Sony Patents Anti-Rental Tech

[Evan C. King]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

I will never understand why we insist on drawing a line and saying "OK, art on this side and commercial profit on that side." Surely there is a way to have both.

For those that think credits are an apparent waste of time, wait until you try to shoot a big budget feature or even a 28:30 TV show without doing credits. That's a huge put down to the cast and crew that worked on your little profit vehicle.

I think everyone should be counted that had a hand in the production and apparently so do the unions and the directors and producers, distributors, musicians... Make a few shows without giving credit to the people in the programs and see how many times they come back to help, especially the ones working on defered payment for thier services.

All I am saying is that the credits are there and as much a part of the content as anything else. Somebody paid for that time. That part of the film has important information and some of it is there for legal reasons. That part at the end has a musical score runining under it and somebody paid quite a bit of money for the titles as they aren't done in Photoshpop if it makes it to actual film. It's part of the content and I wouldn't want my content fooled with. Somebody paid for that film footage, processing, duplication, distribution, etc. Heck, we could all save time and money if we just left them off then.

If you did a snappy piece for a wedding and really put your heart into it, and that makes it art to me, then you find out the people you made it for had it recut because grandma wasn't going to sit through the entire piece and they made shortened, edited for time, versions for their friends, etc, it is no longer the work you created.

Sean

I 100% agree. When I was in my first tv movie they sped the hell out of credits and couldn't even read my name. I put tons of time into that movie and no one even saw my real name.

They only do this to get to commericals faster so why the hell would anyone on these boards defend the speeding up or cutting out of their name just to see a swifer commercial 3 minutes faster?

[Sean McHenry]

Since there are a few folks who think the credits are a useless thing, I understand the idea you bring up. I just think it's a bad one. (Nothing personal).

If the credits are useless I suppose we all ought to stop doing them then. It's just a waste of the big money peoples time and money then really since it has come down to providing a frame on the screen for a commercial. I suppose in a counter measure, we should put them all at the head like they used to do and just fade to black at the end. Why should the producers pay for that film, time, soundtrack, Title or optical company, etc.

Might actually be a good idea. Then where will they put those annoying spots?

That said, maybe we should start another thread as I think I once again hijacked this one. Moderator(s), feel free to split us off.

Sean

[Patrick Jenkins]

I guess that's directed at me.

I don't see credits as useless - far from it, one of the most enjoyable parts of a production (to me) are the credits. Partly because I do them last and it means I'm done, but I always do them (unless it's bad form given the piece in question) incredibly free and artsy fartsy. Makes them special and unique IMO, rather than just normal scrolling text.

But I didn't say the credits are useless, I said that most people could care less.

And I stand by it. So far everyone here has brought up their opinion on how they'd be upset if there name wasn't included and so on and so forth, and I'm not going against that - I totally agree. All I've said is that the average person who's watching your work who has NO vested interest in anything to do with the production zones out. It's a fact of life. Nope, not fair, but then we shouldn't have to deal with commercials either seeing as that we pay for cable access. But that's just how it is. Sped up credits is one of the prices you pay for having someone broadcast your work for potential commercial success. Tradeoff, compromise, success, whathaveyou.

Anyway, yeah, I'm with you.. let's go back to Sony being cold-hearted and greedy. :-)

[Sean McHenry]

Sorry Pat, not aimed at any one in particular. Just a thought that if so many folks aren't using them you might think producers and directors would wise up and put them all at the front and dump to black at the end. I doubt the networks would screw with the opening of the films.

Anyone ever watch the really creative credits at the end of "Lemmony Snickets..." Excellent video suff in it's own right.

Sean

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

As for the movie credit crunch, perhaps filmmakers can rebel against this practice by putting all the credits at the beginning of the film, as most films made before the mid-1970s did.

[Sean McHenry]

Hello Robert - a fellow Ohio-lander. How are things up by the lake?

I mention this in an earlier post. I think it's a great way to get around those network dweebs that think the credits are their time. They aren't, I know, I worked for NBC for 16 years. That time is considered program material.

While I am digressing, what about "bugs". That's what we in our corner of the broadcast world call them. Those annoying little station identifiers. Some will argue they are useful but I see them as a BIG detraction from any recorded programs. I don't want a copy of Casablanca with Ted Turners logo over it. That sort of thing.

I have created a new thread. Maybe we should move this over there? You can re-read my rantings there if you like.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=55180

Sean

[Charlie Durand]

Please, I know it has been said already but it needs to be repeated. The only people who pay attention to the credits are other people in the business.

I never pay attention. I'm out of the theater, hit eject on the DVD player, or have turned the channel on the TV when the credits start.

They had it right in the old days. The credit were first and they were short.

Some movies have over 5 minutes worth of credits. Do I care who drove the trucks or who was special assistant to Mr. Cruise? No I don't.

I agree that it stinks for networks to edit so they can put in ads. But that's life and if an artist doesn't want their work edited don't sell it. It's just the nature of the beast. Make a movie on the budget you can afford and then you can fully control what is done with it.

