|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: MPAA, you suck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug
Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-17-2003 01:03 AM
Damn! I knew January was too good to be true! From Variety Here
And, of course Jacko Baby is going to kick himself "upstairs" to STILL pull the strings!
>>> Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Sun., Nov. 16, 2003, 3:15pm PT
Studios won't bomb the ban
Discussions to continue over future action
By CATHY DUNKLEY, DAVID ROONEY
It's final. Screeners will go to Academy members only.
Delivering the final word on this year's awards screeners battle Friday, MPAA chief Jack Valenti held fast to the decision to ban screeners from all groups except the Academy, much to the disappointment of the many groups who've opposed the ban since its inception.
Valenti got back in touch via phone Friday with the various opposition groups, including the IFP, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., BAFTA, and the critics groups and guilds, who had been hoping he'd find a last-ditch compromise to extend screeners to groups outside the Academy.
Valenti met with reps of the various groups Nov. 6 and then spoke to them Tuesday, promising a final decision this past Friday.
Many had felt optimistic after their recent talks with Valenti, who was sympathetic and attentive to their concerns.
"I was a little bit surprised, truthfully," said IFP/New York executive director Michelle Byrd. "It felt like in the conversations we've been having, he's been a man of his word. So we were hopeful. Everybody would've been happy to see the ban lifted, but I think now it's final."
Valenti confirmed the ban would stay as is.
Individual decisions
"Each studio on its own will decide whether to send out screeners to the Academy or not," he said, reiterating that the Acad alone had been chosen to receive screeners because it is "the only organization in the country whose membership includes all disciplines."
He once again said the purpose of the ban is to combat piracy, a cause that is "the No. 1 issue absorbing 90% of my time."
"To extend the screeners beyond the Academy would demand many, many thousands more screeners, which would greatly increase the risk of piracy, and that's a risk the studios cannot afford to take," he said.
Other sources indicated that, since meeting with opposition groups, Valenti had fought hard to persuade the studios to weaken their stance and include the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., possibly the IFP and, even more unlikely still, the critics orgs.
DreamWorks principal Jeffrey Katzenberg and studio heads at Fox were the most strongly opposed to such a compromise.
Disappointment voiced
Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. prexy Jean Oppenheimer, who headed the delegation of prominent critics groups seeking a compromise to the ban, said, "It is very disappointing because when Mr. Valenti called the other day I had the feeling everybody was trying to work something out. Again I feel that screeners aren't really where the piracy problem lies."
Valenti also spoke Friday to Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. president Lorenzo Soria, reiterating the existing MPAA ruling on screeners which shuts that org's Golden Globes voters out of the deal.
"The HFPA is extremely disappointed that the MPAA has unfairly decided to continue the screener ban on organizations outside of the Academy," said the HFPA in a statement. "As we have commented previously, we view this action as discriminatory and an assault on the professional integrity of our members. In spite of the ban, the members of the HFPA will continue making it their mission to see all the motion pictures eligible for this year's Golden Globe awards."
Melissa Gilbert, president and Robert Pisano, chief executive officer/national executive director, Screen Actors Guild said:
"As far as we know, there has been no change in the MPAA decision to give screeners only to the Academy. As we have stated publicly, we disagree with that policy and deplore the discrimination against our members."
Future plans
On a positive note, Valenti however did say he would continue conversations in a formal sense with Award ceremonies groups after this year's Academy Awards presentation to discuss what happens in the future, underlining the ban was for a one-year term only.
Though the exact timetable for these ongoing discussions was unclear, it is expected the MPAA will include tracking of the success of the reduced number of screeners this year in reducing piracy.
"Valenti was certainly interested in having an IFP voice in whatever discussions they have in the future for solutions for next year and beyond," said Byrd. "All this certainly served as a rallying cry for the industry in a very visible way and I would hope that energy will continue."
The priority for many players within the creative community will now be securing their involvement in further talks for longer term solutions.
The Independent Working Group, comprising studios specialty divisions, is expected to hold further discussions in the coming days and will be lobbying heavily with Valenti to be at the table and part of the discussions for next year.
Valenti succession
Aside from the screener issue, many industry sources were also abuzz about succession plans for Valenti.
Sources close to the MPAA chief indicated it was unlikely he would step down in January but that early spring was a much more likely timetable. They would not be drawn on whether frontrunner Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) will be the next MPAA CEO at which time Valenti will remain chairman of the org.
Meanwhile, as the dust settles on Valenti's final word, non-MPAA companies are beginning to make known their plans for screener mailout.
Speaking to investors Friday during the company's quarterly earnings conference call, Lions Gate Entertainment CEO Jon Feltheimer said Lions Gate will be pushing hard for three of its "bona fide Oscar contenders": "Shattered Glass" (which expands to 125 screens this week), "The Cooler" (released Nov. 26) and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" (Dec. 12).
Lions Gate screeners
"We will do everything we can to compete for award consideration," Feltheimer said, noting that while the company respects the MPAA's piracy initiatives, Lions Gate will be sending out both DVD and VHS screeners of its films. "Mailing screeners is one area of award marketing campaigns where Lions Gate and other indies can level the playing field with the majors," he added.
