CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MPAA drops Oscar screeners to fight piracy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MPAA drops Oscar screeners to fight piracy - Page 2

post #51 of 91
10/7/03 at 1:34pm
Quote:
billylove (moist & meaty):
Quote:
walter-konkrete:
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.
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.
I did not think you had to be a member of The MPAA to get a rating. I thought outside studios and distributors could submit.
Reply
post #52 of 91
10/7/03 at 1:41pm
For a slightly different, and more sinister take on the whole matter:

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99307,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99307,00.html</a>
Reply
post #53 of 91
10/7/03 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Slater 'Slater' Slater:
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.
I've got a grip on this issue Slater. However, considering that neither you or I have seen the movie, I still think it is ludicrous to insinuate that that film is be a lock on best picture.

With the previous two films or not, I don't understand the logic considering everything else going on right now (i.e. Dreamworks recent news of them four-walling a theater in LA for the House of Sand and Fog).

And as for the most Oscar buzz right now, I'd say that I've heard Lost In Translation get more buzz than anything coming out in December. That's probably because they haven't screened anything that far out yet to create word of mouth among the general public (like you and I). And the buzz for RotK is just either here or at fansites anyways, as I have yet to hear anyone else in the real world mention it alongside the words "Oscar".

So, I think in all of this we agree to disagree. There are very tumultuous times going on right now, and I don't think it is very smart to say flat out "that's a lock" when everything is so up in the air studio-wise. I see this issue changing on a weekly basis as everyone is flat out fighting with one another.

Additionally, as for that Fox News Link, it was definitely such a werid take, especially when they start commenting on actor's and actresses clothing options (such as Anna Paquin's headwear).
Reply
post #54 of 91
10/7/03 at 6:45pm
I never implied it was a "lock." I called it a "safe bet" "AT THE MOMENT". In other words, if someone held a gun to my head right now and forced me to place money on which film will win Best Picture, I'd go with Return of the King. That's all.
Reply
post #55 of 91
10/9/03 at 12:56pm
Looks like Tarantino is on the side of the MPAA on this one. He was just on KROQ saying that when he had to send out Pulp screeners, it devasted him, having to show the movie on video cassette when it was still playing in theaters.
Reply
post #56 of 91
10/10/03 at 12:48pm
In related news, Harry's "Modest Proposal" over at the top of AICN right now is probably the single stupidest thing I've ever seen the man write. Leaving aside the fact that Harry obviously knows dick about Jonathan Swift, expecting Sam Raimi (and by proxy, every single working schlub underneath Raimi) to go on strike over an issue like MPAA screeners is just asinine. And considering the fact that Harry admitted he gets free DVD screeners in his last editorial, it's also more than a little hypocritical, since I doubt *he* is going to shut down AICN until the issue is resolved. So, he's basically being a hypocritical moron with little to no understanding of the concept of actually working for a living.

On a tangent, does anybody know what would happen if a minor studio (let's say, Fine Line or something) just decided to ignore the ban? What if they just told Valenti to fuck off and mailed out their screeners anyway? Would the MPAA have the ability to disqualify their films for Oscar consideration? And if so, wouldn't that just be an even bigger black eye for the MPAA?
Reply
post #57 of 91
10/10/03 at 12:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Slater 'Slater' Slater:
On a tangent, does anybody know what would happen if a minor studio (let's say, Fine Line or something) just decided to ignore the ban? What if they just told Valenti to fuck off and mailed out their screeners anyway? Would the MPAA have the ability to disqualify their films for Oscar consideration? And if so, wouldn't that just be an even bigger black eye for the MPAA?
Well, considering that all films released in theaters are supposed to be reviewed by the MPAA prior to their release, I would think that the MPAA would lobby AMPAS to disqualify whoever ignored the ban. Plus, I just don't see a company making a sacrifice like that. They are looking to conduct a truthful business and by ignoring the ban, they run the risk of being prosecuted.
Reply
post #58 of 91
10/10/03 at 1:12pm
Yeah, but the smaller prestige studios, like Fine Line and Sony Picture Classics, are trying to run an OSCAR WINNING business. Their whole bread-n-butter is making quality films that hopefully will attract Oscar buzz or the little golden statues, thereby prompting viewers to seek their films out. If you take Oscars out of the equation, a lot of these smaller prestige studios are going to be swallowed back up into their parent companies. So for them, this is potentially a life or death scenario.

