|
Maxwell Lord posted:One question relating to test screenings- have rights issues ever arisen with regards to the temp score? Do filmmakers have to limit themselves to stuff the studio already has clearance for, or do they just take some of the temp tracks out before showing it to anyone? Temp scores can be whatever you want.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
The famous case in point would probably be 2001, where the temp score became the real score, much to the aggravation of Alex North.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Temp scores can be whatever you want. But test screenings still have some of the temp tracks, right? I'm curious as to whether that would legally be considered performance (and thus potentially a problem), or if nobody actually cares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The famous case in point would probably be 2001, where the temp score became the real score, much to the aggravation of Alex North. In the rough cut of Apocalypse Now, he uses the Otis Redding version of "Satisfaction" in that waterskiing scene. It kinda rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:But test screenings still have some of the temp tracks, right? I'm curious as to whether that would legally be considered performance (and thus potentially a problem), or if nobody actually cares. Generally they'll do something they own because it's just laying around - but a test screening is practically private - it's the studio renting out a theater, it's them picking certain people to go in... By the letter of the law it's probably illegal, but they'd basically need somebody who knew the music wasn't licensed for this screening to somehow make it into the screening (technically you're not supposed to work in entertainment to attend a test screening but... um... I know a guy... you don't know him... who lied once) and then call them out... then it'd be really hard to prove, and the costs on moving on the complaint would greatly exceed the $250 they'd get for a one off screening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Why are the credits to One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest listed in alphabetical order?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
csidle posted:Why are the credits to One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest listed in alphabetical order? I think movies- especially ones with large ensemble casts- do this sometimes to avoid contractual disputes over billing order. Nobody's listed as more important than anyone else, so that's one headache avoided.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
csidle posted:Why are the credits to One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest listed in alphabetical order? It is a practice that probably falls somewhere between rare and uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:It is a practice that probably falls somewhere between rare and uncommon. I've noticed it occasionally. I just watched In Bruges and they did that too. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780536/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Woody Allen does that for all of his movies I think. At least the ones with his iconic opening titles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think movies- especially ones with large ensemble casts- do this sometimes to avoid contractual disputes over billing order. Nobody's listed as more important than anyone else, so that's one headache avoided. No one more important than Alan Alda, that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
I just saw "Rubber." What the hell did I watch? Was this some elaborate commentary on movie making or was it a movie about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:I just saw "Rubber." What the hell did I watch? Was this some elaborate commentary on movie making or was it a movie about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 09:39
|
|
|
Rubber was like one of those animated gifs that seems to loop over and over and over, and the animation was the movie continually going up its own rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:I just saw "Rubber." What the hell did I watch? Was this some elaborate commentary on movie making or was it a movie about nothing. I couldn't get through it, I am convinced that all the positive buzz is an elaborate group-troll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:I know tons of films go through the test audience routine, and that changes can be and usually are made to films (sometimes against the wishes of writer/directors) if audience reaction at test screenings is negative. Are there any known cases of criticism from test audiences actually improving a movie? Deep Blue Sea immediately comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
I just watched Rubber this week too. It was basically a brilliant 40 minute short film that some idiot ruined by adding 40 minutes of pretentious metafiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc. Do they have to? No, they could probably work something out so that they don't pay for it, but the TV networks are probably part of a different part of the company than the movie divisions, so they shift revenue from one division to another for accounting purposes, and so that their TV network isn't giving away 'free' advertising (I mean advertising time on TV costs money so if they are just showing ads for FOX movies for free they are missing out on theoretical revenue they could have gained by selling that ad time to another product). Basically its more complicated than 'fox movies get free advertising on fox TV'
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc. I do have to say that I'm speculating a bit here from my own experiences in the corporate world, I don't accept ad buys for my local fox affiliate or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc. Very short answer: yes, because technically each of those sibling companies is a separate legal entity, and there are many, many, many legal issues that arise when you don't treat each of them as being separate and distinct. However, there are many, many ways in which these companies legally give breaks to one another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
A famous example of a lawsuit based on this kind of corporate nepotism: http://www.x-files.gr/edavid.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc. When I'm working in a cutting room on a studio lot, my production is paying rent for that room to the "facilities" division of the same company (Paramount, e.g.) that I'm working for. My Avid (editing system) might also be rented from another division of the same corporation. It's all part of the very elaborate "Hollywood accounting" system of moving money around and hiding true income and profits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Who narrated the opening of Drive Angry - William Fichtner? I can't find anything on IMDB and my Google-fu is weak. On a similar note - what was the first movie that did the cliched "guy walking away from an explosion in the background" shot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:
Funnily enough, director Edgar Wright tweeted about this exact same thing the other day and provided a possible answer: Edgar Wright posted:Okay. Here's what i believe to be the first calmy-walking-away-from-explosion shot in 74's "99 and 44/100% Dead" (1.20) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inUy5D0LSUQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:It's all part of the very elaborate "Hollywood accounting" system of moving money around and hiding true income and profits. Not to defend accounting in Hollywood, but this isn't true. Every corporation does this, and every industry has a few (or more than a few) people guilty to some extent of using this system to shift profits for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. For instance, when I was practicing law as a sole practitioner, I rented my guest bedroom to my legal practice as an office for the tax deductions and to otherwise keep my legal practice's assets separate from my own assets for liability issues. I paid it from my legal practice bank account to my personal bank account. This is just a tip of all of the separate and duplicate things I had for, and exchanged between, Me and Me, Esq. There is no doubt that the system of maintaining corporate separateness is extremely useful if you want to gently caress people over by hiding profits/losses, but the system itself is often required by law for most entities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Using that system they claimed that Harry Potter lost money. Some of the top earning movies ever. Also a lot of people have gotten paid nothing at all since they chose a certain type of percentage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Not to defend accounting in Hollywood, but this isn't true. Every corporation does this, and every industry has a few (or more than a few) people guilty to some extent of using this system to shift profits for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. What's not true? You've contradicted yourself pretty nicely with your first and second sentences. I can assure you that Hollywood accounting is real - everyone who works in the business would back me up on this - and your own assertion is that "every corporation" and "every industry" has people "guilty" of shifting profits around. So what are you disagreeing with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
I can't speak for VF, obviously, but generally this is a pretty normal way to do accounting for large corporations (or even individuals, as you see). If they gave away advertisement for free, the TV branch would be missing a lot of revenue (opportunity cost), and the movie itself would look more profitable than it really was for the company, since this expense wouldn't be accounted for. My department pays rent to the facilities for the real estate and service they provide us, so that's not just Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
I know it isn't unique to the movie studios - never claimed it was. That's why I take issue with his first statement that "it isn't true." Maybe I was just feeling pissy?! Felt like he was opening his post by trying to contradict me. Whatever, I can be cantankerous about semantics. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Why is it that sometimes sometimes some actors are listed in the opening trailers differently than others. like it'll be Actor Name, Actor Name, then Actor Name as Character name. is that just to break up the monotony?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:I know it isn't unique to the movie studios - never claimed it was. That's why I take issue with his first statement that "it isn't true." Maybe I was just feeling pissy?! Felt like he was opening his post by trying to contradict me. Whatever, I can be cantankerous about semantics. Didn't mean to try and call you wrong or contradict you, just to clarify to the original answer (which seemed to jump immediately to "it is a nefarious scheme"). To put it simply, this is a common accounting practice that is often required by law. The practice itself is not part of "Hollywood Accounting" and isn't by nature an attempt to gently caress people over. Does it get used to gently caress people over through various "Hollywood Accounting" schemes? Absolutely. Redirecting profits is the oldest trick in the book for loving over business partners - today I think the most obvious examples are in the sports world (team runs at a loss while the owner's cable company, catering service, parking service and stadium management service are rolling in profits). I just didn't want the original question (do you pay a related company for advertising) to be answered with "yes because the system is for loving people over" instead of "Yes, and they are (probably) using the system to gently caress people over."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
The Collector posted:Why is it that sometimes sometimes some actors are listed in the opening trailers differently than others. like it'll be Actor Name, Actor Name, then Actor Name as Character name. is that just to break up the monotony? Usually if it's a big deal actor doing a significant but bit part, they'll get that kind of billing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Usually if it's a big deal actor doing a significant but bit part, they'll get that kind of billing. See also 'With XX' for big name actors and 'Introducing XX' for new actors with a major part. The wiki article has more information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Currently seeing Terminator 2 for the first time, I got thinking when the Terminator is revealed in the biker's clothes in the beginning of the movie. It's a slow shot that starts at his boots and pans up to reveal he has all the biker's clothes on, while music plays. My question is, what movie started the trend with these cool, slow shots revealing characters with music playing accordingly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
csidle posted:Currently seeing Terminator 2 for the first time, I got thinking when the Terminator is revealed in the biker's clothes in the beginning of the movie. It's a slow shot that starts at his boots and pans up to reveal he has all the biker's clothes on, while music plays. The shot starting at the feet and panning up is one of James Cameron's trademarks. I think he has it in almost all of his movies. But I'm not sure where it was started originally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Didn't mean to try and call you wrong or contradict you, just to clarify to the original answer (which seemed to jump immediately to "it is a nefarious scheme"). In this case, my immediate impulse wasn't that Fox Tv would give Fox Studios a break, but the other way around: Fox Tv would charge inflated rates for advertising, this would draw more revenue into the Fox group away from other revenue participants, and there might be a backhander paid from Tv back to studios to re-balance the figures to market rates (which would not be reflected in the individual films' accounting). I do not know if this actually happens but after some years of seeing how studios work I would not at all be surprised. The aim of the game is to keep as much revenue in the group and give as little away to third parties. (Let me just check Rupert Murdoch's voicemails to find out - I'll be right back) So, if it doesn't work that way then Fox Studios and Fox TV would hammer out an agreement at market rates. Those battles can often be fierce, even though they are in the same group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
csidle posted:Currently seeing Terminator 2 for the first time...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
Maybe a very stupid question. I've watched The Godfather II at least five times and everytime I've finished it I wonder the same thing and then forget to watch out for it the next time: Who ordered the hit on Michael in his family home in the beginning? Do we even get to know for sure?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Herr R. posted:Maybe a very stupid question. I've watched The Godfather II at least five times and everytime I've finished it I wonder the same thing and then forget to watch out for it the next time: Who ordered the hit on Michael in his family home in the beginning? Do we even get to know for sure? It's Johnny Ola on orders from Hyman Roth. The call Fredo gets in the night is cool if you watch it with subtitles on, you can hear Johnny Ola's side of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:53
|
|
