[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Well, I'm of three or four minds about this. OK, so Mike Meyers has struck a deal to do what he's calling "film sampling." I.e., he's gonna insert himself or other actors into old movies. Remixes. See also Kung Pow.

I want to see what Meyers does with this concept, cause I think he's comedic gold, even after the last two Austin Powers flicks. But I hate the way the Variety story calls films "properties." But I think that this sort of remixing will demonstrate the value of having more creative works in the public domain, since it'll show what people can do given the right to edit. Except that Meyers isn't gonna be working with public domain movies. And how the hell does this jibe with the whole ClearPlay issue? Are they really saying "It's OK to screw with the director's original vision as long as you own the rights to the movie."?

Well, of course they are. Still, this move blows the hell out of comments like "There are those who would revise a film for what they claim to be benign reasons. But there are others who would alter for pornographic and obscene reasons. To allow one, it would seem you must allow the other." That's Jack Valenti talking, there.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think that goes under "c.f. what they did to Blade Runner" etc. etc. etc. Major motion picture rights are just gross, unless some director or producer/director got a really good contract with final cut approval. :P

[carneggy.livejournal.com]

And how the hell does this jibe with the whole ClearPlay issue? Are they really saying "It's OK to screw with the director's original vision as long as you own the rights to the movie."?

The ClearPlay issue isn't just about screwing with the director's original vision. It's about doing that, and then presenting and marketing the movie as if this were still the original film as made by the director, editors, production company and so forth. Personally, I think it's just fine if ClearPlay wants to release edited versions of films, as long as they have to make it exceedingly clear in the marketing that it's a watered-down, edited version of the original film. In that respect, it'd be no different than say a Reader's Digest "Condensed Book" or an edited-for-tv movie.



There's been cases of 'film sampling' before. The article refers to "What's New Tiger Lily", which is mostly just an entirely redone soundtrack. The first example that sprang to *my* mind was "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", which sampled several dozen films and actors to create an entirely new film, mixing old 30's-50's films with new footage of actors shot in black-and-white. (And I love that film, for what little it's worth.)

[bryant]

Ah, I forgot Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid -- I like that one a lot too.

I still think this muddies the waters, since the PR from the MPAA regarding ClearPlay doesn't make that distinction at all. Publicly, they're making general complaints about the purity of the director's artistic vision, etc. This is probably because it's an easier sell than the real legal issues.

I agree with you that if there's a clear distinction there's nothing wrong with what ClearPlay does.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

If both ClearPlay and "film sampling" go through, I want to be the entrepreneurial genius behind FilthPlay, which would do the same thing in reverse. :)