What to do is Loose Change is released to theatres

[pdoherty76]

I think it would be interesting to see how Loosechange2 would fare if released in cinemas outside of the US.

I know the UK has different (more stringent) libel laws than the US, but I don't know the specifics of how these might be applied to a lying film made by a bunch of liars if it was shown as a 'documentary' in a UK cinema and someone such as.....(ooooooooooh let's say Mr Silverstien) decided to sue them.

if the claims against silverstein etc are false why dont they sue loose change now?

 

[pdoherty76]

u dont need a cinema reklease to be sued, they could sue loose change now and at least silence them

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

if the claims against silverstein etc are false why dont they sue loose change now?

Does he (Silverstein) have any reason to believe he would even be able to recoup his court costs after winning against LTW?

ETA: Additionally, he would have to show, not only that their statements are false but also, that their statements are causing financial/reputation harm to him.

 

[Stellafane]

u dont need a cinema reklease to be sued, they could sue loose change now and at least silence them

OK, I'll assume you read as poorly as you write. As I explained a couple of posts above yours, Loose Change is protected from being sued thanks to the fact that no one but delusional little boys and psychotics take it very seriously. Also, very few people in the general public have ever heard about it. So why bother suing? It would be like suing the random little kid who called you a name as you drove past his lemonade stand. That all would change of course if LC ever became famous and successful. The wider audience would behoove you to defend your reputation. The financial success would make it potentially worth your while.

Got it? Or do I need to explain in smaller words?

 

[uk_dave]

Also, in the US the 'free speech' issue clouds things when it comes to suing for slander or libel.

Apparently, as al franken described in the video 'outfoxed', the fact that bill o'reilly lies is not something you can sue him for because he is known to be a liar....or something like that.

Other countries and other jurisdictions however....... the boys might find themselves in alot of trouble if they don't do a really good clean up job on any cinema release.

 

[StoneWT]

another lying TWOOFER goes down in flames

Dylan doesn't want a wide release of his film. Like Amway/Quixtar, it only works if it is shown to a relatively small audience. This leaves a pool of new recruits (suckers) to replace the ones that walk away in disgust at the abysmal quality of the shlockumentary. If everyone, relatively speaking, saw it...well, everyone would be turned off.

He wants to avoid the media roast of Linda Thompson. She had a videotape claiming the gub'mint started the Branch Davidian (Waco) fire with a flamethrowing tank. CNN smoked her and destroyed what little street cred she had with the patriot movement.

pdo, please stop lying. You know that you read all of the posts in here. You claiming to place people on ignore means that you think your attention is important to other posters. We know that you are a kid lying about having a degree. No one in here gives two beans for you. You'd be accepted if you would simply follow forum rules. Stop lying.

Also, you've been pwned in this thread.

 

[uk_dave]

Basing the following solely on my own imagination and opinions and without a shred of evidence with which to back it up (hey! this stuff is easy!) I would suggest loose change came about during the following conversations:

Dylan Avery: Dude, you know we gotta get into hollywood

Korey Rowe: I know dude... I'm sick of the smell of fries, man.

Dylan Avery: Yeah dude. Hey, why don't we...like MAKE our own film, you know? Like tarrantino did with that one about the dogs?

Korey Rowe: The Water Dogs?

Dylan Avery: Yeah dude, that one. We could, like, make a rough cut...and

Korey Rowe: Rough?

Dylan Avery: Cut, dude, cut. It's an industry term...like fries is here...you get it?

Korey Rowe: Yeah dude.

Dylan Avery: Ok so we make, like a rough cut of this kickass gangsta film with guns and chicks and drugs and chicks and ......

Korey Rowe: Ermmmmmmm

Dylan Avery: What?

Korey Rowe: Wellll...sounds expensive

Dylan Avery: Awww ***** man. (sighs) So what do you suggest?

Korey Rowe: Wellllll...what's big on tv these days?

Dylan Avery: I dunno...southpark?

Korey Rowe: No dude! REALITY tv. You know? Survivor and idol and ...and...big brothers and sisters...or something

Dylan Avery: Yeah?

Korey Rowe: Yeah dude! And what about that michael guy...michael...michael...made that film...you know...

Dylan Avery: Jackson?

Korey Rowe: No! No..... moore...michael moore...he won prizes and ***** for that film he made about them guys in that country ...you know...the foreign ones... he made a pile with that *****...and won an emmy and went to cans in germany and won a prize there too....lots of prizes dude!

Dylan Avery: Did he get rich?

Korey Rowe: I dunno...must have...if he won all those prizes.....

Dylan Avery: OK dude so what are we gonna do, dude?

Korey Rowe: I dunno dude...you're like the smart one... right?

Dylan Avery: *****...I dunno.... what's a big story?

Korey Rowe: You mean, like...the news, dude?

