According to Can Mag website, the second Transformers Teaser Trailer will arrive online on Wednesday, December 20th, two days before it takes it bow before some movie in theatres nationwide. I am assuming it will pop up on the official website first before its spreads across the internet. I am hoping for a repeat of history and its gets leaked even sooner.
(source)
Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Furby Truck Go Boom
As part of the leaked online script for Transformers is a bit about a Furby truck getting blown to smithereens during the climax of the movie. The non special effected, multi-camera, hyper edited version that will probably be in the film can now be seen thanks to YouTube.
Monday, 11 December 2006
Original Cartoon Transformers Theme Composer suing
From tfw2005.com, Anne Bryant composer of various cartoon themes from the 80s including Tranformers, JEM, and other Hasbro properties, is suing for payment and royalties of her work from Sunbow Productions. She is hoping to recover millions for the sales of those themes (especially Transformers) from CDs, VHS, DVDs, and any other license that used those themes. She is also hoping she can get professional screen credit in case her theme is used in the new Transformers movie.
The trivia bit, knowing the name of the composer of the famous theme is nice, but this litigation could effect the music used in the movie. The only reason to really care about professional credits in the context of the money is for the money that credit brings. It wouldn't just be a matter of throwing her name on the screen. There would be a cost attached to using the theme as a result of this litigation. While its possible the film producers could work something out, there really isn't a reason for them to when they can just avoid using the theme entirely. Which is a shame considering the hint of it used for the teaser trailer showed some great potential.
This also highlights something I will never understand about the Hollywood system. At any of other job function under the sun, work for hire usually means that if you create something under the employ of someone else, they own it lock stock and barrel. If they choose to throw some money your way for it, lucky you but they don't have to. Do you really think the team that invented the iPod is getting kickbacks for every device sold? Or the family of the inventors of the TV? Or the Radio? Or any other piece of technology and idea out there? The company may be but rarely the mind that created them.
In Hollywood, usually the actors, producers, directors, singers, composers, etc get kickbacks for everything sold. It could be a half penny per or a percentage of the profits. Many different ways of doing it but it all comes down to them getting a little something for every object sold. This is why the RIAA, the MPAA, singers, actors etc are hammering pirating so much. Because most of the figures used assume a 1 to 1 ratio of every item pirated is one less item sold (nonsense btw) then that is literally money being taken away from them. All this is on top of a negotiated salary, be it $1000 for a movie or the $20 million that some actors get (more nonsense). For the real world, the negotiated salary is it and if your company is kind you might get a bonus.
I bet it must be galling to be apart of the crew of these movies and so forth to create (say the costumes, sets, lightning) basically everything that makes the movie what it is and get no money for it. They get their salary and that's it. They can't sue for that extra bit of money even though their work is on screen just as much as the work of the directors, producers and especially the actors. They get treated like everyone else in the "real" world, while the "talent" gets treated in La-La Land way.
Its just strikes me as odd that Hollywood, music industry etc are all about the business at the end of the day, yet it doesn't run like any business I have ever heard of. I wish the company I worked for operated the way they do, then I might be able to afford a new car with all the kickbacks I would "deserve".
So back to Anne Bryant, probably a minority opinion, but she deserves credit for creating her various themes, but going by the classic definition of work for hire as nearly every business under the sun but Hollywood has, she was hired to create these themes for Sunbow, therefore they are owned by Sunbow and that's it. She doesn't deserve extra money just because their marketing machine was able to make hay out of it. If she wanted to make money for every copy used, then she should have created a contract where she lends them a license to the themes that she owns (say the family that owns "Happy Birthday").
Maybe not fair but then neither are her assumptions of money owed just because others where able to make the theme famous. Do those marketers deserve a kickback to by that argument since she wouldn't be owed millions if they hadn't done their job well?
The lesson is if you want a bit for every piece sold, own it outright, otherwise its work for hire and out of your hands. Unless you work for Hollywood.
The trivia bit, knowing the name of the composer of the famous theme is nice, but this litigation could effect the music used in the movie. The only reason to really care about professional credits in the context of the money is for the money that credit brings. It wouldn't just be a matter of throwing her name on the screen. There would be a cost attached to using the theme as a result of this litigation. While its possible the film producers could work something out, there really isn't a reason for them to when they can just avoid using the theme entirely. Which is a shame considering the hint of it used for the teaser trailer showed some great potential.
This also highlights something I will never understand about the Hollywood system. At any of other job function under the sun, work for hire usually means that if you create something under the employ of someone else, they own it lock stock and barrel. If they choose to throw some money your way for it, lucky you but they don't have to. Do you really think the team that invented the iPod is getting kickbacks for every device sold? Or the family of the inventors of the TV? Or the Radio? Or any other piece of technology and idea out there? The company may be but rarely the mind that created them.
