Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MPAA, you suck! (Page 5)

 
This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  17  18  19 
 
Author Topic: MPAA, you suck!
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 09-22-2003 03:36 PM      Profile for Martin Brooks   Author's Homepage   Email Martin Brooks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I pretty much agree with everything Brad wrote. I do have one comment about the anti-piracy trailer. This doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother you. The purpose of this trailer is not to stop pirates -- as you've said, obviously they're going to continue to steal and copy films.

The purpose of the trailer is to make the public understand that free digital downloading of movies, which hasn't happened much yet because the technology isn't there, is illegal and has ramifications. They're trying to brainwash the public into this understanding so they don't face the same problems that the record industry is now facing. Will it work? Probably not. Is it offensive? I really don't believe it is...it's not threatening, it's low key and it focuses on people behind the scenes who work in the industry. I have not detected a negative reaction to it by patrons in a theater.

Meanwhile, I never thought that Academy voters should be permitted to vote on a film unless they saw it in a theater. How can one compare watching a film on television, frequently in mono, with experiencing it in a theater, especially if it's distributed on VHS. If they're too lazy or too elitist to see it in a theater, they should lose their voting credentials.

And I don 't understand how the CRAP code is going to stop camcorder recording of films. So let's say you know it's print 142 and it was playing at the Main Street theater. How does that affect the person on the street who is selling these illegal copies? It's easy enough to tell that these are pirated copies..what difference does it make which theater it came from? I still maintain that such a cruddy version of a film doesn't negatively affect theater revenues anyway.

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Leko
Film Handler

Posts: 90
From: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 09-22-2003 04:05 PM      Profile for Jim Leko   Email Jim Leko   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If the film is put on the internet before it is released in theaters, it tells you it was an inside job, and knowing which theater had that film could help. However, if the movie was put on the internet after release, then it could have been anybody who watched that film, and I find it hard to believe they can blame a particular person at the theater. At best, they can get mad at a manager, for not having the ushers do enough theater checks to notice somebody taping the movie.

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Yost
Master Film Handler

Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 09-22-2003 04:32 PM      Profile for Ron Yost   Email Ron Yost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"If they're too lazy or too elitist to see it in a theater, they should lose their voting credentials."

Amen, Martin. [Smile]

Ron Yost

 |  IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-23-2003 11:38 AM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
further, if they're too lazy to watch _all_ the films nominated in a particular category (in a theater), they should not be voting on that category. hard to enforce, i know. but the academy could at least help out by setting up real screenings of nominated films in the weeks before voting (maybe this really happens? i don't know.). this would help deserving films win on their own merits, rather than the films with the biggest campaigns.

on the other hand, the oscars have way too much clout as it is and don't need the boost that apparent legitimacy might provide.

carl

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 09-23-2003 11:49 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...the Academy could at least help out by setting up real screenings of nominated films in the weeks before voting (maybe this really happens? i don't know.).
Yes, it really happens. Special Academy Screenings are held in theatres in the key production cities. AFAIK, Academy members are also allowed free admission to any theatre upon presentation of their membership card (it's usually indicated in the movie ads during that time).

If I was a member of the Academy, why would I ever want to see a film on television [dlp] [thumbsdown] rather than in a really good theatre? [thumbsup]

Of course I wish that anyone that has received an Academy Sci-Tech award would be eligible for this privilege. [Cool] [Wink]

http://www.film-tech.com/trailers/filmtechpytlak.html

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 09-23-2003 11:53 AM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree -- these are movies, not videos. Academy members should be required to see them in theatres, not on VHS or even DVD on a $300 Apex TV. [thumbsdown]

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Langfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 280
From: Prospect, NSW, Australia
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 09-23-2003 12:51 PM      Profile for Bill Langfield   Author's Homepage   Email Bill Langfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Darn,

In 1978 I allowed some students to film 'your the one that I want' from GREASE on Super 8.

I've always felt bad that I let that happen.

However these days people can 'tape' the movie from their cell phone, how do you stop that?

Bill

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 09-23-2003 02:23 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gee, I remember buying a bootleg Super-8 reel of that song from "Grease" from a street vendor in Times Square in 1978! Always wondered where it came from. [uhoh] [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 09-23-2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
Ok John, I'm calling Jack (Valenti) tonight and telling him about your support of bootleggers! Since he is my close personal friend, I'm sure he will be most interesed in your admission of guilt. [Razz] [evil]

BTW: You had 2 more months and the statute of limitations would have run out! [beer]

>>> Phil

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 09-25-2003 01:43 AM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
I especially like the last line. Nah, I'm sure none of them thar members would EVER give out tapes/DVDs to others that might make a copy of it. That would just NEVER happen! The bootlegs are all coming from Joe Blow and his camcorder in the theatres! That guy just doesn't know what he's talkin'!

>>> Phil

From Variety:

---------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: Wed., Sep. 24, 2003, 8:54pm PT

quote:
Bye bye screeners
Piracy pressures may endanger Oscar DVDs

By TIMOTHY M. GRAY


Pirates may be forcing screening tapes to walk the plank.
As with every decision affecting awards contenders, this one is stirring up a lot of emotions: Some in the film business are embracing the proposal, others are blasting it as an example of major-studio bullying, and many are expressing total panic.

The Motion Picture Assn. of America late Tuesday sent major-studio CEOs a draft of a proposal under which the studios would agree to send out no screening cassettes or DVDs during awards season. Org has been huddling with studio honchos in recent days on the subject (Daily Variety, Sept. 24).

One question is who would sign up for the plan. Certainly the document is targeted at the major studios and their arthouse divisions (i.e., not only Fox but Fox Searchlight, Disney as well as Miramax, etc.). And nonsignatory majors such as DreamWorks are also said to be onboard.

Another question is whether this effort will extend to the true indies, such as Lions Gate, Newmarket, Magnolia and ThinkFilm, which are not MPAA signatories.

But the biggest question is whether this cassette cease-fire will ever occur. Studio execs and awards strategists were split Wednesday on the outcome.

Some feel the proposal falls into the same category as "why don't we all dump our nuclear weapons in the ocean?" -- in other words, it's a nice idea, but don't hold your breath.

"We would all love (the mailing of screeners) to go away. It doesn't serve the film, but you can't reverse history," one pessimist sighed.

Others are convinced the plan will definitely go into effect and a 15-year habit will be erased.

"It's going to happen," one marketing exec said, and the sentiment was echoed by several others.

Even at this early date, the awards season has seen some major changes (the Oscars' shift in dates, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences' get-tough attitude on campaigning). This latest plot twist was inspired by the piracy that has ballooned in recent years, particularly tied to studios' DVD screeners.

The majors have weighed alternative plans, including disposable DVDs (which are unviewable after a limited amount of time) or "fingerprinted" copies (which include initials or a number on the screener, making the source easier to trace). But, for various reasons, those have been rejected.

The panic in town comes from procedural concerns. For example, studios would have to arrange for more frequent screenings; at this point, available screening rooms are hard to come by.

And last year, a lot of exhibitors balked at the long-standing practice of admitting members of guilds, the Academy and other organizations -- the "your card will admit you and a guest" syndrome -- into commercial runs. If there are no tapes or DVDs, there will presumably be more demand for such admittance.

The tapes and DVDs are often called "Academy screeners" because AMPAS voters were the first recipients. But since the late 1980s, thousands more have been added to the lists, including members of the directors, writers and actors guilds and organizations such as BAFTA, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. and the Broadcast Film Critics Assn.

Longtime ambivalence

Studio execs have always been ambivalent about the mailing of screeners. On one hand, they want their films to be seen by the maximum number of voters. On the other hand, they want the pic to be seen on the bigscreen. "It's an insult to the cinematographer, for example, to watch his work on TV," one exec said.

That's true with small films, but even more so with entries like Columbia's "Big Fish," Disney's "The Alamo," Fox's "Master & Commander," Miramax's "Cold Mountain," New Line's "The Lord of the Rings," Revolution's "The Missing" and Warners' "The Last Samurai."

However, those films are the most likely to benefit from the proposal. An awards voter with limited time will often go see the biggies, relying on screeners for "smaller" pics. A few folk on Wednesday voiced concern that this is all an elaborate plan to squeeze out the little films. They raised questions about whether films like "Gosford Park," "Far From Heaven" or "Pollock" would've fared as well if it weren't for tapes.

