FUR: Tabloid shows, Confurence, and lay off of Darrell already
Dr. Samuel Conway
I have seen a lot of rumors flying, most of them villifying Darrell
Exline. I won't have that. Darrell and I have had our differences,
but he is a man who lost many thousands of dollars of his own money in
a desperate effort to keep life in his convention. The reason he did
that was to continue to provide people with the opportunity to get
together and have fun. It was something he believed in, something
important enough to risk his own financial stability to promote.
Whether or not you agree with his methods, at least respect the effort
he put forth. Take that from one who knows just how much that takes
out of a person. He did this for you. Does that mean nothing?
People have said that Darrell was paid for this, and took the money as
a "sell out" of the fandom. That is hogwash. The *hotel* received
$4000 from the filmmakers for the right to film there. Not a penny of
that was applied to any of ConFurence's debt. Take it from me --
hotels do not work that way.
People have said that Darrell did this deliberately as a means of
destroying the fandom. That is also hogwash. Why would a man who
gave so much want to do such a thing? The truth is that he took a
calculated risk. The people who contacted him made a lot of
high-minded promises and made it sound as though it would be something
wonderful. Darrell no doubt believed that he would have control of
the situation. What he did not consider was that these people have a
wealth of experience in this business. Getting out of control is what
they do, and they do it well.
Darrell felt he would be doing something positive for the fandom. He
misjudged the sleaziness and deceiptfulness of the filmmakers, as well
as the amount of control he would have over the situation. I know. I
get a lot of emails from these people myself, and believe me, they can
sound VERY pursuasive. They plead, they promise, they cross their
hearts and hope to die, they tell you how much they respect you. It
is very easy to fall into their trap. It could have happened to any
of us.
With this example, though, it is less likely to. Anthrocon has never
allowed tabloid TV shows in, and while I'm still breathing, it never
will. I recently received a request from TechTV to do a show on
Anthrocon. It sounded perfectly harmless, but then, they always do.
Their description of the show as highlighting the "funny, sexy, scary"
side of the internet was all I needed to hear. The answer they
received was the same that they all receive: "Anthrocon is a private
event held on private property. Its membership is not interested in
being the subject of your documentary. Thank you for your query."
That is all you need to say. To these people, the less said is the
better.
Anthrocon's policy on media coverage remains the same. We retain the
rights to all video and audio recordings made at our convention. They
can be used privately, but cannot be broadcast without our express
written permission. You agree to that when you get in, or you don't
get in.
In conclusion:
Lay off of Darrell. Did he screw up? Perhaps. Sucks to be human
sometimes. Was it intentional? Of course not. Did he profit from
it? Hell, no. Does he feel badly about it? Hell, yes. How do I
know all of this? It's my job.
Will these two shows destroy our fandom? No way. We've had worse,
and we've come right back each time. We'll continue to do so. It's
as I've always said: they're just growing pains. Furry fandom is in
its awkward adolesence right now, and we must roll with these punches
as we continue on our way to maturity.
See you all in July.
-- Uncle Kage
Richard F. Thatcher
Roadrodent
Michael Hirtes
Dr. Samuel Conway <flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
>
> People have said that Darrell was paid for this, and took the money as
> a "sell out" of the fandom. That is hogwash. The *hotel* received
> $4000 from the filmmakers for the right to film there. Not a penny of
> that was applied to any of ConFurence's debt. Take it from me --
> hotels do not work that way.
The Jimmy Kimmel Show is run by ABC, which is owned by Disney, which
also employs.....
OMFG!! SHAWN KELLER & DAVE KUHN PUT THEM UP TO IT!! AAAHHH!!!
LOL!
>
> People have said that Darrell did this deliberately as a means of
> destroying the fandom. That is also hogwash. Why would a man who
> gave so much want to do such a thing? The truth is that he took a
> calculated risk. The people who contacted him made a lot of
> high-minded promises and made it sound as though it would be something
> wonderful. Darrell no doubt believed that he would have control of
> the situation. What he did not consider was that these people have a
> wealth of experience in this business. Getting out of control is what
> they do, and they do it well.
