Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media News

142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban 196

Posted by CowboyNeal from the we'll-be-good-we-promise dept.
Londovir writes "Nearly 150 directors, including heavy hitters such as Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford, and others have sent a letter to Jack Valenti & the MPAA. In the letter, published in the Friday issue of Variety, they call for an end to the ban on screeners, suggesting that the lack of screeners will harm the potential of movies that take risks and rely on critical acclaim. Despite the star power behind those signing on the letter, and after a conference call with 3 studio executives, what was the MPAA's response? "...the screener policy remains as it was originally announced." Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban More

142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban

Comments Filter:

  • MPAA accountability (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since the MPAA isn't directly accountable to the directors I don't think this will have much of an effect. What it would require is for the studios themselves which are members of the MPAA to take stands against these actions.
    • I don't get it. What do you guys expect them to do? Both of the last two Lord of the Rings movies had crystal clear DVD-rips leaked online thanks to those screeners. I saw Fellowship of the Ring on my PC while it was still in theaters. It's become common practice to leak them now. People into that sort of thing expect it.

      Should they sit back and let it all be pirated or take a stand? You should be glad they're not going after file-traders individually with litigation and instead doing exactly what yo
      • I don't get it. What do you guys expect them to do? Both of the last two Lord of the Rings movies had crystal clear DVD-rips leaked online thanks to those screeners

        That's not possible. Screeners usually are far from being crystal clear - the film is often interrupted by a message like "if you rented or purchased this movie, call 800-SOMETHING". I don't understand what exactly are they trying to achieve by banning _screeners_. It cannot be proliferation of pirated crystal clear copies - that's clear lik
      • Perhaps they should instead try to make movies that are good enough that people will want to see them in the theaters, even after watching the rips in tiny windows on their PC's.

        No, instead they market crap, hoping people will go see it in the theater, coughing up the nine bucks before they find out it sucks.

        Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. If a movie is good, people WILL go to the theater to see it. I mean, I doubt anyone who watched and liked leaked copies of the original Matrix didn't go see it in t
        • Perhaps they should instead try to make movies that are good enough that people will want to see them in the theaters...

          That was always my complaint about Honda and Toyota. Perhaps they should instead try to make cars that are good enough that people will want to buy them, rather than steal [chase.com] them.

          Justify it anyway that you want. Stealing is still stealing.
  • Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?

    Seems to me if the MPAA totally ignored me, I'd get pretty pissed and tell them to fuck off. Maybe if they really had balls, they'd strike.
    • Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?

      These guys are not being geniuine about thier motives, screeners give them an opportunity to get thier films shown to Acadamy members who otherwise have not attended thier showing. It also gives them a chance to promote the work of thier hand puicked students who they are sure will be future fellow MPAA members like themselves, and it preve

  • best way to get this changed... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    would be for the academy award voters to say, "Fine. You don't want to send us the movies, we're not going to vote. No awards this year."

    It's not like the Awards were actually based on merit, anyways.

  • Who needs the MPAA? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by t0rnt0pieces ( 594277 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:01AM (#7189390)
    Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"

    I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films, but it could mean the end of the MPAA. Who needs them anyway? The Academy Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the MPAA even have any say in who sends AMPAS screeners movies?
    • I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films

      Hmm... Right, hard to see how it could be the end of something which had never begun.

    • Re:Who needs the MPAA? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      MPAA is a watch dog just like RIAA in the record industry. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe MPAA's board members are current or ex studio execs. There is absolutely no way studios like Universal would ever "knock some sense into Valenti's mind," as both share common interests.

      But really, while artists' (directors') interest is to have their films widely distributed and acknowledged, MPAA and studios have completely different interests, economical only. Studios push their films for Oscar nominations, but

  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:02AM (#7189400) Journal
    Screeners comprise only about 49.847723% of the actual pirated software on the net. It's like this because it's convenient for pirates to snag a copy of the film and use it, before the film is released.

    Banning screeners would mean that the industry is starting to cave in from the piracy movement. Is that what you want? Do you want Hollywood to crumble? But wait a minute.

    Ten dollars for a bag of popcorn and a pop?

    Five dollars for a box of candy?

    Maybe there is more here than meets the eye! Maybe it's not that pirates want to ruin Hollywood. Maybe the public is saying somthing to the movie industry about other possible reforms that should be considered.

    Like going to the theater when there are a couple of goofs talking through the whole movie. Or when some smelly guys wears flip-flops that are five years old, and sits near you while he adjusts his seat every five seconds.