Samuel Goldwyn Films has revealed its plans to mail out VHS tapes only to the Academy, the HFPA and critics groups for "Japanese Story," for which the distrib is pushing Toni Collette in the actress category; while Newmarket Films will supply DVD and VHS copies of "Monster" and "Whale Rider," the latter is already available commercially.
Those titles will go to the Academy, HFPA and some critics groups and guilds. The "Whale Rider" push will focus on Niki Caro for director and adapted screenplay and Keisha Castle-Hughes for supporting actress. For "Monster," Newmarket is pushing Patty Jenkins for director and screenplay, Charlize Theron for actress and Christina Ricci for supporting actress.
(Meredith Amdur in New York contributed to this report.)
© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug
Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-24-2003 10:01 PM
The game continues... From Variety 11/24/2003 Here
>>> Phil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Mon., Nov. 24, 2003, 6:46pm PT
Indies sue to block screener ban
MPAA accused of anti-competitive behavior
By DAVID ROONEY
Just as the dust was finally settling on the screener battle, it's about to get ugly again.
A coalition of independent filmmakers along with IFP/Los Angeles and IFP/New York Monday filed a lawsuit in New York seeking a court order to force the MPAA to lift the ban in time to impact this year's awards season, allowing individual distributors to determine when and in what manner to distribute promotional screeners.
The plaintiffs have accused the MPAA of conspiring with studio chiefs to eliminate competitive rivalry, of using their control to erect barriers and disadvantage small, independent film producers, and of conspiring with the American Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences to unlawfully disadvantage other competing critics' evaluation and awards events.
The group has been granted a hearing Wednesday morning in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor said the org's legal consul had not yet seen the suit. However, he added: "from the early quotes and reports I've seen it (the suit) seems to ignore the intent of the ban which is to reduce piracy and preserve the industry for motion pictures big and small."
The official complaint charges the MPAA with mandating "an anti-competitive, unjustified, and unnecessarily restrictive ban." The group states that the ban constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade under U.S. antitrust laws.
The coalition includes IFP members, producers whose films are being released by studio specialty divisions and are among this year's awards contenders, and producers without current releases at stake who are concerned with the negative effect of the screener ban on the independent sector.
"This has been a long-term campaign to right the wrong of the MPAA screener ban," said a statement from the group. "We have written letters, placed ads, held meetings, and tried every way to get the MPAA to reverse its decision of Sept. 30.
"Unlike the major studios -- who can buy public awareness through expensive promotional campaigns -- independent filmmakers rely on recognition through awards to attract talent, financing, and box office revenues. As a last resort, to protect the interests of independent filmmakers and the film-going public, we have taken the step of seeking court-ordered relief of the ban."
The plaintiffs include Antidote Films' Jeff Levy-Hinte ("Thirteen," "Laurel Canyon"); Elemental Films' Ross Katz, ("Lost in Translation"); Robert Altman and Josh Astrachan of Sandcastle 5 Prods. and Killer Films chief Christine Vachon ("The Company"); HeadQuarters' Susan A Stover, ("Laurel Canyon"); Anthony Bregman, Anne Carey and Ted Hope of This Is That ("American Splendor," "21 Grams"); and InDigEnt principals John Sloss and Gary Winick ("Pieces of April").
"I don't feel that the MPAA set out to injure independent films," Levy-Hinte told Daily Variety. "They've clearly demonstrated they don't know enough about independent filmmaking to give it that much attention. What they did was try to give the impression of fighting piracy but they came up with an ill-conceived and defective means of doing so."
"It the ban is allowed to stand, it could damage not only the films in release this year but our ability to release independent films in the future," he continued. "Studios can buy publicity but we have to earn it."
Other producers involved include GreeneStreet Films co-founder John Penotti, Forensic Films' Scott Macauley, Independent Entertainment's Scott Rosenfelt, Joana Vicente of Open City Films, Peter Broderick of Paradigm Consulting, Eva Kolodner and Yael Melamede of Salty Features, Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford of Sanford/Pillsbury Prods. and John Cole of Talking Wall Pictures.
Move marks the latest and most aggressive step taken by the bicoastal IFP, which has spearheaded an anti-ban charge involving much of the creative community. The org's exec directors from both Los Angeles and New York -- respectively Dawn Hudson and Michelle Byrd -- signed on as plaintiffs.
"We tried every possible avenue and did everything we could including informing the MPAA ahead of time of what we thought the antitrust violations were but they didn't reverse the ban," Hudson said. "We had to act in a way that we hope can still have some effect on this year's awards season."
"There were two major issues here," Byrd added. "One was the desire to move quickly in time for this year's awards and the other was the need to register a complaint loud and clear. Not to stand up at this moment in a more proactive manner would mean that the way the thing went down this year would have established the tone for the future also."
One of the chief complaints from the IFP, the studio specialty divisions and the creative community as a whole has been the total lack of dialogue between the MPAA and its member studios with any organization or individual beyond their executive ranks.
© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic