Sony spineless for changing UK release date (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan Fisher]

To appease those who discussed the censor issue...even though still sidetracking...some of Dan's points provoked my interest...

Firstly though Dan...I never said the UK May 10 date was SET since Jul.2001. But that info. was advertised/leaked, without any denial from Sony. E.g. UK's "Empire" movie magazine, for one, stated that date in July. They must have got that info. from somewhere. Since they are a UK mag. why would they have been stating the USA date! Since last summer, even the Columbiatristar UK's Spidey site said May 2002 in 2 places on their intro pages. Talk about misinformation!

Dan, if you think AOTC isn't the reason for the date change, what do you think is? Why move it if not for AOTC's 'competition'?

If Episode II's getting a wide simultaneous release to 'prevent too much spoiling info. getting out', why aren't Sony applying the same logic to Spidey?

If Dan you think that it's been moved to be close to UK school summer holidays, June 14 is 5 weeks away from that!

And the soccer World Cup is on through all of June only. Will no one (in Europe) be watching this instead of going to/taking their kids to the cinema?!

Anyway, it's all over now. I'm tired of the whole sorry, futile mess. The official UK site says 'June 14th' now anyway, so that date's set and the issue is finished with.

Now onto censorship...

Dan, don't think that the UK version won't be cut for a PG or a 12 rating. You know yourself what the BBFC and the distributors are like. Spidey will be more violent than you think, in the finished PG-13 USA version. So between BBFC's commonly objecting to too many 'imitable techniques', and the distributors' too often trying to get away with the lowest age-restricting rating possible, things don't bode well at all for Spidey.

(If Episode II has a headbutt in it, if it's to be anything less than a 15 rating in UK, it WILL be cut for sure (those ARE the BBFC's rules on that). Even Mulan was cut for the same reason - and that's ANIMATED violence!! Same went for Shrek and Spy Kids (all U ratings).)*

Think how much brutal but bloodless fight-scene violence gets only a PG-13 in USA. E.g. MI-2 springs to mind in particular, (and also Charlie's Angels, Mortal Kombat, and Van Damme's 'The Quest')that were 15 in UK. MPAA allows lots of martial arts violence in, but BBFC hates it in movies under the 15 rating, except where jokey - like Rush Hour 2. Expect Spidey and Green Goblin to use martial arts somewhat - like parts of X-Men - to superhumanly kick each other all over the place.

Based on my researched info. as to the violent content of a PG-13 movie, if Spidey is a PG in the UK I'd say about a 75% chance of it being cut. If it's a 12, I'd say about 50%.

Remember that Batman Forever was heavily cut for a PG, mainly because BBFC stated that 'the Riddler was a particularly psychotic character', which they objected to in a 'family' movie. Osborn/'Goblin is of a similar mind in Spidey's comic personality profiles, so expect it to be cut for that reason as well as the fighting violence, and more mature story content and themes that Spidey deals with.

As for 'imitable techniques' the BBFC are nuts over this. In a fight scene, a PUNCH is something that can be copied by children too, yet they don't cut these from PG and 12 movies. So why - in anything less than a 15 rating - refuse to allow a headbutt, elbow, crotch kick, or rabbit punch?! But they do enforce this. Those are their ludicrous rules.

(* Lastly, as an example, here's a list of the movies that were cut in the UK for headbutt(s), amongst other things, either for cinema or video: BATMAN RETURNS (2), BATMAN FOREVER (1), FATHER'S DAY (2), CABLE GUY(1), GOLDENEYE (3), MATRIX (7), ROMEO MUST DIE (2), LETHAL WEAPON 4 (6), TRUE LIES (1), CUTTHROAT ISLAND (1), TOMB RAIDER (1), KINDERGARTEN COP (1), MULAN (1), MUMMY (1), MUMMY RETURNS (1), SHREK (2)?, SPY KIDS (1)?, SPIDER-MAN (?)?, STAR WARS EPISODE II:ATTACK OF THE CLONES (1)?)

Hope this has been informative for you. Prepare for the added disappointment when the cut Spidey comes out...

Thanks for reading people.

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Thanks to Paul for his critique on my article. It's too damn late to go into anything more on it now (I'm really tired, people) so I'll be back Thursday evening (UK time) with some news on my trying to get an answer from Sony, and those views of mine on Paul's criticism, as well as the opinions of Jacob, and my views on those opinions, who emailed me a little while ago with 'how may be best to drag a kicking-and-screaming response from Sony' - referring to when I've emailed the studio directly/how best to do so again.... Stay tuned. Thanks again.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Prepare for the added disappointment when the cut Spidey comes out...

