http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6283697.html

Wow - you couldn't even lend this to a family member. I hope this fails.

There's no way that's gonna fly. Nobody's buying a movie they can only watch in one room of their home. Nobody's buying a bunch of games that will not play on their new system after their old one gets a drink spilled on it. No way. The more they tighten their grip, the more systems will slip through their fingas.

Sony - Be selfish, don't share!

Didn't that limited time use DVD flop?

Aren't they aware that there products do break and need to be replaced?

The money-grubbers never learn, do they? Ever since home video was introduced in the 1970s, content producers have let their greed and desire to control everything, turn them into their own worst enemies. These schemes of usage limitation always backfire and they lose money and market potential. If they hadn't lost the BetaMax Supreme Court cases, they wouldn't have been able to make their billions in the video sales and rental business. If they are not prevented from shooting themselves in the foot again on the latest version of this issue, everyone on both sides will lose. They are delaying and restricting blue laser systems and all the while so many potential customers are chomping at the bit for it. By stingily saving pennies by trying to prevent media sharing, they are losing big dollars and thwarting what could be a huge cash cow, if they'd just let it run. The customers they regard as being common thieves, are in fact, the biggest promotional allies they could have, in expanding this new technology. The oldest maxim of successful business is to give the customers what they want.
The new formula seems to be to give them only what the business wants them to have. One company in particular, seems intent on trashing the brand-loyalty that has been their top marketing tool.

Steve McDonald

The phrase "Stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime" keeps jumping into my head.

It's called boycott. The most powerful and legal weapon in the world.
Don't steal, just don't buy.
Just say 'NO F'N WAY'.

I know Chris doesn't allow brand bashing, but this 'greed' issue reminds me of Sony's refusal to put true 24p into its prosumer cameras.

For a long time I wondered why Producers and Directors don't write into their contracts that they will not allow their work to be shown unless it is in it's entirety. That is to say, allowing for commercial breaks is fine but the cutting of material for time is patently WRONG.

Why do they not stand up for their credits either? The abominable practice of "squeezing back" the credits so that AMC or Stars can cover up their paid for musical score and title effects to fit in a cheap shot for their next butchered feature is deplorable. I refuse to watch or pay for Stars and now AMC. They do a genuine dis service to the people making these films by running the credits at 3x normal speed and covering up the music that someone paid to have written. Titles aren't free either you know and when they squash them into a tiny keystone box on the right 1/3rd of my screen, that just makes me mad.

Why don't the people that make this art form stand up and protect their works from such practices? Surely there has to be a way for folks like Ron Howard and Rob Reiner to keep their films whole or at least not run over at the end.

They should also stand up to practices like this. Musical artists should also take a stand against Sony for their "root kit" issue with DRM music. We the viewers can do this if we band together but it's going to take a whoile bunch of us not buying CDs and DVDs to get them to even notice. I think it would hurt more if the producers, directors, writers and musicians said they weren't going to produce under these situations.

Sean McHenry

The only people who really like watching credits are the people who are in them or related/affliated with or obsessive-compulsive types.

Step out of your professional video guy shoes for a moment to consider the broader (audience - because ultimately that's your intended goal) point of view:

Would you as Joe Schmoe want to sit through 3-6 minutes (assuming feature here) of names of people you either 1) already know because you recognize them for their talent or their face, 2) will never ever have the chance of meeting in real life, or 3) just plain don't care what went into making it?

I bet the only reason you see ANY credits whatsoever is probably because of contracts forcing them to be displayed.

For a long time I wondered why Producers and Directors don't write into their contracts that they will not allow their work to be shown unless it is in it's entirety. That is to say, allowing for commercial breaks is fine but the cutting of material for time is patently WRONG.

Why do they not stand up for their credits either? The abominable practice of "squeezing back" the credits so that AMC or Stars can cover up their paid for musical score and title effects to fit in a cheap shot for their next butchered feature is deplorable. I refuse to watch or pay for Stars and now AMC. They do a genuine dis service to the people making these films by running the credits at 3x normal speed and covering up the music that someone paid to have written. Titles aren't free either you know and when they squash them into a tiny keystone box on the right 1/3rd of my screen, that just makes me mad.

