studios rush to give away their movies
this story [new york times, included below] tells us about the adventures of hollywood studios trying, desperately, to give away their movies.
the irony, of course, is that they’re under the gun to give these movies away in a hurry to get in under the new mpaa rules about giving movies away.
so, even in movies, even the studios realize that they have to give it away somewhere, or nobody will ever pay for it. hmm.
While They Can, Studios Rush to Send Videos to Oscar Voters
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: December 9, 2003
OS ANGELES, Dec. 8 — Hollywood studios scrambled to send out videotapes of their best movies on Monday, hoping to get their films into the hands of as many voters for film awards as possible before new legal action could stop them.
A Manhattan judge’s decision on Friday to nullify a ban by the Motion Picture Association of America on so-called screener tapes — distributed during the awards season to critics and those who vote on prizes — sent the movie industry, frenetic at the best of times, into a panic of activity.
Advertisement
Miramax began shipping four of its films on Monday, “The Human Stain,” “The Station Agent,” “Dirty Pretty Things” and “The Magdalene Sisters,” hoping to get them out in time for the Hollywood Foreign Press’s Golden Globe nominations announcement on Dec. 18.
Sony spent the weekend organizing delivery of “Big Fish,” the Tim Burton movie, to the 90-some Golden Globe members, while Focus Features, owned by Universal, sent out copies of its movies “Lost in Translation,” “21 Grams” and “Sylvia.”
Other studios said they would not send their movies to anyone but members of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences who signed forms promising to take responsibility for their tapes. The academy imposed the ban in September, saying that the screeners were a major source of bootleg copies of movies.
Both Warner Brothers and Disney have said they will not send out screeners to people other than the Oscar voters who signed the legally binding promise. The academy said it acted to prevent the distribution of pirate copies of movies on videotape and DVD, which costs the filmmakers millions of dollars. The films of smaller and independent studios are also sent out by the major studios, and the indies argued that the ban damaged their chances of being seen by critics and the voters for awards. They said the ban was intended to damage their own chances of winning Oscars.
The video screeners, which are specially encrypted, cost about three times what regular copies cost, but they can be traced.
The judge’s decision added to the troubles of the 2003 awards season.
“It’s a big mess,” said Cynthia Swartz, a senior executive at Miramax in charge of their Oscar campaign. “The biggest mess is Bafta,” the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, she said. It is Britain’s version of the academy and has about 10,000 members.
The problem, Ms. Swartz said, is that there is no time to make video cassettes compatible with the British television system, known as PAL. “We’re in a position where we’re considering sending NTSC videos,” which work on the American system, she said. “Hopefully, most of the Bafta members can watch them.”
Many other issues remain unresolved. The Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the Chicago Film Critics Association had canceled their annual awards because of the screener ban, but it was unclear whether the groups would now change their plans again.
Some studios said they were not sure if they would send screeners to the 1,000 or so academy members who had not signed the legal form. A Sony spokesman, Steve Elzer, said his company was sending out screeners case by case. He said they would send “Something’s Gotta Give,” “Mona Lisa Smile,” “Big Fish” and “The Missing,” but he said he wasn’t sure to whom.
The motion picture association has vowed to appeal the judge’s decision, which accepted the argument that the ban amounted to restraint of trade by the major studios. Rich Taylor, the association spokesman, said the appeal would be filed “some time in the next couple of weeks.” That effectively renders the appeal a dead letter, since most of the tapes are expected to go out in that period.
The furor has exposed deep divisions between the executives who run the major studios, who are most concerned with issues like piracy, and the executives at smaller studios, who make the art house movies that usually qualify for awards.
The situation is messy, agreed Barbara Brogliatti, a Warner Brothers spokeswoman. “It’s very disturbing and disheartening that members of our own industry don’t understand the dire consequences of intellectual property theft,” she said.
Ted Hope, an independent producer of films like “21 Grams” and “American Splendor,” replied simply: “Time is short. There’s a tremendous number of movies, and it’s unfortunate that it’s taken this long to right the wrong.”
He suggested that the critics consider pushing back the dates of their awards and Best 10 lists to accommodate the late delivery of the screeners.
Gregory Curtner, the lawyer for the independent studios and producers who sued the motion picture association to reverse the ban, warned that the studios might be legally liable if they did not send out screeners, since the judge considered the original ban to be a conspiracy. He sent a letter to the heads of the major studios saying as much on Monday.
“If they don’t send out screeners, I’ll take that as a sign that they’ve apparently continued their conspiracy, and I may need to add them as a party to the lawsuit and then seek an injunction against them,” Mr. Curtner said. “If they continue to honor the ban, they’re still conspiring as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know. I’m watching.”
Mr. Taylor of the motion picture association said he disagreed with with Mr. Curtner’s interpretation, adding, “It now falls to each individual studio to determine what they’ll do regarding screeners.”