media starts to degrade until they are unreadable. I believe they have a lifespan of 48 hours. However, they have no additional anti-piracy measures, such as stronger encryption. And couldn't have that because they need to remain compatible with players.

As soon as I heard about them I though screeners would be the perfect application. I'm sure if DIVX was around it would be even better, as it could be used to authorize specific players for screeners. However, if DIVX ever caught on I'm sure it's encryption would have been cracked by now, just like CSS was.

Slater's idea of a barcode on the screen is a good idea, but it's much simpler than that.

My father, a tv critic, frequently gets tapes of prestige shows--the last episode of Buffy, the finale of Oz, the first three Carnivales--and in the corner the screen are his initials. I don't see why something like that couldn't work here, if the screeners are widescreen there shouldn't be a problem with mucking up the screen.

This is like curing dandruff with a battle ax.

Let me guess, his initials are HBO...

Yup, that's exactly what I mean. Make everyone who's going to receive a screener sign a "Promise not to distribute" form, then assign them an ID number. Hire some tech kid to superimpose each ID over the screen in random parts, the same way the "For Your Consideration..." banner occasionally flashes on Academy screeners.

That way, when a pirated copy of Return of the King #35484221 shows up online, you check your list of ID's, and whoops! Sorry, Mrs. Aniston, you're going to jail!

Seems like it would be much easier, cheaper, and smarter than the current plan.

It would definitely work if the true reason behind this was to combat the piracy boogeyman, instead of making sure that any hickups, like Almodovar winning a best screenplay oscar never happen again.

On man... that's funny.

A Memo from Jack Valenti

"Questions by some of the companies' subsidiaries have been quoted in the
newspapers. It has been reported that some subsidiaries believe it is ok
to send out screeners if the film has been released in home video form.
This is incorrect. The policy is - no screeners of any kind are allowed to
be sent out. Once an exemption is made, the barn door is wide open.

I hope you will instruct your subsidiaries that no screeners are to be
mailed, whether they have been released in home video/DVD or not.

Jack"

As Harry pointed out in a recent article with regards to the above post. How does that make sense? The Pirates will already have a pristine copy of the film without any sort of screener message on there at all.

Not that I know anything about the man but he seems to have definately lost something.

Does this rule apply Internationally? Could studio's send screeners to the UK or Germany still?

I think Valenti is doing this to avoid creating a double standard, these movies can be screeners but these movies can't.

I gurantee you, if Valenti only insisted on screeners of unreleased movies to be banned, people would still be pissed and call him a hypocrite.

His policy is no screeners at all.

Is "hypocrite" really worse than "hopelessly out-of-touch fascist fucking moron"?

You know what else sucks about this? Now when "Return of the King" wins Best Picture at the Oscars--which is a somewhat safe bet--this decision completely invalidates Peter Jackson's achievement. We'll have to listen to YEARS of people bitching and complaining about how the no-screener rule gave event movies like LOTR an unfair advantage, and how certain independent movies would have won the Oscar if the playing field was level, and so on and so on....

Sure, you're always going to have people bitching about whichever movie wins Best Picture, but Valenti's new rule gives people a *legitimate* gripe. And that sucks.

indie filmmakers are lucky to get their movie made at all, now they're upset about not getting an award?

I'll tell you why people are upset. Because it'll force them to pay for movies. Even rich people hate forking over ten dollars when they don't have to. It's getting to the point where people in the industry are giving screeners to their family members as gifts. They let office interns borrow them over the weekends. This issue is so lame.

If the voters are truly lazy to go out to the theater and watch the film, then they should download it...jk ofcourse.

Jesus H. Christ, the MPAA has way too much power! They actually scare me and I'm not even an American. First they make it impossible to release R-rated trailers, then they start rating movie posters and thereby give us the current flood of floating heads - because pretty much everything else is already illegal! They also rate and control the official websites for films, going so far as to shut them down if they don't like them. Now that old fart Valenti decides he, and he alone, knows how to stop piracy and comes up with this senile bullshit. The studios bitch but can't do anything about it. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL??? If they can get away with more and more outrageous rules and regulations, where will it stop? With the outlawing of DVDs in general? Strip-searches before you are allowed into a theater? No theatrical release for films rated R? Something must be done to stop those megalomaniacs or else it's Nazi Germany for the US sooner or later ...

Hyperbole!

Relax, you're overreacting. The MPAA can't enforce this. The studios are doing this voluntarily. Why? I don't know.

The reason there's been this backlash against this just now is because industry people that get screeners for free don't want to give up that benefit. I wouldn't either.

Harry says something that sort of makes sense though, in regards to an above post. Basically they acadamy members wont pay for the flicks due to the sheer amount they would have to watch. They get sent screeners and can watch as many as they want when they want. To go to a cinema and watch so many films in a week becomes like the Cannes festival - eventually everthing just becomes a blur.

Personal opinion from an admittedly biased fanboy.

All I'm saying is that right now--at this moment--if I had to place money on a film for the Best Picture race, I'd go with ROTK. And so would everybody else in this thread. So until something better or more influential comes along, Return of the King remains exactly what I said it is: a safe bet.

It seems like some people are laboring under the assumption that the MPAA is some sort of mandatory govt. agency. This is a voluntary organization. These rules are decided by the studios themselves, not some outside bureaucracy that is impinging its will upon the entrtainment industry.

It did kill the porn film industry. Now, all we have are sex scenes cut together to make two hours.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't believe that EVERYONE ELSE believes that either. I'm not saying that it won't be nominated, but rather that your claims are almost outrageous a full three to four months before anything else comes out.