Nice to see we Brits continue to hope for the best. If you're so sure of it being cut then really, does it even matter we can't have it in May?
Dan

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Dan thanks for those last comments. I have some comeback*, but without much weight. No sarcasm at all intended - I am genuine in my retractions here...

Sorry for not seeing the obvious re. 'the box-office takings/avoid AOTC's hype' reasons. I'm humbled before the whole forum. You don't have to belittle every comment I make, though. I feel down enough as it is. I have been wrong on major areas of the debate. I admit it. I did ignore the cinemas'/studios' 'takings' POV. They could meet us halfway sometimes though - give a thought to customer interests as well? You've made me aware of some (business) points for the 1st time. But the studios need to be aware of some (consumer) points for the 1st time too. I've admitted my short-sightedness here. Will they? The only excuse I can offer for my 'outbursts' is that I'm a consumer, not a businessman. What's theirs?

I'm in shock at your humbling points, actually. Forgive me - for my short-sightedness. 95% of what you said last was correct. You've explained studio-related answers to me far better than Sony ever could/would have been willing to. A strange calm and acceptance has come over me since last night (B4 reading your last reply). Instead of giving in out of futility, as I posted earlier, I now give in mostly out of realisation/education on the issue. Part of me still protests, but not nearly as much.

I think if Spidey's a 12 rating, it probably won't be cut. The movie won't be all that violent afterall, you're right. If it's a PG in UK, though, it may be cut a little. I think BBFC will suggest a 12 to CTUK - as it's much harder to censor less tangible movie tones/scenes of 'atmosphere' and intensity, rather than frames of violence. (Remember the USA Poltergeist debate in the 80's? - a PG was ok since the movie was 'intense by atmosphere without being gory'.) The more mature story elements and themes explored, will make Spidey difficult to physically censor, so a 12 may be wisest.

The delay is also kind of ok, to me. It has its compensations (which are personal to me). I'm actually more interested in its runtime, hoping it's long enough to contain proper emotional scenes and characterisation, rather than the movie just whipping by in 90 mins., with nothing but action scenes and fx.

While I think of it, re. Episode II. Just think if the start of May had been its release in USA...they could have promoted the movie's release date (unless lisp-sufferers objected) with the phrase "May the 4th be with you.." (!) Sorry, that was a 'groaner'.

* May I just say that I'm not sure why you'd stick up for the studios. They've so much muscle, they don't need it. Us fans need championing however. We carry no weight in the industry. You don't work for a UK cinema/distributor/film co. do you, by any chance? Just curious as to why you'd be so much on their side? You seem against BBFC cutting movies, but not studios doing same (!) Perhaps you're more business and financially-minded whereas I'm not. Don't defend the studios too much, please. Although, maybe you could apply for a job at Sony? You'd probably get one in their big money-counting dept. But I don't think you'd get hired for their small customer service/relations dept. (!) (if they even bother to have one).

I'm just a fan of movies. It must take a certain type of person to work in that cutthroat world. I couldn't do it - be indifferent towards the public in favour of profit gain. I value my humanity and integrity too much (not that I'm saying you don't).

Perhaps movie studio employees are 'business robots', not people, with dollar signs for eyeballs.

If distributors'/studios' aims are to make so much money, how come they can't afford a customer relations/service dept. to deal with us (e.g. on this issue)? 'The customer is always wrong', then? (Unlike Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I don't have a gun with which to get served - in the movie/'Whammy-burger' debate!) Yes, we customers ARE wrong - for giving so much of our money to their movies/products. What about us who spend £100's a year on their stuff? Who appreciates us?

Back to some of your points...

I still think May 3 is too close to AOTC, even in USA.

The date change for UK came AFTER AOTC's date announcement. Sony got in there first, with a possible May date, that's all I'm saying. THEN they backed off. On Sony's UK site since last summer, it said "Spider-Man (TBC)" (TBC referring to the BBFC rating). If the date WAS only tentative, why didn't they just put "TBC" next to "May 2002" also? That would have stopped hopes-raising amongst fans. I guess I shouldn't have been so naieve, as to think we'd get Spidey close to USA, all along. Despite this country's record of delayed/long-after-U.S. releases, I guess I just wanted to believe.

If most non-U.S. release territories have smaller populations/audiences, why is Episode II still out so close to Spidey in those countries, but not UK? We're not being treated the same.

