MPAA drops Oscar screeners to fight piracy

[moovyphreak]

MPAA president Jack Valenti and other powerful forces in Hollywood have succeeded in eliminating DVD "screeners" as an Oscar marketing tool in the name of combating video piracy, but the repercussions from their victory will be felt throughout the industry for years to come...The rest of the article <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1989715" target="_blank">here</a>.

[Slater]

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

Uncool.

[Sean Bateman]

This years nominess are now:

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

[Sammy Jankis]

This is a big win for the studios.

[Doug]

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

[Rath/Brendan]

I hate, I hate, I HATE Jack Valenti.

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

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

Pipe dreams...

[walter-konkrete]

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

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

[walter-konkrete]

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

[Gandalf´s Father]

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

Uncool.According to the article, only MPAA affiliates, i.e., the big studios, will be bound to this rule, so this is actually good for the indie studios, who can mail whatever they want to whoever they want.Yeah that is very good. I admit that I have watched some DVD rips of Oscar nominated movies because I had to wait for months for them to be released in my country. This will prevent piracy to some extent. I at least would never watch crappy bootlegs (those recorded in a cinema).

[Slater]

walter-konkrete:
"Ironically, the films likely to suffer most will be those from the majors whose MPAA membership will now prohibit them -- but not competing non studio-affiliated independents -- from mailing DVDs. "Didn't read the article, just heard a blurb about it on the news last night. My mistake.

[Slater]

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

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

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

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

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

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

Fucking Valenti.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

Slater:
I can't find any specifics, but that article is fairly vague on what constitues "studio affiliation." So Sony itself can't send out DVD screeners, but can Sony Pictures Classics? What about foreign films that have domestic distribution handled through a U.S. studio?Any studio-owned affiliates are also barred from sending screeners, such as Fine Line, Fox Searchlight, Miramax, Sony Pictures Classics, etc.

[Z-Man]

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

[Slater]

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

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

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

[Jason P. Thompson]

Goodbye Indie Oscar nominees! frown

[Greg Clark]

BobClark:
This year's nominees will all have been released in December.So what else is new?

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

[Jason P. Thompson]

What about using self destructing DVDs?

[Sethos]

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

[wydren]

LOTR screeners? PIRATE!!!

(That's scarcasm)

[Wes]

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

<a href="http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20031001005962&newsLang=en" target="_blank">Article</a>

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

[moovyphreak]

Okay, here's the list of studios that are honoring this new rule. I figure the sub-independents like Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Classics, Paramount Classics, Fine Line and others fall under their respective owners. I got this list from MPAA.org.

DreamWorks
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
New Line
Paramount Pictures
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Twentieth Century Fox
Universal Studios
The Walt Disney Company
Warner Bros. Pictures Rath/Brendan:
I hate, I hate, I HATE Jack Valenti.What sucks is that Valenti has been head of the MPAA since 1966... 37 FUCKING YEARS!! He just celebrated his 82nd birthday last month. Retire you old son of a bitch!

L7 Productions:
What about using self destructing DVDs?Like DIVX... Sounds like a good idea, although that format never worked out on the consumer end.

[Wes]

möovyphreak:

L7 Productions:
What about using self destructing DVDs?Like DIVX... Sounds like a good idea, although that format never worked out on the consumer end.I Think L7 was referring to the new "disposable" DVDs that Disney is test marketing. They come in sealed packages and once open the media starts to degrade until they are unreadable. I believe they have a lifespan of 48 hours. However, they have no additional anti-piracy measures, such as stronger encryption. And couldn't have that because they need to remain compatible with players.

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

[Rath/Brendan]

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

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

This is like curing dandruff with a battle ax.

[Dan Whitehead]

Rath/Brendan:
My father, a tv critic, frequently gets tapes of prestige shows--the last episode of Buffy, the finale of Oz, the first three Carnivales--and in the corner the screen are his initials.Let me guess, his initials are HBO...

[Slater]

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

My father, a tv critic, frequently gets tapes of prestige shows--the last episode of Buffy, the finale of Oz, the first three Carnivales--and in the corner the screen are his initials. I don't see why something like that couldn't work here, if the screeners are widescreen there shouldn't be a problem with mucking up the screen.Yup, that's exactly what I mean. Make everyone who's going to receive a screener sign a "Promise not to distribute" form, then assign them an ID number. Hire some tech kid to superimpose each ID over the screen in random parts, the same way the "For Your Consideration..." banner occasionally flashes on Academy screeners.

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

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

[mastronikolas]

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

[Jason P. Thompson]

Dan Whitehead:
Rath/Brendan:
My father, a tv critic, frequently gets tapes of prestige shows--the last episode of Buffy, the finale of Oz, the first three Carnivales--and in the corner the screen are his initials.Let me guess, his initials are HBO...On man... that's funny. :D

[Angels Chorus]

Hopefully, Valenti will die of old age soon.

[Whispering Smith]

A Memo from Jack Valenti

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

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

Jack"

[James]

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

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

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

[Whispering Smith]

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

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

His policy is no screeners at all.

[moovyphreak]

Here's an interesting article on how this new policy will affect the Oscars:
<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1993516" target="_blank">http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1993516</a>

[Slater]

Whispering Smith:
I gurantee you, if Valenti only insisted on screeners of unreleased movies to be banned, people would still be pissed and call him a hypocrite.Is "hypocrite" really worse than "hopelessly out-of-touch fascist fucking moron"?

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

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

[Whispering Smith]

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

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

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

[Wetbones]

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

[Yando]

Slater
You know what else sucks about this? Now when "Return of the King" wins Best Picture at the Oscars--which is a somewhat safe bet--this decision completely invalidates Peter Jackson's achievement.Hyperbole!

