This is topic Austin Powers ad removal in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000429
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-26-2002, 01:57 PM:
Hey guys, In the event you haven't been told, NLC has sent (via Fed-Ex overnight) a memo DEMANDING that all trailers and one sheets for the upcoming AP-3 bee removed immediately.
Please read as quoted from the NLC memo:
"Dear Exhibitor:
We are writing to demand that you immediately cease any use of promotional materials related to the film currently entitled "Austin Powers in Goldmember". Failure to do so will result in prohibition of exihibtion of this film in your theatres.
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions."
Signed by Sonya Thompson Halsey / Business Affairs Administration
WTF? They DEMAND? How cocky is that? I, for one, think they much be renaming the print, ala. Star Wars Revenge of the Jedi. Anyone else care to quess as to what is going on here?
------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 01-26-2002, 02:31 PM:
No one demanded me here. I did get a letter requesting the removal of all Austin Powers 3 promotional items simply because they are trying a new marketing strategy for this film.------------------
--"That's my story and i'm sticking to it!"--
Posted by Keith Peticolas (Member # 971) on 01-26-2002, 04:36 PM:
I was told that the James Bond people were upset about the name and were threatening to sue. No loss, really sick of the trailer and Austin Powers anyway.
Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 01-26-2002, 04:47 PM:
Article on yahoo:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/eo/20020125/en/007_dis_gold_members_austin_powers_1.html Friday January 25 08:36 PM EST
007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers
Forget Dr. Evil and Mini-Me, it's apparently James Bond that poses the biggest threat to Austin
Powers.
The International Man of Mystery has been shaken, stirred and otherwise dismembered by 007. Or
make that dis-Goldmember-ed.
MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a
cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema that prohibits New Line from calling the latest
installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember.
Apparently, the 007 folks weren't too keen on the double entendre of Goldmember--a takeoff on the
1964 Bond classic, Goldfinger--and released the legal hounds to force the name change.
"MGM/UA and Danjaq have a zero-tolerance policy towards anyone who tries to trade in on the
James Bond franchise without authorization," says an MGM spokesperson.
Over the past 24 hours, New Line has begun frantically recalling all promotional materials--posters,
trailers, photos and anything else that bears the name Goldmember--from movie theaters, TV stations,
Websites and other media outlets.
"We are currently in the arbitration process and trying to resolve this matter under the MPAA
guidelines," the studio says in a statement. "Until that time, we will be referring to the film as the third
installment of Austin Powers."
The suddenly untitled flick, which began shooting late last year, could require some serious tweaking if
New Line can't get the Bond folks to budge. In addition to playing Powers, Dr. Evil and Fat Bastard,
Myers was reportedly going to add a new character to his repertoire. The name? Goldmember.
One of the most anticipated films of 2002, the latest Austin Powers misadventure will costar Michael
Caine as Austin's dad and Destiny Child's Beyoncé Knowles as the love interest. Returning cast
members include Michael York, Robert Wagner, Seth Green, Mindy Sterling and Verne Troyer. Jay
Roach once again mans the director's seat.
New Line is banking on the film's success. The first installment Austin Powers: International Man of
Mystery grossed $88 million worldwide and its sequel, The Spy Who Shagged Me more than tripled
that sum, earning $310 million, making it the highest grossing film in New Line's history. Myers
reportedly netted $25 million for the third episode.
MGM and Danjaq have been fiercely protective of their multibillion-dollar Bond cash cow over the
years. They successfully sued Sony in 1997 after the studio tried to lauch its own 007 film.
The next Bond film, starring Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry and tentatively titled Bond 20, began
shooting in England this month for a holiday release.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-26-2002, 05:14 PM:
Since it isn't a Bond movie, and it is quite clearly its own animal ie. Austin Powers in Goldmember, I would be willing to take it to court. I don't think MGM has a member to stand on legaly speaking. I think the court case would be more interesting than the picture.
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-26-2002, 05:27 PM:
I remember hearing about a law that allowed use of copywriten materials for the purpose of parodying them. If that is true, then MGM could not legally force the removal of the Austin Powers ads.
Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-26-2002, 06:12 PM:
The question is whether this is a parody a la "Airplane" and the parody of "Airport" or a lifting of the plot and treating it in a humorous fashion, but in a manner that could be confused with the Bond franchise and characters.IMO, the suit is dumb. If the film is made, it won't have a negative impact on the Bond products as much as drive people to rent "Goldfinger" again and see other Bond films to compare films. There is little possibility of people confusing the Bond films and a parody, which would be the underpinning of any legit suit.
