Hacker Cinema
Oldboy
2013 · Film · 104 min
Directed by Spike Lee
A man has only three and a half days and limited resources to discover why he was imprisoned in a nondescript room for 20 years without any explanation.
1 negative2 neutralfrom 3 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
3 comments on Hacker News
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.
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 - nope. I recognized the visual concept immediately as a fan of Chan Wook Park's original Oldboy of which this is a remake. Here's a publicity still from the film: http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/oldboy-e1377107208183.png
So the notion of a man emerging from a packing case in an empty field is part of the scripted action of the film, not Mr Garcia's idea. The image of a woman in the background is also related to a story element (which I'd prefer not to explain lest it spoil the plot) and I'm willing to bet she appears with similar costuming in the film. The fonts, layout and content of the textual elements are wholly different And far more inspired by the publicity materials of the Korean original.
The marketing company should not be employing Mr Garcia's material on their social networking pages. However, it's unsurprising that whoever is in charge of the social media marketing would assume that any and all art assets were the products of a work-for-hire agreement as that is normal practice within the industry. however, this also has to viewed in the light of:
Early in the conversation the agency told me that I could publish the work as my own for the “exposure” so since I knew I was not going to getting paid I put the posters in my portfolio.
This is a grey area. An industry portfolio is generally understood to be for exhibition to other clients. Standard practice for cinematographers, production designers and other keys etc. is to either a) negotiate a release for copyrighted materials to be part of a public demo reel or b) to limit access to the demo reel to potential clients, eg by using password-protected videos on vimeo or sending publicity stills privately through email, samples of recorded dialog (if you're a sound person, as I am). And so on. Again, this is the sort thing that is usually established in a deal memo, and such a normal situation that it's typically boilerplate.
Without such an agreement, any claim by Mr Garcia that the pictures in his portfolio were official key art in any capacity (even unused) verges on being an implicit appropriation of trademarks, publicity rights, and/copyrighted material (to they extent that they employed any elements from production stills etc.), as distinct from mere 'fan art.'
Now, it's bad that Mr Garcia got no contract in place but I really think there is a bit more to this story, because the first thing any producer learns on anything but the most amateur-hour production is to get legal releases for any and all performances or copyrighted material on a work-for-hire basis. contractual relations are the lifeblood of the film business and even small indie productions with budgets of only a few thousand dollars use boiler plate agreements.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked in this field for a decade and I've been party or witness to disputes about ownership of work from both sides of the table. I don't find Mr Garcia's version of events entirely persuasive.
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 independent foreign films for me:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2005
Would've loved to see what he thought about this one, though Ebert's successor only gave the remake 3 stars
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2013 http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2013