Why is it that after several media situations, everyone bitches and
moans and uses that "They lied to us! They said that they were gonna do
a flattering piece." excuse, and then forget to learn their esson until
the NEXT time there's another media expose, and then another round of
"They said that they were gonna do a flattering piece" which will be
forgotten until the NEXT media expose.....and so on and so on.
>
> Darrell felt he would be doing something positive for the fandom. He
> misjudged the sleaziness and deceiptfulness of the filmmakers, as well
> as the amount of control he would have over the situation.
Kage, this was THE MAN SHOW we're talking about here! Even a crackhead
knows that they are NOT there to promote the fandom.
> I know. I
> get a lot of emails from these people myself, and believe me, they can
> sound VERY pursuasive. They plead, they promise, they cross their
> hearts and hope to die, they tell you how much they respect you. It
> is very easy to fall into their trap. It could have happened to any
> of us.
But it helps when you're incredible gullible & stupid (Hi Darell. Hi
Ostrich).
>
> In conclusion:
>
> Lay off of Darrell. Did he screw up?
Oh Hell ya he did. Never seen such a big banana peel to be slipped on.
> Perhaps. Sucks to be human
> sometimes. Was it intentional? Of course not. Did he profit from
> it? Hell, no. Does he feel badly about it? Hell, yes. How do I
> know all of this? It's my job.
>
> Will these two shows destroy our fandom? No way. We've had worse,
> and we've come right back each time.
See my earlier comment about the Altzheimer's in furrydom.
> We'll continue to do so. It's
> as I've always said: they're just growing pains.
Must be tough being a fourty year old toddler then.
Glen Wooten
>
> I have seen a lot of rumors flying, most of them villifying Darrell
> Exline. I won't have that. Darrell and I have had our differences,
> but he is a man who lost many thousands of dollars of his own money in
> a desperate effort to keep life in his convention. The reason he did
> that was to continue to provide people with the opportunity to get
> together and have fun. It was something he believed in, something
> important enough to risk his own financial stability to promote.
> Whether or not you agree with his methods, at least respect the effort
> he put forth. Take that from one who knows just how much that takes
> out of a person. He did this for you. Does that mean nothing?
To some people, yes. Generally people who have never been to ConFurence...
> People have said that Darrell was paid for this, and took the money as
> a "sell out" of the fandom. That is hogwash. The *hotel* received
> $4000 from the filmmakers for the right to film there. Not a penny of
> that was applied to any of ConFurence's debt. Take it from me --
> hotels do not work that way.
It's called a "licensing fee", and I can assure you that the hotel received
every cent of it - not one thin dime was used to offset fees that the hotel
charged the convention. Pretty standard contract for ANY film crew at a
major hotel - especially one in the Los Angeles area.
> People have said that Darrell did this deliberately as a means of
> destroying the fandom. That is also hogwash. Why would a man who
> gave so much want to do such a thing? The truth is that he took a
> calculated risk. The people who contacted him made a lot of
> high-minded promises and made it sound as though it would be something
> wonderful. Darrell no doubt believed that he would have control of
> the situation. What he did not consider was that these people have a
> wealth of experience in this business. Getting out of control is what
> they do, and they do it well.
He refused over 50 other organisations that wanted to do a piece at the con.
Should he have refused the Jimmy Kimmel show? I can't say - it's not aired
on the west coast yet. Should he have refused The Man Show? No one can
say - that won't air for at least a month.
> Darrell felt he would be doing something positive for the fandom. He
> misjudged the sleaziness and deceiptfulness of the filmmakers, as well
> as the amount of control he would have over the situation. I know. I
> get a lot of emails from these people myself, and believe me, they can
> sound VERY pursuasive. They plead, they promise, they cross their
> hearts and hope to die, they tell you how much they respect you. It
> is very easy to fall into their trap. It could have happened to any
> of us.
And I must point out that from all reports I heard (from our press liaison,
who was shadowing them), the people they interviewed would not play their
game (that is, when the subject was turned to sex, the response was
generally "no, that's not what it's about." They had interviews with their
own people, dressed up in costumes (some that were pretty poor) - they don't
need any help to concoct their own spin. And anyone interviewed HAD to
sign a waiver - they can't air anything without the person's permission. I
flatly refused their film crew access to the art show, as also the theatrical
director did with the theater.
