Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Six things the sausage, er, film industry doesn't want you to know about   (filmschoolrejects.com) divider line 72
    More: Obvious, Live Free or Die Hard, blockbuster movie, David Prowse, Forrest Gump, Hayden Christensen, Internet footprint, Ly the Fairy, blurbs  
•       •       •

13124 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Sep 2011 at 10:04 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-11 09:29:24 PM  
So, instead of adapting their business model to a format that consumers obviously prefer, they'd rather try to turn back the clock and take away the distribution methods people love and enjoy.

That right there is probably one of my biggest complaints about the entire entertainment industry.
 
2011-09-11 09:32:00 PM  
I thought most all of this was common knowledge among, well, everyone.
 
2011-09-11 10:11:48 PM  
4. Fake Reviews

Wait, they were trying to keep that a secret? Has anyone ever trusted what a "professional" film reviewer had to say about any movie?
 
2011-09-11 10:11:53 PM  
The
Music
And
Film
Industry
Associations of
America
must die
 
2011-09-11 10:13:02 PM  
"6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About that Film School Rejects Is Clueless That Just About Everyone Knows About"

Fixed that headline.
 
2011-09-11 10:13:15 PM  
relating to point #2, I do wonder how much clout movie studios have in how lagging the US' broadband connections are compared to the rest of the world. I'm sure a sizable blame goes to the actual providers, but they were awfully quick to jump on high speed internet when people were just downloading MP3s.
 
2011-09-11 10:17:54 PM  
Ok honest question here:

What is stopping a giant chain like Famous Players from saying "ok, film industry, now that we're pretty much the sole theatre company in Canada, the rules are changing. We are getting a bigger profit (and in turn will be able to lower concession prices resulting in high customer satisfaction) from your movies from now on."
What would the studios respond? "No"? So they pull their movies from Famous Players annnnd.... no one sees them anymore because there are no other small-town alternatives anymore?

I think of this every time I go to the movies. Am I missing something blindingly obvious somewhere?
 
2011-09-11 10:26:58 PM  

sure haven't: Ok honest question here:

What is stopping a giant chain like Famous Players from saying "ok, film industry, now that we're pretty much the sole theatre company in Canada, the rules are changing. We are getting a bigger profit (and in turn will be able to lower concession prices resulting in high customer satisfaction) from your movies from now on."
What would the studios respond? "No"? So they pull their movies from Famous Players annnnd.... no one sees them anymore because there are no other small-town alternatives anymore?

I think of this every time I go to the movies. Am I missing something blindingly obvious somewhere?


I imagine in a demonstration of cartoonish villainous hypocrisy the studios would take the chain to court accusing them of price fixing.
 
2011-09-11 10:31:30 PM  

sure haven't: Ok honest question here:

What is stopping a giant chain like Famous Players from saying "ok, film industry, now that we're pretty much the sole theatre company in Canada, the rules are changing. We are getting a bigger profit (and in turn will be able to lower concession prices resulting in high customer satisfaction) from your movies from now on."
What would the studios respond? "No"? So they pull their movies from Famous Players annnnd.... no one sees them anymore because there are no other small-town alternatives anymore?

I think of this every time I go to the movies. Am I missing something blindingly obvious somewhere?

The theaters rely on the movie studios for content, but the studios don't rely on the theaters for nearly as much. If a major theater chain wanted to try and push for a bigger cut, the studios would just start looking at other chains or overseas for their profits, or if they really feel their control slipping, start working on getting rid of that whole 'direct to video' stigma.
 
2011-09-11 10:34:50 PM  

sure haven't: Ok honest question here:

What is stopping a giant chain like Famous Players from saying "ok, film industry, now that we're pretty much the sole theatre company in Canada, the rules are changing. We are getting a bigger profit (and in turn will be able to lower concession prices resulting in high customer satisfaction) from your movies from now on."
What would the studios respond? "No"? So they pull their movies from Famous Players annnnd.... no one sees them anymore because there are no other small-town alternatives anymore?

I think of this every time I go to the movies. Am I missing something blindingly obvious somewhere?


The Canadian market is smaller than California, so in the scheme of things Canada doesn't really matter at all.

The movie industry would say something like "Have fun not showing movies", charge everyone in the States an extra few cents a show, and laugh all the way to the bank.
 
2011-09-11 10:37:16 PM  
Sigh:

The Copyright extension act was written specifically to bring the US into accordance with European copyright law which was based on life of the author + 70 years. Disney sure liked this, and definitely lobbied for it, it was the Berne Convention that caused a change in the whole structure.

The Disney story makes a much more delicious narrative but is basically bull.

/also, slander of title is in fact a much more complicated cause of action and there is no way in hell Disney could have survived a dismissal, but the law geek in me is excited that they bought it because its a wacky econ tort.
 
