142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban

Londovir writes "Nearly 150 directors, including heavy hitters such as Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford, and others have sent a letter to Jack Valenti & the MPAA. In the letter, published in the Friday issue of Variety, they call for an end to the ban on screeners, suggesting that the lack of screeners will harm the potential of movies that take risks and rely on critical acclaim. Despite the star power behind those signing on the letter, and after a conference call with 3 studio executives, what was the MPAA's response? "...the screener policy remains as it was originally announced." Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"

Comments

best way to get this changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

would be for the academy award voters to say, "Fine. You don't want to send us the movies, we're not going to vote. No awards this year."

It's not like the Awards were actually based on merit, anyways.

Who needs the MPAA?

[t0rnt0pieces]

Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"

I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films, but it could mean the end of the MPAA. Who needs them anyway? The Academy Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the MPAA even have any say in who sends AMPAS screeners movies?

Stars are the enemy

[swb]

Stars and big-name directors are the studios enemies as much as the pirates. They take huge chunks of the profit margin and in many cases the studio doesn't have a choice but to pay what they want.

So "star power" in demanding business decision changes isn't going to go very far. Business managers at studios probably just see this as rich Hollywood employees whining about having to buy DVDs instead of getting them free before anyone else.

Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?

Re:Duh

[kenthorvath]

I am an avid movie-goer and I find the cost is well worth the experience of the movie theater. I admit that Friday and Saturday nights I usually don't plan on seeing a movie because of the tendency of immature teanie boppers to flock together and act boisterously, however this is not something that is easy to deal with - nor would the theaters want to, because they are a LARGE part of the audience. Instead, I find myself going on evenings and midday after work. Sometimes I take an extended lunch break. I almost always get in on a matinee, but when I can do that, my university ID gets me in to AMC for only $6. As for popcorn and soda, I will pay $3 for a large diet coke, but I'm no big fan of popcorn anyway, and the money that I spend on concessions helps keep the theater and not the studios in business. I'm happy to pay that, I might even make a donation of a few dollars every time I go, if I felt it were warrented. The big screen experience is an indispensible part of my repetoire of entertainment.

The screener ban is good thing...

[qtp]

I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.

The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.

If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).