How about these lame "Director's Cuts"? Now who is milking the money cow on that? Release the movie you want the first time.

[Dennis Khaye]

I'm thinking about this thread as I sat in the movie theater and watched the lights come up when everybody walked out on the roll. Are they important, yes, they are, to the people in them. I have to agree with that.

Put them at the begining and you'll find your openings cut short or sped up too.

You are not allowed to let people turn the channel when you're trying to run a TV station. If you do that, you'll loose money. Slide the credits over and give the people what they want. Do it or die a slow painful monetary death. Sure it sucks for the people in the credits but to be honest, I turn the channel, I get up and leave, I go watch the deleted scenes, as soon as the credits roll.

I had one production assistant tell me he'd rather be in the movie than in the credits, nothing big, just some guy in the background. Sounded fair enough to me. He made it in both, I didn't mind.

As for Sony, they have number crunchers, in fact, I'm willing to bet they have some of the best MBA's in the business telling them that R&D in the anti-piracy war is a wise investment. I can't see it myself but certianly they can.

[Sean McHenry]

Things sure are apathetic round the old forums these days. Anyone take a stand on anything, just because it's right anymore?

It's not good for my soul to say, "let the networks do what they want". Who cares whether it's the right thing to do, or just some corporate money makers idea to keep us glued to our seats and the Neilson boxes on their channel for the hourly channel hop. I don't like being an obvious pawn like that. Makes me feel cheap and usable.

Sean McHenry

[Charlie Durand]

If you are in a position to take a stand, win or lose, then go for it. Most people aren't.

It would be nice to take a stand and "do the right thing" all the time but the real world has to be considered. If movies weren't a money making business no movies would get made. The big movies that make money pay for the little ones that don't.

I'm looking at this from the audience side since I don't actually make movies. If the audience is telling you, either by their actions in leaving theaters or turning the channel, that they don't want 5 minutes worth of credits.. why isn't that important and worth considering?

It's not just big corporations forcing the changes. It seems that most people don't watch the credits. If I ran a TV station I'm not going to waste airtime with something I know people aren't watching. There are already two full channels of that on cable called CSPAN.

[Steve McDonald]

Watch "Natural Born Killers", to see how to get people to watch the credits. The background images and the accompanying piece of music by Leonard Cohen were more wicked than the movie, itself. I recorded just this section and anytime I'm feeling too good and optimistic about life, I watch it and set myself back on track. They even cut a later edition that had a longer and nastier version of the credit background.

[Charlie Durand]

OK, when I say credits I mean black background and white text scrolling up the screen. Boring.

Deleted scenes, sure I'll stick around. I'm not reading the credits though and I don't think anyone else is if there's something else on the screen with the scrolling text.

I'm sure the purists here probably feel deleted scenes or anything else other than credits robs the people listed in those credits.

[Steve McDonald]

I just saw another movie tonight, that compelled you to watch the credits. This was "Wild Things", with Kevin Bacon and Matt Dillon. After you thought the movie was over and the credits rolled, several scenes played that revealed critical facts to which the audience had not been privy. The truth about many of the characters was shown and changed everything we'd assumed about them. Actually, the movie was filled with twists of the plot and nothing about anyone could be taken for granted. The audience was conned bigtime, right from the start.

[Peter Ferling]

Three things:

1) To answer the question about watching credits, I agree that if producers want to have credits worth watching, then they have to be entertaining. Some do this by showing bloopers, or even go as far as behind the scenes to show the actual people, etc.

2) On topic: Sony's in hot water over their mishandling of DRM protection on some of their music cd's that installed software without user consent, and wound up creating a backdoor for hackers to install virus code. Even if they possess code to restrict the usage on a per machine basis, such as found with node-locked software. Such won't stand well for 'portable' entertainment. (I refuse to carry a dongle for every game/music cd they sell : )

3) All of this DRM stuff is making a bad impression on users, as many folks are tired of letting big corporations continue with the monopoly. I think times are coming when smaller outlets and independents will be able to generate more entertaining content, and thanks to the internent and technology, they won't need the likes of Hollywood and friends for distribution. Just emagine, producing a low budget film, and selling usage online for a dollar. So what if you only get few hundred thousand views out of the millions of surfers on line. That's still serious cash to put food on the table.

So let Sony and the like continue down this DRM path. Sure, they'll have it all locked up, but nobody will be there to watch it.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Peter Ferling

All of this DRM stuff is making a bad impression on users

Here's a new article on the fallout from the Sony debacle:

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/techno...202_241333.htm

However...

So will the boycott have any effect on Sony's bottom line? Probably not, says Mark Stahlman, an analyst at investment bank Caris & Co. The Japanese giant had $63 billion in revenue in 2004. And while some artists have seen a drop-off in album sales, the impact on Sony BMG may be limited, says Russ Crupnick, an analyst at market consultancy NPD Group. "For a vast majority of consumers, the loyalty is to the artist, not the record company"