Crazy like a Fox (or possibly a Universal or Paramount)
A big hello to all our friends in the US who are celebrating Thanksgiving today, and are therefore not at work, and are therefore not calling me for help with their computers. I am having a lovely relaxed day at work today, thus affording me the leisure to write a LiveJournal post, something I have been most slack in doing for the last n months.
First of all, much kudos to Doctor Laputain for this, followed by this. My flatmates will attest to my first reaction to the NZH story: "Nicky Hager is a storm in a teacup. I wonder what the real reason was?" Now I know. Who says SF has no bearing on real life?
(So Doctor, now that your skills are honed, how about you turn them to a more worthy target?)
In other news, Universal Studios has been sending Cease-And-Desist letters and demanding retroactive licensing fees from fans who virally marketed Serenity for them (hat tip to rebeccafrog for alerting me to this one).
Now, it's very easy to react to this with the obligatory OMGWTF you idiots, you're shooting yourselves in the foot, and that was indeed my initial reaction. Then I stopped to think about it. Evil ain't stupid. I think they know exactly what they're doing.
Right now, off the top of your head: which movie studio made The Princess Bride? That's one of my favourite movies of all time. I can tell you who wrote it, who most of the actors are, who did the music, and I have been known to re-enact entire scenes on the flimsiest of excuses. But without checking IMDB, I couldn't tell you which studio made it.
My point: a studio is not a brand, at least not to people outside the industry. It is not a factor in the punter's decision to go to a movie. They don't need to maintain any kind of loyalty among the movie-going public. They don't need to care if they piss off the fans.
Second point: the kind of viral marketing we've seen for movies like Blair Witch and Snakes on a Plane is a double-edged sword for movie studios. They might benefit from it, but they don't control it and they can't predict it.
I suspect that someone in Universal knows perfectly well that the threat of this kind of lawsuit will prevent fans from doing their own movie marketing in future. I suspect that's the point. It's not about the money, which is chicken feed, or even about protecting the IP. It's about Hollywood Marketing Inc saying firmly, "You guys don't get to tell people what films they ought to go see. That's my job."
First of all, much kudos to Doctor Laputain for this, followed by this. My flatmates will attest to my first reaction to the NZH story: "Nicky Hager is a storm in a teacup. I wonder what the real reason was?" Now I know. Who says SF has no bearing on real life?
(So Doctor, now that your skills are honed, how about you turn them to a more worthy target?)
In other news, Universal Studios has been sending Cease-And-Desist letters and demanding retroactive licensing fees from fans who virally marketed Serenity for them (hat tip to rebeccafrog for alerting me to this one).
Now, it's very easy to react to this with the obligatory OMGWTF you idiots, you're shooting yourselves in the foot, and that was indeed my initial reaction. Then I stopped to think about it. Evil ain't stupid. I think they know exactly what they're doing.
Right now, off the top of your head: which movie studio made The Princess Bride? That's one of my favourite movies of all time. I can tell you who wrote it, who most of the actors are, who did the music, and I have been known to re-enact entire scenes on the flimsiest of excuses. But without checking IMDB, I couldn't tell you which studio made it.
My point: a studio is not a brand, at least not to people outside the industry. It is not a factor in the punter's decision to go to a movie. They don't need to maintain any kind of loyalty among the movie-going public. They don't need to care if they piss off the fans.
Second point: the kind of viral marketing we've seen for movies like Blair Witch and Snakes on a Plane is a double-edged sword for movie studios. They might benefit from it, but they don't control it and they can't predict it.
I suspect that someone in Universal knows perfectly well that the threat of this kind of lawsuit will prevent fans from doing their own movie marketing in future. I suspect that's the point. It's not about the money, which is chicken feed, or even about protecting the IP. It's about Hollywood Marketing Inc saying firmly, "You guys don't get to tell people what films they ought to go see. That's my job."