Unofficial Final Cut announcement thread

[ref]

Here is the first confirmed theatrical release that I have heard of:

http://www.timeout.com/film/news/1907.html

Online film phenomenon 'Loose Change 9/11' has been picked up for theatrical release in the UK.

Revolver has picked up the rights to'Loose Change (Final Cut)' and will release the film on the anniversary of 9/11.And Revolver is?

[Cuddles]

To be fair, if they're going to release it in the UK they're more likely to realease it on the anniversary of 11/9.

[Pardalis]

Will it be in time for the 2007 Razzies?

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.revolvergroup.com/incinemas.htm#coming

[ref]

Here is info about Revolver.

http://www.revolvergroup.com/profile.htm

Revolver Entertainment, one of the leading independents in the UK, is a multi-award winning, marketing led all rights distributor, who, in recent years have shaken up the industry with a unique approach to managing releases.
...
Formed in 1997, Revolver recently was listed as the 15th largest film distributor and the 20th* largest home entertainment publisher in the UK out of 200 hundred active labels (*source Official UK Chart Co) outperforming numerous seasoned distributors. Revolver also frequently dominates the Special Interest Chart, enjoying a UK market share second only to entertainment giant Universal Studios.
...
Experts in exploiting niche markets, the company also publishes books under the Revolver name and music via the '357 Records' label.
...
Recently described by the UK trade press as, "downright dripping in street cred", Revolver continues to re-invent release strategies, delivering award-winning campaigns and creating chart topping success stories.

[chipmunk stew]

I like several of the films Revolver has released.

"Experts in exploiting niche markets" is a great way to describe them, though. This won't exactly be the mainstream blockbuster the Truthers have been fantasizing about...

edit: BTW, if you like noir thrillers, check out "13 (Tzameti)"--it's excellent. Try to avoid watching the trailer, though, which is a bit of a spoiler.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, if the boyz ever finish the "film", this is probably the kind of deal they need. Revolver is only a distributor, but they're legitimate and they're known for offbeat and controversial releases. Whether or not they can interest any cinemas in the product is the big question, of course. Having a distributor doesn't mean much if there's no public interest. But this is the kind of distributor who'll thrive on the controversy if any pressure is brought to bear.

Expect the kids to gas up the Winnebagos and drive over to ratchet up the PR wagon. Right now, the only thing on the web is the below blurb, obviously written by LC("theaters"). They are trying to give the appearance of taking the softer route, but are still saying that if you go beneath the surface you're going to find MIHOP. Strange that a UK company would choose to leave in the wording "our government". Are they saying USA or UK?

Loose Change
In Cinemas 2007
The central premise of Loose Change is that the United States Government was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the attacks of September 11th, 2001 to occur.

However, when one looks deeper into the evidence, one might come to the startling conclusion that our own government might have been directly responsible for the attacks themselves.

Loose Change merely scratches the surface of information that points to a massive government cover-up regarding 9/11. We highly encourage you to take it upon yourself to research the events of 9/11 for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Loose Change is currently in two editions, with a third being developed for theaters, intended to be released in 2007.

www.loosechange911.com

[Gravy]

Radio interview May 10 (http://www.revolutionradiolive.com/05-10-07-Hour2.mp3)

Bermas: Anything can happen. I mean, this thing could have a huge release, it could end up having a small underground release where we're going to have to have more of a grassroots kind of activism. But we're really hoping for a big theater release, make it the number one movie in America, or it becomes the number one issue in America, where we can finally get something done.

Avery: Basically, we might have to start small, but I feel at some point it's gonna be big.

[T.A.M.]

I still despise the fact that they are going to release this film on 9/11...it is just disgusting.

TAM:(

[MG1962]

Will it be in time for the 2007 Razzies?


No it will have to nominate for the 2008. The Razzies are held a couple of days after the Oscars which is early in the year

[Architect]

To be fair, if they're going to release it in the UK they're more likely to realease it on the anniversary of 11/9.

:D

[60hzxtl]

[QUOTE=
Avery: Basically, we might have to start small, but I feel at some point it's gonna be big.[/QUOTE]



That was Dylan? I thought that was what Adam first said to Eve!

