Slashdot Mirror

> They just haven't been very good at taking original ideas they find and making them into movies folks want to see.

A lot of times it seems like the studios/directors/producers want to take a concept and transform it into their own vision of what the story should have been, rather than translating source material to the big screen.

A while back I heard of a guy named Robert Wise who is criticized as merely an artisan/craftsman rather than an artist.

I think we need more artisans who respect the source material in Hollywood.

https://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ...

"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film -just as it is to rip pages from a book--simply because we don't like the way something was portrayed or said, then resell it with the original title and creator's name still on it."

http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?281

The DGA already has a contract. They signed their contract about halfway through the writer's strike (sometime last month). It was sort of the reason that the writers and the AMPTP moved back into unofficial talks.

Source, Official Source

Although frankly, if they want residuals in the games industry, they can get the fuck in line. Behind the programmers, artists, animators, fx guys, et al. (Same goes for the actors - fuck you! You want royalties on a performance that took you at most a week? We slaved over that game for over three years, working evenings, weekends, you name it).

That can't be right. Allen and Albert Hughes directed Menace to Society, Dead Presidents, American Pimp and From Hell, and are both credited. The above doesn't make sense.

Why couldn't Rodriguez bring in a co-director? The guild has stuck to a one-director-per-film policy since 1978, to keep producers and stars from demanding "gift credits." Exceptions are made under special circumstances: The guild recognizes "bona fide directing teams," like the Coen brothers, the Farrelly brothers, and the Wachowski brothers; and the policy can be waived for directors on films with multiple languages or stories. Rodriguez was unable to get a waiver for Frank Miller, who had never directed a movie before, so he quit the guild.

Yet it wasn't until the 1978 contract negotiations that studios agreed that there would be only one director assigned to direct a motion picture at any given time. (Article 7-208 of the Basic Agreement)

"Backward thinking?" Not really. The one director rule may, on rare occasions, cause problems, but it is an important protection for directors.

Here is an article on why the DGA is so intent on the one director rule.

This isn't to say that the DGA (or any guild) is perfect in their rules. Organizations like the DGA are designed to protect the majority of their members, and that sometimes hurts specific individuals who have a different vision, or who have unique situations. This isn't the first time Rodriguez has quit the guild to make a movie, nor is he the only director to do so. But the directors who do are usually the one's who don't need the guild to protect them. People like Rodriguez, Lucas and Tarentino have more than enough clout to get a movie made and distributed while being outside the guild.

Should the DGA re-examine the rules that are inspiring a couple major directors to leave? Maybe. Should the needs of a couple of directors (even if they are powerful ones) be enough to change rules that appear to working very well for everyone else? I doubt Rodriguez thinks so. He is quoted saying "It was easier for me to quietly resign before shooting because otherwise I'd be forced to make compromises I was unwilling to make or set a precedent that might hurt the guild later on."

Even in quitting he says that one of his goals was to protect the guild he was leaving.

Further, to "unionize" you do not need to form a new union from scratch, you can join an existing union and have them extend their charter to cover your field.

If you see unions strictly as a "blue collar" thing and don't think that unions are for technical and creative people, check out the Directors' Guild of America's basic agreement. Why aren't video game designers and video game directors represented by this union?

And you video game artists and programmers, why aren't you represented by IATSE? All of the digital special effects guys over at ILM are, and when _they_ go into crunch mode, it's _real_ crunch mode; and I'll tell you, they get _paid_.

You have a point. The Directors guild of America has a problem with third parties cashing in on edited versions of their films. They're still engaged in legal action against ClearPlay over this matter.

Editing a film is a way of creating a derivative work. It's an essential part of the art of movie making. Often, directors would rather not be pressured to make multiple versions of their film that cater to peoples varying conception of objectionable material.

Some may remember the Slashdot story about CleanFlicks getting sued by the the Director's Guild of America. It turns out that they are suing 15 other companies in addition to CleanFlicks, including MovieMask, ClearPlay, and Family Shield Technologies, which all offer real-time editing of DVD content during playback.

What happens when Open Source projects start offering this kind of functionality? Will the lead maintainers or distributors of these projects be sued also? If commercial entities are getting sued for offering certain (seemingly benign) features in their systems, will that discourage Open Source developers from contributing to projects for fear of legal retaliation? Some companies may have the legal firepower to defend themselves, but some kid in college certainly won't have the resources to protect himself from a malicious lawsuit along these lines.

But it doesn't stop there. Some creative jobs are organized. Hollywood is very unionized; actors belong to the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) or the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), musicians belong to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) directors belong to the Director's Guild of America (DGA), drivers belong to the Teamsters, and most of the support people belong to the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Workers (IATSE). Lucasfilm's animators and CGI techs in Northern California belong to IATSE, which is trying to organize online entertainment shops. If you're doing web design or involved in running a web site, it might be worth talking to an IATSE organizer. They send people to ACM SIGGRAPH meetings in SF, so they're not hard to find.

A union shop is a great advantage in an industry with heavy time pressures. It gives the employees an effective way to push back. Anybody in those unions who works a 12-hour day gets paid major overtime. Get called in for a weekend emergency, and big bonuses apply. This discourages employeers from understaffing and overworking their employees. If a job needs to be done 24/7, it takes four full-time employees.

Organizing in the US is very tough. Over 90% of employees who try to organize a union are fired, even though this is illegal. Canada, for example, has stronger labor laws, and it's much easier to organize there. This is the main reason for declining union membership in the US.

Despite the obstacles, temps at Microsoft have successfully organized a union, and won a lawsuit against Microsoft.