What is Really goin on?? DST "Movie"??

ladygreek · #1 06-14-2006, 12:05 PM

^^^^Yes, I saw that they are doing a screening on July 27. Our convention doesn't start until the 29th so most folx are getting in the 28th. But you are right they are promoting it as if it is part of our convention.

jitterbug13 · #2 06-14-2006, 08:34 PM

Did anyone see they have the question "Are you a member of DST?" Why? So they can show Nationals how many people attended the movie? Whatever...

And I also see they put a disclamer on there. If they would have consulted Nationals on this they wouldn't have to do that. Also, I want to know where they got their info from. ISOS?

For the sorors: A copy of Dr. Rice's letter is in the Members Only section of the national website.

Live_Wire17 · #3 06-15-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jitterbug13

Did anyone see they have the question "Are you a member of DST?" Why? So they can show Nationals how many people attended the movie? Whatever...

And I also see they put a disclamer on there. If they would have consulted Nationals on this they wouldn't have to do that. Also, I want to know where they got their info from. ISOS?

For the sorors: A copy of Dr. Rice's letter is in the Members Only section of the national website.

I just want to see so I can make my own comment based on what I saw with my OWN eyes. I think that is the only way I can make a legit arguement.

ladygreek · #4 06-15-2006, 12:30 PM

A legit arguement about what? The issue is not whether the movie is accurate or not (which I doubt it will be,) but the fact it was made without our permission. And they will be making money off of us.

And from what I have been told, this is just their first step. They plan to do this with the other NPHC orgs as well. So if this flops maybe the others won't have to go through this.

Rain Man · #5 06-15-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

A legit arguement about what? The issue is not whether the movie is accurate or not (which I doubt it will be,) but the fact it was made without our permission. And they will be making money off of us.

And from what I have been told, this is just their first step. They plan to do this with the other NPHC orgs as well. So if this flops maybe the others won't have to go through this.

Legally, a filmmaker doesn't need permission of the entity in question to make a movie portraying them.

Example in point.

The 1997 movie Titanic won 11 Oscars and amassed millions of dollars in box office receipts. IIRC, director James Cameron didn't ask the Cunard Shipping Lines (successor of the White Star Line) for permission to portray the ship and the disaster (although this was the 8th theatrical protrayal of the disaster--and in one of the movies Titanic's Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall served as technical advisor in "A Night to Remember" in 1967--but I digress). Nonetheless, the movie was filmed, screened, and the rest is history.

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Granted, it would have been nice and would have served as a bonus if they did get Delta's NEB's blessing, but if not, so what? You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

Kimmie1913 · #6 06-15-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Legally, a filmmaker doesn't need permission of the entity in question to make a movie portraying them.

Example in point.

The 1997 movie Titanic won 11 Oscars and amassed millions of dollars in box office receipts. IIRC, director James Cameron didn't ask the Cunard Shipping Lines (successor of the White Star Line) for permission to portray the ship and the disaster (although this was the 8th theatrical protrayal of the disaster--and in one of the movies Titanic's Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall served as technical advisor in "A Night to Remember" in 1967--but I digress). Nonetheless, the movie was filmed, screened, and the rest is history.

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Granted, it would have been nice and would have served as a bonus if they did get Delta's NEB's blessing, but if not, so what? You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

They may not need permission per se but there are images that are in fact copyrighted/trademarked (just ask Converse) and I am curious as to whether or not any of those things were used in the movie. In addition, it is important to make clear that this "project" is in no way associated with or endorsed by Delta and that there has been no quality control whatsoever as to the accuracy of the facts in the story. If they had wanted to make a movie depicting what life was ike for Black women in the early 1900's they could have done that mentioning the formation of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta with out making an unauthorized movie about either's history. None of this means they couldn't make the movie but, for me, it means that I am not interested in it and will make others aware of its pitfalls and Delta's position.

ladygreek · #7 06-15-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Just a thought.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

CrimsonTide4 · #8 06-15-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

Precisely.

Rain Man · #9 06-15-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

Good questions.

My answer would honestly be: I'on know. Ladies first, perhaps?

A follow up question I have is "Why Delta? (as opposed to the other 3 GLOs)" Another one would be "What would this company do with the profits from the movie? (assuming they amass such)"--the answer that probably will be to parlay those funds into another "Black Fraternity/Sorority Project" movie. But I'm just guessing.

Just a thought-provoking question: Would you have felt better if they used all the elements of Delta's founding but took a Dragnet-style approach to sorority identification (the names have been changed to protect the innocent).

I know of one movie (Fraternity Row) that took that approach with regards to an actual hazing death (a pledge died during initiation choking to death on a piece of liver--the fictional frat portrayed was called Gamma Nu Pi, the actual fraternity involved was the Kappa Sigma fraternity at USC back in 1959).

Is the central issue here the mere portrayal of such a movie, getting the org in question's blessing, or historical accuracy?

Rain Man · #10 06-15-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

You know, I think the answer (at least part of it) can be found here. Believe it or not, I stumbed across this surfing GC tonight.

NoChaser3 · #11 06-15-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

However, we DO own the trademark to the words "Delta Sigma Theta" and the greek symbols.

What it comes down to is someone trying to make money off of Delta without our consent. Not cool.

HumblePie · #12 09-19-2006, 11:54 PM

I have heard a lot of conversation about this "documentary" and many members of the org. believe that the movie won't profit as well as many other movies. As a prospect it is my opinion that on sheer interest alone it will do well. If the film is released to mass audiences and promoted well those (mostly undergrads) who are at the point where they crave anything Delta because they want to be in the know (no matter what that is assumed to be) the film will bring about a nice profit. I know as a nonmember who has read In Search of Sisterhood-when I was an undergrad I wanted more. More information-more knowledge and if this film is promoted as a factual account of events (even if it's not) then the Delta Prospects will make it a a winner in cinema. what do you all think? Also the comment about Why Delta? Well as much as it may be out of line or a bit disrespectful to produce without the blessing of the org-it's good business. i believe someone touched on it a bit earlier-but Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. is a cash cow for this type of explotation. The largest sorority of the devinie nine...just reading the demogaphics of delta's members leaves one to know that the target audience for this film consist of well educated-paid-hungry for the arts type of women. Delta attracts the same type of woman it's already made of-so the well educated prospects-hungry for Delta-will go to the viewing.