No More Academy Screeners... (BREAKING NEWS) (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

Good update John—thanks!

 

[John_Berger]

I'm just wondering how much more Valenti is going to take and what he thinks he's proving? He now has writers, directors, AND actors tell him that he's nuts! (Well, okay, not necessarily in those words.)

 

[Lew Crippen]

I think a part of the answer to that is, what pressure and advice is he getting from the major film studios and distributors? Those are the guys who (presumably) will be more interested in limiting piracy.

After all, while there may be a market for early bootlegs of Master and Commander, does anyone really expect that this year’s equivalent of The Piano or Rabbit Proof Fence will cause a run to the local bootlegger?

But to be fair to Valenti, he like anyone would maintain that things would not change, even if the MPAA were considering changes.

I’d like to see SAG come out as a body against the practice. And maybe the ASC.

 

[Thomas Newton]

The MPAA has always been on the side of the major studios. This is just another attempt to push aside the independent studios by denying them probably the best method of exposure they could hope for in the race for the Oscars. This new rule goes well with his rating system which is heavily biased towards the major studios and unfairly rates independent movies one level higher on the ratings scale.

Question: What advantage is there for any independent studio to belong to the MPAA? If the independent studios didn't belong to the MPAA, they could send out screeners, and Valenti would just be tying the hands of the majors.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Don’t forget that a lot of independent films use established distribution chains. And some receive partial funding (for individual films) from the majors.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Yeah, me too! If the MPAA memeber studios aren't passing out screener, then why couldn't the indies pass them out directly, thus getting more 'views' which might/might not help in voting.

This could get fun if it escalates and the SAG goes on strike or something.

Glenn

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I thought the names of the actors were interesting...

Hilary Swank, Don Cheadle, Sissy Spacek, Ellen Burstyn, Nick Nolte, and Steve Buscemi

A few Oscar nominees (and winners) in there, all for smaller art movies, the exact ones that will be affected by the ban. Sadly, one wonders whether these people would have the influence to make a change. Probably not. Maybe if Jack Nicholson or Mel Gibson were in there...

But it's good to know that Velenti is getting pressured more and more.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

From the IMDb Movie and TV News

Ban the Ban Protest Grows
With opposition to the MPAA's ban on Oscar screeners continuing to burgeon on Tuesday, the heads of the major studios reportedly scheduled a conference call with MPAA chief Jack Valenti for Thursday to discuss the controversy. In an ad appearing in Daily Variety today (Wednesday), the names of 350 industry figures are listed as signatories to a petition instigated by IFP (Independent Features Project) calling for the ban to be lifted and for the MPAA to consider "alternative solutions to curtailing piracy."

 

[Craig S]

The latest in the screener battle: The LA Film Critics have cancelled their annual awards due to the lack of screeners:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...isure_oscar_dc

I'm not sure I think this is a good idea. I guess they have a point about not being able to go back and see films again to help them make decisions, but c'mon - if you're a film critic, it's your JOB to see movies, and I would think any of them should be able to catch everything at least once.

What did these groups do before the Academy started sending out screeners (only 15-20 years ago)?

 

[Vickie_M]

What did these groups do before the Academy started sending out screeners (only 15-20 years ago)?

The Academy doesn't send out screeners. The Academy has nothing to do with the ban.

 

[Craig S]

The Academy doesn't send out screeners. The Academy has nothing to do with the ban.

OK, I misspoke. The studios send out the screeners, the ban is the work of the MPAA, not AMPAS. And that's all immaterial to the question at hand. What did they do before the practice of sending screeners started??

 

[Vickie_M]

What did they do before the practice of sending screeners started??

I'd think that the L.A. Film Critics were able to see most of the movies up for consideration in the theater. Also, as in the case with the year they awarded Brazil best picture of the year, they could get private (even if unauthorized) screenings.

Few other critics groups and only a percentage of AMPAS members are that lucky.

My guess is that they're showing solidarity with the indies, showing their support of the groups who have already spoken out against the ban.

What happened before screeners were available?

A lot of smaller indie films got ignored come awards season. Screeners opened up the playing field. If you were Sissy Spacek living on a farm in Virginia, you wouldn't have to travel to New York just to see Secrets & Lies. If you were Clint Eastwood living in Carmel, you wouldn't have to travel to San Francisco to see Sling Blade. If you were Brad Pitt and were in Malta (or wherever) shooting Troy, you wouldn't have to fly back to LA to see Lost In Translation. If you were Vanessa Redgrave living in London, you wouldn't have to fly to America to see American Splendor.