> With this example, though, it is less likely to. Anthrocon has never
> allowed tabloid TV shows in, and while I'm still breathing, it never
> will. I recently received a request from TechTV to do a show on
> Anthrocon. It sounded perfectly harmless, but then, they always do.
> Their description of the show as highlighting the "funny, sexy, scary"
> side of the internet was all I needed to hear. The answer they
> received was the same that they all receive: "Anthrocon is a private
> event held on private property. Its membership is not interested in
> being the subject of your documentary. Thank you for your query."
>
> That is all you need to say. To these people, the less said is the
> better.
And this applies to most ANY interaction with the media - they will spin
any story into what they want. Even if you know the people doing the taping
personally - if it's not for a straight news segment, expect a spin.
> Will these two shows destroy our fandom? No way. We've had worse,
> and we've come right back each time. We'll continue to do so. It's
> as I've always said: they're just growing pains. Furry fandom is in
> its awkward adolesence right now, and we must roll with these punches
> as we continue on our way to maturity.
None of the other stories (or satirical comics) on the fandom has yet killed
it, despite all the predictions that "This Is The End!" Similarly, the
DECADES of bad press about people dressing as Klingons has yet to kill the
Star Trek franchise (well, okay, it's being done internally by Paramount,
but that's a different subject.) The response will be as bad as... you
make it out to be. If the rest of the world yawns while we run screaming
over a tempest in a teapot - who's the one that's making a fuss?
--
Glen Wooten
_______________________________________________________________
| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: kar...@sbcglobal.net |
_______________________________________________________________
| Terrie & Glen's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_______________________________________________________________
BR
<snip message>
Ladies and Gentlefurs. That's how a professional handles a situation.
--
-Barry Hughes
I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers
Doodles
message news:nlvrav89859mgko32...@4ax.com...
> People have said that Darrell was paid for this, and took the money as
> a "sell out" of the fandom. That is hogwash. The *hotel* received
> $4000 from the filmmakers for the right to film there. Not a penny of
> that was applied to any of ConFurence's debt. Take it from me --
> hotels do not work that way.
>
> Darrell felt he would be doing something positive for the fandom. He
> misjudged the sleaziness and deceiptfulness of the filmmakers, as well
> as the amount of control he would have over the situation.
Kage, the only way Darrel wouldn't have known what "The Man Show" was about
would be if he'd just arrived from some foreign land with no TV. I've said
it before and I'll say it again. The hotel strong-armed him. They held the
huge debt he'd have had over his head and gave him an "offer he couldn't
refuse."
And it isn't $4000. It's $4000 an hour. Ten hours filming, $40K to the
hotel. You know hotels, I know location fees. (It's a company town, after
all. =};-3 )
Darrel did do two things: He announced just who it was that was filming to
everyone, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet, and he made
sure folks knew that the film crew had to get a release before they could
broadcast anyone they filmed.
Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much of
their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters with
the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
in his costume, the crews would have had to pay him SAG rates _and_ increase
the payouts to the crew, not to mention all the lovely Guild paperwork. In
union, there is strength. =};-3
Todd Knarr
> Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much of
> their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters with
> the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
Mwahahahaha! I love it! My hat's off to Cawley, and I'd've loved to see
the looks on their faces when he did that.
--
Innovation is hard to schedule.
-- anon.
Chris
"WTF was _THAT_?"
"Hell just froze over..."
>> Darrell felt he would be doing something positive for the fandom. He
>> misjudged the sleaziness and deceiptfulness of the filmmakers, as well
>> as the amount of control he would have over the situation.
>
>Kage, this was THE MAN SHOW we're talking about here! Even a crackhead
>knows that they are NOT there to promote the fandom.
Now, I'm not even a Yank and thus, have no idea what "The Man Show"
is. So I asked a couple Yank friends, and was very, very quickly to
dertermine that this show likely had all the good features of...
Well, it has none, really.
That was very, very poor judgement to invite them.