And can the MPAA really hand down a blanket judgement like, "Fine Line disobeyed our orders and sent out Oscar screeners, so now we're not going to award rating to any Fine Line or New Line movies from this point forward?" Can they DO that?
Reply
post #59 of 91
10/10/03 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Slater 'Slater' Slater:
Would the MPAA have the ability to disqualify their films for Oscar consideration?
No, buts thats about all I know. I know they can't enforce the ban, but for some reason everyone is following it in good faith.
Reply
post #60 of 91
10/10/03 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Whispering Smith:
Quote:
Slater 'Slater' Slater:
Would the MPAA have the ability to disqualify their films for Oscar consideration?
No, buts thats about all I know. I know they can't enforce the ban, but for some reason everyone is following it in good faith.
I guess nobody wants to be the first to find out what happens when you disobey Lord High Humongous Valenti.
Reply
post #61 of 91
10/10/03 at 1:23pm
Since Valenti's the visible catalyst in all of this, I'd like to see his solution for the screener ban, his take on this affecting the indies.
Reply
post #62 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:13pm
Moved from the Harry Knowles thread.

Quote:
Whispering Smith:
Hey Folks, Harry here... I think I figured out a way to put an end to this entire bit of Valenti idiocy

If everyone of those people just refused to continue to work on whatever film they were on till the studios reversed their support of VALENTI, you'd see this thing come to a stop in a hurry.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

This is a good idea?

Why not just ignore the MPAA's ban all together. If you have the balls to spit in their faces by shutting down Hollywood, wouldn't it be so much easier to ignore Valenti's unenforcable ban?

Atleast people would keep working.

Harry just wants to shut down Hollywood and get the credit for it.

Btw, I know there's an MPAA thread already so I'll also post other Harry craziness. This thread won't just be dedicated to this ban issue, it was just the catalyst.

PS - I think there should be a whole thread dedicated to all the times Knowles requests Hollywood listen to him on something. Not just for this ban though.
Reply
post #63 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:26pm
Harry's just looking for site hits.
He writes this asinine drivel only to stoke controversy and pull people to AICN.
Reply
post #64 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:27pm
The only possible positive result of this ban is that maybe now that studios can't orchestrate movies specifically for Oscar voters, they'll be foreced to give those Oscar potentials more of a release. I mean, seriously, who else is tired of studios hiding these from the public for the entire year before letting two theatres in two cities run it the day before the end of the year and then winning countless Oscars based entirely on screeners? I think that's one contributing cause to the Oscars losing so much of its audiance over the last few years is because no one knows what these films are. They're movies made solely for winning awards, and I'm tired of all the Oscar winning movies that represent the best of an entire body of work in a single year being containted in one month at the tail end of the year.

This probably won't happen, but it's one possible outcome I haven't seen addressed yet. It just never seemed to make sense to me for a movie to win Best Picture of 2002 when it was only playing on two strategically placed screens on New Year's Eve. Maybe the screener ban will force studios to up the quality of their major releases, since those are them films that people will actually be seeing. I know this doesn't help the independents any, but the two-theatre tactic is something I see the studios pull more often than the smaller indies.

But I'm just rambling.
Reply
post #65 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:37pm
G-dude, the reason for the two-theater rollout in the last week of the year is because smaller independents rely on word of mouth business. Expecting the studios to roll out "American Splendor" or "Lost in Translation" on 3,000 screens during their first weekend is insane. The films would flop--badly--and the studios would be even less willing to fund risky, artistic cinema. Once again, nobody wins.

Something like "American Splendor" lives or dies soley on audience buzz, and Oscar screeners help fuel that buzz. Take away the screeners and force these films to open (and flop) on a large number of screens across the country, and we won't see these types of films get produced anymore.

And reading that AICN Talkback brought a tear to my jaded eye. Harry deserves all the shit that's being flung in his direction and more. His "Modest Proposal" was the most arrogant fucking thing I've ever read.
Reply
post #66 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:40pm
<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert07.html" target="_blank">Roger Ebert weighs in.</a>

Quote:
Why inspecting a turkey sandwich won't stop movie piracy

October 7, 2003

BY ROGER EBERT

Occasionally the movie industry comes up with a truly boneheaded idea. Jack Valenti unveiled a doozy last week: He announced that signatories of the Motion Picture Association of America would be forbidden to send out the thousands of advance DVD ''screeners'' that jam the year-end mailboxes of Academy members and critics compiling Best 10 lists.

His reason is that screeners have been used by video pirates to make illegal copies of movies. That is true. It is also true that pirates will find a way to steal prints anyway.

The Valenti Decree would cripple the chance of a small independent film getting an Oscar nomination. With dozens of films opening at year end, the academy population lacks the time and energy to attend all those screenings in theaters. The DVDs pile up at home, and when the buzz turns hot on a title, they look at it.