    The whole experience of the movies has declined since the eighties, while a lot of other industries have improved (like the video game industry).

    Banning screeners is the way to go, if you want to hurt the little indy film maker, but maybe some smart person will release their films ONLY to the internet, and become the next Bill Gates.

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Multics ( 45254 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:18AM (#7189449) Journal
      WAIT, STOP, Hold your horses.

      In reality, most screeners are needed because the movie company has not put a movie in general release and thus if you're a voting member in say Lake Tahoe, there is no way to see most of the movies that you're supposed to be voting on (Smelly kid or not).

      No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified (not just on the markable/scratchable skin of the DVD). That way, when one is 'discovered' in the used market, the person who released it can be fined or removed from getting any others.

      They'll use technology against us customer scum, but they won't use it to clean up their own house.

      Jack 'Boom Boom' Valenti's time has long past. He is second only to the RIAA in creepyness both by policy and in person. Thankfully at age 82, he'll be done soon anyway.

      -- Multics

      • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neonstz ( 79215 ) * on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:24AM (#7189466) Homepage
        No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified

        This is already being done. However, most release-groups remove the serials (by blurring or just placing a black box) on the movies they release.

      • Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evilviper ( 135110 )

        No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified

        Every time this comes up, someone mentions that same thing, and there is also someone like myself who replies to say that they have already been doing this for a good long time.

        Release groups already know how to detect and remove this information. There isn't all that much you can do to mark a copy in a way that will remain when it is re-encoded, but won't turn the quality of the movie to

      • (Yes it is poor form to reply to your own posting)

        No... consider the effort already complete for the DIVX technology that Circuit City did. Push players out to the MPAA voters and make the media tied to the player.

        As Jack is fond of pointing out, THIS MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY should be able to push a little technology out to keep the group clean. Then in the stream coming from the the player, still blow (randomly?) the serial number of the item into various parts of the interblanking. I am sure

      • Re:Duh (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        In reality, most screeners are needed because the movie company has not put a movie in general release and thus if you're a voting member in say Lake Tahoe, there is no way to see most of the movies that you're supposed to be voting on

        In which case maybe the movie should simply receive no reviews from reviewers anywhere it hasn't been made available.
      • No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified (not just on the markable/scratchable skin of the DVD). That way, when one is 'discovered' in the used market, the person who released it can be fined or removed from getting any others.

        Actually the solution is probably to do nothing, and to realise if they make quality people will support them and if the make their commercial junk people wont.

    • Re:Duh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kenthorvath ( 225950 )
      I am an avid movie-goer and I find the cost is well worth the experience of the movie theater. I admit that Friday and Saturday nights I usually don't plan on seeing a movie because of the tendency of immature teanie boppers to flock together and act boisterously, however this is not something that is easy to deal with - nor would the theaters want to, because they are a LARGE part of the audience. Instead, I find myself going on evenings and midday after work. Sometimes I take an extended lunch break. I al

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:45AM (#7189548)
      Good preaching, man. I HATE the movie theatre experience. Ever since I moved to Atlanta, it's been a nightmare every time.

      If it's not the droves of gangsta wannabe teenagers, it's the middle-aged overweight women who can't stop talking. The $6 soda. The drive. How about the 6.1 audio system with a blown rear-channel speaker?

      The smell of most theaters alone is enough to get me to not go. A combination of a society who's more talk than action on it's hygene and lazy immigrants who don't care about their jobs enough to actually clean the theaters properly on occasion. Then there's the whole SARS season rolling in on us soon.

      And my friends think I am messed up for buying a 56" DLP HDTV for my movie watching.. I get similar visual quality as I would in the theater, but I get to pause the action for a potty break, pop some popcorn for $0.30, drink a soda for $0.25, wear my Pj's and do whatever lewd cuddling I want with my woman without having to be discreet.

      Here's the funny thing. The same people who think I am a bit nutty for spending some bread on this stuff are the ones who eat out at staple food resturants 3-5 times a week, go to the movies 2-3 times a week, then go have desert at specialty shops, etc. That adds up to hundreds upon hundreds a month, especially if you are dragging along a member of the opposite sex.

      If they would only get into the pattern of learning to cook and do these things for themselves, work on making life at home better instead of funding mega-corporations every chance they get, they'd learn that when doing these things in your own home results in better foods, better coffee, better deserts, better movie watching experiences, and a more relaxed life (having not dealt with crowds or rude people).

      I say all this, having stopped at Starbucks a few minutes ago because I was late leaving the house and did not have time to brew my own coffee.