2011-09-11 10:38:43 PM  

Teiritzamna: Disney sure liked this, and definitely lobbied for it, but it was the Berne Convention that caused a change in the whole structure.


FTFM
 
2011-09-11 10:49:30 PM  
Movie theaters operate on a kind of sliding scale. The first weekend of a movie's release, the profit is split heavily in the studio's favor, typically around an 80/20 split. The second weekend, it may change to a 70/30 scale, and so on. It's even rumored that some major blockbuster films like Avatar are released with 90/10 or even 95/5 splits. Now keep in mind that exceptionally few films do very well after the first week of their release.

This is not true any more. After almost all of the theater chains went bankrupt in 2000-2001, the film studios changed to a different model where theaters split the ticket revenue based on a sliding scale correlated to the industry net box and individual contracts with the distributors.
 
2011-09-11 10:53:58 PM  
My English professor wrote a book called The Last Cattle Drive, about a group of middleaged men trying to recapture their youth by playing cowboy. He pitched it to Billy Crystal but it was rejected. A year later City Slickers was released. Identical story, identical characters. Professor Day talked to a lawyer and was told not to even bother trying to sue. The studios always win.
 
2011-09-11 11:00:31 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: I thought most all of this was common knowledge among, well, everyone.


But not common knowledge among English-major interns who crank out Google-friendly "listicles" for shiatty website.
 
2011-09-11 11:02:23 PM  
The comments section kinda missed the whole point of the article.
But, really seem to have strong thoughts about Hayden.
 
2011-09-11 11:08:31 PM  

I can't think up a clever name: My English professor wrote a book called The Last Cattle Drive, about a group of middleaged men trying to recapture their youth by playing cowboy. He pitched it to Billy Crystal but it was rejected. A year later City Slickers was released. Identical story, identical characters. Professor Day talked to a lawyer and was told not to even bother trying to sue. The studios always win.


Cool story, bro.

That reminds me of the time my uncle got some new tires, and he drove with them forever and they never needed to be replaced. And then one day someone stole them, and it turns out they were special tires that were prototypes that some company accidentally released, but then got rid of them because otherwise they'd go out of business because no one would need to buy tires anymore.

Or wait, was it the magic mystery part under the hood the guys in suits stole that gave him 1000 MPG? I can never remember.
 
2011-09-11 11:13:21 PM  
JETS = HOPE!!!
 
2011-09-11 11:19:54 PM  
So Sid_6.7, let me try to understand your convoluted logic. In your mind a person writing a book about an idea and then someone making a movie about your idea without paying you anything for your idea is similar to buying a pair of magic tires that are stolen and then destroyed by a company because they were the greatest tires ever made.

In what way does that make even a lick of sense?
 
2011-09-11 11:21:36 PM  
One of the problems with movie critics, even the ones that aren't made up shills for the studio, is that the more movies you see the lower your bar is set. So it doesn't take long before anything that is better than the recent crapfests you've viewed is getting a bunch of stars or thumbs up in your review. However, just because something isn't as crappy as something else you've seen - doesn't mean that it is actually good.
 
2011-09-11 11:41:11 PM  
This is why I pirate.
 
2011-09-11 11:45:46 PM  

MeinRS6: One of the problems with movie critics, even the ones that aren't made up shills for the studio, is that the more movies you see the lower your bar is set. So it doesn't take long before anything that is better than the recent crapfests you've viewed is getting a bunch of stars or thumbs up in your review. However, just because something isn't as crappy as something else you've seen - doesn't mean that it is actually good.


that is also true. I've come to realize that with Netflix streaming. a movie that I don't have to pay anything to see and allows me to procrastinate just a little bit longer just has to not suck for me to think it is worthwhile.
 
2011-09-11 11:54:01 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 4. Fake Reviews

Wait, they were trying to keep that a secret? Has anyone ever trusted what a "professional" film reviewer had to say about any movie?


Sure. Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, Leonard Maltin, and AO Scott are all good. Gene Siskel was great.
 
2011-09-11 11:57:37 PM  

MeinRS6: One of the problems with movie critics, even the ones that aren't made up shills for the studio, is that the more movies you see the lower your bar is set.


But that's good, because it means the critic's tastes are refining with experience and nuance. It takes 1000 bottles of wine before one can even begin to tell the difference..... the same is true with astute criticism in any field. I trust that a movie critic is cynical enough to not be impressed by prepubescent BAYSPLOSIONS, yet sensitive enough to lose themselves in a heartwarming love affair.

Spending a day or two on tvtropes helps, too (and also familiarity with Joseph Campbell). If the critic can correctly identify the storytelling conventions and why they work in one movie while not working in another, that is also important. I don't think most critics sincerely analyze the art of film beyond just watching a bunch of movies.
 