Valenti's ban was greeted with howls of outrage by the heads of the independent distribution companies, even while it was being greeted with joy by the heads of major studios. This is a no-brainer: If voters cannot see the best indie work, they will be forced to vote for major studio work. Such recent Oscar winners as ''The Hours,'' ''The Pianist,'' ''Adaptation'' and ''Far from Heaven'' might not have survived such a practice.

''Dear Jack,'' wrote the respected director and industry leader Norman Jewison, ''When every academy member can view all the films in contention, then it's a fair and even playing field. However, when the small independent film -- which depends on its artistic appeal rather than wide commercial distribution by an MPAA member -- is denied access, the playing field becomes unfair and uneven. . . . Artistic accomplishments in film should not be compromised in an effort to protect the interests of the major studios.''

That's the same Jewison whose ''Moonstruck,'' ''A Soldier's Story,'' ''The Hurricane'' and ''Agnes of God'' would have been penalized by the Valenti Decree.

Luckily, the solution to this problem lies in the Disposable Video Disc, which self-destructs after one playing. Academy members could be sent disposable discs, good for one viewing and watermarked with their names. If they wanted to give it to pirates, everybody would know where it came from, and they could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Valenti says disposable discs are a bad idea, because if only a few discs get out, they can be reproduced endlessly. Yes, but his idea doesn't protect against that very possibility.

Last summer, critics arriving at advance screenings were searched by security guards. Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer refused the indignity and billed the studio for her lost taxi fare. Did the studios think professional critics would risk the loss of their jobs and criminal charges in order to smuggle a video camera into a theater and tape off the screen in full view of all of their colleagues? At the ''Finding Nemo'' screening, my turkey sandwich was inspected by a rent-a-cop. Were thousands of patrons in the nation's multiplexes also searched? Don't make me laugh.

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.

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
The most shocking revelation from this article: Roger Ebert brought a turkey sandwich to a screening of Finding Nemo.
Reply
post #67 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:41pm
It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.
Reply
post #68 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:46pm
Quote:
jonvoight's secondhand car:
The most shocking revelation from this article: Roger Ebert brought a turkey sandwich to a screening of Finding Nemo.
At least it wasn't tuna.
Reply
post #69 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Slater 'Slater' Slater:
G-dude, the reason for the two-theater rollout in the last week of the year is because smaller independents rely on word of mouth business. Expecting the studios to roll out "American Splendor" or "Lost in Translation" on 3,000 screens during their first weekend is insane. The films would flop--badly--and the studios would be even less willing to fund risky, artistic cinema. Once again, nobody wins.

Something like "American Splendor" lives or dies soley on audience buzz, and Oscar screeners help fuel that buzz. Take away the screeners and force these films to open (and flop) on a large number of screens across the country, and we won't see these types of films get produced anymore.

And reading that AICN Talkback brought a tear to my jaded eye. Harry deserves all the shit that's being flung in his direction and more. His "Modest Proposal" was the most arrogant fucking thing I've ever read.
You're very correct, Slater. I guess as a movie fan I've grown a bit weary of never being able to see these films without making long journeys, and then having no one to discuss thew with. After a while, you forget why it has to be like that in the first place.
Reply
post #70 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.
Do they really teach Swift in schools these days?
Reply
post #71 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.
It's about eating babies. Like veal, only babies. I'm talking real baby back ribs, dripping with sauce.

I think Harry just enjoys screwing with his talk-backers. That's what you get for getting literary on AICN.
Reply
post #72 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.
Care to explain that, or do you just want to throw out a general insult and then leave? My very first post about Harry made fun of him for misusing the phrase. Or is the great round one some sort of stunning social satirist that my feeble mind is unable to comprehend?
Reply
post #73 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Micah Robinson:
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.
Do they really teach Swift in schools these days?
Most famous piece of satire in history? I hope so.
Reply
post #74 of 91
10/10/03 at 2:55pm
It came off as incredibly snobby, but Dev had the right idea in mind. If you don't recognize that "A Modest Proposal" is satirical, then you may take Knowles' post a bit too literally.
Reply
post #75 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:00pm
I am incredibly snobby. And I think that there are certain things that you have to know. And one of those things is that "A Modest Proposal" is like a code word for "SATIRE"
Reply
post #76 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:04pm
And I think that when Harry Knowles said he wouldn't read the first Harry Potter book--which took most people less than two hours to read--because it was too long, then it's a safe bet we're not dealing with a literary mastermind here.