As to the censor issue, I still think distributors are wrong for cutting movies in the UK just for a lower rating (so more people can get in). It's short-changing the older public with a half-measure version of movies. (Distributors should - not just the BBFC - disclose when a movie's cut, by how many seconds, and for what reasons (violence, lower rating, etc.) They should give us a discount on our cinema tickets, for cutting them. Cutting 'R' rated movies down to a 15, and PG-13's down to a UK 'PG', is making these movies into what they weren't intended, changing the intended audiences. Some movies aren't MEANT for younger children/teens anyway. A movie's integrity is lost by being cut, I think.

If we say we aren't that bothered about this, we are all just letting the distributors get away with whatever they feel like, without protest.

Actually Sony CAN get higher profits than normally, by the June 14th UK release. They can save their entire publicity budget - because all the info. on Spidey will have had 6 weeks to promote ITSELF, through those who've seen it already! Smart thinking, Sony. Well done. That's business-minded of you. The movie better be spectacularly brilliant or else reviews/word-of-mouth/the net will have 6 whole weeks to lessen your audience/profits anyway!

As to one of your points about 'USA can handle Spidey only 2 weeks b4 AOTC due to bigger population and more cinema screens...' What about proportionately though? UK has less population than USA, so has less screens, which follows. Does this make any sense?

You're correct on a further point - that of box-office grosses for the studio. I suppose if Spidey doesn't make all the money it possibly can, we might not get any (UK delayed?) sequels. Sony - may I write you out a cheque at all?

Thanks again people. Good work Dan. You've brought me down off my high horse. It makes more sense to not get too annoyed about these matters. Wasted energy I suppose. Cheers. Despite how it may have appeared I AM looking forward to seeing Spidey with a helluva lot of enthusiasm (whether cut or not, or delayed or not). It could truly be the 'ultimate spin' this movie year/decade. Hope so.

My Sony-reply news, and my views on a pervious email and post - from Jacob and Paul - as stated - are on the way soon...

 

[Dan Brecher]

You seem against BBFC cutting movies, but not studios doing same (!) Perhaps you're more business and financially-minded whereas I'm not.

Far from it, studios cutting it for the want of better financial gain is probably more a crime than a censor demanding the cuts themselves. It's proof of a studio totally happy to alter another persons work, a person who they have HIRED to tell a story as the director sees fit. We start to discuss this and we move into the more shady side of studios which I am dredding ever coming face to face with.
Many good examples of films ruined due to studio demands. Given the recent talk here on the forum about members want to see Fox allow David Fincher to restore his cut of the movie, Alien 3 is a good example of this studio practice.
The two Schumacher Batman movies too, less fault of the director, more fault of Warner's desire to market the hell out of the franchise with as many toys as possible.
Dan (UK)

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Dan, you seem to have only read the first half of my cuurent reply. Take a look. The 2nd half is done. Any more comments?

Just on your 1st-half comments, once again, you make more sense than I ever seemed to. Glad we're all friends again here now (!). Wasn't sure for a while there, whether you were ticking me off for my Wednesday post. Now I know you were just trying to get me to 'get myself together' and realise the sense of the bigger picture. Appreciate it. It's a shame to fail on the matter of 'trying to get Sony to go back to May/give us a proper reply', but then I suppose failure was inevitable all along? Shame also to waste all that energy on futility, but at least I've gotten to 'talk' with people on this forum through it, and have learned a lot in the process of reading the replies. Thanks.

 

[Dan Brecher]

I edited my post and answered some of your 2nd half comments above there, Jonathan. I'll throw in some more however;

As to one of your points about 'USA can handle Spidey only 2 weeks b4 AOTC due to bigger population and more cinema screens...' What about proportionately though? UK has less population than USA, so has less screens, which follows. Does this make any sense?

Expand on this thought a little. Again I think it comes down to Star Wars dominating most of the cinemas across the country this May.

This year we just have to give into the "because its Star Wars" argument and sit back as we watch it dominate as we and all studios know it will. Should Lucasfilm be gloat in the knowledge of this? Probably not, but the cinema chains are happy to let it happen as, like I say, they know this will bring in great profits for them and will run it on as many screens as possible (I don't believe a single Odeon cinema will not be running EpII on at least one screen come May 16th).

As I said, I think last May which saw us get many typical summer movies closer to their US release dates really showed the practice can work here, and even then they were evenly spread across screens across the country.

Last year was sort of initial testing ground to see how well summer movies did in not getting a release in the months of what we Britis define as summer. I say testing ground because studios are wanting to lessen the gap between releases due to the importing of DVDs from the US which they see as doing damage to theatrical box office takings. I think next summer, a Star Wars-less 2003 will see us again be close to the US release dates.

Any other specific questions of yours I missed out, give me a nudge.

