Sundance is being sued for fraud.

IF they could actually prove they don't watch every film (which might be tough unless you have a lot of money to pursue the lawsuit) then maybe you could make this stick. I'd love to see them nailed to the wall. I've never been stuid enough to submit to them so I couldn't get in on the class action suit money, but maybe it would be enough to bankrupt them.
 
I'm pretty sure the Sundance organizer's attorneys and the district court judges are probably on a first name basis by now.
They've probably been getting sued year after year for... years.

The plaintiff's attorneys pose an argument.
The judge asks for any evidence.
The plaintiff' attorneys only cite the math.
The Sundance attorneys say that they stick to their own undefinable policy.
The judge rules in favor of the defendant.
Case closed.
Defendant attorney's buy the judge a round on the nineteenth hole that weekend.

Rinse and repeat X-times a year, every year, for years.


It would require a begrudged insider on Sundance's review and select committee, a real non-team player, to ruin a sweet gig.


Do u think it's true or it's just some pissed off rejected filmmaker trying to get back at Sundance??
Click to expand...
Sensibly "know" it's true.

Sundance is a business.
If they selected admittedly "good" films that had no internationally marketable stars or directors attached**, other than a token example here and there, they would provide a disservice to the business model that they have.

**
2011 Sundance Feature Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0
See anyone recognizable in column 'W'? :lol:

Basically, it boils down to 4,000 people entering their 'off the rack' street legal Vettes, Mustangs, and Porches in a Formula One race.
Fast is fast, but if it can't go superfast then it's a wasted entry fee.
People should pay closer attention to where they're spending their money.


Oh, and Sundance prefers that your film be "dysfunction as entertainment" with a lot, a WHOLLLLE lotta, mopey draggy scenes of stupid people doing stupid things. :yes:!
 
Last edited:
If you had a LOT of money to pay lawyers so you could go through discovery and get all their internal documents and emails you might be able to prove something, but we're talking hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees to even have a chance.
 
And even if you could prove it and the judge decided that you deserved something, by the time all the appeals happen you'll be old and grey or dead before you get paid.

Unless you're one of the attorneys, then you'll be sipping Mai tai's on some secluded beach resort either way.
 
A lot of independent films get into Sundance, even without names attached.

I think they key is, they (obviously) don't watch the entirety of every film. So you need a compelling first act, and you need a film that really delivers at more than just an average standard, for the whole way through. You need to give them a reason to keep watching, rather than just skipping your film to the next one.

Similar to how A&R people at recording companies picked artists - you'd send in a demo of your song and they'd listen to the first 20-40 seconds. If they weren't hooked in that time, you were chucked onto pile and forgotten about.

Unfair? Hm Maybe. If your film doesn't deliver a solid first act though, that's more your own fault than Sundance's. Personally, I think that no matter what their ethics and business model, it's always good to have more festivals, and more chances to get your work seen by people.
 
It's a racket in the sense the suit contends (and I think they are almost certainly right) that literally thousands of films go straight in the dumpster without even 40 seconds being watched by a single person. IF you could prove that, then they are committing fraud.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, never submitted to them.
 
dlevanchuk said:
Do u think it's true or it's just some pissed off rejected filmmaker trying to get back at Sundance??
Click to expand...

The latter. There's no way you can prove someone didn't watch your film. Now, I don't believe that they watch ALL of EVERY film they get...how many hundreds of those thousands do they shut off after 5 minutes for unacceptably bad sound, for example?

It's a shame that they don't tell you WHY they reject your film, but it's their game, their house, their rules. If you don't like 'em, don't play.

As an aside, I'm not a fan of Sundance, but I'm not a fan of lawsuits because something didn't go your way. Again, if he knew for a fact they didn't watch his movie, it'd be a different story. But he's guessing and taking it to court. That's just sorta sad.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
It's a racket in the sense the suit contends (and I think they are almost certainly right) that literally thousands of films go straight in the dumpster without even 40 seconds being watched by a single person. IF you could prove that, then they are committing fraud.
Click to expand...

