| Message/Author |
|
|
 Monte Brock posted on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 12:15 pm
|
|
|
just read through the thread on the Yahoo stock board and the current "Big Brother" thread here and I find it all to be a little disquieting.
After all IMAX has a right to do in their own theaters what they will. In the independent theaters they have contracts to protect the brand that they have created. The theater owner likewise has, hopefully, a contract the will protect his interests.
Now on the Yahoo board, prospective traders are using THIS site as a RESEARCH tool, they are quoting posts that may or may not represent what is occurring in the industry at large. Hopefully any trader will weigh the source and act accordingly, but could the sense of doom and disaster that this board frequently conveys, be injurious to us all? Certainly, in any industry some segments will fail while others will grow slowly over a long period.
Am I saying that we should all look through rosy glasses and blow sunshine kisses at each other, No. Surely, though every memo and communiqué that we disagree with should not be posted to be ridiculed in front of the world at large. |
|
|
| Judith Rubin posted on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 05:29 pm
|
|
|
Monty:
This is a discussion forum for the open exchange of opinions and ideas. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. It is not the responsibility of the participants to try to create a certain picture of the industry in order to impress potential investors. Anyone who is looking into the economic potential of large format companies or the health of the industry has the responsibility of researching what and where they will. If they are going to make a decision based solely on online chat, so be it.
--Judy Rubin |
|
|
| Monte Brock posted on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 07:39 pm
|
|
|
I agree with you regarding the traders Judith, but I fear you miss my point. After all at 3 odd bucks a share the Pump and Dump community will most likely be on their own boards to exploit the daily fluctuations as much as possible with little regard to the real value or future for the brand or company.
What I want to say is separate from the feel we may be giving off, but to the quality, propriety and veracity of the information we release
We can debate at length that it's everyone's responsibility to weigh out the ramifications of their actions.But it certainly IS the responsibility of the participants of this group, as employees in this industry, to handle themselves in a way that is ethical regarding business matters.
How would you react if a confidential memo regarding your choice or options in some matter was being debated publicly online. I believe that you would at least counsel your employee regarding the issues surrounding the handling of sensitive material.
I don't intend to try and stop the truth from surfacing, here or anywhere else. If the 24 Mil that IMAX may not be able to get for it's backorders and the downgrade of IMAX's credit rating are enough to kill the company, it will be known despite this board.
I'm not questioning the right of the posters to say that IMAX has allowed some very sorry films out, after all I ran nutcracker four times today, but if they don't want to run this film at an O&O, that's their business. But after reading the fax as it was posted here, it looks to me like a strong warning of concern, not an outright order forbidding that this film be run. But it is in the contracts that they could forbid it, and well folks, if you signed the contract with that language intact. It's over.
It can go both ways, IMAX films have a strong evolutionary content. And here in Chattanooga, forty miles from the site of the Scopes trial, evolution is a subject that is quite an unwelcome idea for what this memo calls "wholesome, educational, family entertainment". Yet that subject is recurring in these films. And to a segment of the population here, their local IMAX is associated with what is considered a very unseemly idea. What to do, should I post all the (theoretical)internal correspondence regarding complaints and our (theoretical) discussions with any companies regarding the production of films that, to our sizeable audience, would be more culturally acceptable, in the open, where little would be gained other than a good discussion. Or would it be more responsible to do it one on one with only the involved parties, in order to affect a real solution?
Respectfully,
--Monte Brock |
|
|
| Judith Rubin posted on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 11:45 pm
|
|
|
I think there's more than just "a good discussion" going on here. There's a question being raised about the content of large format films - where it might go, and where some people would prefer to see it go (or not go) now that there is a commercial market. This is a vital issue that affects the whole industry, which must be why Imax, among others have taken it up in this way.
No, of course we don't want indiscriminate, gratuitous airing of dirty laundry. I hope that's not what's going on here. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 09:24 am
|
|
|
Monty, I agree with Judith, but I do respect your concern about the "quality, propriety and veracity of the information we release". With chat boards and anonymous id's, people sometimes lose sight of their responsibilities.
What information, specifically, are you worried about here? That someone re-printed the letter from Imax? That letter is hardly "confidential". After being broadcast to the entire network, it's practically "public domain". One could imagine that Imax actually intended for it to be distributed broadly, (especially since it was so obviously and awkwardly "lawyered".) And while you are literally correct that Imax did not actually say it was prohibiting the exhibition of Haunted Castle, their strong language and dominant market position sends a pretty powerful message.
Are you concerned that someone quoted the relevant section of the IMAX lease that supposedly gives Imax the power to interfere with third party contracts for films booked at IMAX theatres? (Which you yourself confirmed exists).
I don't see where any harm was done, especially since what we're talking about doesn't link to an identified theater's lease terms. Although not ubiquitous, these are common lease terms for many IMAX theaters.
The discussion on this board has touched on several important issues:
- Imax's right to stop certain films from being shown under a clause that some theaters have in their system/trademark lease agreements.
- the effect of Imax's actions on the LF film making industry
- what IS the IMAX brand? Is it a genre of film or is it a presentation system? Both? To be fair to Imax, in many ways this is the crux of the problem they may be struggling with.