I can't belive I actually agreed with Hirtes about something.... I
feel dirty. I need to shower again, even though I just had one.
Michael Hirtes
Chris <rabid_...@hotIHateSPAMmail.com> wrote:
The truth can be painful at first, but you'll get used to it.
Chris
Don't count on it being a habbit, it was just a one-shot fluke that
you happened to sput something that actually made sense.
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:30:30 -0700, Doodles <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much of
> their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters with
> the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
> in his costume, the crews would have had to pay him SAG rates _and_ increase
> the payouts to the crew, not to mention all the lovely Guild paperwork. In
> union, there is strength. =};-3
Wow, union fringe benefits: Ward off the media.
- --
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+rkmKJ5vLSqVpK2kRAiVyAJ4udlZ45OGnu/VfE3WlKvZzaKDerACeI+H1
Ld9OTBfpaDt7N8ZEts94kvg=
=nshK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Hirtes
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:30:30 -0700, Doodles <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> > Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much
> > of
> > their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters
> > with
> > the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
> > in his costume, the crews would have had to pay him SAG rates _and_
> > increase
> > the payouts to the crew, not to mention all the lovely Guild paperwork. In
> > union, there is strength. =};-3
>
> Wow, union fringe benefits: Ward off the media.
A desperate (but futile) attempt to escape your fate, furries. The fact
remains that all this crapola mentioned only applies if they USE any
footage with Cawley in it. And whatever footage IS with him, can be be
digitally blurred or removed altogether.
jojo
> Why would a man who
>gave so much want to do such a thing? The truth is that he took a
>calculated risk. The people who contacted him made a lot of
>high-minded promises and made it sound as though it would be something
>wonderful. Darrell no doubt believed that he would have control of
>the situation. What he did not consider was that these people have a
>wealth of experience in this business.
Oh, PUH-LEASE already. To make that point you'd have to prove that Darrel
lives in a soundproof room with absolutely no access to any media
whatsoever. This is JIMMY KIMMEL for cryin out loud. What the hell would any
thinking person who'd had any exposure to the name expect from him?
jojo
[begin quoted material]
Subject: [FUR]Media Trolls - Granada
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry, fur.announce, alt.lifestyle.furry
Date: 2001-02-15 21:36:04 PST
This will be the first of many installments of who *NOT* to talk to about
furry fandom.
I've been asked by a group from Yorkshire Television in Great Britan if they
could follow a couple from England to ConFurence 12 to report on their
"relationship" and how it applies to furry fandom. Major red-flags... they
even cited that they knew about the Vanity Fair article. (something that
will have the tabloid-style press crawling out of the woodworks for several
months, I imagine)
I bit of research showed that the request was actually coming from "Granada
Media", who although a very large television producer in England, probably
are looking for bait for a show they produce for "LWT" called "Nightlife"
visit http://www.g-wizz.net/lwt/nightlife.html for a synopsis of the current
episode... not flattering at all, and definitely not a show that we'd like
to talk about furry fandom.
Granada Media uses all the following names:
Yorkshire Television
LWT
Tyne Tees
Anglia TV
Meridian Broadcasting
Be warned, and don't talk to them.
Darrel L. Exline -- Director, "The ConFurence Group"
[end quoted material]
But Jimmy Kimmel, there's someone who never crawled out of the woodwork
looking for bait, someone likely to do a flattering show.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
I think the quote your looking for is "Even a broken clock is right
twice a day."
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Samantha Ann Patterson
Not even fit for BBC4.
In article <uddsav4od3stv3roi...@4ax.com>,
Chris <rabid_...@hotIHateSPAMmail.com> wrote:
Francisco Azinsan
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:30:30 -0700, Doodles wrote:
> Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much of
> their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters with
> the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
> in his costume, the crews would have had to pay him SAG rates _and_ increase
> the payouts to the crew, not to mention all the lovely Guild paperwork. In
> union, there is strength. =};-3
They did film John Cawley in his costume. He was wearing the horse costume
in the parade that they filmed, and showed.