[Whispering Smith]

Wetbones:
Jesus H. Christ, the MPAA has way too much power!

The studios bitch but can't do anything about it. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL??? Relax, you're overreacting. The MPAA can't enforce this. The studios are doing this voluntarily. Why? I don't know.

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

[James]

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

[David Manning]

Many of these screeners used to end up in the used-DVD shops around LA. People would trade them in for store credit. I assume this is still going on.

Besides, without the screeners, how are people's maids & kids going to know who to vote for?

[Slater]

Yando:
Slater
You know what else sucks about this? Now when "Return of the King" wins Best Picture at the Oscars--which is a somewhat safe bet--this decision completely invalidates Peter Jackson's achievement.Hyperbole!Personal opinion from an admittedly biased fanboy.

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

[moovyphreak]

And the backlash has begun:
<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/threast/pdfs/thre1002.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/threast/pdfs/thre1002.pdf</a>

See pages 1 and 2. You'll need Adobe Acrobat to view it.

[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.

[NiveK]

I think Valenti is a studio funded scumbag, and he's personally responcible for killing late 80's Horror movies, or at least having ton's of SPFX footage hitting the editing room floor. This guy had a vendetta against the Friday the 13th film that I still havn't forgotten.

Besides, isn't this the same asshole who said the VCR would kill the film industry 20 years ago?

[Beer Die]

NiveK:

Besides, isn't this the same asshole who said the VCR would kill the film industry 20 years ago?It did kill the porn film industry. Now, all we have are sex scenes cut together to make two hours.

[Yando]

Slater:
All I'm saying is that right now--at this moment--if I had to place money on a film for the Best Picture race, I'd go with ROTK. And so would everybody else in this thread. So until something better or more influential comes along, Return of the King remains exactly what I said it is: a safe bet.I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't believe that EVERYONE ELSE believes that either. I'm not saying that it won't be nominated, but rather that your claims are almost outrageous a full three to four months before anything else comes out.

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

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

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

[foywonder]

You know what else sucks about this? Now when "Return of the King" wins Best Picture at the Oscars--which is a somewhat safe bet--this decision completely invalidates Peter Jackson's achievement. We'll have to listen to YEARS of people bitching and complaining about how the no-screener rule gave event movies like LOTR an unfair advantage, and how certain independent movies would have won the Oscar if the playing field was level, and so on and so on....
Well, except for the no-screener rule how is that mentality any different from the people who constantly bitch and moan about FORREST GUMP and TITANIC winning? Oh, that's right, the internet community hated those movies. Sorry, but that arguement of yours is rather hypocritical.

[Robert Neville hates Vampire movies]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SouthBay1]

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

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

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

[billylove]

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.

[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.

foywonder
Well, except for the no-screener rule how is that mentality any different from the people who constantly bitch and moan about FORREST GUMP and TITANIC winning? Oh, that's right, the internet community hated those movies. Sorry, but that arguement of yours is rather hypocritical.[/QB]How is it hypocritical to complain when bad movies win Best Picture? And I really don't see what GUMP or TITANIC have to do with this screener rule or ROTK.

[tankblitzer]

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

[Doug]

SouthBay1:
I can't understand the flap on this board over this. The only people affected are the Academy voters, pirates and those who download pirated movies. .Not really. Many quality independant films would remain undistributed and unviewed without some Academy buzz.
Ebert had a good solution:
"Here's a bright idea. The major studios, fearful of piracy, simply need not send out DVDs. The indies, who count on them as the cornerstones of their Oscar campaigns, can continue to send them out. As Jewison notes in his letter to Valenti, 'Piracy to a small independent film seeking an audience is simply good word of mouth.'

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

[walter-konkrete]

billylove (moist & meaty):
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.

[David Forbes]

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>

[Yando]

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).

[Slater]

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.

[Whispering Smith]

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.

[Slater]

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?

[moovyphreak]

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.

[Slater]

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?

[Whispering Smith]

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.

[Doug]

Whispering Smith:
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.

[Whispering Smith]

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.

[Whispering Smith]

Moved from the Harry Knowles thread.

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.

[Doug]

Harry's just looking for site hits.
He writes this asinine drivel only to stoke controversy and pull people to AICN.

[Greg Clark]

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.

[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.

[jvc]

<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert07.html" target="_blank">Roger Ebert weighs in.</a>


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.

[devincf]

It's sort of sad that you people don't understand what the "Modest Proposal" is in reference to.

[Sammy Jankis]

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.

[Greg Clark]

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.

[Micah Robinson]

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?

[jvc]

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.

[Slater]

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?

[devincf]

Micah Robinson:
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.

[Micah Robinson]

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.

[devincf]

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"

[Slater]

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.

[devincf]

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.

[Sammy Jankis]

Maybe Knowles got a ghost-writer.

[Andre Dellamorte]

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.

[Sean Bateman]

I still appreciate Knowles unabashed love for film, but I don't think Mensa will be accepting him into their ranks anytime soon.

[Doug]

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.

[Slater]

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.

[ferriferous foodi]

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>

[Slater]

2 fast 2 foodi:
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>Thanks for reading the thread.

[ferriferous foodi]

woops a daisy

heh

ok then

[Shaolin Paly]

<img src="http://caicos.globat.com/~shadesvalley.org/images/harry.bmp" alt="" />

[SouthBay1]

Paly, great pic!

[Keller]

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

[Diva]

<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>

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.

[moovyphreak]

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.

[SouthBay1]

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>

[mastronikolas]

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.