Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Austin Powers ad removal

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Austin Powers ad removal (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Austin Powers ad removal

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 01-27-2002 09:57 AM

Well if everyone refuses to pull the promotional materals does that mean that the movie wont show anywhere? In reality it seem that we have them by their gonads not the other way around. They need us to take the promo materals down to avoid a lawsuit. They should be a little more nicer about it.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

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

posted 01-27-2002 10:26 AM

Are promotional materials sent out to theaters technically "on loan" or something? I mean, is there fine print in some legal contract that exhibitors sign that states the distributor (or whoever) actually owns the materials?

[Even if they do have the right to rescind the materials, that letter from NLC is pretty harsh. Maybe they felt they were in such a weak legal position they had to protect themselves to the max.]

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...

| IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-27-2002 11:32 AM

Promo materials are licenced, not sold. Theatres regularly get in trouble for trying to sell used posters, even though they are commonly available on eBay. There has to be a clear break in chain of possession. A theatre employee may discard a poster in a dumpster, and unbeknownst to the theatre management a dumpster diver may recover and sell the poster with relative impunity. The DD never signed contracts or agreed to licencing. Any employee of the theatre or relative could get in serious trouble if a studio wanted to pursue the matter.

FWIW, the ad materials in question may become collector's items.

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 01-27-2002 12:32 PM

Dave, love the quote!

I just love the last sentence in the letter: "We appreciate your anticipated cooperation. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions." Gee, after talking to me like that (the demand of the opening sentence) what makes you think I'm willing to cooperate?

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 01-27-2002 02:02 PM

Dear New Line,

We would appreciate your anticipated discovery of proper manners.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 01-27-2002 04:00 PM

Collectors items indeed. There are 51 posters on Ebay as of this post. The bid on one of them is over $100 and several others are approaching that. Similar situation for Spiderman. Amazing.

Paul
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad Japanese pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

| IP: Logged

Jason Black
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1723
From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-27-2002 04:54 PM

Collectors item is EXACTLY what I first thought when I read the letter. Here we go with a renaming midstream, ala Revenge of the Jedi, and you know what those posters are worth to collectors.

I agree with Jerry on the selling of posters. I, honestly, considered doing so on my own, as we are instructed to destroy all post-show ad materials. However, due to my own moral convictions, which many folks don't have anymore, I decided that it simply wasn't right that *I* try and make money off of something that 1) never even belonged to ME in the 1st place, 2) bordered being illegal, & 3) placed my job in jeopardy.

I haven't been with this company 15 years to see it go down the tubes and possibly jail time for a $5 poster. Sorry.

------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 01-27-2002 09:44 PM

I think you guys need to get thicker skinned. If you read the Yahoo! article you'll notice there's currently and INJUNCTION against New Line that prohibits them from advertising the Austin Powers movie using the 'G' word. This means that they are legaly responsible for getting those materials back ASAP. It doesn't matter to the courts that things at the theatres are really out of their hands, violating an injunction is violating an injunction. Even if they end up winning the case eventually, which I'm sure they will, violating an injuction is still a big no no. I think its important to note that in the past New Line has been one of the most 'polite' studios out there when sending out trailers with specific placement requests. This letter was definately a departure, but I can understand their motivation.

| IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 01-27-2002 09:55 PM

Danjaq never did anything like this with the Dean Martin "Matt Helm" series or the James Coburn "Our Man Flint" series. Those were parodies.

| IP: Logged

Wes Hughes
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 175
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-28-2002 12:36 AM

"WTF?"...As a few of you have posted is right! What is so rude about this letter from New Line!? NOTHING. I got one, as did most of the mainstream industry and it did not offend me in any way. Just pull the trailers and one sheets!

| IP: Logged

Jason Black
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1723
From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-28-2002 12:51 AM

What is so rude about it? You DEMAND something from me and politely listen as I tell you to kiss my ass... that's what's wrong with it. Understandably, they may have a legal injunction, but come on folks, treat me with a little common courtesy and professional demeanor and I'll happily bend over backwards to accomodate. Demand that I do something and watch me laugh in your face.

Ever had a customer DEMAND that you stop the film and rewind becuase they were late? Yeah pal, I'll get RIGHT ON IT. In a nutshell, my point is simply this.. DEMANDING theatre managers to clean up their (read: New Line's own) shitpile is simply bad ju-ju in my opinion. Threatening operators with withdrawn playdates.. that's good... hurt themselves in the long run and see NLC's revenues go bye bye.

Am I missing someting here or what?

------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

| IP: Logged

Zach Zagar
Film Handler

Posts: 45
From: Jefferson City, MO
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 01-28-2002 01:45 AM

Is anyone actually sending them back? I've heard reports and orders of being required to send back posters and trailers...

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 01-28-2002 02:26 AM

Dustin,

The would have gotten the same result had they said something like

"Due to unforseen court action, New Line is required to pull all promotional items for Austin Powers. While we sincerely regret any inconvience, in order to comply with the court's order, we must require you to pull all trailers and one sheets immediatly and return them to New Line. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this urgent matter."

The difference in the two is that the one above would get the same action WITHOUT making people mad..

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 01-28-2002 12:32 PM

Zach, yes we received word that they must be sent back.

I was gonna snag a trailer for myself. I love Austin Powers!

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-28-2002 01:11 PM

The whole debacle is just the result of a poorly written letter. If they would have been "nice" about it they'd have gotten better results. I think the REAL stupidity was in not contacting the Bond people first and clearing the use of "Goldmember." These days, with people willing to sue anybody over anything, it would have been the sensible thing to do. Parody or no parody.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.