- --
Frysco!
fran...@vulpes.net http://www.vulpes.net/francisco/
PGP keys available at http://www.vulpes.net/francisco/pgpkeys.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+rp+H6NGGeOdvsO8RAsSrAJ0ZncdNotgXJgyZKL+fkL7Hbh2YCACdH4OV
10fI2u8Xc+UEyDWpjag0FaY=
=kJbv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
M. Mitchell Marmel
"Richard F. Thatcher" <xfa...@netusa1.net> wrote:
> Motion seconded.
Thirded.
-MMM-
Brian O'Connell
hissing like vampires exposed to a cross keeps popping into my head?
-----------------------------------
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:b8l6at$ka0$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Brian O'Connell
produce his own show.
-----------------------------------
"Samantha Ann Patterson" <cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:3eae9a32$0$79563$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
Chris
>
>Not even fit for BBC4.
I'm not from the UK, either, but close enough. I got the general idea
as to how low the show it.
FuzzWolf
Fuzzy
"Brian O'Connell" <doge...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b8mjvu$2ulo$1...@velox.critter.net...
Tim Gadd
<flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>We all know what happened at Confurence.
>
>I have seen a lot of rumors flying, most of them villifying Darrell
>Exline. I won't have that. Darrell and I have had our differences,
>but he is a man who lost many thousands of dollars of his own money in
>a desperate effort to keep life in his convention. The reason he did
>that was to continue to provide people with the opportunity to get
>together and have fun. It was something he believed in, something
>important enough to risk his own financial stability to promote.
To me it seemed as if he alienated and pissed off a significant percentage
of the con's former patrons, they stayed away; other cons, particularly
yours, took up the torch, and Confurence slowly died, and at the last gasp
he hypocritically exposed the fandom to the same tawdry media attention it
had been his supposed mission to protect it from. If that's a false
impression, what's the right one?
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
"The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes."
Stanley Kubrick
DLNorton
> We all know what happened at Confurence.
>
> I have seen a lot of rumors flying, most of them villifying Darrell
> Exline.
This is what I was trying to convey... You said a mouthful Doc. I
don't think Darrell had any intentions of defrauding the fandom or
what have you. But folks just LOVE to run off at the mouth...I know I
do sometimes, but my feelings for Darrell was more sympathy than
villifacation.. I feel Darrell's hands were tied at that point when
the cameras showed up..
-DLNorton
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Darrel did do two things: He announced just who it was that was filming to
> everyone, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet, and he made
> sure folks knew that the film crew had to get a release before they could
> broadcast anyone they filmed.
No, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet would have been
announcing it well before the con, so people could get their hotel room /
airfare / con memberships refunded. Announcing it as the con is opening and
people already have $1,000+ invested in the con is not.
--
/\ \\ /\ ____________________________________________
/| \ (''-.\ _| Stormfront Thundra Dragon |_
/ | \//""| \ >_\""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/_<
/ | / | | \
/ |/"(_)) | \ She waits for me at night, she waits for me in silence
"""\|\\(_))\/"""" She gives me all her tenderness and takes away my pain
/W / W And so far she hasn't run, though I swear she's had
/ \ \\ moments
__/ // // She still believes in miracles while others cry in vain
"---" "WWW --- Billy Joel, "All About Soul"
jojo
> Motion seconded.
Yeah. Selling out a con-full of people is okay, especially in light of all
the villifying he did of people who talked to the press on a personal basis.
All the past 'strict control of the press' talk of his was a beautiful setup
for this; not many people can work a crowd that well.
blckjck(at)mindspring.com
>Curious thing about the Fursuit Dance. John Cawley was able to ruin much of
>their original plans of throwing their people in with the real 'suiters with
>the simple expedient of showing his SAG card. If they'd tried to film him
>in his costume, the crews would have had to pay him SAG rates _and_ increase
>the payouts to the crew, not to mention all the lovely Guild paperwork. In
>union, there is strength. =};-3
>
>
Chris
>announcing it well before the con, so people could get their hotel room /
>airfare / con memberships refunded. Announcing it as the con is opening and
>people already have $1,000+ invested in the con is not.
Bingo. Got it in one. It should have been announced way beforehand.