In Hollywood, usually the actors, producers, directors, singers, composers, etc get kickbacks for everything sold. It could be a half penny per or a percentage of the profits. Many different ways of doing it but it all comes down to them getting a little something for every object sold. This is why the RIAA, the MPAA, singers, actors etc are hammering pirating so much. Because most of the figures used assume a 1 to 1 ratio of every item pirated is one less item sold (nonsense btw) then that is literally money being taken away from them. All this is on top of a negotiated salary, be it $1000 for a movie or the $20 million that some actors get (more nonsense). For the real world, the negotiated salary is it and if your company is kind you might get a bonus.
I bet it must be galling to be apart of the crew of these movies and so forth to create (say the costumes, sets, lightning) basically everything that makes the movie what it is and get no money for it. They get their salary and that's it. They can't sue for that extra bit of money even though their work is on screen just as much as the work of the directors, producers and especially the actors. They get treated like everyone else in the "real" world, while the "talent" gets treated in La-La Land way.
Its just strikes me as odd that Hollywood, music industry etc are all about the business at the end of the day, yet it doesn't run like any business I have ever heard of. I wish the company I worked for operated the way they do, then I might be able to afford a new car with all the kickbacks I would "deserve".
So back to Anne Bryant, probably a minority opinion, but she deserves credit for creating her various themes, but going by the classic definition of work for hire as nearly every business under the sun but Hollywood has, she was hired to create these themes for Sunbow, therefore they are owned by Sunbow and that's it. She doesn't deserve extra money just because their marketing machine was able to make hay out of it. If she wanted to make money for every copy used, then she should have created a contract where she lends them a license to the themes that she owns (say the family that owns "Happy Birthday").
Maybe not fair but then neither are her assumptions of money owed just because others where able to make the theme famous. Do those marketers deserve a kickback to by that argument since she wouldn't be owed millions if they hadn't done their job well?
The lesson is if you want a bit for every piece sold, own it outright, otherwise its work for hire and out of your hands. Unless you work for Hollywood.
Thursday, 7 December 2006
Trailer Release Date - 12/22?
Nelson over at Shoot for the Edit, and a source for some TF information, has revealed that its possible that the 2nd teaser trailer for Transformers will come out on December 22nd.
According to IMDB.com, the movies coming out that weekend Rocky, The Good Shepherd, Night at the Museum, Letters from Iwo Jima, and We Are Marshall. Of those, my best guess if the rumor is true then the trailer will show up with Museum mainly because its the big release for December and will have a lot of the audience demographic that Transformers is aiming at. Of course nothing is stopping them from just releasing without attaching it to a particular movie so could show up with any of the above as all but I don't see such a trailer being a good fit with Iwa Jima and Shepherd.
I think they dropped the ball by not releasing the trailer with Casino Royale as I doubt any of the movies coming out in December will come even close to reaching the same number of eyeballs as Royale (excluding Happy Feet because of the younger age demo it covers as Transformers will probably be PG-13).
His post:
I spoke to Mike about a week ago, and as you can imagine he's busy editing the movie.
He indicated that the trailer was basically done (minus a little CGI work) and that if all goes according to plan, the trailer should be out by the weekend of the 22nd of December.
According to IMDB.com, the movies coming out that weekend Rocky, The Good Shepherd, Night at the Museum, Letters from Iwo Jima, and We Are Marshall. Of those, my best guess if the rumor is true then the trailer will show up with Museum mainly because its the big release for December and will have a lot of the audience demographic that Transformers is aiming at. Of course nothing is stopping them from just releasing without attaching it to a particular movie so could show up with any of the above as all but I don't see such a trailer being a good fit with Iwa Jima and Shepherd.
I think they dropped the ball by not releasing the trailer with Casino Royale as I doubt any of the movies coming out in December will come even close to reaching the same number of eyeballs as Royale (excluding Happy Feet because of the younger age demo it covers as Transformers will probably be PG-13).
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Barricade Prototype Toy Pics
The prototype toy pics reveal parade ends with Barricade. Once again, from eBay, his toy seems to most closely resemble the link CGI pic of him from yesterday. The look of the toy is probably the best of the group except I am hoping the arms have more articulation then the pics are revealing. These toy pics do bring up an additional question of how closely will the toys follow how the movie does the transformations. If the transformations have the level of detail that previous interviews with Bay and other indicate I am thinking not much but it should be interesting what the end results becomes. If history is a guide though, the animated movie did a pretty horrible job of mimicking the "real world" transformations so anything over that would be an improvement in detail. Thanks Joey C for the links.
Brawl Prototype Toy Pics
Bumblebee Prototype Toy Pics
Another eBay leak, this time for Bumblebee. This toy also resembles the leaked images for Bumblebee. It looks like that face is here to stay so better learn to love it. One note though is that while the movie is going for great detail in robot design, it appears that the toy line will follow the more traditional Transformer toy designs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)