I don't see how they could ever prove that.
I have no experience sending through to Sundance, but do they actually guarantee that they will watch more than 40 seconds of your film? Even so, they have certain standards and I'd hazard a guess at 30-45% of submissions having flaws that mean they're dumped because they don't live up to the standards.

I personally find it amusing. That some pompous guy sends in his film, it gets rejected and his response is 'well you quite obviously didn't watch it if you didn't want it in yur festival':lol:
 
The dude's got a point. All you need to do is a little math, and it seems incredibly unlikely that Sundance watches all of the films. Problem is, there's no way you can prove that, especially since Sundance has stated that there is no minimum amount of time that a screener is required to view, before rejecting a film. They are openly saying that they might literally watch 10 seconds of a film and chuck it.
 
FWIW

From their FAQ:

"30) YOU DON’T ACTUALLY WATCH ALL OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, RIGHT?
We depend on new talent and new filmmakers to uphold our mission as a Festival of discovery. If we didn’t
watch the films submitted to us, we would miss out on so many new works of independent film. If your film
is received in time, your account is paid in full, and there are no playability issues with your DVD, your film
will be treated exactly the same as all other films submitted to us for consideration."

Quite vague. Question is, how do they treat all the films?
 
Ernest Worthing said:
FWIW

From their FAQ:

"30) YOU DON’T ACTUALLY WATCH ALL OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, RIGHT?
We depend on new talent and new filmmakers to uphold our mission as a Festival of discovery. If we didn’t
watch the films submitted to us, we would miss out on so many new works of independent film. If your film
is received in time, your account is paid in full, and there are no playability issues with your DVD, your film
will be treated exactly the same as all other films submitted to us for consideration."

Quite vague. Question is, how do they treat all the films?
Click to expand...

This.

They could treat ALL films the same by saying, "Does this one have any recognizable names in it? Or high marketability, or etc..." They can look at these things by just reading the tag and accompanying info. If it doesn't fall into those catagories, they chuck it...
 
Cracker Funk said:
The dude's got a point. All you need to do is a little math, and it seems incredibly unlikely that Sundance watches all of the films. Problem is, there's no way you can prove that, especially since Sundance has stated that there is no minimum amount of time that a screener is required to view, before rejecting a film. They are openly saying that they might literally watch 10 seconds of a film and chuck it.
Click to expand...

And there ya go. I believe that there is what we call a CYA clause.
 
Interesting. We will have to see what comes of this. Makes sense they could not watch them all but again maybe they do just watch a few seconds of each then toss. Anyways, it would take time just to go through the menus and disclaimers before getting to the movie. Then you would need to watch the film for maybe a minute to decide if it was worth watching more or not.


I am sure they can tell if the audio is bad or the acting is bad pretty quickly. If the lighting is horrible or something like that. If the film is good I am sure it is easier to tell right away that it may be worth watching more of it. The question is if they just toss them without watching at all or not.


LasVegasIRA said:
This.

They could treat ALL films the same by saying, "Does this one have any recognizable names in it? Or high marketability, or etc..." They can look at these things by just reading the tag and accompanying info. If it doesn't fall into those catagories, they chuck it...
Click to expand...

I agree with LasVegasIRA on this one.


That CYA clause sounds pretty safe for them. It's hard to prove they did not watch a few seconds or a minute of the film before tossing.
 
Last edited:
It has been long known that the first 5 minutes of your movie had better hook the person screening it. From what I understand, they won't watch some for longer than that - unless you are friends with festival people.


rayw said:
Oh, and Sundance prefers that your film be "dysfunction as entertainment" with a lot, a WHOLLLLE lotta, mopey draggy scenes of stupid people doing stupid things. :yes:!
Click to expand...


Ha ha! Seems that way.
 
Again, you'd have to have the resources to pursue the suit through the discovery process and get access to all their internal emails and documents. If you could get that you MIGHT prove they were getting submissions that never get watched.
 
trueindie said:
:lol: I feel ya

It's a great advertizing campaign by the way. Made me google MOG Redux and watch their trailer on youtube. I wish I had thought of this lawsuit first.
Click to expand...



It IS a good idea, but I'm not checking out the movie unless the filmmakers win the lawsuit... then they deserve my loyal fandom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top