======================
Bastard Boy
100% Bastard Inside
Doodles
news:3EAF30BA...@worldnet.att.net...
> Doodles wrote:
>
> > Darrel did do two things: He announced just who it was that was filming
to
> > everyone, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet, and he
made
> > sure folks knew that the film crew had to get a release before they
could
> > broadcast anyone they filmed.
>
> No, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet would have been
> announcing it well before the con, so people could get their hotel room /
> airfare / con memberships refunded. Announcing it as the con is opening
and
> people already have $1,000+ invested in the con is not.
That's assuming the hotel sprung this on him in the weeks leading up to the
con rather than at the last possible minute. Darrell was as ambushed by
this as the rest of us.
Darrel L. Exline
In fact, all it took was to refuse to sign their waiver. If a person
said they were SAG or AFTRA (sp?) then they wouldn't even bother trying
to get the waiver, cause it would be no good. Even Dennis Avner (aka:
TigerMan, aka: Cat) was able to stay off camera when they asked by
simply answering "How much will you pay me?" and they went away.
Darrel L. Exline
> Kage, the only way Darrel wouldn't have known what "The Man Show" was about
> would be if he'd just arrived from some foreign land with no TV. I've said
> it before and I'll say it again. The hotel strong-armed him. They held the
> huge debt he'd have had over his head and gave him an "offer he couldn't
> refuse."
I knew who they were. I think their show was very funny... back when
Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Corrola were in charge, that is. This new crew,
though... with Joe Rogan and the 7-foot sandwich... they have 5 weeks to
put toegether 22 shows to start airing in the end of May, and they only
started last week. The crew they sent was very unprofessional and
disorganized... not what I expected.
They *did* bring a juggie in a cat suit, though. <grin>
> And it isn't $4000. It's $4000 an hour. Ten hours filming, $40K to the
> hotel. You know hotels, I know location fees. (It's a company town, after
> all. =};-3 )
Proving that you are willing to talk about things you know nothing
about. I'm sorry Doodles, but even though I beleive that you are trying
to set the record straight, please try to stick to the facts you *know*
not the ones that you make up yourself.
To put it straight: The Man Show was told that the location shoot at
the hilton would normally be $4,000 per day. I only know this because I
walked into the sales office while they were still negotiating with the
hotel. The Man Show dickered the location shoot fee down to $1500. I
have no idea what deal the Jimmy Kimmel Show negotiated with the hotel.
These are HOTEL DEALS for those crews to use the location, they are NOT
in ANY WAY associated with my contract with the hotel for the event
space, nor my restrictive grant of a license to use images from portions
of our event that guaranteed they wouldn't film where we didn't want
them to film, and woulnd't include people on camera that didn't want to
be on camera. It was an opt-in situation, not the other way around.
I did not receive ONE PENNY or one ounce of concessions from either of
the media groups, or from the hotel. (in fact, they didn't even count
the rooms that the Man Show reserved to change into their costumes as
part of my room block; a fact that I am currently arguing with the hotel
over).
> Darrel did do two things: He announced just who it was that was filming to
> everyone, giving folks a chance to react and dodge the bullet, and he made
> sure folks knew that the film crew had to get a release before they could
> broadcast anyone they filmed.
Exactly. And my Press Liaison (also a SAG/AFTRA member with experience
in these matters) shadowed both crews to make sure they were following
the rules, and radioed me whenever anything looked funky.
Anyone who didn't want to be on camera, was NOT on camera. Simple.
--Darrel.
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 30 Apr 2003 03:09:08 GMT, jojo <jo...@antisocial.com> wrote:
> All the past 'strict control of the press' talk of his was a beautiful setup
> for this; not many people can work a crowd that well.
Sorry, but are we talking about the same Jimmy Kimmel Show that aired
last Monday at 12:06AM? I saw that episode. It was pretty well
controlled. Nothing outragous. What are you freaking out about?
- --
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+sQQwJ5vLSqVpK2kRAmeQAJ9KSmH6EzY0uIryrWKkUzgWt/2WMACfbAj5
9GquzLfuBfYezPmucE+eyZ4=
=Y4Mw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----