Finally, " let's not forget that the terms of the Amazon Contest make this 100% legal. As much as this behavior might disgust you or I, this is Amazon Studios working the way it was designed to work. Allow THAT to send a cold chill up your spine."
-- umm, so writers submit work to a company, and the company abides by the terms of the agreement and there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest they are going to rip off the writers in monetary terms, but that is somehow chilling?
Yes, it's chilling. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's not a bad idea for writers to participate. And as I pointed out in the portion you quoted, it's entirely possible under the terms of the original agreement for a writer who submitted back in December 2010 to have had their work held hostage up until now with nothing more than $10,000 paid out.
Admittedly, I don't know how the grandfather clause might work for materials submitted under the new agreement, but renewed under the new one. However, either way, it's clear the writers are legally entitled to remuneration for Amazon to hold their script, and Amazon's own blog confirms they received $10,000 as part of the development slate.
The chilling part is that Amazon Studios pitched themselves to all of the aspiring screenwriters who were desperate to break in. Everyone who put their script up there had dreams of their script, THEIR vision being made into a movie. I don't think anyone signed up to have their script held in limbo for two year, their underlying premise bought at a fraction of the prize money dangled for a "winning script," have the project announced without their names associated with it in any way, and then see industry veterans brought in to claim all the credit.
That's not the dream that had AS devotees drinking the Kool-Aid for the last 18 months. But it's not at all a violation of the rules either. And that's what I mean by "chilling." That Amazon is totally within their rights to pull a Lucy Van Pelt - spiking the football for Charlie Brown to kick, and then pull it away at the last second.
The other thing about Amazon Studios that concerns me is how there was a lot of hype about their first test film THE NEVSKY PROSPECT while it was in production, only to have it vanish into thin air. As I indicated yesterday, it seems like the sort of thing that could have really embarassed the shingle if anyone who mattered was paying attention.
I'm going to lay out the timeline of events as bluntly as possible, and I invite any intrepid reporters to take this background information and run with it. Much of this information comes either directly from Amazon Studios, or the production blog of the test film itself.
Fact: In April 2011, THE NEVSKY PROSPECT is one of the winning entries in the monthly contest. As such, the screenwriting team collects $20,000.
Source
Fact: In September 2011, Amazon Studios announces they are "working with established filmmakers, animators and others to produce three additional test movies," including THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.
Source
Fact: Amazon announces key production personnel for THE NEVSKY PROSPECT. The director was USC grad Rajeev Dassani.
Source
Fact: Professional actors were hired under a SAG New Media agreement.
Source
Fact: Under the SAG New Media rules, eligible projects are "Independently produced original, made for new media (MFNM) entertainment productions that will initially be exhibited via the Internet, mobile devices or any other platform known or which may be adopted but excluding motion pictures, commercials, and video games covered by the Basic Agreement, Television Agreement, the SAG Industrial/Educational Agreement, the SAG Infomercials Agreement, SAG Interactive Agreement or the SAG Commercials Contract." (emphasis added.)
Source
Fact: The film was greenlit on August 9.
Source
Fact: the film began shooting in mid-October. Day 3 in Latvia was Wednesday October 19.
Source
Fact: Mid-November, the film finishes on schedule after 22 days of production.
Source
Fact: Upon returning to L.A., there was one week to edit prior to first test screening.
Source
Fact: Director tweets on November 29th that first assembly is complete.
Source
Fact: Post-Production is completed on January 10.
Source
Fact: Film was delivered to Amazon on time.
Source
Fact: In Late January, the Movie goes online at Amazon.com
Source
Fact: At some point after the movie goes live, it is removed from Amazon's site. A message at the link reads: Video currently unavailable. Due to our licensing agreements this video is currently not available for purchase or rental."
Source
Fact: February 7 - Deadline article is posted containing details of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT's production.
Source
Fact: Screening planned for Latvia after mid-April.
Source
My questions:
In order to qualify for the SAG New Media Agreement, the project couldn't be a motion picture. Also, if it was a motion picture, Amazon would then owe the script's writer the $200,000 purchase price. Having outlined the each step of this production, does it seem right to you that Amazon can just declare this film to be a "test film" and thus, sidestep numerous obligations it would otherwise have to pay? What determines when a project stops being a "test film" and becomes a real film?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. So why isn't THE NEVSKY PROSPECT a film? Why can I find no announcement that the script was purchased for $200,000?
Why is THE NEVSKY PROSPECT "test film" no longer available online?
And though I don't wish to delve into the specifics of the writer's complaints, why is the original writer of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT so bitter and disgruntled with Amazon Studios?
Folks, do me a favor. Link to this article. Tweet it and discuss it on your own blogs. I want this post high in Google searches for Amazon Studios so that when the time comes, journalists doing background work on the shingle will find this easily organized account of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.
All of this is out there, but no one's drawing attention to it. Should Amazon Studios ever have reason to trumpet the accomplishment of completing Zombies v. Gladiators, I'd like to see these valid questions cling to them like a wet T-shirt.
Taking all of this in total, I don't understand anyone who believes that Amazon Studios is or has ever been a great venue for screenwriters to get discovered and launch their careers. Is there anyone who isn't the least bit wary of this history? These first few writers are the guinea pigs, and where Amazon should be making a spectacle of how awesome it is for them, all they seem to provoke is a lot of uncomfortable questions.