Screeners are good. Only people who don't like the fact that smaller movies are a factor come awards time are against screeners. I don't buy the "piracy" excuse for one second.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

If it isn't piracy, then what is it? This doesn't make much sense on their part. If they were sure that piracy was the cause, they could have put those stupid spots on the screeners, and then traced them out. Just stopping sending them out isn't going to help anyone.

This would be an excellent opportunity for the indies to send out screeners to them. The voting would be really messsed up - maybe it would teach the MPAA a lesson.

Ok, maybe not.

Glenn

 

[Colin Davidson]

I will probably get blasted for this but...

Does anyone find this whole situation really ironic?

You go to a theater to watch a movie and get subjected to the "pirating not only takes food out of our mouths but is illegal" trailer, and here some of the very people who are asking us not to pirate are themselves selling or allowing to be sold films that shouldn't be.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate nor pirate anything because I DO believe that people should be paid for their work.

 

[Francois Caron]

What advantage is there for any independent studio to belong to the MPAA?

Obtaining an MPAA rating (membership is not necessarily a requirement I believe) makes it easier to distribute and advertise your feature. If you don't have an MPAA rating, the movie theaters won't show the movie and the various media outlets won't advertise it. However, if your movie gets the dreded NC-17 rating, that's just as bad as not having it rated because neither the theaters nor the media will touch what's perceived by the MPAA as a "filthy" movie.

The MPAA has such a stranglehold on the American entertainment industry that they can dictate the preferred behaviour of their members and their affiliate companies. But as we've seen with this latest stunt involving the screeners, cracks are beginning to show.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Very ironic. Remember too that if the screeners are just mailed, the actual movie star may not get the screener, but a cook, maid, limo driver might snatch it up first.

 

[Adam_S]

hurray for the LAFCA, they just utterly destroyed any chance for a compromise on this issue. Now the studios have been backed into a corner with a 'threat' if they change course now they're responding to that threat, no way the face-saving moguls will ever have that happen. Congratulations LAFCA, you just killed the oscar chances of many indies you're claiming to be fighting for. It must be tough being a film critic in LA, after all, virtually no little movies or indies play in this town at all, so they're impossible to see otherwise!

FWIW, I don't think indies will be as badly hurt as some people are claiming. For the most part the indies that get the nominations (and sometimes win) are the 'indies' released by the studio's independent distribution arm. Those films likely to garner awards have already been very well positioned for numerous LA screenings that will pull in the award nominations regardless. Lost in Translation, In America, Mystic River, House of Sand and Fog and many others will most likely NOT be forgotten come oscar season because those films have studio funded marketing efforts centered on awards nominations. The films this could potentially hurt are films from companies like Lion's gate... oh wait, Lion's Gate isn't a member of the MPAA and are therefore not subject to the screener ban! gasp, shock, awe! Wait a second, what films is this ban going to cripple? Or maybe the ban is just discriminatory against those poor LA critics who are too 'crippled' to watch a film in a theatre (yes I know that this does cause problems for older academy members with legitimate health problems, and I'm not intending to slur them, but the lazy LA critics who can't seem to do their job (watch movies) in the one city where it should be easiest of all to accomplish).

BTW, the screener ban was a bad idea because it was annoucned late in the year, during an already truncated oscar season, and it should not so unilaterally inclusive, allowing loopholes for anyone who legitimately can't see these films in theatre because of very limited releases. However I do think piracy is a legitimate argument. I did a paper on internet piracy and have seen some of the sites that let films be downloaded from, they always list the source, and only about 20% are from telecine or legit dvd sources, the rest are from screeners.

 

[Thomas Newton]

hurray for the LAFCA, they just utterly destroyed any chance for a compromise on this issue

Pray tell, why should they "compromise" with an outfit that deliberately started the mess, with no consideration for anyone else, including, apparently, the major studios?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Gee, maybe the Academy Awards could be cancelled! That would send a message!

Glenn

 

[Adam_S]

Pray tell, why should they "compromise" with an outfit that deliberately started the mess, with no consideration for anyone else, including, apparently, the major studios?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean why should the LAFCA reach some sort of compromise with the MPAA? Because that's not what I was referring to at all.

The compromise I was referring to was the possibility of the MPAA letting screeners out on a limited or title by title basis, a solution more reasonable than a ban for everyone on everything. THe LAFCA's statement is the equivalent to threatening the studios, unless the studios want to appear under the power of the LAFCA they cannot change course now. The MPAA did consult the majors, however the executives in charge of the studios may not have given consideration to how important screeners are to the marketing campaign of their own films from their independent branches.