How likely is this scenario? (Movie industry related)

Cafe Society
1

I’m having an argument IRL regarding why a certain sub-independent film hasn’t been released on DVD yet. This pertains to friends and FOAF’s I’ve known a long time and therefore can’t reveal specifics due to identity concerns, so please bear with me.

A long time ago, we all used to party at a slacker/dope-smoker hangout (ah, those were the days…) One of the residents (I’ll call him “Richard”) is someone I didn’t know very well at the time, but since then I’ve become fairly close friends with him – close enough to accept that the rest of this story is potentially plausible, whereas everyone else thinks it’s all crazy talk.

Apparently, “Richard” was very close friends with another kid (“Jake”) who was 16 at the time. (There were a few other kids that age who hung out there, but most of us, including myself and “Richard”, were in our early to mid 20’s.) They had some kind of falling out (the details aren’t important right now) and only recently has “Jake” resurfaced, although none of our remaining friends have made direct contact with him yet. To make it short, “Jake” has become an independent film star.

Well…“star” is a relative term. There’s a lot of hype about him on the Internet, but from what I can determine it’s all marketing. He’s only released one film in which he played the lead, and it was definitely “guerilla filmmaking”, if you catch my drift. This film (let’s call it “The Film”) had a brief run in theaters, was featured in a few film festivals, and was due to come out on DVD two years ago, but never was released. (The director’s webpage only says, “DVDs are not currently available for sale.”)

Two years ago, without knowing about Jake’s new career, Richard attempted to contact Jake, but the message was intercepted by Jake’s sister. (She promised to pass on the message, but apparently never did – no surprise there, she was always kind of a lying bitch.) This was the first time Richard learned about “The Film”, which had by then finished its theater/festival run. A few months later, Richard contacted the director of The Film, and was told the DVD was due to be released within a few weeks.

What happened next is anyone’s guess, but I’ll go ahead and tell Richard’s side of the story:

(1) The Film was never released on DVD; however, it was released on the Internet several months ago. (Decent movie, but IMHO could use some major editing work.)

(2) The Film features a character named…wait for it…“Richard”. In The Film, “Rick” is a psycho rapist/serial killer, who nonetheless befriends Jake’s character. (The Film’s basic premise is that Jake gets to know the “Good Rick”, completely unaware of Evil Rick’s “hobby” – until The Film’s climax, when Evil Rick attempts to kill Jake’s character, and Jake’s forced to shoot “Rick” in the face.) None of us, including Richard, was aware of this particular plot point until The Film’s Internet debut.

(3) Here’s the speculative part: Richard is CONVINCED that the reason for the DVD’s ongoing delay, at least in part, is due to one or both of the following:

(a) Potential litigation from the “real” Richard (which he is NOT considering at all, I want to make that 100% clear!) – according to the “real” Richard, there are striking similarities between himself and “Rick”, especially the nature of Jake & Rick’s relationship in The Film.

(b) Potential ramifications from “Richard” himself, due to certain psychiatric issues which both Jake and Jake’s sister would have previously known about. (Again, extremely unlikely – I doubt they would have released the film online, if that was a major concern!)

Sorry for the tl;dr post, but here’s my question…is either (a) or (b) a possible scenario? Keep in mind, we’re talking about guerilla filmmakers who are still trying to break into the “sub-independent” scene – none of them have had any major success yet.

2

Possible? Sure.

Likely? No.

Assuming Richard’s full name was used, there’s no basis for a libel suit (the movie is a work of fiction; any resemblance . . . . etc.). As a work of fiction it fails any test of libel, which involved false statements presented as fact.

Not that Richard couldn’t sue, but the film wouldn’t hold back production unless a legal action was filed. You can’t worry about all potential threats.

For #2, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Did they think that Rick might go psycho if he found out? I can’t see that being enough to stop them from releasing the film.

3

So it is possible, albeit unlikely. Thanks, that was my primary question.

Special note, however: The Film’s already in the can. AFAIK, no changes were planned prior to the DVD release…but you’re right, anything could have gone wrong. (Even Richard concedes this.)

