On Friday, the Directors Guild of America decided to allow screeners to be sent to their 13,400 members for the first time in its history. The previous rule had been that studio could send screeners to the DGA and that if members couldn
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Heard about this from a publicist this evening. Definitely creating some anxiety.
Saw this at HSX. When I read Dreamgirls was shipping screeners I thought it was due to the HFPA snubbing of Condon.Right now he looks like the fifth BD nominee and in danger of not getting a DGA nom.
$1m/45,000 DVDs=$22.22 each. That’s a retail price; that can’t be how much they actually cost to make and ship. I think you’re exagerrating the figure.
Watermarking… shipping… have you ever used UPS or Fed Ex, Jeff?
Well, I am a blogger in my mom’s basement who only comes out to shower, occasionally.
These are bulk orders. A DVD order of 45,000 will cost about a dollar per disc, in my experience. If watermarking costs, let’s be absurdly generous, $5 per disc, then they’re spending $15 per disc on shipping.
My point is, Hollywood studios! I have a car and free time, I will deliver your screeners for $10 a pop!
“Well, I am a blogger in my mom’s basement who only comes out to shower, occasionally.”
It cracks me up how overly-sensitive bloggers are.. it was pretty obvious to me that Peter Bart was trying to be funny and exagerrate the differences in the industry due to the upsurge in the blog news network. That piece was obviously satire and not an indictment of the blogger community… or at least that’s the way I read it.
“Right now he looks like the fifth BD nominee and in danger of not getting a DGA nom.”
I just checked and apparently, the DGA allows double nominations for directors like the Golden Globes, or at least that would seem to be the case looking at 2000 when Soderbergh got a double nom but didn’t win. I think that rule should be changed across the board, since it seems unfair to the hard work of other directors. Why can’t they just combine the votes for a director and nominate them for both movies? But let’s remember that the HFPA is not made up of direcetors and maybe other directors won’t be as impressed with both movies to nominate Eastwood twice. (I do think Dreamgirls is an impressive achievment for Condon as writer/director.)
(Sorry for triple post) Wait… why would Fox Searchlight bother sending them Little Miss Sunshine? Having two directors billed, wouldn’t that make it ineligible for the DGA to recognize it?
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
One of the Hollywood Reporter articles said each disc costs about $7 to manufacture.
I assume packaging and shipping each disc could get expensive (several of the screeners and screenplays I’ve gotten have been sent UPS 2-day).
DP, ace reporter!
It costs a fortune to watermark a DVD BECAUSE it’s not just forensically watermarking the DVDs that’s included in the cost: It also includes matching watermarks to names and envelopes, shipping (and if it’s watermarked it must go “signature required” which jacks up the cost). Then one has to account for mistakes, re-deliveries, creating one-offs for broken discs or discs that don’t work, etc. AND Deluxe and Technicolor have services in place that track the DVDs, all of which costs manpower and money. Dave’s quoted price is EXACTLY right. So, showerboy, you’re shit out of a job and the rest of you that are balking at the cost have obviously never ordered a watermarked DVD before.
Why would any of us have done so?
The economies of scale would suggest that each disc is less expensive to produce as more studios get into this act, though. Especially after the tracking infrastructure is in place.
But the reality is that there are still only two companies who do the watermarking and they are both overwhelmed this time of year. They can’t expand the infrastructure too much or they are sitting with the equipment dead for 9 months a year or more. It’s not like DVDs or CDs where there is an expanding market. If DGA dosn’t shut things down and studios feel obligated to expand the watermarked DVD shipments by 50% next year because of it, some new equipment may be bought. But even then, it is a limited market and if infrastructure expands, someone has to pay for it. So the price might go up, not down. As it is, the price is pretty stable.
One big reason Cinea failed is that its marking was pretty much twice as expensive, even though they gave away players.
Isn’t anyone else dying to know the real story behind all this? Something stinks in the DGA.
Good point, it’s not a year-round business.
In the end, I have no sympathy for anybody who feels obligated to spend this much money to win a popularity contest.
Anyways, thanks for the reporting on this. It’s the sort of thing that makes reading this site worthwhile.
I’m not so sure Cinea has failed. Sony and Warners have been using them this year – especially for BAFTA members and I don’t know who else. I’ve received about 20 Cinea screeners this year. I just hate the player. It’s clunky as hell. Anytime you hit rewind or fast forward, it just ahead or back by about five minutes. You also can only show the DVDs on one player in your household, and limits you from taking it over to a friend’s house for a viewing there.
I assume you are BAFTA, lawn, as I don’t think any other group is getting Cinea…
Yeah, I’m BAFTA and a couple of other guilds as well – but since they didn’t get Cinea players, the discs were meant for BAFTA.