The MPAA Kills Academy Screeners
10-02-03 | 12:43 AM
#26
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
How is it a problem with the system? You must think I refer to the big name actors or actresses.
Most film crews are on location for a few months. in that time the film will be in and out of the theater already. shooting for films is a round the clock sort of deal. so lets say film crew A is in the nevada desert shooting for a film named uh... "Sunday Morning's Big desert action adventure. shooting takes a few months to get wrapped up. those
Your home theater set up might not cut it for you, but for most of these professionals who work in the industry, a high end home theater is a must. for most above the line jobs their home theater puts most local theaters to shame. So watching it on a dvd is just as good as watching it in the theaters. Only without the noisy people talking ruining your enjoyment of the film and lowering the chances of voting for it. These people are not watching the screen on location, they are watching it at home when they do actually get back or actually have time to dedicate the time to it.
Most filming is for a period of time. then there is a lot of dead time if you don't have a gig to follow up. So you might go a few months with working 16 hour days and really have no time for a theater trip and then have 3 months of nothing. What happens when that person missed the film that was around for those months while they were busy? by then it would hit the lower end theaters were it would actually be better to view them at home.
You see my point at all? it may seem like they have all the free time in the world, but sometimes they really don't. To be fair to all the nomiated films you should blanket out a whole statement. let the voter see all the choices and make sure they have seen all the choices before voting for which one is the best of them all and not the best of the ones they have seen or the ones they have heard about through promo's and ad's. it's not a popularity contest as you might think of it.
Most film crews are on location for a few months. in that time the film will be in and out of the theater already. shooting for films is a round the clock sort of deal. so lets say film crew A is in the nevada desert shooting for a film named uh... "Sunday Morning's Big desert action adventure. shooting takes a few months to get wrapped up. those
Your home theater set up might not cut it for you, but for most of these professionals who work in the industry, a high end home theater is a must. for most above the line jobs their home theater puts most local theaters to shame. So watching it on a dvd is just as good as watching it in the theaters. Only without the noisy people talking ruining your enjoyment of the film and lowering the chances of voting for it. These people are not watching the screen on location, they are watching it at home when they do actually get back or actually have time to dedicate the time to it.
Most filming is for a period of time. then there is a lot of dead time if you don't have a gig to follow up. So you might go a few months with working 16 hour days and really have no time for a theater trip and then have 3 months of nothing. What happens when that person missed the film that was around for those months while they were busy? by then it would hit the lower end theaters were it would actually be better to view them at home.
You see my point at all? it may seem like they have all the free time in the world, but sometimes they really don't. To be fair to all the nomiated films you should blanket out a whole statement. let the voter see all the choices and make sure they have seen all the choices before voting for which one is the best of them all and not the best of the ones they have seen or the ones they have heard about through promo's and ad's. it's not a popularity contest as you might think of it.
10-02-03 | 01:37 AM
#27
Originally posted by Sunday Morning
I say let only clint eastwood pick all the winners, shoot the rest.
Holy crap. Nice mental image of clint eastwood announcing the winners one by one.... "Do you feel lucky punk? DO YA?"
I say let only clint eastwood pick all the winners, shoot the rest.
Holy crap. Nice mental image of clint eastwood announcing the winners one by one.... "Do you feel lucky punk? DO YA?"
10-02-03 | 02:17 AM
#28
Cool New Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The MPAA Kills Academy Screeners
Originally posted by gkleinman
...Citing... in fact... screenings... piracy... fare... deal... to find their audience?... after all... an...
...Citing... in fact... screenings... piracy... fare... deal... to find their audience?... after all... an...
10-02-03 | 07:46 AM
#29
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Re: The MPAA Kills Academy Screeners
Originally posted by Isildur
And these are just the syntactical errors I noticed while glancing through. If I went through and corrected the awkward sentence compositions and awkward verb usage (get seen?) I would be here for another half hour. I'm usually not a grammar/spelling nazi, but if you're gonna send a formal letter to someone like Roger Ebert at least proofread it a couple times. If you're not good at spelling/grammar try letting someone who is look it over. Just a thought...
