How The MPAA Screws Over Indie Filmmakers
from the not-about-the-film-industry dept
One of the amusing things that we've seen in following groups like the MPAA and the RIAA over the years is every time they try to claim that they're really doing what they do to support the independent artists out there. Both organizations represent the big studios and the big labels. But, to make themselves sound more sympathetic, they love to claim that their real concerns are in protecting the "small guys" out there. We've seen it a lot in the film industry, where the big studios and the MPAA guys love to claim their "real concerns" are about indie filmmakers. Just a few months ago, when I appeared on a panel at a big Hollywood event for independent filmmakers, one of my co-panelists was from the MPAA, and he tossed out that line about how the big studios were fine, but he was really concerned about the indies.Of course, that's hogwash. They represent the big studios and that's all they're concerned with. TorrentFreak points us to a perfect example of this in a short snippet of South Park's Matt Stone and Trey Parker talking about how the MPAA screwed them over when they were indie filmmakers when it came to ratings, but when they were working with a major studio, things were entirely different:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: indie film
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute..
The artists have rights but not until they join up with the MPAA?
Yeah, I'm really all for copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no new contract after season 15
Season 15 is about to start and there is no contract in place for a 16. I hope they ditch VIacom and go direct. I would bet there's a million of us that would pay _at least_ $20 for a season (especially uncensored).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no new contract after season 15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no new contract after season 15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In July...
Anyhow, what I think hurts movie is more than just censorship. It actually goes both ways. If you make a thriller aimed at adults, you pretty much need to get an R rating. So that means you have to make sure you include a sex scene or something to make sure you get that R. PG-13 is the kiss of death for those types of movies. So filmmakers end up focusing more on making sure their movie fits a particular criteria instead of an artistic vision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
I'm a big horror movie fan but I generally won't even consider checking out any PG-13 horror movie because I'll expect it to be totally watered down. It's like it's been demoted to a lightweight class of movie, whereas I'm really only looking for the heavyweight Rated-R horror flick. A PG-13 rating is the kiss of death because there are so many people like me who won't waste their time with anything less than Rated-R.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine a grocery store where the "ingredients" panel had four choices: Suitable for Infants, Suitable for Children Undergoing a Growth Spurt, Suitable for Fat Ass Couch Potatoes, Suitable for Manual Laborers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully with counts too ("Full Frontal Nudity: 5 times, 2:30 total", "Bad Language: 5 F**ks, 3 S**ts, 8 Motha F**kers".) That way the kids know whether a movie is worth watching or not.
In other words, any plan that doesn't involve parental responsibility is going to fail. If you don't go to IMDB to read the plot notes, and don't wish to watch the movie first to see if it appropriate for Timmy, then maybe Timmy shouldn't be watching the movie. Of course, I'm of the opinion (after growing up with parents that restricted me from watching movies to begin with,) that keeping your kids out of the culture, without careful exposure and teaching, is detrimental to their growth as much as allowing them to watch it without being there to explain it to them. It takes time and effort, which is why nobody does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]