Dan

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

I've already given in (see previous posts), but just to keep the dying embers of the debate glowing a little longer...

Good news and bad news, (Dan, Paul, Jacob, et al)...

I got a reply from a Stuart Williams, Marketing Director of CTUK yesterday, re. my article and the date change!!!

Holy ****! An actual reply. Even that must be a miracle in itself.

BUT...all Mr.Williams wrote was a standard, empty, non-descript, fob-off 'we recognise your frustration, we are sorry for your disappointment, thank you for your comments, but the date change was due to a whole variey of factors being considered for releasing at the best time' type content. That's all! So I sent a complaint email re. his response, right back. Nothing back again yet from him, though. All that time and effort to put the article together, and that's all I get! I feel truly patronised.

What exactly are these 'variety of factors'? Are they top-secret?! Why don't Sony want to disclose the factors? Well, we know why, but I was just trying to drag it out of Sony themselves, to see if they would answer properly. But no.

Paul - in answer to your last reply... what you're saying is make the article less like a tirade of moaning 'why oh why's' and more like a professional-sounding correspondence, to a big corporation. Correct? I suppose I could try that kind of version. But as to 'editing it', it's not in my nature. When I speak to people direct, not a lot of words usually come out, but when I WRITE, it all comes pouring out and goes on forever I'm afraid. But at least no one could say about me being half-hearted when it comes to an issue I care about. Anyway, I'll give the editing thing a go, which leads onto Jacob's email reply yesterday - see below.

Paul, for the article, it took me about 2 hours to note it all down on paper, and another 3 hours to type it all onto Word. Boxtree Books have recently bought the publishing rights to it(!).

Jacob - to answer your last email... you said you talked to a friend at Sony and she advised me to email, not Attach, any complaint - in the form of just ONE page only. Firstly, I think there's more chance of Spidey coming out in the UK on May 3 or 10 afterall, than me being able to complain in just one page. Hey, it's me were dealing with here. Mr.Manuscript!

Besides, how could all the relevant points be included in just one page? I don't think it's possible. I'll give it a go nevertheless, and see what happens.

Your Sony contact also said 'just in one page' because that's all people at that studio have time to read. But with the delayed release, now they've got 6 MORE WEEKS of time - to read and address issues from any complaint correspondence! What a cheek and an excuse! ONE page only - from Jonathan Fisher? (he rolls on the floor)!

If the article WAS too long, Mr.Williams never said so in his 'reply' (if you could call it that). He did say it was obvious I was such a big fan from what I'd sent. Would that Spidey/movie-devotion have come across the same if I'd sent only a few paragraphs? I wanted to be seen as different from all other short-letter complainants. Get my points noticed. Fat lot of good it did me though. Complaining in long or short form, Sony would still give us the B.S. approach in any reply.

As a final positive, Mr.Williams finished his reply with the words, 'I assure you that the extra wait will have been worth it, when you do see the movie'. Yyeeeessss!! Spider-Man's gonna be a great movie afterall. Unless that's more studio B.S.?!

Thanks people. Bye for now.

 

[Dan Brecher]

What exactly are these 'variety of factors'? Are they top-secret?! Why don't Sony want to disclose the factors? Well, we know why, but I was just trying to drag it out of Sony themselves, to see if they would answer properly.

The factors? Pretty much everything I put forward in my posts above I can guarantee. I know your frustrating with the reply however, they could have just admited its for the studio and the film's best interests.

Dan

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Hell, I have gotta get my sleep earlier than this in future. After this...

Dan, the added email I sent right back to Stuart at CTUK, WASN'T really a 'complaint'. I just used that word on my last post because it's been on my mind so much lately, re. the date change issue. I was actually polite to Mr.Williams, and just requested - in my own 'subtle' way - a further explanation. Maybe he'll reply again afterall? Wow, did you see that - an airborne pork pie just flew past my window!

Forget Mr.Williams. From the ShoWest Spidey news on Corona's Coming Attractions site, there's a photo of a guy near an exhibit. The caption says it's Jeff Blake, head of marketing and distribution at Sony U.S. Looks like I've just found my next email target! (probably using one of my intended new shorter versions of the article).

 

[TheBat]

the people working at the studio don't have alot of time to read alot of emails.. They get many e-mails about many things.. you have to keep it short and to the point.

JACOB

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Like I said Jacob, I will try doing/sending an edited+less whiney version sometime soon. But it's very hard to include all the relevant points/be objective and not express any personal feelings - in just one page. I suppose I could get around that by sending the whole existing article as email microdots - there you see, all on one page! Does Windows have such a facility?! (Hey, there's a thought. Bill Gates - have you ever considered that? - then you can market your stuff to the espionage industry too. Or 'the insurance company small-print, get-out clause' sector too. A whole new market for you to diversify into !...)