That’s basically what I keep telling Richard…but then again, I’m the only one in our current circle who used to know the people involved (esp. Jake & his sister) and while I’m confident Jake would know it’s not a problem, his sister I’m not so sure about. (Like I said, she’s kind of a whackjob herself…for example, her ex-boyfriend’s a notorious murder. I swear I’m not making that up!) But nonetheless, I’m inclined to agree with you…who cares about psycho stalkers when there’s profit to be made? :smiley:

4

I would say it’s possible only in the sense that “anything’s possible”. Everyone involved would have to be a real idiot, though. If they were so concerned that the villain’s name would cause the real “Richard” to sue or have a breakdown then he could have been re-named prior to shooting. If this didn’t occur to anyone until later then I could believe a sub-indie film wouldn’t have the budget for reshooting/redubbing scenes where the villain’s name is mentioned, but if they were worried enough about Richard’s reaction to hold back the DVD then they’d have been concerned enough to keep it off the Internet. I gather from the OP that this movie was deliberately released online, not that someone leaked it.

If the movie was released online but not on DVD then it seems like the most likely explanation would be that the filmmakers realized they didn’t have the money to do a professional-looking job of the DVD release.

5

Well, therein lies the rub. There are other complications which I’m not at liberty to mention…except to say that high school dramas never really end, do they? :rolleyes:

The character’s name (first name only) is mentioned several times in the movie, to the extent that a major studio would most likely opt for a reshoot instead of an overdub. However, even a cheap dub job would exceed this production company’s budget, if I’m reading the situation correctly.

Oh, I just remembered something…the Internet version of The Film was indeed re-edited (it’s labeled as “The 2009 Edit”) – FTR, Richard’s contact with Jake’s sister & The Film’s director was during the previous year; the DVD’s original release date was Dec. 2008. Neither of us have seen the original version shown in theaters.

Yes, this is correct. There’s also a torrent out there, but I don’t know if it’s the original or re-edited version – never been able to successfully download it.

I concur. Not sure if Richard will agree, but I’ll make sure he reads this thread.

6

It seems really implausible. Why would they feel that a DVD release of the movie was a potential problem but releasing the film in theatres, online, and on the festival cicuit was not? Richard has all the foundation he needs if he’s going to file a lawsuit (or go on a killing spree).

7

It didn’t happen that way. The filming, production, exhibition & festivals all happened while nobody in that circle (except Jake) knew that Richard existed. His actual first name, as shared with the “Rick” character, is very common. Nobody had any contact with Jake for the last 15 years or so.

Believe me, I was very surprised when Jake suddenly resurfaced. Until our discovery that he’d become a film star, we’d all assumed that he grew up to be a slacker working at Blockbuster and was still living in his parent’s basement…just like the rest of us. :cool:

(Actually, I’m not living with my parents anymore. Honest to God!)

8

They clearly couldn’t find a distributor or the funds to release the film on DVD. Or maybe they were just struck with a sense of shame for ripping off Barton Fink

9

How expensive could it be? If I filmed a porno in my basement, I could burn DVDs on my computer, print the artwork, and mail 'em off with very little capital investment. Even paying for a factory printing isn’t as expensive as it used to be – granted, I’m not privy to the exact cost, but a small print run couldn’t cost more than $10,000 or so.

Heh…I’ll have to watch that film again, it’s been awhile. :wink:

10

But the horse has now left the barn even if nobody except Jake realized it at the time. Assuming Richard has grounds for libel, he could sue on the basis of the distribution that’s already occurred. A DVD release won’t make the film company any more liable than it already is.

11

Good point – I’ll pass on the message.

12

Surely it’s not libel if you create a fictional work inspired partially from real experience, not marketed as autobiographical in any way, and then use a real person’s first name in it (a very common name, and not even a surname), even if that character can be closely compared with a real person.

It’s fiction. There will be a disclaimer stating as much in the end credits. That’s where it ends.

13

Sorry, don’t mean to be rude but what’s with all the secrecy? Especially since it’s been released on the net and he’s already a “star”.