Dylan Avery: Yeah..... is there a war or something?

Korey Rowe: I dunno dude...let's look



The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Bradk3]

stonewt ur on my ignore list

Is there a size limit to the ignore list. Someone may want to let this guy know...

 

[milesalpha]

JFK: 40 million dollar budget, several major stars, major director, actually shot on film, made to be released in theaters, did not double its budget (rule of thumb for a profitable film, domestic gross 70 million).

LC: no budget, no stars, no director, shot on video, made to be released to the internet to its primary targets (Alex Jones fans as a generalization).

In other words a true apples to oranges comparison, as others have pointed out.


A few reasons LC (any version) will never see a general release:

1. It purports to be a documentary, barring Michael Moore's work this is simply not profitable genre.

2. It is a video, it would take considerable work to bring it up to theater standards, hence it would be costly and well beyond Avery's ability. This would be in addition to all the copyrights that would have to be observed and the legal fund for the avalanche of character lawsuits that would follow a release.

3. No real merchandising possibilities. No major company would step forward to sponsor a release. No major distributor would want the trouble.

4. The internet as a promotional tool for movies has not been a success thus far. See "Snakes on the Plane" campaign as an example.

5. Downloading something from Google and making the effort to go to a theater and shelling out 10 bucks plus per person are two completely different activities. Given the financial state of LC supporters indicated in polls, they are not going to be a target audience for theater chains.

6. The same rule applies to the video release, chances of growth in the audience are not strong.

Free speech has little to do with it. The profit possibilites are just not there. Then again, if "truth" is the actual goal, they would be better off spending their time convincing academia that trying to grab the general public. The advent of science,technology, and social change are not a result of what Paramount puts up on the screen. Farenheit 911, for all its success, did not prevent Bush from being re-elected.

 

[Popeholden]

well i feel a lot better

 

[Skibum]

Basing the following solely on my own imagination and opinions and without a shred of evidence with which to back it up (hey! this stuff is easy!) I would suggest loose change came about during the following conversations:

Dylan Avery: Dude, you know we gotta get into hollywood

Korey Rowe: I know dude... I'm sick of the smell of fries, man.

For some reason Ding Fries Are Done popped into my head...

http://www.americanangst.com/dingfries.html

 

[geni]

1. It purports to be a documentary, barring Michael Moore's work this is simply not profitable genre.

What the Bleep Do We Know!? probably made money so there is some market for faux documenteries.

 

[pdoherty76]

Does he (Silverstein) have any reason to believe he would even be able to recoup his court costs after winning against LTW?

ETA: Additionally, he would have to show, not only that their statements are false but also, that their statements are causing financial/reputation harm to him.

i think murder accusations automatically cause reputation harm

perhaps silverstein has skeletons he doesnt want put in the spotlight

 

[pdoherty76]

Basing the following solely on my own imagination and opinions and without a shred of evidence with which to back it up (hey! this stuff is easy!) I would suggest loose change came about during the following conversations:

Dylan Avery: Dude, you know we gotta get into hollywood

Korey Rowe: I know dude... I'm sick of the smell of fries, man.

Dylan Avery: Yeah dude. Hey, why don't we...like MAKE our own film, you know? Like tarrantino did with that one about the dogs?

Korey Rowe: The Water Dogs?

Dylan Avery: Yeah dude, that one. We could, like, make a rough cut...and

Korey Rowe: Rough?

Dylan Avery: Cut, dude, cut. It's an industry term...like fries is here...you get it?

Korey Rowe: Yeah dude.

Dylan Avery: Ok so we make, like a rough cut of this kickass gangsta film with guns and chicks and drugs and chicks and ......

Korey Rowe: Ermmmmmmm

Dylan Avery: What?

Korey Rowe: Wellll...sounds expensive

Dylan Avery: Awww ***** man. (sighs) So what do you suggest?

Korey Rowe: Wellllll...what's big on tv these days?

Dylan Avery: I dunno...southpark?

Korey Rowe: No dude! REALITY tv. You know? Survivor and idol and ...and...big brothers and sisters...or something

Dylan Avery: Yeah?

Korey Rowe: Yeah dude! And what about that michael guy...michael...michael...made that film...you know...

Dylan Avery: Jackson?

Korey Rowe: No! No..... moore...michael moore...he won prizes and ***** for that film he made about them guys in that country ...you know...the foreign ones... he made a pile with that *****...and won an emmy and went to cans in germany and won a prize there too....lots of prizes dude!

Dylan Avery: Did he get rich?

Korey Rowe: I dunno...must have...if he won all those prizes.....

Dylan Avery: OK dude so what are we gonna do, dude?

Korey Rowe: I dunno dude...you're like the smart one... right?

Dylan Avery: *****...I dunno.... what's a big story?

Korey Rowe: You mean, like...the news, dude?