In the space between now and the end of the year, studios will release: The Human Stain, Sylvia, House Of Sand And Fog, The Alamo, The Missing, Love Actually, Master And Commander, 21 Grams, In America, The Last Samurai, Big Fish, and even Cold Mountain.

All I am saying is that is a lot of stiff competition and I'm going to venture that NO ONE in this thread has seen anyone of these. But the potential is there to steal away a Best Picture Award from your movie of movies.

And I wouldn't place my bets on anything this early in the game.

Well, except for the no-screener rule how is that mentality any different from the people who constantly bitch and moan about FORREST GUMP and TITANIC winning? Oh, that's right, the internet community hated those movies. Sorry, but that arguement of yours is rather hypocritical.

This seems to be a number of small issues that are caught up in one large over-whelming debate.

1) Piracy - Screeners have been handed out for years and have never proven to be a large problem. Sure copies circulated, but not to the extent that it is suggested they are now. It seems that the MPAA, much like RIAA, is having difficulty managing and adapting to the proliferation of the digital world, and is handling it with a similar solution: if one cuts one's finger the only course of action is to amputate the arm.

2) Oscar Contenders - Let's be fair: studios will prop up anything if they think they can get away with it. Not everything they think deserves to win should be given the time of day. When print ads for some P.O.S. comedy that lasted one weekend are run with a "For your consideration.." for Art Direction, how can the voters, let alone anyone else, take them seriously? Do they really expect the voters to actually subject themselves to the tripe as well as the sirloin?

3) Volume - There are far too many films released in one year. Even Roger Ebert, who is paid to see them, can't see all of them, though he comes closer than most. It's almost unrealistic to expect that every voter will watch every movie released, let alone screeners that are sent to them. Would the voter's personal tastes not make this a selective process: if one doesn't care for foreign films, why would one watch foreign screeners?

4) Reality - So if the voters are going to be selective about the films they watch anyway, why not make them see them the way most others do: in a theatre with everyone else, or on home video from their local rental shop? While sending screeners out to everyone seems to make the most sense, there was never any guarantee they would be watched in the first place, so why should the studios pay to have someone watch the movies they just paid to make, market and distribute? While there are certain films released that audiences should be paid to be subjected to, if the studio feels it's worthy of an Oscar, the voters should be seeing it on their own.

5) Jack Valenti - You have to make a choice, Jack. Option A - you retire and leave town quietly with your tail between your legs and allow the industry to mature the way most things do over time. After all, it's not the 1930's anymore. Or Option B - you die and allow the industry to mature the way most things do over time. After all, it's not the 1930's anymore.

So how do the studios solve these issues? Simple: First, if you want to keep handing out the screeners, then copyright the stupid things so they cannot be duplicated. Second, if you don't want to hand out screeners then pay for private screenings in regular movie theatres that every voter is given an invitation and map to get to. They will be given a choice: show up to the screening and sign in for verification, or forfeit your vote for that particular category. Last, be realistic about your films chances and trim down the number you want the voters to watch in each category. You stand a better chance of all of them being seen.

I can't understand the flap on this board over this. The only people affected are the Academy voters, pirates and those who download pirated movies. I hardly care who wins the Oscar. I know what movies and performances and work I liked. I don't need anyone to validate my preferences. If the voters don't do their homework, that's too bad.
Hollywood is a tight little club and we all probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than being invited to join.

I don't have much respect for Valenti (but I don't hate him). I actually feel sorry for him. He's in way over his head. Can you imagine being his age and being blindsided with these rapid technological advances? We've all been around computers and feel comfortable with them - people in his age bracket can barely grasp website links and email. I feel sorrier for the staffers who have to try to explain the tech to him. And you can rant and rave until blood comes out of your toes but I don't see him retiring - people who get these high profile positions of power don't readily give them up.

The Academy should set up a Netflix-style system - you check out DVDs (all with watermarks) and return them after you view them. Don't say how many DVDEs of each work are made - the voters wouldn't be certain if they were the only one who had a particular disc and would have to know that if they made a copy it might be traced back to them.

If you are not rated, you might as well forget about ever having a wide release and stick to having your movie be showed at film festivals and maybe a small video release. Of course miracles can happen, but without an MPAA rating you might as well forget about making any kind of money.

Get a grip, Yando. I said "right now" and "at this moment" and "until something better comes along". I didn't say ROTK *will* win, I just said that RIGHT NOW it probably has the most Oscar buzz, thanks to the two previous films. That could change tomorrow or it could change in February, but at the moment, it's the film to beat. That's all.

How is it hypocritical to complain when bad movies win Best Picture? And I really don't see what GUMP or TITANIC have to do with this screener rule or ROTK.

I'm gonna miss buying screener copies...*sniff sniff*

Not really. Many quality independant films would remain undistributed and unviewed without some Academy buzz.
Ebert had a good solution:
"Here's a bright idea. The major studios, fearful of piracy, simply need not send out DVDs. The indies, who count on them as the cornerstones of their Oscar campaigns, can continue to send them out. As Jewison notes in his letter to Valenti, 'Piracy to a small independent film seeking an audience is simply good word of mouth.'

What are the chances of a two-tier DVD system? Zero, because the majors want an uneven playing field only if it favors them. This fact, obvious and incontrovertible, exposes the moral decay and mercenary cynicism that underlies the Valenti Decree. His new rule is so bad I expect it to be withdrawn in a week. The remarkable thing is that Valenti and his masters were unsophisticated enough to suggest it in the first place."