Escape From Tomorrow (Randy Moore, 2013)

Message

#1 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:41 am

This sounds like the most interesting indie effort in years - and we may never get to see it.

warren oates · #2 Post by **warren oates** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:35 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:This sounds like the most interesting indie effort in years - and we may never get to see it.

That sounds pretty amazing. I doubt Disney will ever acquiesce to any form of official for-profit/commercial distribution for this, but I can't see how they can really stop it from being seen so long as it's not aiming to earn a single dime for the filmmaker. Otherwise, they'd have to issue blanket injunctions against everyone's vacation home videos. The director seems pretty sanguine about just having made it at all and from what he's said thus far probably wouldn't object to the film's being spread among interested film fans online like other earlier samizdat films such as Todd Haynes' Superstar.

#3 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:51 pm

It's also possible that they could just squash it altogether, though. It would take a deliberate leak online in order to get it out there, and since there's a bona-fide company shopping it around, it sounds like that might only be a very last ditch effort - could be years from now after the dust settles. But I wanna see it nowwww

#4 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:59 pm

Of all the films to find inspiration, Bowfinger?

#5 Post by **Jeff** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:29 pm

Escape From Tomorrow has an official Twitter. As has been said, without forbidding shooting home movies there, there isn't much they can do about the filming. I wonder if it might be able to get a commercial release if they digitally obscure any Disney characters that are on screen. Not ideal, of course, but something.

#6 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:34 pm

I really hope that doesn't have to happen - I think the iconic imagery is going to be a huge part of the film's strange power, judging from the reviews out of Sundance.

Roger Ryan · #7 Post by **Roger Ryan** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:06 pm

So does all of EPCOT blow up in the movie or just the iconic Spaceship Earth globe? I have a hard time imagining the entire park being destroyed as a convincing effect, especially when shot in such a clandestine manner. All the same, the film sounds fascinating. Disney might buy it just to bury alongside SONG OF THE SOUTH, but it would be great if they agreed to distribute it themselves.

warren oates · #8 Post by **warren oates** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:09 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:I really hope that doesn't have to happen - I think the iconic imagery is going to be a huge part of the film's strange power, judging from the reviews out of Sundance.

I can't imagine the filmmaker would want this or that a distributor would be interested in showing something that's so thoroughly censored. It would be worse than the most redacted CIA memoirs I've seen. Multiple images, characters, etc. in nearly every shot would have to be blurred.

More to the point: I doubt that would be remotely enough to stave off a legal onslaught. With a corporation as litigious as Disney just one or two unauthorized/uncleared shots at a theme park would be enough to sink a film. And if it were still getting an actual commercial release all the buzz would be about Disney and Disney lawyers would almost certainly still be able to successfully stop it based on that marketing angle alone misrepresenting the company and misleadingly implying the company's consent, etc. The entire point of the film is to subvert what's specifically a Disney ethos. Disney's images, characters, private and intellectual property couldn't be more central to the intended effect of the film. Not only did the filmmaker not get their consent, but he deliberately employed deceptive means to obtain access that he would have otherwise been denied. A civil case against a commercial release of this film seems open and shut to me in favor of Disney. (I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't explicitly posted rules right by the gate -- or somewhere on each ticket -- against any kind of unpermitted commercial photography on park grounds. So to buy a ticket is to make a promise that was broken repeatedly.) But even if it's not that cut and dried, Disney has the endless pocketbook and patience for prosecuting everybody who messes with their trademarks no matter how smalltime, like some nursery schools that paint Mickey Mouse on their walls. For the time being this film strikes me as commerically unreleaseable. Like The Grey Album it will have to find an audience for free on-line.

Murdoch · #9 Post by **Murdoch** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:38 pm

domino harvey wrote:Of all the films to find inspiration, Bowfinger?

Damn, reading this I thought I'd finally see a real life version of Chubby Rain.

#10 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:42 pm

I think the best release strategy would be to leak the film as soon as Sundance is over. Sure it might not make Moore any money right away, but his reputation will grow enough that he can make another project in a more honest fashion. But if they wait too long to leak it, there may be even more legal problems to deal with. Disney seems particularly sensitive to the perception that adults can't/don't enjoy their theme parks - they go to great lengths to supply adult destinations there - I even know childless couples who've honeymooned there. I don't think they're going to want this out there - cool, laid back Pixar/Disney or not.

warren oates · #11 Post by **warren oates** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:50 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:I think the best release strategy would be to leak the film as soon as Sundance is over. Sure it might not make Moore any money right away, but his reputation will grow enough that he can make another project in a more honest fashion. But if they wait too long to leak it, there may be even more legal problems to deal with.

I agree. It's a calling card with to-die-for buzz, whether it's ultimately a good film or just a daring one. Though I have a hard time seeing how Disney could squelch a leak of the film if it makes no attempt to make money. Even if the filmmaker put it up himself, as long as he didn't charge for access, use a lawsuit-wary service like YouTube to host it or put up any ads on his site. Then the film would remain legally indistinguishable from a highly imaginative and well-produced home movie record of a theme park vacation. Unless, of course, it were full of Disney music...

MichaelB · #12 Post by **MichaelB** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:11 pm

Just as I don't imagine Todd Haynes ever expected a legal release of Superstar (which seems no more likely now than it did 25 years ago), surely Moore couldn't possibly have thought he could ever get a legal release of this?