If you think Harry's editorial was satirical, what was the point he was trying to make? Seriously, Devin, point out the brilliant "satire" in Knowles' writing.
Reply
post #77 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:05pm
I didn't say that he did it well or consistently, merely that when someone writes something sort of outrageous and says it is a "Modest Proposal," you have to assume it's satire.
Reply
post #78 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:05pm
Maybe Knowles got a ghost-writer.
Reply
post #79 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:07pm
His point was that studio heads were bound to go along with it because they're the bean counters. Therefore sympathetic filmmakers should make some sort of stand or statement.
Reply
post #80 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:08pm
I still appreciate Knowles unabashed love for film, but I don't think Mensa will be accepting him into their ranks anytime soon.
Reply
post #81 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
I didn't say that he did it well or consistently, merely that when someone writes something sort of outrageous and says it is a "Modest Proposal," you have to assume it's satire.
I think you're giving Knowles too much credit.
Reply
post #82 of 91
10/10/03 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Bucky Wunderlickcf:
I didn't say that he did it well or consistently, merely that when someone writes something sort of outrageous and says it is a "Modest Proposal," you have to assume it's satire.
The definition of satire is "Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity." Who was Knowles attacking? What stupidity or vice was he exposing? How, in any possible way, was his editorial satirical?

People are giving Knowles waaaay too much credit here.
Reply
post #83 of 91
10/10/03 at 4:31pm
ebert's comments on this:
<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert07.html" target="_blank">http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert07.html</a>
Reply
post #84 of 91
10/10/03 at 4:34pm
Thanks for reading the thread.
Reply
post #85 of 91
10/10/03 at 4:40pm
woops a daisy

heh

ok then
Reply
post #86 of 91
10/11/03 at 8:03pm
Paly, great pic!
Reply
post #87 of 91
10/12/03 at 11:52pm
Considering only completely independent films can send screeners and the number of academy members that are seniors does anyone think maybe Bubba Ho-Tep has a chance for some gold this year? wink
Reply
post #88 of 91
10/14/03 at 1:53pm
<a href="http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1402&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20031014%2F111828017.htm&sc=1402" target="_blank">Actors Join Opposition to Screener Ban</a>

Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) - Several prominent actors, including Sean Penn, Holly Hunter, Frances McDormand and Willem Dafoe, have joined the opposition to a recent ban on sending special DVDs and videos to Academy Award voters.

The Writers Guild of America also has added its voice to the argument.

Their protest follows a letter sent last week from 142 directors to Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, urging the MPAA to immediately repeal its anti-piracy plan.

The actors, writers and directors contend that asking Oscar voters to see films only in theaters will put smaller, independent features at a disadvantage, and will do nothing to stop piracy.

``This is an acknowledgment that actors are often the triggers for financing and distribution decisions on independent movies so it's really important their voices are heard,'' Michelle Byrd, executive director of the Independent Feature Project/New York, told the trade paper Variety for Tuesday's editions. The IFP is helping organize opposition to the ban.

An actors' protest, to be published in the coming days, will include the names of Hilary Swank, Don Cheadle, Sissy Spacek, Ellen Burstyn, Nick Nolte, and Steve Buscemi, among others.

Screen Actors Guild president Melissa Gilbert also disagrees with the ban on screeners. ``It creates a hugely inequitable and hugely unleveled playing field,'' she said.

The MPAA reiterated Monday that it welcomed debate on the policy, but that the ban would remain.

Victoria Riskin, president of the Writers Guild of America West, said screener DVDs and videos are crucial to helping small, well-written films find an audience.

``Oscar winners such as Bill Condon ('Gods and Monsters'), Julian Fellowes ('Gosford Park') and John Irving ('The Cider House Rules') were first brought to the attention of Academy voters via just these means,'' Riskin said Monday. ``To place a gag order on 'screeners' is to tilt the playing field from small films to large.''

Last week, directors including Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Redford sent a protest letter to Valenti, which was published in Variety.
I have not read through this thread, so I apologize if this has been posted already.
Reply
post #89 of 91
10/15/03 at 6:23pm
Thread Starter 
For those interested, check out Page 2 of this document to see the list of tons of actors and filmmakers who have joined IFP, WGA, AFMA, BAFTA/LA, BAFTA/EC, etc. to fight the MPAA and its partners by urging them to place a moratorium on their ban of screeners.

<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/threast/pdfs/thre1015.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/threast/pdfs/thre1015.pdf</a>

There are some BIG names on the list.
Reply
post #90 of 91
10/20/03 at 6:51pm
This just keeps getting uglier:

<a href="http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12732,00.html?tnews" target="_blank">http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12732,00.html?tnews</a>
Reply
post #91 of 91
10/21/03 at 1:39pm
apparently (well, according to Variety) the Academy backed off and will allow screeners, on the provision that they are only sent to Academy members and the press.

My question is, who the hell got those screeners in the first place? I always though they were only handed out to those groups to start with.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MPAA drops Oscar screeners to fight piracy