And these are just the syntactical errors I noticed while glancing through. If I went through and corrected the awkward sentence compositions and awkward verb usage (get seen?) I would be here for another half hour. I'm usually not a grammar/spelling nazi, but if you're gonna send a formal letter to someone like Roger Ebert at least proofread it a couple times. If you're not good at spelling/grammar try letting someone who is look it over. Just a thought...
And now back to my usual ridiculous posting style:
but I aim to close every kind of hole in the dike I can find," Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, told The Associated Press.
10-02-03 | 09:31 AM
#31
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,671
Received 2,786 Likes
on
1,852 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally posted by RyoHazuki7
Whats the matter with just going to see the movie like everyone else?
Whats the matter with just going to see the movie like everyone else?
10-02-03 | 09:36 AM
#32
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
the matter is convience. some of these people who are important to vote miss out on a films theater release for reasons or another.
10-02-03 | 07:06 PM
#33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Alright. I was just checking. I didnt think about those rare, independent films. Being sixteen, I suppose I have more free time than you screener people. A lot more.
10-02-03 | 07:31 PM
#34
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
by numbering prints or placing a sort of signiture on each copy out and tracking who got what copy they can prevent what you said LivingINclip. the master copy would transfer the signiture and when a copy is caught they could easily trace it back to whoever got the copy and let it go.
by numbering prints or placing a sort of signiture on each copy out and tracking who got what copy they can prevent what you said LivingINclip. the master copy would transfer the signiture and when a copy is caught they could easily trace it back to whoever got the copy and let it go.
10-02-03 | 09:16 PM
#35
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
It can go beyond just numbering. You could put it in the inactive information of the horizontal sync pulse. sure they can crop that. either way, there is methods to put in some sort of signiture in the copy that goes out.
10-02-03 | 11:04 PM
#36
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
It can go beyond just numbering. You could put it in the inactive information of the horizontal sync pulse. sure they can crop that. either way, there is methods to put in some sort of signiture in the copy that goes out.
It can go beyond just numbering. You could put it in the inactive information of the horizontal sync pulse. sure they can crop that. either way, there is methods to put in some sort of signiture in the copy that goes out.
10-02-03 | 11:44 PM
#37
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
yes, but apprently it's not looked into. if they are giving up on it, it just tells you that they do not want to deal with it anymore. so i suppose no amount of security, though how easy it may be to check up and look into who's copy is being used as a Master.
10-03-03 | 05:01 AM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by marty888
Prior to the advent of home video, around 1980, the Academy Awards managed to functon without screeners.
If studios and producers want to be able to put their movies into the hands of the Academy voters, the obvious solution would be to have the films commercially available on DVD for awards season (not impossible, since to qualify a film must have played one week by the end of December) - then they are sending freebies, not "screeners", and piracy isn't an issue.
Prior to the advent of home video, around 1980, the Academy Awards managed to functon without screeners.
If studios and producers want to be able to put their movies into the hands of the Academy voters, the obvious solution would be to have the films commercially available on DVD for awards season (not impossible, since to qualify a film must have played one week by the end of December) - then they are sending freebies, not "screeners", and piracy isn't an issue.
Why would they do that you ask? Because this isn't really about piracy. It's about controlling who gets Oscars.
10-11-03 | 12:16 AM
#40
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
looks like they agree G man
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.
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.
10-12-03 | 11:25 AM
#41
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Many of Hollywood's biggest names, from directors Martin Scorsese and Joel Coen to actors Robert Redford and Jodie Foster, teamed up on Friday to publicly denounce a ban by the major studios on Oscar-screening DVDs and videotapes.
More than 130 filmmakers led by veteran director Robert Altman signed an open letter, published as full-page ads in industry trade papers Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, calling the ban an "unwarranted obstacle" that will keep independent, cutting-edge films from gaining the wide exposure they deserve.