- Imax's business practices - its approach to theaters, and independent filmmakers (eg. did they even talk to nWave first to see if they would alter the offending scene? The Imax letter doesn't suggest any communication took place. Can someone from nWave weigh in here?)
- nWave's and other producers' goals and practices; is audience testing part of the production process? Are films being developed for specific niches, and which ones are underserved? (eg. teen to 20-something crowd, which a Haunted Castle may appeal to)
I think this and the other thread on HC is doing exactly what a good industry chat board out to do. Is it a replacement for direct, constructive, one-on-one attempts to resolve conflict or issues? No! These don't have to be mutually exclusive, and like you, I would encourage all those who are troubled by Imax's actions on HC to voice their concern, to Imax senior management. And vice versa. Before Imax sends such a provacative letter out to theaters, wouldn't it have been decent of them to raise the issue with nWave? Maybe check to see if the theaters who booked it (and have seen it) had any concerns? And if this is truly how Imax feels, (and it's not just an anti-nWave slam), and especially if they have a point about protecting the brand, shouldn't Imax now initiate some constructive one-on-one's with producers and distributors?
Bottom line, with all due respect to your concern, I think people have behaved responsibly in this board of late. What Imax did -- whether you agree with it or not -- is unpecedented and affects the entire industry. A perfect subject for a thoughtful forum. |
|
|
|
|
| I do believe that nWave is having Haunted Castle rated, in any case. |
|
|
|
|
No matter what the rating is in the US if we, or any other UK theatre, decided to screen this or any other film not previously seen over here it would have to be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification.
Therefore if they rated it PG,12,15 or 18 this would be displayed on all advertising material giving the audience a clue as to whether the content may or not be to their taste.
As to advising theatre managers to carefully consider what times to screen the film...we do this with with every film we show.
It's called programming!!! |
|
|
| Monte Brock posted on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 12:08 pm
|
|
|
Anon, Good points and well put, but I'll bet you lunch that the original fax contained a 'confidential information' rider as all faxes I've ever seen from IMAX have had. If it did, no matter what the breadth of it's distribution, or the number of recipients, it should have not been posted. Therefor it's presence here could be a risk to the poster.
If not then you are by all means correct, my point is mute, and most likely IMAX LTD and It's law staff intended for it to be sort of a 'big stick' gold or lead message.
I'm not trying to halt what really is a very good discussion, that's why I started a separate thread, and I'll agree that my experience has been IMAX can and does try to influence it's customers. (not that using threats of contractual breach is a new MO for any company). I wanted to raise a big red flag for the group before some poor soul posted his contract info (as was requested in the Big Brother thread) or something even more sensitve and possibly realized first hand just what kind of a bully a large company could be.
That is the threat that caused me to start this thread. Concern that someone who either thought that the Anon feature meant that they were safe, or they just had not considered the risk, quotes something that they shouldn't and 'the company' gets all 'legal' and possibly costs that person their job. I used the yahoo example because I hoped that all would realize that what we say here is being heard at large.
I've not said that anyone here was in the wrong, just offered a strong caution to remember that you could be held personally liable if you release info that you know to be confidential.
I can't disagree with you or Judith about the intended meaning of that fax, they seem to be saying they are willing to stop any film that they deem inappropriate ( but I still say if they want to do it in a theater they own, that's their right). If they intend to use the ownership of the leased equipment to stop any customer from screening a release, if the customer is willing to take approriate steps to distance the IMAX Co from that film then, well that's just Sorry.
It seems to me that somebody up there is fond of the lame -little-girl-on-a-voyage-of-mind-altering-discovery-while-guided-by-father-figure plot device and either can't or won't tell a real story. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
| Linda Nelson posted on Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 09:55 am
|
|
|
| While IMAX started our industry and has made an undisputable contribution over the years, we are now the "Giant Screen Industry", not the "IMAX Experience". As a theater developer and filmmaker, I have experienced the wrath of the "concerned parent" and it has hampered my growth. As Edison lost control of the amazing industry he birthed, so will IMAX. GSTA's recent embracing of 870 as part of our industry, is a clear indication that the "child" is maturing. Clearly, our audiences care more about the "Giant Screen Experience" than they do the "Imax Experience". I believe that audiences that saw Everest on non-IMAX equipment, were just as wowed as the ones who saw it in an IMAX theater. Conversely, when I proudly took my parents to see Everest at Cesears Palace in Vegas, I was appalled to see brown stains all over the snow, in a theater that was supposedly "IMAX quality controlled". What our audiences see will always be a reflection of how mindful our exhibitors are of their love for our genre and how dedicated our filmmakers remain to creating quality films. We have come too far to be "fathered" by IMAX. If IMAX the company, went under tomorrow, our industry would survive. It is time for IMAX to be a "mentor" to the industry and in fact, it will have to if it wants to survive. Its customers (the theaters) need them more than ever. I keep seeing theaters close, due to lack of content and we all need to encourage responsible filmmaking to all market segments. While I have seen some childish, snide remarks about my first film, just wait and see how many 8 - 20 year olds we bring in. If theaters are smart, they will use this opportunity wisely to show these kids the vast world of the giant screen. I have a great appreciation of what IMAX has done for our industry and believe that they have so much more to contribute. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