[Hourglassmemory]

I still despise the fact that they are going to release this film on 9/11...it is just disgusting.

TAM:(

Imagine you leave your house in the morning to walk to ground zero and think about the events of that day and the people you lost and think about the great, funny moments you spent with them.

Then you turn around and there's people like Charlie Sheen and Dylan saying that your brother or sister was involved in this, or was victim of MIB shooting them in the head because they were in the way of their evil plans.

What a bunch of ********.
I know this kind of statement doesn't help with the image of the JREF forums..but damn!
It really does upset me that 20 year olds still have childlike fantasies and completely idiotic projects based on paranoia, which in itself is based on misinterpretation.
And I'm 17!!!

[Civilized Worm]

To be fair, if they're going to release it in the UK they're more likely to realease it on the anniversary of 11/9.


It's not our fault we don't use your silly backwards dating!

[Miragememories]

Did anyone see that Ground Zero's video?

That had to be one of the most childish, self indulgent, amateurish productions I've ever seen.

It had everything but fart sounds and giggles..or maybe I missed those.

I suppose abusing the viewer by repeatedly insulting their intelligence, instead of letting them draw their own conclusions, requires a level of self discipline beyond that of your average tour guide.

MM

[T.A.M.]

Did anyone see that Ground Zero's video?

That had to be one of the most childish, self indulgent, amateurish productions I've ever seen.

It had everything but fart sounds and giggles..or maybe I missed those.

I suppose abusing the viewer by repeatedly insulting their intelligence, instead of letting them draw their own conclusions, requires a level of self discipline beyond that of your average tour guide.

MM

You treat kind in kind...You make a Nutty film about nuts (ie the truthers), you make a respectful, heroic video, about the 9/11 victims/heros.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

It's not our fault we don't use your silly backwards dating!


people on this side of the pond say a date in the form of "September eleventh" , not "eleven September".

[Undesired Walrus]

people on this side of the pond say a date in the form of "September eleventh" , not "eleven September".

Nope.

If I were to talk about 6th June I'd say that, "sixth of June".

[brodski]

A release in the UK means that Do-over will need to make damn sure that he's not accusing anyone of anything that's not provably true. our libel laws are pretty strict, could be interesting to see if the distributer demands any cuts for this reason.

[8den]

A release in the UK means that Do-over will need to make damn sure that he's not accusing anyone of anything that's not provably true. our libel laws are pretty strict, could be interesting to see if the distributer demands any cuts for this reason.

Waayha I get in before gumboot, sweet.

I should point out that a distribution deal does not 100% guarantee a cinema release. A distribution deal, means that, revolver films have agreed to distribute Loose Change, provided Loose Change give them certain ,contractually guaranteed, clauses, known as deliverables. Now most of these clauses are straight forward technical matters, about the format (tape type, film print), they expect to recieve or things like aspect ratio, or the various versions of the film, like a cinema release cut, and an airplane friendly version (sorry couldn't resist).

But there are other, more relevant to us, clauses. Things like copyright clearance issues, take music, they need to prove they know the name of every artist and every record label, and copyright owner of a piece of music. Hey Dylan's fine there. But, rooorow, you need to do the same with every piece of footage, every still, in your documentary. I've sat in an edit suite, in Dublin (Ireland has nigh on the same copyright laws as the UK) for three days, going through every frame a of documentary, ensuring copyright clearance had been gotten. Whats that? you say "Fair use?" I've sat in edit suites in newsrooms, in the uk (where the concept of fair use is most widely practiced), and had a three way argument over fair use, dozens of times. If Dylan tries to use the reporter at the pentagon, and truncate his statement, that is a breach of fair use, without a doubt.

Dylan's use of the concept of Fair Use is already on shakey ground as it is philosophically an agreement between media creators, broadcasters, using each other's work in quid pro quo situation. Hey Dylan do you regularly broadcast the horse racing from Antree? And then let another station use that in their sports round up? Because they're letting you use their broadcast of the Champions league final in Instanbul? Whats that? No?
These are the people fair use was invented for, not you.