14

I don’t think the film makers would have to pay much money to hire a lawyer capable of beating any litigation by Richard. Unless of course Richard IS, in fact, an unrevealed psycho rapist/serial killer and wants to admit it.

15

Oh, we’re all in agreement on that. However, Richard believes that the filmmakers may have feared a frivolous lawsuit; especially if they knew about his personal “issues” which Jake & his sister certainly would already know about. (FTR, Richard’s been medically compliant for the last few years, and is actually doing quite well, all things considered.)

I’ve also convinced Richard to finally send a fucking email to the fucking director to ask him WTF is taking so long with the fucking DVD. Naturally, the director may not tell us the whole truth, but at least he’ll us something. (Even helped him write it, to ensure the email does sound “sane” and marginally professional…like I said earlier, some high school dramas never end…)

An abundance of caution, I suppose. In particular, Richard insisted that I not reveal his real name in public, which makes it kinda hard to discuss a specific movie where a major character’s specific name is, in fact, the key issue.

Having said that, I don’t think it’ll be a problem to share specifics on an individual-by-individual basis; so if anyone’s really that interested, send me a PM.

16

Your item a is almost certainly not an issue. Fiscally they’d rather have a DVD than on online release and legally they’re in no better or worse shape either way.

With item b, yes it’s possible that Jake wrote the plot to the story based on some stuff he picked up from when Richard was young and (presumably) in need of psychiatric care. And yes, it’s possible that Jake was hoping to suppress the film once he realized that Richard is still a human being on Earth and might get wind of it. Without knowing the people involved, there’s no saying. You’d be in a better stance to tell us since you do know the people, plus you can see the credits for who wrote the screenplay since you’ve seen the movie.

But I will point out that Pink Floyd’s The Wall is based on Roger Water’s life. Yet, I’m pretty sure he was never a skinhead mafioso, going around beating people up. Just because Jake may have gotten some small bit of inspiration from someone he he knew nearly 15 years earlier doesn’t mean that he thinks that Jake was really a murdering psychopath. Certainly, it would have been more couth to change the name (if he even did come up with the story and if there was any actual source of inspiration – both of which are highly questionable), but overall I don’t think it’s worth reading too much into it. That would most likely be a case of laziness, to not change the name, not an accusation.

17

To Richard? You probably shouldn’t.

Richard apparently is pissed about what Jake did. But he’s getting some consolation from the thought that he has indirectly prevented Jake’s movie from getting a DVD release. It may not be true but why kick the legs out from under his belief if it’s giving him satisfaction?

Worse yet, you might end up pushing Richard into trying to file a lawsuit which would cost him some money but almost certainly not produce the results he wants.

18

You mention Jake is the lead actor. You also referred to the director as a person different than Jake. You didnt mention Jake as the writer. Are you 100% sure Jake wrote the script? Because that would be a necessary requirement for this to even be up for questioning. If he’s just an actor playing a role created,written, and directed by other people, then why would there be any reason to look for any connection?

19

This. I’ve worked on three films a friend made, which were released. One was about a serial killer and the cops that try to find him. This was shot on 16mm. One was deliberately made as ‘cinema of the absurd’, an experiment of combining George Romero (zombies), Jean-Luc Godard (nouveau vague techniques), and Roger Corman (budget). As part of the experiment, this was shot on B&W super-8. The third was horror film (shot on digital video) about a genetically engineered spider that eats souls. The first film got some distribution in Europe. The second did well at the New York Underground Film Festival and gained some notoriety as ‘the worst film ever made’. The third didn’t really go anywhere. All three are, or were, available on VHS and DVD.

I all cases the major problem was finding a distributor. You wouldn’t know it by looking at all of the indie films released on DVD, but it’s not all that easy. If you do find a distributor, there’s no guaranty that he’ll actually sell your film. He’ll make some token gestures but not really do anything, and in the meantime tie up your film so that you can’t distribute it elsewhere. In the case of the first film, the distributor did try; but he only wanted the European rights. When another distributor expressed interest a few weeks later, he wanted all-regions rights. Since European rights were ties up, a deal could not be made.

