Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Spike Lee

juanluisgarcia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#101

Post by Amadou »

res0nat0r wrote: post #97
Amadou wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Downloading an album or movie without paying for it is illegal. This isn't in dispute. I think it is in substantial dispute. Can you cite a case of someone in the US being successfully prosecuted for downloading? Note that this precludes bittorrent, gnutella, etc situations where downloading means simultaneously uploading. Outside of the US there are plenty of countries where it has been made explicit in the law…

> I think it is in substantial dispute. Can you cite a case of someone in the US being successfully prosecuted for downloading? Note that this precludes bittorrent, gnutella, etc situations where downloading means simultaneously uploading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fastlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Site_Down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer Note: Just because I don't have an…

Note: Just because I don't have any cases offhand of my friends fined for jaywalking, doesn't mean it isn't against the law.

That's putting your arguments into the realm of faith. If those three citations are any indication, your faith is misplaced. All of those were for people doing distribution (e.g. uploading). None of them were for downloading.

I don't think it is much to ask for you to have just one definite case to back up your claim that the legality of downloading is not in dispute. Just one.

Here's one for jaywalking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/raquel-nelson-jai...

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#102

Post by kaonashi »

namwen wrote: post #36
kaonashi wrote: post #27

They didn't seem to use his comps… I'm assuming he had access to the same pool of photography that the finals used, but that doesn't mean they ripped him off. The work on top of the photos seems very different to me.

Seems to be entirely different photography from the comps to the finals.

They are from the same shoot; unless the author is claiming credit for that.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#103

Post by rurban »

I always consider Spike Lee as technically worst filmmaker working today, and wondered who on earth did he get to rights for the Oldboy remake. He cannot even get the simpliest things right, and I wonder how often the DP needs to help him adjusting the shooting plan, tell him that he crossed the line and adjusted angles, and how much the editor has to fix. And we have to see the results. But with the Oldboy remake you would need a master, not an amateur with a hyper ego. Anyway, I decided to skip that desaster last year already. And now we see that he is also in other departments one of the lowest.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

dsirijus wrote: post #94
anigbrowl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job is to suck your soul out, give you peanut shells, and kiss asses to their clients. Correct. And your job as a freelancer is to do the same thing. I feel slightly sorry for this guy, but his failure to get any kind of deal memo or contract in place shows him to be an amateur. EDIT: I extended my original comment as it was so brief as to be potentially confusing. As for ripping off his design for the poster -…

Correct. And your job as a freelancer is to do the same thing. I'm sorry for you feel that way. You can opt-in in making a meaningful and fruitful business relations instead? Shame it's an opt-in, and not opt-out, though. I guess Bible's right on that one.

Producers want to pay as little as possible, for obvious economic reasons. Freelancers want to be paid as much as possible, likewise. If you're not operating under a union or guild contract of some sort (and paying part of your income in dues for the privilege of outsourcing and standardizing your rates and working conditions), then it's up to you to make the best deal you can for your services, and and part of that involves a willingness to walk.

On a couple of occasions I've rejected a job only to be called up several weeks later when the lower-cost provider the producer contracted with didn't perform, and in cases like that I ask for and get my full fee. It's a tough world.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#105

Post by rurban »

bigiain wrote: post #71
gkoberger wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like him or not, seems he had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Yes and no. As the open letter makes very clear - it was bad behaviour on the part of the agency, and Spike most likely didn't know it was going on (and the letter even suggests the agency was actively lying to him about it). But - Spike is ultimately the one in control of the money-tap the agency is drinking from. While he had "absolutely nothing to do with this", it was no doubt done on his behalf, and he absolutel…

Unrealistic. He has the last word on the posters being choosen. He already chose these posters, but was told that the guy asked for money. It was his decision to rip him off. He is the producer also.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#106

Post by anigbrowl »

greenyoda wrote: post #35
marincounty wrote: post #20

Most movies don't make what they used to--that is before the Internet. I would sue in small claims court. I'm surprised The Cricket didn't sub the job out to Indian graphic designer--and get away with paying a few rupees.

Small Claims Courts are limited to claims of a certain amount, typically something like $500. There's no way he could get back anywhere close to the real value of his design by suing them there. Besides, what the movie makes doesn't matter. He'd be suing the ad agency that ripped off his design, not the producers of the movie.

It's $10,000 in California and you don't need a lawyer. However, winning is no sure thing; we're only getting one side of the story.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#107

Post by rurban »

danso wrote: post #8

Whew...I thought this was going to be an indictment of the Oldboy remake. Sure, the original was great, but I was interested in how an American director would handle the material. That said, this was probably not the kind of controversy Spike Lee needs attached to this project. side note: Roger Ebert's raving review of Oldboy was what got me to watch the original Oldboy and that spurred a whole new appreciation of in…

The controversy already started when we heard that Spike Lee (!), the amateur who doesn't even know the simpliest technical film skills got the rights.

A similar controversy arose when M. Night Shyamalan sat on the rights for "Life of Pi" for a few years, but was ultimately replaced by Ang Lee. The only one who could master such a job.

With the Oldboy remake it was clear from the beginning that it would lead to a desaster, but apparently the studio owed Spike Lee a big favor.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#108

Post by bigiain »

dsirijus wrote: post #93
bigiain wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong wrong wrong! Even if you don't want to participate in their way of doing business - there's an _enormous_ amount of very high value skills you can learn from them. "A bunch of salespeople in suits tossing around buzzwords so they can land a job taking advantage of a big company's big budget. Everything is a pitch or a comp or a big lead." That is indeed exactly the difference between most "agencies" and most sm…

No, not really. From my anecdotal experience, which does include many a project exceeding the amounts you cited, it usually goes like this (paraphrased): Agency's army of spineless sales people [1] spends a lot of time ass licking many people, one of them happens to love his anus tickled in that manner, then he dumps a bag of money to them, they spend 90% of that money pumping ads, and 10% on development of what's su…

Heh - I suspect the main difference between your description of the process and mine is that I'm in a "third cup of coffee, should be on my way to the office" timezone, and I'm guessing your in a "finished at the office, savouring the third beer" timezone, and hence we've got slightly different sates of mind and social inhibitions. But I'm sure we both know exactly what each other is describing.

(Surely you have seen the occasional great non-literal-ass-licking salespeople working for genuinely great marketing agencies? And agencies that deliver _spectacular_ word and achive magnificent results for clients? I'm quite proud to have been told I came in second with pitches against a few agencies I'm particularly impressed by in my small space here… But I will beat them one day, Oh yes…)

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#109

Post by res0nat0r »

Amadou wrote: post #101
res0nat0r wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it is in substantial dispute. Can you cite a case of someone in the US being successfully prosecuted for downloading? Note that this precludes bittorrent, gnutella, etc situations where downloading means simultaneously uploading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fastlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Site_Down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer Note: Just because I don't have an…

Note: Just because I don't have any cases offhand of my friends fined for jaywalking, doesn't mean it isn't against the law. That's putting your arguments into the realm of faith. If those three citations are any indication, your faith is misplaced. All of those were for people doing distribution (e.g. uploading). None of them were for downloading. I don't think it is much to ask for you to have just one definite cas…

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fined+for+downloading

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#110

Post by slvrspoon »

this is market driven. sorry, it's just not worth that much to the "soul-sucking intermediaries". this guy shined through, but the agency is correct on one count, you need to pay dues until your reputation gives you demonstrable leverage. clearly, mr Garcia doesn't have that. if the agency misrepresented payment if he won the contract, that is a fair gripe, however.
Post reply on HN