Revolver need to have a legal affairs department, who need to sign off on anything before a distribution deal is agreed upon. I can almost hear the coffee spitting on the plasma screen when they're asked to review LC:FC if it bares a passing resemblance to 2. They'll ask two questions "Have we paid for this yet" and "Have purchasing had any bumps to the head recently"?

I'll be sending off an e-mail to revolver next week with the usual Debunks, and give them a heads up.

[knot]

Disgusting LC truthers are going to make a profit off disinformation.

[geni]

I've sat in an edit suite, in Dublin (Ireland has nigh on the same copyright laws as the UK) for three days, going through every frame a of documentary, ensuring copyright clearance had been gotten. Whats that? you say "Fair use?" I've sat in edit suites in newsrooms, in the uk (where the concept of fair use is most widely practiced), and had a three way argument over fair use, dozens of times.

Impressive when you consider that UK copyright has no concept of fair use.

Fair dealing is generaly considered to be the closest.



Dylan's use of the concept of Fair Use is already on shakey ground as it is philosophically an agreement between media creators, broadcasters, using each other's work in quid pro quo situation.


False. Fair use turned up in US largely due to the conflict between the 1st amendment and copyright law. Took a long time to be codified mind.

Turned up in philippines law because they basicaly coppied the US legal system.

I don't know of any other country that uses fair use.


Hey Dylan do you regularly broadcast the horse racing from Antree? And then let another station use that in their sports round up? Because they're letting you use their broadcast of the Champions league final in Instanbul? Whats that? No?
These are the people fair use was invented for, not you.


Um. Nope. Fair dealing does cover news reporting as one legit case fair dealing but their others such as educational use, criticism or review and ha private study (although that one is largely meaningless under UK law and doesn't exist under indian law).

Other legal systems talk about the right of citation (one of the nordic countries) or right of quotation (brazil I think?)

None of the ones I've looked at a system based on the claims you talk about.

[CptColumbo]

Those in the UK can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it easier to sue someone for slander in England?

[geni]

Those in the UK can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it easier to sue someone for slander in England?

Pretty much.

[negativ]

Radio interview May 10 (http://www.revolutionradiolive.com/05-10-07-Hour2.mp3)

Avery: Basically, we might have to start small, but I feel at some point it's gonna be big.

I bet he says that to ALL the girls.

Be patient, Dylan -- some day you may hit puberty.

[ref]

So, is it correct to say that this deal alone does not quarantee a cinema release yet?

[jhunter1163]

@ Geni:

This has been discussed at some length before. Dylan's use of footage in LC2 is a clear-cut violation of copyright. The only reason he hasn't been sued back to the Stone Age is that he's poor. It's a tenet of the legal profession that you never, ever sue poor people (apologies to LashL and Loss Leader). There's just nothing to recover there. The plaintiffs already have ATV's and plasma TVs and don't need Dylan's.

If, however, LC:FC hits it big, a small army of lawyers will descend upon Oneonta.

[brodski]

So, is it correct to say that this deal alone does not quarantee a cinema release yet?

That's true. However it does make a cinema release more likley.

[8den]

Impressive when you consider that UK copyright has no concept of fair use.

Fair dealing is generaly considered to be the closest.


I meant fair dealing, give me a break I was up till 3am waiting on Irish election results.



False. Fair use turned up in US largely due to the conflict between the 1st amendment and copyright law. Took a long time to be codified mind.

Turned up in philippines law because they basicaly coppied the US legal system.

I don't know of any other country that uses fair use.


No sorry. Pratical hands on experience here. Fair dealing is very common in the field of sports reporting, in the UK.


Um. Nope. Fair dealing does cover news reporting as one legit case fair dealing but their others such as educational use, criticism or review and ha private study (although that one is largely meaningless under UK law and doesn't exist under indian law).

Other legal systems talk about the right of citation (one of the nordic countries) or right of quotation (brazil I think?)

None of the ones I've looked at a system based on the claims you talk about.

Again pratical experience would beg to differ. Consider the bruha in the celebrity big brother house, over racist comments. All major broadcasters used images and sound from the house when reporting on this case, all used the concept of fair dealing, and didn't pay Endemol.

I'm not saying it's not a legally murky, I'm just saying it happens all the time, and broadcasters are leery of pushing the limits too far. Which is something Dylan should keep in mind if he's planning a film made of 90% stolen pictures.

[brodski]

I meant fair dealing, give me a break I was up till 3am waiting on Irish election results.



Ah so it's admitted, you work for the NWO and have been fixing elections in Ireland![/alex jones] :boxedin:

[MG1962]

Did anyone see that Ground Zero's video?

It had everything but fart sounds and giggles..or maybe I missed those.

MM

Well why dont you get one of your truther friends to add them in if you want them that badly. I mean you guys have been dubbing sound tracks of the collapses for years, surely a fart and giggle are managable

[brodski]

Did anyone see that Ground Zero's video?
[quote] yes

[quote]That had to be one of the most childish, when engaging with (and mocking) those that have the intellectual capacity of children, it is sometimes cathartic to descent to their intellectual level whist mocking them. It gets boring when the target of ones scorn is to stupid and self absorbed to understand that they are being insulted.



self indulgent The whole 9/11 CT industry is one big self indulgent cry for attention. Google video and you tube are too. What’s your point?
amateurish productions well yes, Grave is an amateur- . he's not getting paid for this despite what the loons think.


I suppose abusing the viewer by repeatedly insulting their intelligence, instead of letting them draw their own conclusions, requires a level of self discipline beyond that of your average tour guide.

MM
It wasn't abusing the viewer, it was abusing the lunatic CTists, this was not a video to point out just how wrong CTists are, and debunk them, there are plenty of videos and documents which already do that. this was designed as a was to take the piss.
Ridicule is an appropriate response to the ridiculous, and 9/11 CTs are ridiculous, of that there is no doubt.
If you didn't take these paranoid idiots seriously, perhaps you would see this.

[8den]

Ah so it's admitted, you work for the NWO and have been fixing elections in Ireland![/alex jones] :boxedin:

Would that I was the same shower of incompedent ejiits have gotten back in again. I was hoping to getting a different budget of incompedent ejiits in this time. Y'know. To mix things up.

[chipmunk stew]

Did anyone see that Ground Zero's video?

That had to be one of the most childish, self indulgent, amateurish productions I've ever seen.

It had everything but fart sounds and giggles..or maybe I missed those.

I suppose abusing the viewer by repeatedly insulting their intelligence, instead of letting them draw their own conclusions, requires a level of self discipline beyond that of your average tour guide.

MM
Yeah, I saw the video. I'm surprised to hear you referring to Dylan Avery as a "Ground Zero" though.

[Gravy]

A release in the UK means that Do-over will need to make damn sure that he's not accusing anyone of anything that's not provably true. our libel laws are pretty strict, could be interesting to see if the distributer demands any cuts for this reason.They didn't directly accuse anyone in LC2, except accusing the "government" on the DVD packaging, and I'm sure that with lawyers involved they won't be making direct accusations in Final Cut. From a May 10 radio interview (http://www.revolutionradiolive.com/05-10-07-Hour2.mp3):


35:15 Bermas,: (Cheney) is really the only indictable one out of the whole thing. A lot of the people will say, "Well, who pulled off 9/11?" I, I don't know. I can't say that I definitively, definitively know the culprits behind 9/11, but I do know that Dick Cheney gave a stand down order at the Pentagon, per Norman Mineta's testimony. So, what we need to do is somehow get an investigation started with that, and then flesh it out. I mean, I don't have subpoena power. I'm not the district attorney. You know, without starting a real investigation on valid grounds, how are we ever going to get to the truth of what happened? Obviously, Dick Cheney is not the mastermind of 9/11, but in my eyes he's really the only indictable member of the administration. I mean, can anybody honestly, honestly say that they could indict somebody for criminal complicity on that day, other than Cheney? So after all this time, and a whole new movie, the only "evidence" they have against anyone is the same idiotic claim that Cheney ordered planes not to shoot.

That's pathetic. Also pathetic is that fact that Cheney and Mineta were at the White House, not the Pentagon.