The letter was addressed to Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, and the chief proponent of the controversial ban, intended to thwart illegal copying of of films.
"It has been said that we in the film industry are honor-bound to go along with this ban," the letter said. "We believe that as filmmakers, we are honor-bound to oppose it."
The MPAA sparked a Hollywood furor when it announced last week that the seven major studios it represents, plus non-member DreamWorks SKG, had agreed to end their long-held practice of sending videos and DVDs of Oscar-contending movies to Academy Award voters.
The ban also applies to such "Indiewood" outlets as Miramax and Sony Pictures Classics, the studio-owned distributors of independent films like "Monster's Ball" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" that have gained increasing Oscar recognition in recent years.
Valenti has said the ban is intended to fight movie piracy after a year in which tapes and DVDs of several films vying for Academy Awards were copied, then appeared for sale on the black market in Asian countries and for download on the Internet.
But many in the film industry say the "screener" ban will make it harder for lower-budget movies to compete with big-studio fare at Oscar time because they play in fewer theaters and are seen by fewer members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Oscars.
"Many great films, and in particular films that take risks, rely on critical acclaim and, when the film is fortunate enough, Academy consideration to reach a broad audience," the letter from filmmaker said. "The MPAA decision to ban screeners irreparably damages the chances of such films."
Other filmmakers joining the letter include Pedro Almodovar, Francis Ford Coppola, David Cronenberg, Jonathan Demme, Atom Egoyan, Nora Ephron, Terry Gilliam, Lasse Hallstrom, Spike Jonze, Ange Lee, Sidney Lumet, David Lynch and Sydney Pollack.
More than 130 filmmakers led by veteran director Robert Altman signed an open letter, published as full-page ads in industry trade papers Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, calling the ban an "unwarranted obstacle" that will keep independent, cutting-edge films from gaining the wide exposure they deserve.
The letter was addressed to Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, and the chief proponent of the controversial ban, intended to thwart illegal copying of of films.
"It has been said that we in the film industry are honor-bound to go along with this ban," the letter said. "We believe that as filmmakers, we are honor-bound to oppose it."
The MPAA sparked a Hollywood furor when it announced last week that the seven major studios it represents, plus non-member DreamWorks SKG, had agreed to end their long-held practice of sending videos and DVDs of Oscar-contending movies to Academy Award voters.
The ban also applies to such "Indiewood" outlets as Miramax and Sony Pictures Classics, the studio-owned distributors of independent films like "Monster's Ball" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" that have gained increasing Oscar recognition in recent years.
Valenti has said the ban is intended to fight movie piracy after a year in which tapes and DVDs of several films vying for Academy Awards were copied, then appeared for sale on the black market in Asian countries and for download on the Internet.
But many in the film industry say the "screener" ban will make it harder for lower-budget movies to compete with big-studio fare at Oscar time because they play in fewer theaters and are seen by fewer members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Oscars.
"Many great films, and in particular films that take risks, rely on critical acclaim and, when the film is fortunate enough, Academy consideration to reach a broad audience," the letter from filmmaker said. "The MPAA decision to ban screeners irreparably damages the chances of such films."
Other filmmakers joining the letter include Pedro Almodovar, Francis Ford Coppola, David Cronenberg, Jonathan Demme, Atom Egoyan, Nora Ephron, Terry Gilliam, Lasse Hallstrom, Spike Jonze, Ange Lee, Sidney Lumet, David Lynch and Sydney Pollack.
10-12-03 | 11:36 AM
#42
Moderator
Tuesday night's scrreening of "Mystric River" a woman introduced the film and she said something along the line of "and yes this screening of this movie, is being monitored for piracy"
oh scary how big brotherish.
oh scary how big brotherish.
10-12-03 | 12:00 PM
#43
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
I find it funny that they are pretty much pointing at their own members and elitest that are at the screenings as the same folk who are releasing it online. Last time I heard, they had better things to do then to release:
KiLl.bIlL.w0rKpRiNt.[DEVIANT].vcd
to any news groups.