A filmmaker can self-distribute. In that case he has to find someone to produce the copies and packaging. (Doing it yourself on your computer is an option, but not a very practical one.) This will cost some amount of money, but it need not be a great deal. I think my friend paid CDN$400 for 100 copies of his third film, which included an couple of ‘extras’, a menu, and proper packaging. The filmmaker must then promote it himself.

There was a filmmaker in Mt. Vernon, WA a few years ago that made an indie film. I think it was called Confession Day, but I can’t seem to find anything on it. A pastor is hearing confessions from quirky members of his congregation. Fairly funny, and fairly well done. It seemed a bit like a Clerks rip-off. I don’t know if he got a distributor, but he was really pimping the hell out of it. He used a skateboard dolly, which he built (mine is MUCH better!), so he sold the DVD on eBay using ‘skateboard dolly’ in the description. It was like, anything you searched on on eBay that had to do with indie filmmaking, there was his movie. I don’t know how successful he was, but he seems to have sold a bunch of them through self-distribution.

20

Oh, this part’s no problem at all – believe me when I say, Richard considers any portrayal as a serial killer/rapist as the highest possible compliment, regardless of whether it’s coincidental or not. (To quote him directly: “I used to joke about serial killers all the time!”) Believe me, if you knew Richard like I do (and presumably Jake, as well) you’d agree – yes, Rick’s a bit crazy, but he’s harmless crazy, if you catch my drift. :cool:

Jake did not write The Film’s script – the director did. Having said that, it is possible that Jake made some uncredited contributions to the script; however, based on what I’ve seen & read and what I know about sub-indie filmmaking, Jake’s contributions would have been trivial in nature. For example, the character “Rick” carries a gold lighter which resembles a memento given to the “real” Richard by a mutual friend – could Jake have planted that prop himself? Sure, maybe. (It’s most likely coincidence, but Richard does make a convincing argument that it’s not.) Could Jake have requested the character be named “Rick” instead of a different name? Very, very unlikely.

BTW, since 2008, Jake has formed his own production company, with several movies at various stages of production, including two films which have been “in the can” for over a year but have NOT been exhibited in theaters yet. Sadly, according to IMDB, none of the character names match MY real name…I’m kinda disappointed by that. :frowning:

You may have just hit the nail on the head here.

The year that Richard & I were friends with Jake was probably the worst year in Jake’s life – he was a rebellious teen, on the verge of getting expelled from continuation school and already in trouble with the law. This was also the year when Jake’s best friend (who I never met) was murdered by his sister’s ex-boyfriend – a notorious crime which made big waves in the media, and was featured in the documentary Reckless Indifference. So yeah…tough year.

Now…the focus of concern, I think, resides on how The Film ended – i.e., Jake (the actor) shooting “Rick” (the fictional character) in the face. Would the “real” Richard be astute enough to understand it’s merely fiction, or would he read something else into that scene? It’s a logical concern, because when I finally got a chance to watch the movie myself, my initial reaction was: “I don’t think he likes you very much!” However, after many long conversations & re-viewings of The Film, we both agree that (a) it’s fiction, dammit; and (b) worst case scenario, it’s Jake acting out catharsis vis-a-vis his former friendship with Richard – not the relationship itself, but the manner in which it ended.

Based on your comments, I’m beginning to think that this “catharsis” was much broader in scope – Jake was not only putting to bed that relationship, but everything else associated with it. And once the “real” Richard suddenly resurfaced…well, that’s antithetical to his presumed motivation. Naturally, it’s impossible to know for certain – but this scenario does make more sense than lack of funding for the DVD release. (Jake comes from a very wealthy family with many connections to The Industry.)

@Johnny L.A.: Thanks for sharing your experiences; your comments helped me reach the (tentative) conclusion above.

ETA: I’m reconsidering my initial decision to not reveal The Film’s title – my reticence was based on “mitigating circumstances” which at first I wasn’t sure would surface in this thread – but since they haven’t, and most like won’t, it’s probably okay. If anyone wishes to comment on whether or not that’s a good idea, I’d appreciate your opinions.