Why don't the people that make this art form stand up and protect their works from such practices? Surely there has to be a way for folks like Ron Howard and Rob Reiner to keep their films whole or at least not run over at the end.

They should also stand up to practices like this. Musical artists should also take a stand against Sony for their "root kit" issue with DRM music. We the viewers can do this if we band together but it's going to take a whoile bunch of us not buying CDs and DVDs to get them to even notice. I think it would hurt more if the producers, directors, writers and musicians said they weren't going to produce under these situations.

Sean McHenry


Totally disagree with Sony, but I see many issues in this post Sean. I think you are very conflicted with this! Artists who wish to keep their work pure need only to keep it strictly to themselves. If you chose commercial gain from your work, expect change.

Mike

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

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've done quite a number of smaller and lower budget features, I've done big TV work, regardless of the money I still want to see my name in the credits. But that was exactly part of my point. "The only people who really like watching credits are the people who are in them or related/affliated with [the project] - or obsessive-compulsive types [where not having the credits makes it an incomplete experience]." For your average movie-enjoying target audience, the credits are the signal where it's time to leave. On TV, it signals it's time to go take a break or get food or whatever before the next thing comes on. Should credits be reacted to differently? Sure. But unfortunately that's how people view them now.

It's a balance between what appeals to the audience (because that's ultimately the $$ goal), what is profitable and also what was the original creative intent. It's just how the world works.

The only people who really like watching credits are the people who are in them or related/affliated with or obsessive-compulsive types.


I disagree, I like to listen to the beautiful music at the end of some of the movies. I get extremely annoyed with Starz/Encore when they put their upcoming show ads in the credits. I want to relax and hear the music, not Robin Williams yelling, "Good Morning Vietnam".

I no longer subsribe to Starz or Encore and I won't again until they stop doing this.

I'd be very upset if someone did that to the credits on my productions.

As for Sony, what they are doing is destroying any trust in them and hurting the chances that Blue-Ray will become the standard. No-telling what they may try to 'secretly' put in Blue-Ray or at least movies intended for it. They did it to the music CD's, they can do it to the movie DVD's.

Sony needs to stop the baloney...

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com

Why don't the people that make this art form stand up and protect their works from such practices?
Sean McHenry

Because there's an uncounted number of people waiting in line for their place who are perfectly willing to roll over for the suits. Even the most famous don't usually have the power to stand up to the money guys, even if they cared to do so.

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?

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

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. :-)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051202_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"

History if full of huge corporations that suffered greatly from bad PR and upset consumers. Just having a larger pocket book only buys one more time.

We have a culture where our youth have been accustomed to the word "free" long before facing "DRM" and "Copyright". I'm certain most folks feel that because of file sharing, label companies will treat everyone as suspect, and impose unfair limitations. Sony has managed to justify those fears by shoving this DRM down our throats, sideways. (Even folks on the DRM wagon should be concerned).

Despite the boycott's intention to hurt Sony. I think what is more important is the message that says: anything that even remotely resembles "DRM" is a deal breaker, and we'll take our money elsewhere. Ouch. That hurts.

In response to the questions that come to mind after reading Boyds comments, I am thinking, if I were an artist doing a CD, I might specify to NOT let Sony use this new technology on my CDs. Megadeth and others might love it but the fear of loosing sales will hit the artist who gets the smalle living percentage of the royalties greater.

That is, the artist has to live off that money where Sony can spread that loss over their entire operation if need be. They loose a fraction of a cent over this but the artist who looses a few thousand sales will feel it, if it's not some sort of super hit album anyway.

Hopefully a few outraged, knowledgable musical artists will stand up on this one.

Sean

In response to the questions that come to mind after reading Boyds comments, I am thinking

Just to be clear, those are not my comments. I just quoted from an article I read...

I wasn't thinking good or bad on that, just that after reading Boyd's message, it got me thinking. That's all. Boyd, like so many others here, inspires me to do better and better.

Sean