KiLl.bIlL.w0rKpRiNt.[DEVIANT].vcd
to any news groups.
10-19-03 | 07:32 PM
#44
DVD Talk Reviewer
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Critics Axe '03 Awards After Screener Ban
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Los Angeles Film Critics Association has canceled its 2003 awards to protest an industry ban on sending special DVDs and videos to award voters.
The association voted Saturday not to hand out the awards, which can boost interest in a film and predict its Oscar chances. Members said they would consider resuming the awards if the studios again hand out videos and DVDs of new films.
The major studios and their trade group, the Motion Picture Association of America, agreed in September to stop sending "screener'' copies to the 5,600 Academy Awards voters and other groups that hand out awards, including the Los Angeles Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics.
The studios hoped to prevent piracy, but the decision angered supporters of smaller movies who say voters may miss independent pictures if they have to see them at screenings in theaters. Opponents of the ban say screener distribution has led to several Academy Awards for smaller films, including best actress wins for Halle Berry in 2001's "Monster's Ball'' and Hilary Swank in 1999's "Boys Don't Cry.''
Ella Taylor, a critic for the LA Weekly, suggested the cancellation and said she hoped other critics groups also would withhold awards. She said there were many films released toward the end of the year, and that voters may not be able to see them all without screeners.
"Unless they rescind the ban we just don't feel that we can really do our work properly,'' she said.
Jean Oppenheimer, the president of the association, said many critics see films in theaters but use screener copies to view films again as they decide the best pictures of the year.
"This really helps inform us better,'' said Oppenheimer, who reviews films for New Times, National Public Radio and other outlets.
MPAA officials did not immediately return calls for comment Sunday,
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Los Angeles Film Critics Association has canceled its 2003 awards to protest an industry ban on sending special DVDs and videos to award voters.
The association voted Saturday not to hand out the awards, which can boost interest in a film and predict its Oscar chances. Members said they would consider resuming the awards if the studios again hand out videos and DVDs of new films.
The major studios and their trade group, the Motion Picture Association of America, agreed in September to stop sending "screener'' copies to the 5,600 Academy Awards voters and other groups that hand out awards, including the Los Angeles Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics.
The studios hoped to prevent piracy, but the decision angered supporters of smaller movies who say voters may miss independent pictures if they have to see them at screenings in theaters. Opponents of the ban say screener distribution has led to several Academy Awards for smaller films, including best actress wins for Halle Berry in 2001's "Monster's Ball'' and Hilary Swank in 1999's "Boys Don't Cry.''
Ella Taylor, a critic for the LA Weekly, suggested the cancellation and said she hoped other critics groups also would withhold awards. She said there were many films released toward the end of the year, and that voters may not be able to see them all without screeners.
"Unless they rescind the ban we just don't feel that we can really do our work properly,'' she said.
Jean Oppenheimer, the president of the association, said many critics see films in theaters but use screener copies to view films again as they decide the best pictures of the year.
"This really helps inform us better,'' said Oppenheimer, who reviews films for New Times, National Public Radio and other outlets.
MPAA officials did not immediately return calls for comment Sunday,
10-19-03 | 09:32 PM
#45
DVD Talk Legend
More than 130 filmmakers led by veteran director Robert Altman signed an open letter, published as full-page ads in industry trade papers Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, calling the ban an "unwarranted obstacle" that will keep independent, cutting-edge films from gaining the wide exposure they deserve.
That's a good point in the article about the critics' awards, where she mentions that screeners can allow people who want to see a film that is no longer playing again to decide on their choices.
10-19-03 | 10:35 PM
#46
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Compton (Straight Outta)
Opponents of the ban say screener distribution has led to several Academy Awards for smaller films, including best actress wins for Halle Berry in 2001's "Monster's Ball'' and Hilary Swank in 1999's "Boys Don't Cry.''
Last edited by Dan Average; 10-19-03 at 10:37 PM.