[geni]

I meant fair dealing, give me a break I was up till 3am waiting on Irish election results.

And I was posting later still what of it? Ok So


No sorry. Pratical hands on experience here. Fair dealing is very common in the field of sports reporting, in the UK.


I didn't say I wasn't


Again pratical experience would beg to differ. Consider the bruha in the celebrity big brother house, over racist comments. All major broadcasters used images and sound from the house when reporting on this case, all used the concept of fair dealing, and didn't pay Endemol.

Well yes that would be covered under the "criticism and review and news reporting" section. This does not contradict anything I said tere are other times when fair dealing can kick in


I'm not saying it's not a legally murky, I'm just saying it happens all the time, and broadcasters are leery of pushing the limits too far. Which is something Dylan should keep in mind if he's planning a film made of 90% stolen pictures.

Certianly if it is anything like the previous lot I can't see any way to get it to qaulify under fair dealing.

Obviously this may be subject to change if the recomendations of the Gowers report are implemented.

[geni]

@ Geni:

This has been discussed at some length before. Dylan's use of footage in LC2 is a clear-cut violation of copyright.

There are 9 people in the US who between them can say that.

While I would be suprised to say the least if he managed to win. There are a couple of posible defences. One might be to drag out Folsom v. Marsh and argue that he didn't mean to supersede the use of the original work. As I said I would be rather suprised if he managed to win.

For LC:FC he claims to be conducting interviews and creating other types of footage. With care it might be posible to put something together for which a reasonable fair use case could be made. A fair dealing case under English and Welsh law would be more of a problem.

[Comsat Angel]

Would that I was the same shower of incompedent ejiits have gotten back in again. I was hoping to getting a different budget of incompedent ejiits in this time. Y'know. To mix things up.

Ahhh, you get them over there as well? What you need to cause a change is a Congestion Charge. That'll change budgets all right!

[TjW]

@ Geni:

This has been discussed at some length before. Dylan's use of footage in LC2 is a clear-cut violation of copyright. The only reason he hasn't been sued back to the Stone Age is that he's poor. It's a tenet of the legal profession that you never, ever sue poor people (apologies to LashL and Loss Leader). There's just nothing to recover there. The plaintiffs already have ATV's and plasma TVs and don't need Dylan's.

If, however, LC:FC hits it big, a small army of lawyers will descend upon Oneonta.

I think the point is that without the releases, it's possible that a small army of lawyers could descend upon Revolver, who probably have deeper pockets than Dylan.

ETA: Win or lose, getting involved in litigation is expensive.

[Gravy]

@ Geni:

This has been discussed at some length before. Dylan's use of footage in LC2 is a clear-cut violation of copyright. The only reason he hasn't been sued back to the Stone Age is that he's poor. It's my understanding that they spent several months clearing up copyright issues after the Naudet incident last year. I don't know if they purchased rights to everything, Avery promised that the Final Cut will be 100% legal.

[brodski]

They didn't directly accuse anyone in LC2, except accusing the "government" on the DVD packaging, and I'm sure that with lawyers involved they won't be making direct accusations in Final Cut. From a May 10 radio interview (http://www.revolutionradiolive.com/05-10-07-Hour2.mp3):


You don't need to directly accuse anyone of anything in order to get sued fro libel in the UK. IANAL but I would think that they would be in trouble for the implication that a man (I forget his name) sent his son to die in 9/11 whilst he took the day of and played golf. And that's just off the top of my head.

If "LC-will this do? edition" mentions the "5 dancing Jews" they could have a good case in the UK too.

[Gravy]

You don't need to directly accuse anyone of anything in order to get sued fro libel in the UK. IANAL but I would think that they would be in trouble for the implication that a man (I forget his name) sent his son to die in 9/11 whilst he took the day of and played golf. And that's just off the top of my head.

If "LC-will this do? edition" mentions the "5 dancing Jews" they could have a good case in the UK too.The Bernard Brown story isn't in their video. It's from a radio interview.

[brodski]

The Bernard Brown story isn't in their video. It's from a radio interview.
Ah OK, but please , don't make me watch LC again just to get real examples... ;)