      I think the RIAA had planned on directors complaining. They are, of course, the people who have expensive theaters in their homes specifically to impress guests with DVD screeners. Don't just think of the awards, the directors aren't, either.. :)

      What gets me, Hollywood actually thinks people are satisfied enough with watching a Divx of a screener instead of renting/buying the DVD. I guess they've never watched a Divx on anything bigger than 36" display. There's no comparison. Now, if people were posting the raw, unencrypted DVD on Kazaa, that'd be a different story. Most movie pirate types I have encountered seem to deal with quantity instead of quality, so I doubt that'll happen anytime soon, not on a large scale. Though, you occasionally see an uncompressed screener go through usenet on occasion..

      Rent a DVD, skip the theater, drive them out of business through natural selection.
      • "The smell of most theaters alone is enough to get me to not go. A combination of a society who's more talk than action on it's hygene and lazy immigrants who don't care about their jobs enough to actually clean the theaters properly on occasion. Then there's the whole SARS season rolling in on us soon."

        You have obviously missed the whole guts of the theater going experience with your bad attitude.

        Just try and make popcorn at home that is like what you get in the theater. It's impossible. They use so
    • Taking the 49% figure for granted, there is 49% of hundreds of millions (or [puts pinky by lips] "billions?") of dollars at stake in the way the Academy releases movies to screeners.

      Why don't the MPAA and the Oscar people hire private jets to take groups of screeners every weekend to a special [secure] theater in Los Angeles where they sit in leather couches and drink wine and eat caviar while they watch a bunch of noninated movies in a category in glorious and gluttonous comfort, then take them out to a d
      • If each screener disc has a unique pattern of loss, then two screener versions of the same film can be compared and combined into a good unmarked one by switching from one source to the other every time there's a lossy frame. (This assumes there isn't overlap between the patterns.) If they can find a way of changing the film so it's unclear which frame is bad and which good then this might be a winner. Still, I think it would be a very sophisticated scheme that couldn't be defeated by comparison of larger n
    • Anyone remember when you could go to the movies without the police having to have a car at the theater? It seems to be the norm here, and I stopped going to the theater a couple of months ago. Nothing but noisy gangs of kids, drugs, cops. Maybe that adds to the experience for a Quentin Tarantino flick, but not much else. My wife and I spent about $75 a week on that, until it became too much of a hassle.

      Get youself a big screen TV, great sound system and join Netflix. Your break even point will only be
    • Do you want Hollywood to crumble?

      Yep.
  • Where is the art in movies any more? Taken away by the profit seeking MPAA. This shows how the MPAA is not concerned how good the movie is and how well people will think about it, they just want to herd people in like cattle! The recent story about how they are ruining thier own films just to reduce piracy [slashdot.org] is just another example about how this evil orginization cares not about the movie but the profits. It doesn't matter what the viewers think, just as long as they still pay to see the movie. This is takin

  • Why not start another awards ceremony (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    after all , everyone realises that the Oscars are nothing more than a incestuous marketing tool for the connected and not a celebration of creative genius

    Then again who cares about awards at all, they have been diluted to the point where the public is turned off by the shere number of them making, Awards in the 21st century are now irelavent the quicker the MPAA and directors "get it" the better off we might be, perish the thought that we actually get films that succeed on merits and good stories over big
  • What I don't get is how they could possibly enforce such a ban. If I understand correctly, they aren't the organization giving out the Oscars; what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?

    • what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?

      The MPAA represents these directors and producers as a lobbying group, and uses thier strength (derived, of course, from having these members) to controll the distribution of films. Most of them (the directors etc) do not want a truly free market in which independant films are reviewed by the Acadamy members, as they enjoy the power of being able to select which independants get to be reviewed, nor do they wish to
  • He's a studio guy, through and through. While I'm not a guy that looks for people on the grassy noll, it does make sense that the big studios are trying to squeeze out the indies.

    This will also be death to the documentary movies...which in my opinion are the more interesting and entertaining of many movies out there now. How can all the academy members expect to drop everything they're doing and try to find some obscure theater that happens to be playing the movies nominated? How is this possible? They can
    • If I was an independant film maker, not working out of the US, couldn't I just tell Jackoff V. and the MPAA to shove their no-screener policy up their collective asses and send my own out myself? I know the obvious answer is i'd probably get "blackballed" but what if enough people started doing this...couldn't some sort of collective action render the whole MPAA more or less irrelevent?

  • Velenti is not the likely decision maker here (Score:3, Funny)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:07AM (#7189410) Journal
    will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?