Sometimes you just have to stand back on the sidelines and admire the testosterone driven chutspa of executives and lawyers that start a pissing match standing downwind of their opponent. I guess they have hopes of scaring a few unearned bucks out of them. Myers needs to keep notes and do a film on the executives and their shenanigans.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-26-2002, 07:23 PM:
But they had no problems with 'The Spy Who Shagged Me'???Crazy, baby.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-26-2002, 09:40 PM:
If the first Austin Powers movie had tanked, MGM/UA would pay no attention. It's only because AP-3 is following up on, not one but, TWO money-makers that they jump on the legal bandwagon. THEN... New Line decides to fight back... HOW? By leaking (publicizing) the fact that MGM/UA is threatening to sue.The most popular phrase spoken in the movie biz is probably, "Excuse me, could somebody please help me pull this knife out of my back?" 
New Line should just ignore any threats of lawsuits until they actually receive the subpoena. Then they should do as mentioned above... Claim fair use through parody.
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-26-2002, 10:52 PM:
It reminds me of the lawsuit against New Line for using the title Scream. Sony filied the suit because they felt that the movie sounded too much like their movie Screamers (remember that bomb?) and claimed that audiences would be confused. I think that it was settled out of court when New Line agreed to drop a similar lawsuit against Sony.
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-26-2002, 11:52 PM:
Youre not referring to the movie SCREAM are you?
That was realeased by Miramax (Dimension), not Sony.
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-27-2002, 12:26 AM:
No I wrote that "Screamers" was Sony. However, I was wrong thinking that "Scream" was from New Line.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-27-2002, 03:04 AM:
First we recieved an email from our home office stating that NL requests that we pull all AP3 materials because they have decided to go with a different marketing strategy. Everyone's reaction was "what the heck is that supposed to mean!?" Then we got the demand letter today. I quote Jason on my exact thought as I was reading it: "WTF!!??" (Okay, I added a little more punctuation.) It pissed off me and my GM so badly. (For once we actually agree on something. 
)This suit is rigoddamndiculous. It's a frikkin parody, okay? (As I extend my pinky at the corner of my mouth. ) Only a complete idiot could confuse Austin Powers with James Bond. That pisses me off.
Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 01-27-2002, 03:39 AM:
The thing I'm wondering is that I read that the movie actually *has* a character named Goldmember. Does this mean that every scene with this new character is cut out? What about the scenes where they refer to the character? Will this delay the movie?
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-27-2002, 05:35 AM:
Lawsuit or not, New Line needs to learn the words "Please" and "Thank You"...
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 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.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 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...
Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 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.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 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?
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-27-2002, 02:02 PM:
Dear New Line,We would appreciate your anticipated discovery of proper manners.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 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!
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 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!
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 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.
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 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.
Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 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!
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 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!
Posted by Zach Zagar (Member # 379) on 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...
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 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..
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 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! 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 01-28-2002, 04:16 PM:
Here is why they would object to GOLDMEMBER and not to THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME. Both have very obvious connotations, as THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME is definatly overtoned with sexual innuendo. As for GOLDMEMBER, it is directly referring to a persons MEMBER, and that has to be why they object. I myself thought it was particularly sick to even think of this style of parody that plays mostly to the younger crowd. Arent they perverted enough?Dave
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-28-2002, 04:38 PM:
According to this Variety article on Yahoo, the Bond people *did* object to the title "The Spy Who Shagged Me", but lost.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020128/en/film-powers_2.html "Similarly, MGM and UA would have loved to put a stop to the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me", but when they registered a protest with the MPAA in 1997, New Line countered the suit and won. This time, New Line apparently failed to go through the proper channels in its counter and, for now at least, does not have the right to use the "Goldmember" title."
------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-28-2002, 07:17 PM:
Well having heard this from Film-Tech first on saturday, and then reading in the paper today confirming the story, i was expecting a letter on my return to work today, however i haven't heard anything yet, so my Goldmember teaser was still playing in front of Lord of the Rings this evening.Chances are when i get into work tomorrow, i'll have an official notification to remove it, until i get that it stays in. If my letter DEMANDS me as in previous posts i may well keep it in for a while longer, and they won't get it back.
In fact, whether the letter is polite or not, they probably won't get it back, i've never sent any trailer back ever, whether demanded or not.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-30-2002, 12:12 AM:
I'm not a Bond fan, so can someone please tell me why they would object to The Spy Who Shagged Me? (I have heard of Goldfinger, so that one I know.)------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-30-2002, 01:27 AM:
...Probably because it is too similar sounding to (and adds a potentially 'negative' sexual connotation to) the real Bond title 'The Spy Who loved Me'-Aaron
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-30-2002, 06:20 PM:
And because I'm not a Bond fan, I have never heard of that title. Thanks.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-01-2002, 07:35 AM:
According to today's Hollywood Reporter, the MPAA has upheld the MGM/Danjaq protest and ruled that New Line cannot use "Goldmember" until mid-June. "Austin Powers 3" comes out July 26.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-04-2002, 10:32 AM:
A commercial for AP3 ran during the Super Bowl. There was no title for the movie, and it's currently unrated. This was a generic "Watch for Austin Powers this summer" spot.
------------------
- dave
Avoid the meadow...