As for 'keeping it short and to the point'. Everything I put in my article WAS to the point. It was all to the point of the subject of the DATE CHANGE. I didn't waste any sentences asking them if they watched the soap-operas on tv last night did I. The irony of a movie studio wanting everything they deal with to be shorter, is amazing. They now want their emails/letters to have a sense of pace too, as well as their movies! Besides, they've got a bloated salary with which to find incentive to 'make time' to read their own mail (or get a P.A. to do it for them). Some people read a whole 300-page novel in one sitting but others can't read a half-dozen pages from a concerned customer?!

You seem to be telling me off, like I thought Dan was. You said less than a week ago that you thought I'd written a very good article and it deserved to get several/full responses. Now you're siding with 'the suits'. Haven't I retracted enough of my views - to Dan - already, without compromising totally. I'm not gonna bend over and take it up the a*** from these companies you know. We get screwed in the UK on most consumer issues as it is already. They might get away with not replying properly, but it's their own shortcomings as professionals, if they can't reply to/read correspondence properly, without patronising their consumers further - by a SHORT reply as well as a B.S. one.

Besides, I got a reply anyway - from a guy who DID apparently read all the longish article. Whether our letters are short or not they still B.S. us regardless. As big-businessmen they can't help it, just as I can't help including all that I can think of in trying to make a point.

Fair enough? Thanks.

 

[TheBat]

you did a great job with the article about the spiderman release.. its not me that is blowing you off.. its my friend who works at the movie studio that said it was too long and that you needed to make it one page...

I didn;t know that they just wanted one page...

JACOB

I am trying to help here.. not trying to make it compilcated.

its grouple of people who make the decsion about releasing the movie.. not just one person.. they all agree to release it on a certain day..

from what I heard.. they were going to be working on the spiderman movie until the release date..which could be one of many reasons why it was delayed.

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Sorry Jacob, if I was being hostile again. Now I know it was just the studio's opinion of 'article too long', not yours. Thanks.

I also now know, then, that it's a COMMITEEE of a******s at Sony who are dumping on UK fans and ignoring/trivialising our emails, rather than just ONE a******.

As for changing the date/not having time to read/reply to longish correspondence - because the movie won't be ready until right up to release week/day - that doesn't explain/excuse them moving the UK date, or NOT moving the U.S. date or the other countries who get it just before/after May 3rd.

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Dan Brecher,

I sent you the Spidey article the other day, as you asked. Did you get it? Reason I ask is because I've just got an AOL email telling me that yours wasn't received - ' permanent fatal error at that address ' or something (I often seem to get that when I send emails out, which is a pain in the proverbial ! ). Strange that in all our replies on HTF I never checked if you actually GOT the article I sent. I just assumed you did but that you were only choosing to comment on Spidey based on my POSTS alone, rather than the article you were sent ( !).

I have/shall put posts/topics on Superherohype and Corona Coming Attractions forums re. Spidey, if you wanted to check any of those, and their replies to me from other people. Do you know any other movie forums that I/we can post on re. any aspects of movies? Hope to hear from you.

P.S. I DID use the exact email address given at HTF, to send the article

This is correct isn't it. But then you won't have got my email if it's not!! Doh! Go get your head tested Jonathan...!

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

So that's it then. Debate dead. No replies in a while. Anyone who took an interest is now wholly indifferent. I'm not sure who's more pathetic (in the UK). Me for thinking I could do some good by my article, or all others for their attitude towards this subject. Gotta go. Sony just requested I bend over.

See you in Spring 2004 when Spider-Man 2's UK release date has been put back...

 

[TheBat]

I wish I had some good news to tell you.. but I am not hearing anything at the moment.. I don;t think it will be changed now.. I am Afraid you will have to wait until June 14th to see the movie.

JACOB

 

[Jonathan Fisher]

Well that surprises me. Thought they were gonna cave in on the matter. Yeah, right. Of course I knew all along - since Feb.21 - that they wouldn't. But that's not the point anyway. The point has always been to let studios like Sony know what we think of them. To not just tell them that they ARE a bunch of cold-hearted, money-obssessed, humanityless s***houses, but that people like me (are there any?) KNOW and BELIEVE that they are too. Otherwise they'll go on thinking every decision they make is a good one in all eyes.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Jonathan, my e-mail seems to relly be playing up this past week, yours is not the first to be sent that was bounced back. Sorry about that, hopefully it will be sorted soon.

Dan