2011-09-11 11:57:54 PM  
apparently one of the things i'm not supposed to know about is what the f*ck is on that website. IE simply will not load this page.
 
2011-09-12 12:01:49 AM  
Don't forget... the big studios were the ORIGINAL movie pirates. So when they play that "don't steal" ad right before movies, just yell "Fark You!!"

Link (new window)
 
2011-09-12 12:04:52 AM  
There would not be a Hollywood today if the original movie pirates hadn't bailed on the East Coast so they could avoid Thomas Edison and the Motion Picture Patents Company.
 
2011-09-12 12:10:13 AM  

I can't think up a clever name: So Sid_6.7, let me try to understand your convoluted logic. In your mind a person writing a book about an idea and then someone making a movie about your idea without paying you anything for your idea is similar to buying a pair of magic tires that are stolen and then destroyed by a company because they were the greatest tires ever made.

In what way does that make even a lick of sense?


Makes as much sense as paying for Fark...
 
2011-09-12 12:11:34 AM  
So torrenting movies is really fighting the good fight?
 
2011-09-12 12:12:43 AM  

Weaver95: apparently one of the things i'm not supposed to know about is what the f*ck is on that website. IE simply will not load this page.


You use IE?
 
2011-09-12 12:14:51 AM  

sure haven't: I think of this every time I go to the movies. Am I missing something blindingly obvious somewhere?


It comes down to the fact that there were major anti-trust actions early in the history of film which have assured that no one company gains a monopoly in exhibition in the States so there are just enough exhibitors and just enough studios left that they can all play one off against the others.

I'm also amazed to hear that the "Famous Players" (which was once Famous Players/Lasky) still exists in some form.
 
2011-09-12 12:16:13 AM  
Subby, your headline is missing a
 
2011-09-12 12:16:29 AM  

Farnn: So torrenting movies is really fighting the good fight?


Before DVD sales tanked, I would have said no, but with the behavior the studios have shown in their panic (trying to destroy Hulu and Netflix) I now say that Hollywood can burn and I hope the pirates win.
 
2011-09-12 12:16:56 AM  

Ishkur: MeinRS6: One of the problems with movie critics, even the ones that aren't made up shills for the studio, is that the more movies you see the lower your bar is set.

But that's good, because it means the critic's tastes are refining with experience and nuance. It takes 1000 bottles of wine before one can even begin to tell the difference..... the same is true with astute criticism in any field. I trust that a movie critic is cynical enough to not be impressed by prepubescent BAYSPLOSIONS, yet sensitive enough to lose themselves in a heartwarming love affair.

Spending a day or two on tvtropes helps, too (and also familiarity with Joseph Campbell). If the critic can correctly identify the storytelling conventions and why they work in one movie while not working in another, that is also important. I don't think most critics sincerely analyze the art of film beyond just watching a bunch of movies.


One of the more intelligent posts I've read here. It's not that the plot is original, for there are a finite number of plots, but how it is presented.
 
2011-09-12 12:17:17 AM  

I can't think up a clever name: So Sid_6.7, let me try to understand your convoluted logic. In your mind a person writing a book about an idea and then someone making a movie about your idea without paying you anything for your idea is similar to buying a pair of magic tires that are stolen and then destroyed by a company because they were the greatest tires ever made.

In what way does that make even a lick of sense?


Strangely, ideas are not unique. People often come up with ideas that are virtually identical to the same idea that someone else is already working on even down to names and locations, and yet were not "stolen" or even "borrowed." In your professor's case, the main factor against his ever "beating the studio" is the simple fact that "City Slickers" was released, according to your story, a year after he pitched his idea to Billy Crystal. Unfortunately for him, a year is not anywhere near enough time to write, edit, board, cast, shoot, cut and release a movie, even if he stole the whole book and shot it verbatim from your prof. There's just as much of an argument that your man stole his idea from whoever wrote the script and somehow got his book out first. "Three guys on a dude ranch" just isn't as unique as you might think--they both stole it from Zane Grey, IIRC.

Ideas are terribly unoriginal. Stories are no more original than the ideas they come from. The only way to prove plagiarism is if the words are lifted intact from one work to another. Otherwise, the last one standing loses.
 
2011-09-12 12:20:18 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: I thought most all of this was common knowledge among, well, everyone.


We all know what's going on with sausages too. Doesn't mean they want it advertised.
 
2011-09-12 12:34:32 AM  
what, you mean it ISN'T true that the film industry loses eleventy billion dollars per copy of a pirated film?

/oh wait, that wasn't on the list
//knew most of the stuff on the list
 
2011-09-12 12:41:10 AM  
TFA shoots itself in the foot a bit in the first example when it describes film distribution being a shell game between two subsidiaries of the same company, and then citing Return of the Jedi which actually was a film produced and distributed by wholly independent companies.
 
2011-09-12 12:43:53 AM  

I can't think up a clever name: In what way does that make even a lick of sense?