Posted by Scott Madsen (Member # 167) on 02-09-2002, 04:50 PM:
I still saw this trailer referred to as Goldmember in front of a movie. Geez, if I worked for the competing theatre, I could call New Line and make sure that I was awarded the AP3 booking. (If New Line was serious about that threat)
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-23-2002, 08:02 PM:
How are these previews recalls tracked, anyway? I'm asking because today I went to see "Lord of the Rings" and the Goldmember preview is STILL being played! (along with all the original previews that played back in December..Orange County anyone? or even Rollerball?
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 02-24-2002, 05:03 AM:
Sounds like trailer work "Done-Wrong" and lazy projectionists.
Posted by Michael Hunt (Member # 772) on 03-14-2002, 01:03 PM:
Well, I was screening Lord of the Rings two weeks ago with the Goldmember trailer attached to the front of it...It arrived at my theatre attached to the front of the reel, and left my theatre still attached, and was shown at every screening over the two weeks that we had it...
The first I'd heard of MGM/UA's sense of humour failure was here today...
Watch out Leicester, the Cherry and White army is coming...
------------------
There must be more to life than Film and Rugby...
Gwan Glawster!!!
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 03-15-2002, 07:31 PM:
And i'm still screening it (Rings) for weekend matinees, with the Goldmember trailer still attached. I haven't recieved any request from the distributor to pull the trailer so i'll continue to run it until i hear otherwise.Anyway, i think Lord of the Rings is distributed by 'Entertainment' in the UK, perhaps they are not as bothered, but it seems pretty strange that they haven't done a recall.
If you want a very rare Goldmember trailer, you know where to come, highest bid wins! and be quick, we might be dropping it next week
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-16-2002, 10:14 AM:
I got a phone call Wednesday night from a New Line rep confirming that I had complied with the request to remove the "Goldmember" materials.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-16-2002, 10:33 AM:
Andy M: Entertainment Film Distributors handles most if not all New Line product in the UK. You might want to check with them or your booker just to be sure.
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 03-16-2002, 06:30 PM:
Charles, I realise most New Line product's are handled by Entertainment in the UK, However i'm not going to phone Ent and say 'eh, i think we should have pulled this trailer because i heard in the newspapers, etc, that it shouldn't be running it anymore'!I think that it is up to them to contact me. Maybe New Line should get on the phone with Ent, from an earlier post i see that we are not the only UK site that is still running the trailer, chances are every print of Lord of the Rings in the UK still has an AP3 Goldmember trailer attached!
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-09-2002, 11:24 AM:
Looks like it will be "Goldmember" after all.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020409/film_nm/film_goldmember_dc_1&cid=600 MGM gets to stick their trailers on it in return for not contesting the name "Goldmember".
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-09-2002, 11:53 AM:
Ahhhh .. a happy ending at last.
Goldmember is so much easier to say than "The Third Installment of Austin Powers"
Posted by Rob Jones (Member # 902) on 04-09-2002, 08:34 PM:
Andy -"I think that it is up to them to contact me."Not likely! Our booker has had trouble even getting Entertainment to put bookings through for us at York uni for next term - and even now they won't do a flat fee booking until the autumn or take anything less than a 7 day booking at 40% on Lord of the Rings! They don't seem to want to take any bookings at all for Gosford Park for independents. I guess getting quite a few big releases seems to have gone to their heads over the past year or so.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-12-2002, 05:06 PM:
Goldmember it is, baby! Confirmed by Variety 3 days ago and the Hollywood Reporter today.MGM gets the trailer for Die Another Day (the next 007) attached to Goldmember. Also, MGM gains veto power on any Austin Powers sequel that spoofs a 007 title.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-12-2002, 06:28 PM:
Ain't it Cool News reported that they should have called it Never Say Member Again. This is because Never Say Never Again was released by the same film company that does Austin Powers. They don't need MGM's permission to use that name. They also reported that since MGM raised such a stink about the name while Goldmember was in production, Meyer was able to go back a write some additional, very funny scenes mocking MGM.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-12-2002, 07:14 PM:
Ian: Never Say Never Again came out through Warner Bros. All the Austin Powers movies have come out through New Line.Another reason why Ain't It Cool News is a hack site run by a born liar. See my post in Yak on the "review" of Star Wars: Episode 2.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-12-2002, 07:30 PM:
Yea, I read all they had to say about Harry Knowles on Film Threat. Boy are those people rude. I guess Brad's policy about no alias' and to use our pictures has paid off with a more polite site.But it is still fun to read those sites just for the unsubstantiated rumors.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-12-2002, 07:39 PM:
The only thing that Warner Bros. and New line have in common is the parent company of Time/Warner. At the time of Never say never again's release, (1983) New line was at the independent level who's films included The Evil Dead.The reason that Never Say Never Again was released by Warner Bros. was because of some rights that Sean Connery held on the script for Thunderball or something to that effect. Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball. MGM was already slated to release Octopussy the same summer.
Austin Powers could be making fun of other films too. THe Matt Helm films with Dean Martin and In Like Flint with James Coburn.