Posted Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35 PM | Contributed by VitaminsAndGravy
There's a palpable buzz at this year's Sundance Film Festival, and much of it is swirling around an obscure, black-and-white movie that may never see a commercial release. That's because Randy Moore's Escape from Tomorrow is more than just a film; it's an exercise in guerilla moviemaking, and a meditation on our own gawk-fueled culture. The movie was shot on the Walt Disney World property without Disney's permission.
Surprised this got no replies...
I read about this a few days before it was posted here. I find it very interesting. It reminds me of the short Haunted Mansion horror movie filmed at one of the Disney Parks that was recently brought to my attention. If people can film their family at the park, why can't they make a movie?
I know that Disney has an image to uphold, and people viewing a movie filmed there could misunderstand that the filmmakers had the company's approval, so I don't know how I feel about it.
On the other hand, I'd like to root for the little guy here. It's just about as daring as trespassing to videotape an abandoned SFNO, or trespassing to climb a really tall bridge while videotaping it.
I just plain enjoy trying to understanding the movie-making experience, especially when it is dangerous and dramatic.
The "how to" is much more interesting than the movie.
If people can film their family at the park, why can't they make a movie?
I'm going to guess the proverbial line is crossed at "commercial use." Just like an NFL/NBA game, recording at home may be technically in violation, but David Stern isn't coming to your house. If another TV network wants to rebroadcast on the air, with or without the so-called accounts and descriptions, then Stern wants to make sure his people get a cut.
I'm going to guess the proverbial line is crossed at "commercial use." Just like an NFL/NBA game, recording at home may be technically in violation, but David Stern isn't coming to your house.
If we were talking about about hockey, and Bill Wirtz was still alive- he might.
The trick was to surrender to the flow.
Well, yea, Gator. I'm sure that Disney wants to have total control of how their theme park is displayed to the public. Seeing Dumbo in the background or making a costumed character an extra in you movie makes it seem as if Disney somehow endorses the film.
It's still pretty freekin' cool seeing someone use a non-disney approved imagination to come up with a story about the park though.
Edited to remove the letter "u".Last edited by LostKause, Friday, January 25, 2013 7:28 PM
LK, it's about more than what Disney 'wants'.. it's that they own the rights to that Dumbo in the background. You can't make and distribute a movie with a character wearing a Dumbo T-shirt without permission or risk a lawsuit or Cease and Desist, and you can't make a movie with the Dumbo ride in the background without fear of the same.
...And this IP stuff is quite serious. It seems silly, but the rights holder really does have to take a zero-tolerance approach to unlicensed use, because if they fail to aggressively defend their IP even in the little cases, it becomes much more difficult to successfully defend it in the big cases.
That's why you see the silly cases about murals on the walls of preschools. It seems petty, and those cases are frequently settled with a reasonably friendly license, but it's important from a legal perspective.
I think the issue in this case is distribution. Making the movie isn't the problem. But as soon as the filmmaker tries to distribute it, he's going to have to get the Mouse to sign off on it. From the sound of it, thats not going to be an easy thing to accomplish.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
/X\ _ *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
You must be logged in to post