As with Superstar, it's hard to see how anything other than an "accidental" leak would get it into any kind of public circulation.

#13 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:36 pm

It's ultimately going to come down to whether or not Moore wants to leak it into public circulation. He could always pull a Gallo and just state that he's happy it got out at Sundance and that's that.

flyonthewall2983 · Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:05 pm

I've seen a documentary where they filmed inside a Disney park for what amounted to one minute of footage. Here it is. It wasn't given a huge release in America, other than a few film festivals. I don't even know if Disney is aware that footage is out there, or if they even care. Not sure this sets precedence for an entire film (such as this one), but I thought it would be interesting to add to the discussion.

#15 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:27 pm

You can't really compare this film to Superstar. That's banned from a commercial release due to the unauthorized use of music, not the use of Barbie dolls. Unauthorized filming can get you kicked out of Disneyworld, but I'm not sure what Disney could do to suppress this film. If they brought a trademark infringement suit, they'd have to prove that consumers might be led to believe they filmmakers intended consumers to think this was a Disney film, and that definitely appears not to be the case.

MichaelB · #16 Post by **MichaelB** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:39 pm

Matt wrote:You can't really compare this film to Superstar. That's banned from a commercial release due to the unauthorized use of music, not the use of Barbie dolls.

I thought it was both? Or rather, while Richard Carpenter was certainly instrumental in preventing its legal circulation, presumably a full commercial release would require Mattel's agreement too?

warren oates · #17 Post by **warren oates** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:46 pm

Matt wrote: If they brought a trademark infringement suit, they'd have to prove that consumers might be led to believe they filmmakers intended consumers to think this was a Disney film, and that definitely appears not to be the case.

Disney lawyers could easily argue the opposite, that the surreptitious recording represents the kind of access that only officially sanctioned commercial filmmakers would have. It's only clearly not trademark infringement if the film is 100% nonprofit and noncommercial, a private film not intended for mass distribution. The issue of copyright/trademark infringement isn't strictly limited to the use of Disney music or film clips. It's about the representation or use of any/all Disney characters, attractions, etc. , in any commercial project. This is why all films, no matter how small, with any hope of real distribution one day must have proper clearance forms for any kind of copyrighted or trademarked material in the frame or on the soundtrack, plus permissions for all of their locations, plus E&O insurance. If, for instance, Todd Haynes' Superstar one day convinced the Carpenter family to sign him over the music rights, he still could potentially face charges for the no doubt uncleared use of the Barbie doll. (Though there's a twisty creative legal argument to be made that his employment of it is in the nature of a political critique and thus protected, but not a clear enough one that Mattel would be summarily thrown out of court).

Edit: I see that Michael got there first.

#18 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:50 pm

In interviews, Haynes has said that Mattel initially objected but never sent any kind of cease-and-desist letter or made a formal complaint. "Mattel was the first company that created some problems, according to Haynes, 'but there's no real way of knowing for certain how many Barbies are in the film. And, in fact,' Haynes continues, 'a lot of the dolls are dolls I got from thrift stores.' Mattel was offered a credit or disclaimer according to their needs, but they didn't respond, Haynes says, 'probably because they realized they didn't have a very firm case.'"

Mattel lost a lawsuit against artist Tom Forsythe, who made work based on Barbie dolls, and they had to pay his $1.8 million in legal fees, so they probably would not be eager to pursue a very similar case against Haynes. It's because of this case that I don't see it being in Disney's interests to stand in the way of this very tiny indie film.

#19 Post by **mfunk9786** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:58 pm

The problem that the eventual distributor of this film will have is a situation where Disney stays quiet, unless/until the film makes enough money to make pursuit of legal action more tempting.

#20 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:58 pm

warren oates wrote:The issue of copyright/trademark infringement isn't strictly limited to the use of Disney music or film clips. It's about the representation or use of any/all Disney characters, attractions, etc. , in any commercial project. This is why all films, no matter how small, with any hope of real distribution one day must have proper clearance forms for any kind of copyrighted or trademarked material in the frame or on the soundtrack, plus permissions for all of their locations, plus E&O insurance.

They don't have to have clearances for everything, it's just that litigious companies like Disney scare filmmakers (or, more accurately, their lawyers) into getting permission for everything, including things they don't legally need permission for. I haven't seen this film, but it doesn't sound like there's any kind of copyright infringement going on. Trademark law is a very different beast from copyright law, and you really have to be trying to pass your product off as that which is trademarked to be considered infringing. DIsney could certainly try to suppress this film (the cheapest and smartest thing to do, frankly, would be to buy the rights and bury it), but I don't think a lawsuit would be wise, cheap, or successful. They'd spend more on the lawsuit than the film would ever hope to make in a commercial release.

Alan Smithee · #21 Post by **Alan Smithee** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:28 pm

Isn't that how the whole thing works though as far as being known as a litigious company? You go after suits that the defendant could never afford regardless of whether you would win or not just to scare away future offenders.

#22 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:51 pm

Yes, sadly, the threat of a lawsuit is generally more effective than any actual lawsuit might be.

captveg · #23 Post by **captveg** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:17 pm

All I know is I want to see the film. And I'm a huge Disney Parks fan, so it's not like they are losing me as a customer.

#24 Post by **Jeff** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:40 am

At the New Yorker, Tim Wu says Escape From Tomorrow likely falls under fair use and is not the legal nightmare that many of us imagined.

#25 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:57 am

Big spoilers in there

Site Menu