Dylan Avery: Yeah..... is there a war or something?

Korey Rowe: I dunno dude...let's look



The rest, as they say, is history.

u couldnt have made that up. its uncanny. where u there?

 

[pdoherty76]

milesalpha i beg to differ, was the blair witch project a conventional film? If loose change were hyped enough and it already has been on the net it wil;l sell out theatres

 

[slingblade]

i think murder accusations automatically cause reputation harm

One must do more than think so. One has to show evidence of harm.

perhaps silverstein has skeletons he doesnt want put in the spotlight

Perhaps he hasn't actually been harmed. "Insult" is not a harm, in and of itself.

 

[geni]

milesalpha i beg to differ, was the blair witch project a conventional film?

Low budget horror? Fairly the marketing was new although a logical extension of a form often used.

If loose change were hyped enough and it already has been on the net it wil;l sell out theatres

After snakes on a plane net hype has become a rather depeciated currency.

 

[geni]

One must do more than think so. One has to show evidence of harm.

No so much in the UK.

 

[Gravy]

pdoherty has been touting his posts in this thread as his best on the JREF forums. I thought I'd compile his greatest hits, just from this thread.

Its called free speech popeholden. I think loose change is crap but i hope it goes to every cinema in the world

i think they will make the final cut absolutely watertight because they know people are obsessively fact checking everything in their films. So in a funny way the debunkers are helping them and forcing them to produce better films

my logic is that if these misguided filmmakers can be silenced by u lot then its the slippery slope to losing free speech.

If you have faith in people then showing this film wont make a difference because people will reject it

firstly give me ur proof that they (the makers of Loose Change) have lied

secondly, as i said before, this film will contain no errors because they know anal debunkers will be pouring over it

i agree but they arent the only people making films. the best ive seen is 911 mysteries and from what i can see there is no factual inaccuracies in that. if loose change disappeared tomorrow the theories will still get to people so u may as well leave them to it

for such a crap video it promotes a lot of discussion from you people. if u dont like it dont watch it, and dont keep mentioning it so that other people do watch it.

As for "they have no business" touting it as a documentary, i yet again point out that they are free citizens and can do what they please.

Why dont u spend ur time discussing some videos u do like? ill start us off, i really liked the wicker man

Also, they cant make their own version of it because then they couldnt call it loose change and the loose change "brand" is now vary famous.

If i owned a film studio I would give them 10 million quid up front because you can guarantee this film would sell out on word of mouth

I cant see what they have done wrong. And if its true that the new video is more history based then you debunkers are in trouble cos i bet it will be watertight.

I have given u my opinion of why loose change isnt wrong and what i have said is perfectly valid. If you cant respond to my points then dont, do u really think i care?

stop being obsessed by loose change. Its a crap film but theres nothing u can do about it and if u gave a toss about free speech you would be backing the loose change crew. Can you imagine how much they are gloating about ur obsession with their joke of a film? I often think its people like u that are driving them to keep making films

debunking 911 movies is just the latest anal hobby

so why would people deliberately discredit their own film by leaving false stuff in?

i honestly think theyare doing it to wind u lot up

i think murder accusations automatically cause reputation harm

perhaps silverstein has skeletons he doesnt want put in the spotlight

If loose change were hyped enough and it already has been on the net it wil;l sell out theatres

 

[milesalpha]

milesalpha i beg to differ, was the blair witch project a conventional film? If loose change were hyped enough and it already has been on the net it wil;l sell out theatres

Yes it was a coventional film. A fictional piece intended for a general viewing audience, made solely for entertainment. It featured actors, a script, a director, and was most certainly not a documentary. It was released through a general distributor and a participant in several film festivals. Not to mention the fact that it was a horror movie, easily the least demanding genre in the movie business.
Hyped enough means little, I can name a string of films from Heaven's Gate to Ishtar that were "hyped enough" but utterly failed to gain an audience (or, once again, Snakes on the Plane, which pinned its success on the internet and got killed at the box office). Their sequel ably demonstrates this, 1/6th the boxoffice with 200 times the original budget. The fact that it's been on the net is not a plus, actually it's more of a minus.
General release movies on the subject have not made significant money. WTC brought in only 60ish million on a 70 million plus budget. United 93 brought in 30ish million on a 15 million dollar budget, but did almost nothing worldwide. (Note that budget in both cases is production only) Both films had major campaigns, major production values, and studio backing.

Thought I'd also point out the great disappointment of the year for me, Superman Returns, 270 million budget, 100 million in advertising, merchandising tie-ins, television retrospectives, major director, major stars, major special effects. Result: not quite 200 million in the domestic box-office, real questions about the validity of a sequel.

LC in a general release, yep, about the same chance as a Canadian made film in general release. I knocked around the business for 20 odd years and I cannot think of a single decent comparison.