He doesn't believe you had an English professor who did that.

Everyone knows a guy who did a thing for some famous guy, and never got credit for jack shiat.

My dad, to this day, still says my grandpa told the Hunts ketchup guys to add the S to the end of thier name. Considering my grandpa worked as a salesman for snap-on tools, I have my doubts.
 
2011-09-12 12:46:48 AM  

Nem Wan: TFA shoots itself in the foot a bit in the first example when it describes film distribution being a shell game between two subsidiaries of the same company, and then citing Return of the Jedi which actually was a film produced and distributed by wholly independent companies.


Doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement between LucasFilms and the distributors.
 
2011-09-12 12:51:38 AM  

Iczer: what, you mean it ISN'T true that the film industry loses eleventy billion brazilan dollars per copy of a pirated film?

/oh wait, that wasn't on the list
//knew most of the stuff on the list


FTFY

/also knew most of this list
//not because I'm smart, I just spend WAY too much time here.
 
2011-09-12 01:09:44 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Before DVD sales tanked, I would have said no, but with the behavior the studios have shown in their panic (trying to destroy Hulu and Netflix) I now say that Hollywood can burn and I hope the pirates win.


Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "win" for the pirates?
 
2011-09-12 01:18:06 AM  

domo_kun_sai: Weaver95: apparently one of the things i'm not supposed to know about is what the f*ck is on that website. IE simply will not load this page.

You use IE?


only at work, and only because I have no choice.
 
2011-09-12 02:15:14 AM  
While we're on the subject, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine is an endorsement whore if ever there was one. He helps make himself and RS completely useless.

If you see his name or quote associated with a film, it's a sure bet it sucks moose cock.
 
2011-09-12 02:16:11 AM  

dionysusaur: The
Music
And
Film
Industry
Associations of
America
must die


Hey I'm trying to do my part! Last movie I saw was Tron Legacy (which someone else invited me to and paid for the ticket). Also the last dvd I bought.

It would help a lot if you people would stop dragging your ankle biters to crap like The Smurfs.
 
2011-09-12 02:34:57 AM  
One other thing that wasn't touched on is that movie studios like to be able to trace back stories so they don't have problem with "derivative works". A story is much more likely to get made if the producer can say its an adaptation of something already sitting in the vaults or a script that was bought but not used. This is far more common with TV that movies.
 
2011-09-12 02:43:21 AM  

Weaver95: domo_kun_sai: Weaver95: apparently one of the things i'm not supposed to know about is what the f*ck is on that website. IE simply will not load this page.

You use IE?

only at work, and only because I have no choice.


Same here. IE 8 had no problem with the link. I'm glad they at least got rid of IE 6 eventually.
 
2011-09-12 03:23:09 AM  
thus why i turned to video games for my movies why watch some one in a war zone when you could play the role of the main character?
 
2011-09-12 01:13:20 PM  
take your percentage from gross not net
 
2011-09-12 02:13:34 PM  
More things they won't tell you, (but I've noticed):

7- We use different camera angles to make short stars, (Tom Cruise), look taller. Also, it's why you never see someone like Cruise in a full length shot standing next to another actor/actress.
Try it.

8- Actors and Actresses lie about their personal stats. OK, Danny De Vito says he's 5' 2". Now if you remember "Taxi", you'd have to come to the conclusion that Judd Hirsch is over 7 feet tall!!

9- We really aren't interested in accuracy in "period" pieces. Did you ever notice that westerns made during the 1940s and 1950s depicting the Civil War/Old West had all of the actors with slicked hair that was short. Yet 30 years later, films depicting the same periods all had actors with long hair/over the ears hair. Worse, are the period films from today, which supposedly depict the 1940s and 1950s. These stars look like they someone said, "Just leave your hair wet, it will look fine." We have ample film and pictures to see how people dressed and wore their hair back then. A little attention to detail, please. Also, keep the modern slang out of it. I remember an 80s mini-series set in WWII, in which one of the colonels tells another, "I hear you, bud." "I hear you" was NOT an expression in the 1940s.

10- Most movies are screened multiple times with multiple endings This explains why some movies inexplicably end with the most contrived endings possible. Also, it explains why some movies continue on after the main story is finished. "Stripes" should have ended after basic training, instead it rambled on through some sort of mission for about 30 minutes. "Minority Report" should have ended after Cruise's character decides what to do with the bad guy who hasn't yet commited any crimes against those children. Instead, we get another 30 minutes of him being chased for what? Filler?

11- We basically only have 2 demographics we have to please. Women 12-49 and Boys 9-14. This explains the rise of the chick flick, and the action movie where the hero drives a car/motorcycle that looks like it was designed by 10 year olds and his heroine is a horse-faced bag of antlers, but with BIG TITS!
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report