    Make no mistake, MPAA is simply a trade association -- the studio chains call the shots -- and likely called this one.

    On the question how to lobby or make speeches, Valenti is king -- probably one of the best legislative advisors in the nation. But when they want Jack's opinion on film business and policy, they will give it to him.
  • (assuming there are any) will catch my reference, but here goes anyway:

    Valenti: Ok, you can vote, but don't let me catch you watching!

    KFG

  • Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Now15 ( 9715 )
    This is just another nail in the coffin of the more-glamour-less-substance Academy Awards anyway. When deciding which movie I'm going to watch, I look at its score on IMDB, and occasionally read what my local movie critics say.

    Award ceremonies have absolutely no bearing on anything, other than to give a dubiously limited selection of celebrities to flout their wealth and pat themselves on the back.

  • Stars are the enemy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:13AM (#7189434)
    Stars and big-name directors are the studios enemies as much as the pirates. They take huge chunks of the profit margin and in many cases the studio doesn't have a choice but to pay what they want.

    So "star power" in demanding business decision changes isn't going to go very far. Business managers at studios probably just see this as rich Hollywood employees whining about having to buy DVDs instead of getting them free before anyone else.

    Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?
    • "Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?"

      Hey! Marisa Tomei deserved that oscar for 'My Cousin Vinny'! I don't want to hear you insinuating that she was just the Hot Ass of the Week!

      Same goes for 'Gangs of New York'. I don't know anyone who has seen that movie, but I'll probably meet someone someday who has. And I'll bet they liked it.
    • There are many academics who have analyzed "star power" and its relatioship to the major studios in Hollywood. There seems to be a consensus that commercial endeavors in Hollywood are high-risk due to the difficulty at predicting success of films. Studios are HEAVILY reliant on the use of "star power" as a commercial tool for marketing films. Studios are fine with paying a large sum of money or cutting a percentage of revenue for stars given the studios' fear of flops with no-name stars and the desire to
    • I agree.

      Look for independent (sometimes local) artists. Not just for music, but also for art, and multimedia (combination of the 2).

      Personally, I'm a photographer, pixel artist, and a musician (piano, guitar, bass, sing, blah blah blah). I'm about 5 weeks from the release of my DVD (containing all my previous art and music in the form of a motion picture). This is the first DVD like this for me and I'm not sure if others do the same thing or not, but I'm going to have around 300-500 pressed and give them
      • Question for the masses here...Would you purchase a DVD from your favorite local artist for $10? (Such as the one I'm working on now)

        From my favorite artists, yeah, I'd be willing to pay a bit more than $10 for a tangible instance of their old work in order to support their future work; but from an unknown (like you), where there's no emotional connection between us and where there's already an abundance of other art to choose from, the price point would be a bit less.

        Another major factor, for me, would

        • From my favorite artists, yeah, I'd be willing to pay a bit more than $10 for a tangible instance of their old work in order to support their future work; but from an unknown (like you), where there's no emotional connection between us and where there's already an abundance of other art to choose from, the price point would be a bit less.

          For the first DVD, I would give it out to key people. Free as in beer. They don't have the right to modify and resell it. They do have the right to put it on their compu
      • Would you purchase a DVD from your favorite local artist for $10? (Such as the one I'm working on now)

        Sure, if I had a favorite local artist. When I was 24 and working two part time jobs (the sum of which didn't equal 40 hours), I had a lot of favorite local artists because I had the time, energy and the soft, pink liver required to go to bars 2-3 nights per week.

        Now that I'm old, tired, working 50 hours a week, married, and have a hard, inflamed liver, it's hard to keep track of or be aware of loc
  • Well its time for the directors and actors to receive the cold slap in the face that is reality received earlier by their brethren in the music world from the RIAA. The MPAA doens't care in the least about *you* the only thing they care about is the money being generated by the product you create. What you think isn't important, what you want isn't important. Go figure... who'd have thought. -zr

  • Bah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:26AM (#7189474)
    Not to be crude (well, actually *TO* be crude) about it, but who gives a fuck?

    The Oscars are just money driven politics used to shove more bad movies down our throats.

    I pay *NO* attention to the damn things.

    Look, if you want a copy, rent the damn thing and rip it. You have to wait 6 months, boo hoo! At least then someone is getting a little change out of your cheap ass.

    Damn moves take too long to dl, the quality generally sucks and assholes get off on renaming files so you dl the wrong one.

    Get all the movies off kazaa so I get have the bandwidth for Sealab 2021 and pr0n, dammit!