Another question mark centers on Universal's "Seabiscuit." The studio has high hopes for the film, which will be released on DVD in December. Since this is a piracy issue, it's not clear whether the studio will be asked not to send out copies of the film, since they will be available in stores.

More useful than ever

This year, the screeners might have been even more useful than in the past. With a shortened awards season -- Oscar nomination ballots will be mailed Jan. 2 -- voters may find that, due to work schedules, the holidays and family time, they would tend to rely more than usual upon tapes and DVDs.

The Academy had no comment Wednesday. Org is not part of the planning and has always kept mum about screeners. When studios mail screeners to Oscar voters, those lists are not supplied by the Acad. The official AMPAS policy has always been that voters should see all the contenders before they vote, and they should see them on the bigscreen.

Aside from the headaches for awards strategists and the practical considerations of voters (too busy to attend a screening, don't like to drive at night, etc.), there is the matter of bruised egos. One campaigner predicted voter anger: There are a lot of people who want tapes. "Everyone's so used to the convenience, the perk. It's a badge of honor to own a current film -- or they want to send out a screener as a Christmas gift."


© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-25-2003 03:30 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Variety/Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. said:
The majors have weighed alternative plans, including disposable DVDs (which are unviewable after a limited amount of time) or "fingerprinted" copies (which include initials or a number on the screener, making the source easier to trace). But, for various reasons, those have been rejected.

Great work guys! Keep it up! The effort you are putting forth is outstanding!

quote:
John Hawkinson wrote on page 4:
Back on page 3, Joe says "There aren't any codes on screener tapes and DVDs, except to say "please don't copy"."

How sure of this are you?

See the above quote. Stuff like that makes me fairly confident.

 |  IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-25-2003 04:01 AM      Profile for John Hawkinson   Email John Hawkinson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe, I think you read me wrong there; I concur it seems unlikely that they can distinguish one screener from another, but do you honestly doubt they cannot tell if the source was any screener at all?

(This is relevent since a point which we're repeatedly revolving around is the extent to which screeners are the major source of the problem.)

Of course, I'm always curious if anyone has hard data they can share, which is why I asked you the question, even though I thought I knew the answer.

By the way, I'm pleased the way facts have been injected into this thread. It makes it much more valuable.

I have a research question, too, for people who see more prints than I do. Can someone confirm whether these Deluxe orange CAP dots come from both Deluxe Toronto and Deluxe Hollywood, or just one?

--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-25-2003 04:01 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
WOW! SOMEONE IS USING THEIR BRAINS!!!

I can only hope this passes. I just KNOW piracy will take a major nosedive if this is to happen. However it's got to be EVERY studio to embrace this or it will never fly.

I am truly amazed that the MPAA is finally looking at ALL sources of piracy and not just picking on the theaters. If they can successfully knock this out, then that proves they are serious about preventing piracy and not just picking on theaters as a way to try and find a meaning for their jobs.

(Phil, please provide a web link to that article.)

John, in looking back over the last few weeks, so far all of the offensive CAP coding marks are from the Deluxe Hollywood lab, including School of Rock reel 4 that I screened tonight.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 09-25-2003 04:35 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Even without the piracy issue, screener tapes/DVDs are still dumb. The Academy members should have no right to vote on anything that they haven't seen on the big screen, either in a screening room or in a commercial theatre. To watch a screener tape at home is a completely different experience. If their personal lives are just too busy to allow this, then maybe they shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 09-25-2003 10:16 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
From the Washington Post (stupid survey required):

quote:
Reston Firm Sees Future in Fighting Movie Piracy

By Ellen McCarthy
Thursday, September 25, 2003; Page E01

Cinea Inc. is only three years old and some of its ideas about video and film piracy protection are years away from commercial use. But the film industry's growing alarm over piracy put Cinea squarely in the sights of acquirers.

This week, Dolby Laboratories Inc., a firm that created the digital standard for film sound and is eager to exploit the revenue possibilities of digital film, bought Reston-based Cinea. The deal between the private companies (neither would disclose the terms) was as good an endorsement as Robert Schumann, co-founder and chief executive of Cinea, could have hoped for.

"From our perspective, [Dolby is] the best way to move this business forward," Schumann said. "They bring expertise, financial resources, but mostly they bring great relationships in Hollywood and in the consumer domain around the world."

Internet piracy is a far less pressing problem in the movie industry than it is for music companies, but that may not hold true for long. Theater executives fear that as high-speed Internet connections become more prevalent, the exchange of pilfered movies could skyrocket.

"It's something that studios not only are taking seriously, but it's got to be one of the main initiatives. We're all doing everything we can to avoid the fate of the music industry," said Ronald C. Wheeler, senior vice president of content protection for Fox Entertainment Group. "We're definitely afraid it's going to come to that, and more quickly than people realize, unless we take action now."

Dolby's purchase gives Cinea the money to develop and market its products, Schumann said, and something potentially more valuable: Dolby's Rolodex of contacts in a worried movie industry.

Schumann is a veteran of Digital Video Express, a Richmond subsidiary of Circuit City that tried to sell encrypted DVDs. The special discs could be viewed for a certain period of time and then shut off, allowing viewers to pay a lower fee to watch a movie without having to return it to a rental store. The technology never took off and Digital Video closed in 1999, but the industry's struggles with piracy continued to interest Schumann.

Rather than continue to focus on protecting consumer copies of movies, Schumann decided his new firm would offer products that shield specially screened versions of films for large audiences. Cinea's first product encrypts videos shown on airplanes and in hotels so that they can be played only on equipment sold by the company. If, for example, an airline employee tried to make a copy of a movie, the copy would not play on a normal DVD machine.

The company, funded by a $2 million investment from Monumental Venture Partners LLC of McLean, also developed a "lock-and-key" technology so that movies transmitted to theaters digitally can play only on approved machines at predetermined times. The system protects movies from being hijacked during satellite transmission, or downloaded from theater computers.

Cinea's latest product, which it expects to test this fall, puts individual tags on DVDs sent early to screeners or reviewers, so that if copies are made and put on the black market, they can be traced to their sources. Schumann said several major studios are already using its technology.

The product that could put Cinea on the map is several years from completion. But if it works as Schumann hopes, camcorders in movie theaters -- a low-tech but nettlesome form of piracy -- will become a thing of the past.

Last year Cinea won a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create a system that distorts the images recorded by camcorders. The company is working on a special projector, called CamJam, that takes advantages of the differences between images visible to the human eye and those captured by the recorders. Many movie theaters still play reels of film, but the industry increasingly is moving toward digital technology. Cinea's projector, designed to work with digital movies, would emit rays of light and other images that are invisible to viewers but make stolen copies worthless.

"Your video would have a bunch of disturbance, flickers, motions. We're trying to disrupt the value of that image," Schumann said. "No venture capitalist would pay for the research that needs to be done, but if we can get this research done -- and we believe we can -- then the technology will have tremendous value for American industry, particularly Hollywood."

The industry is clearly eager for a solution, claiming that piracy deprives it of aftermarket revenue that can make the difference between a film being profitable or unprofitable.

"It's a problem for all major studios, the directors, writers -- but most of all the people who work in the business in post production and at Blockbuster stores. People who are not high-wage people -- their livelihoods are put to hazard if we can't find a way to deal with this thievery that is going on," said Jack Valenti, president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America.

For Dolby, the acquisition is a departure from its traditional lines of business. The San Francisco-based company mainly holds patents on audio technologies, especially noise-reduction equipment. Its Dolby Digital sound system is used on almost every major studio film.

"We see content security as just becoming ever more important in the areas that we do business," said Tim Partridge, vice president of Dolby's professional division. "Our studio customers keep telling us that piracy is their biggest issue of the day. . . . We want to continue to be a major player and we believe that in order to do that, you need to be familiar with security.

"The more we became involved with [Cinea], the more we realized that they had some real expertise, as well as some interesting technologies," Partridge said.

Cinea will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dolby and remain in Reston. Schumann will be president of the 15-employee subsidiary. Executives Laurence Roth and Jeffrey Segal will also stay.

 -

Robert Schumann, chief executive of Cinea, demonstrates the company's technology for discouraging people from using camcorders to make copies of movies in theaters. (Gerald Martineau -- The Washington Post)


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  17  18  19 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.