    Damn hangover...

  • PIRAMYD TROLL SCHEME!!!! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

    All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

    Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

    Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next
  • Ok, this is news for nerds because its interesting how far they will go to stop piracy.

    On the other hand, I don't care about the Oscars or other award show, they've never picked anything I thought deserved it. Yes I know that it looks better and Oscar award movies do make more money with the general public, but to me its just a silly little self-congradulatory event.

  • "'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". From Older Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/articles/02/05/31/1622232.shtm l?tid=97

    This was a blunder that he made

  • In related news (Score:3, Funny)

    by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @09:49AM (#7189569) Journal
    In related news Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford have urged the members of Academy of Arts and Sciences to download the new movies from Kazaa so that they might be better equipped to pick the nominees for the Award show next year.

  • At Least It's Art... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fringe ( 6096 )
    Maybe not the movies they're producing, nor the records produced by RIAA memebers, but between the MPAA and the RIAA we have some high satire worthy of Jonathan Swift. Valenti and RIAA President Cary Sherman will be remembered long after "House of the Dead" and Brittney Spears have been left in the dustbin of pop history. And isn't that what art's about?
  • ... but aren't the only studios that will follow the requirement to not send screeners to the Accademy going to be the large studios who can get their movies shown in thousands of theaters nation wide?

    While the MPAA talks a good game when it comes down to it, the independent studios are going to be making their own decisions, and realizing that the Academy people are only going to be able to use their recollection of movies in theaters from the begining of the year, or in the now playing catagory, will sen
  • Let's check the dictionary [reference.com]:
    1. A movable device, especially a framed construction such as a room divider or a decorative panel, designed to divide, conceal, or protect.
    2. One that serves to protect, conceal, or divide: Security guards formed a screen around the President. A screen of evergreens afforded privacy from our neighbors.
    3. A coarse sieve used for sifting out fine particles, as of sand, gravel, or coal.
    4. A system for preliminary appraisal and selection of personnel as to their suitability for particular
    • Each year the academy sends DVDs of movies up for nomination to academy members (ie, actors, directors and so forth) so they can watch the movies and then vote for them.

      As you can imagine, nobody can see each movie up for grabs each year, much less the less-distributed arthouse ones where the real 'art' is.

      The MPAA is worried these DVDs will make it onto the internet.
  • Does anyone know if Lucas and Spielberg were on the petition? Or were they too busy [tvtome.com] to sign it?
  • To clarify, what Jack Valenti of the MPAA is trying to stop is movie piracy. There was a recent article here (I ain't looking for it) that said that Hollywood discovered that most leaks of pirated movies were coming from "insider" copies, like the video tapes sent to Motion Picture Academy members for their consideration in voting for Oscars.

    As movie critic Roger Ebert explains [suntimes.com] the result is they started searching movie critics for video cameras at the entrance to film screenings and the MPAA ordered th

  • Valenti is, in my opinion, an idiot. Maybe it's time for all those high-profile directors to create an awards system that is meaningful and not just political payback for favors done.

    Anyway, I think movies are much more enjoyable in a theater with a cute girl next to me. Ripping movies is just one more way to keep yourself from getting a girlfriend (or boyfriend). Next time you want to rip the latest flick stifle it and call up a cutie and rub shoulders for a few hours. Hell, even the popcorn is better at
  • Jack's doing it for the artists. That's what he's been saying all along. Don't these directors care about the artists?
    • Jodie Foster signed the letter.

      She's not an artist? She doesn't support independent film?

      • Oh bleh. I was being sarcastic...in the sense of when someone says they're "doing it for the children", then they're usually not. Same here, "doing it for the artists", and yet the artists are not happy with it... :)
  • ... The RIAA has announced that it will stop sending albums and singles to radio stations, to prevent unauthorized copying.

    Come to think of it, that would be a good thing!

  • Why don't they jump ship? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:07AM (#7189886)
    Look at the list of names on the E Online [eonline.com] article that was posted higher up.

    Scorsese, both Coppolas, Barry Levinson, Redford, Sam Raimi, Darabont, Altman, David Lynch, Spike Jonze, Cronenberg, the Coen Bros... It's virtually a who's-who of all the best filmmakers in Hollywood, and a mix of old greats and up-and-comers.

    If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick? The Academy - which is a separate entity - refusing them entrance? I don't think so.

    The fact that so many truly great directors (and writers) are on that list, I think, proves just HOW misguided Valenti is being. He and the studios see films as nothing more than Product - made as cheap as possible, peddled out to the brain dead masses. But the people who signed that list are the ones who *know* better. And if they ever decided to leave, they could, never look back, and the MPAA system would likely crumble in their wake. (I mean, really, who's the MPAA got left? Speilberg... Uh...)

    The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance - and whether the studio heads even REALIZE the importance of visionary directors in their schemes anymore.

  • I personally think this is a swell move. Why? Because unlike the tactics of say the RIAA, the MPAA is going after a subset of folks who aren't their consumers but collegues. In a way they are changing a way the movie industry runs instead of trying to alter human nature.

    Yeah yeah, the poor screeners and indie film makers. Well I guess all those independent films won't be winning Best Picture.

    Outside of studio marketing folks, who cares who wins Oscars? People still go to movies, with or without the A
  • After seeing a sample of the anti-piracy red dots,

    http://www.vcdquality.com/image.php?id=18919

    I saw it in Kill Bill 3 times last night. The are very obvious because part of the movie is black and white. It's rather distracting. I forgot to complain to the manager afterwards cuz I was upset about how the movie sucked, but if any of you are going to see the film, remember to complain about it.
    • the movie sucked

      You do know that the studios decided it was too long and chopped it in two, figuring that they have found a way to make people pay twice for the same movie?
  • ... and here's why.

    This WON'T stop piracy one bit, we all know that. These business dinosaurs deserve extinction, and the sooner the better.

    This WON'T kill the Indy movies, because whether or not it wins an Oscar doesn't matter to 90% of the people who rent movies. Word of mouth is king with Indy movies; it's icing on the cake if one wins an award. It MAY affect how wide the distribution of the movie is, which may hurt. But it will still be sought out due to word of mouth.

    Which brings us to point three,
  • ..."We are going to ban movie studios from sending out copies of their own copyrighted material to our members because we believe that some of our own members are breaking the law and selling that copyrighted material."

    If the movie studios who send out these copyrighted (copyrights that *they* own, not the MPAA) thought they were losing money because of this practice, they would stop sending them out. Remember these screeners are sent out after the movie has been out for a while (sometimes a *long* while).
  • ...stop showing trailers that shows the entire plot of the movie. Too many movies like "Sweet Home Alabama" had trailors that showed the entire movie in less than 1 minute.

    Surprise ending, huh?
  • Business 2.0 says that Valenti is preparing to retire. Anyone know who will replace him?

  • The screener ban is good thing... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by qtp ( 461286 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @12:21PM (#7190295) Journal
    I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.

    The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.

    If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).

    • In reply to my own post:

      It does not seem as though these directors are forbidden to submit screeners of works that are not under contract with thier studios or associated with the MPAA. The ban only applies to the MPAA members works, and I cant see how the MPAA could enforce a ban on screeners for films that are not being paid for or distributed by MPAA members.

      This still makes the protest against the screener ban a little less than genuine in motive.

  • Again, I am amazed at how powerful had the RIAA become. It is supposedly an organisation formed by studios and now it dictates them what to do. What next, the Congress telling American citizens how to behave? Oh, sorry, nevermind...
  • You can buy screener copies in NYC on Canal street around Broadway. There is always at least 1 table set up selling new movies for around $5. It always amazes me that they aren't arrested. I guess the NYPD has better things to do..

    I bought one once, the only difference was every 15 minutes or so a ticker ran across the bottom saying "It's illegal to buy this" or something.
  • ...how long until the industry realizes that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is no longer necessary? In response to the MPAA, this group of RICH, POWERFUL directors shoud take their fortunes and create a wholly independent film scene. Create their own studios, distribution facilities, theaters -- EVERYTHING. Leave out the MPAA. Leave out the $6 sodas and $8 popcorns and $10 tickets and screens-smaller-than-my-tv and anything else which corporate greed has given us to increase their profits and reduce our experienc
  • ... can you please tell us what it means? Maybe it's common in America or among movie buffs, but I have never heard the word "screener" before nor has anyone I've asked about it.
  • I saw Kill Bill last night, which was great, but I was annoyed by the skip in my immersion caused by a flashed set of code dots appeearing across Uma Thurmon's face.

    The cigarrette burn things are annoying too, but they come from a technical cause which is dissappearing with digital distribution. Intentionally marring frames to stop low-quality cam releases is idiotic. The award show and screener thing is an internal issue the industry should figure out; they're the ones who care about and receive benefit
  • "Whatcha doin?

    I'm appealin!

    That's a minority view."

Slashdot Top Deals

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Close