If a company that makes a faulty light bulb can be sued by consumers then why can't a film company that makes a horrible film meet the same fate?
After all, both the cases amount to cheating the consumers of his hard earned money and in both the cases, guilt can be scientifically proven - a bad film is preceded by misleading advertising and promotions promising all together a different content and experience. Further, Lack of coherent script and character development and logical flow of story can be easily proven even if garish use of colours, tacky props/sets, insipid acting and ear drum shattering sound are debatable.
Clarification added 10 months ago:
Being a writer and a filmmaker, I completely understand and respect the freedom and long rope that needs to be provided for producers of creative products. However, we need to see this current economic persepective surrounding film exhibition. A family of 4-6 being enticed to watch a film would set them off by 50-100 dollars including travel & f & B. Each hit Film is grossing in millions and billions. Most of these revenues are by first rush over the weekend which is created by the trust people have in film personalities who come out and promote the film with clever marketing & advertising which is often misleading. Now, shouldn't these companies also be subjected to some sort of corporate governance? or is it okay to mislead and cheat people as far as you are hiding behind a cloak of creativity?
What stops the bulb manufacturer saying in court that the bulb failed because he was trying to be creative in his manfacturing process. Personal preferences can be debatable - you like action, i dont , you like jack nicholson raising his eye brows I may not. But if the film has a coherent screenplay missing or many plot points are unexplained till the very end. Or if the film is marketed as a thriller when actually its a love story with one murder which has no relevance to the story as such? what if the film is marketed as say a tom cruise movie when he only has a two minute walk on part? then how is that not quantifiable? that's my point, why shouldn't we have guidelines that differentiate creativity from plain cheating.
Answers (10)
Sebastian J. B
Entertainment & Marketing Professional
Best Answers in: Career Management (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
You make a somewhat compelling argument, however I believe it comes down to a couple of simple points:
a) a faulty light bulb can cause bodily harm and property damage, while a "bad" film has (yet) to inflict physical damage.
b) a "horrible" film is completely subjective. while you and I may agree on a contrived plot and shoddy acting, I guarantee you that there will be those who think it is a "good" film. A faulty light bulb is a faulty light bulb -- there is nothing subjective about it, and no room for interpretation.
Sir, you have asked an interesting & thought provoking question. I am impressed. Here is my explanation. I put forward 7 theories to answer this question.
1) Indirect Nature of Product & Service
You can hold a bulb right in your hand, but you cant sing with the actress right in the movie. Essentially it does not matter if the movie has a poor props or sets, but a light bulb that you purchased yesterday from the local store holding in your hand which is not working really hurts (if your money is really that hard earned)
2) Qualitative (Subjectivity) Aspect
This theory is essentially the next theory but in a different perspective. There is no mutually accepted "Good Movie" definition, a romantic movie may be good for a couple but not for a guy who had a bad break up in the morning. Quite opposite of it, a light bulb not working is same for everyone i.e. not working at all whether the one holding it is a couple or a heart-broken individual.
3) No Set Performance Standards
When you buy a light bulb there is a known performance standard i.e. it will light up when you will pass current through it. But in case of movie, there is not set standard against which the performance of the movie will be judged. For e.g. directors/producer don't make promises regarding what movie will do for, except 2 and half hour time pass, which every movie does nonetheless (in some cases change your entire life or viewpoint regarding something like Taare Zameen Par)
4) No definite outcome regardless of input (actual/perceived benefit)
I really appreciate your viewpoint i.e. lack of coherent script and character development and logical flow of story can be easily proven even if garish use of colours, tacky props/sets, insipid acting and ear drum shattering sound are debatable. But paradox is that some movies still work in spite of all these shortcomings because of subjectivity & qualitative aspect involved (see theory no. 3.) What I am trying to say is that movie will be a success if it ticks well with the audience regardless what went into the making.(For e.g. Life in a Metro really worked well despite the average star cast & multiple stories all rolled into 1) So is the case with the bulb, in emergency I (in fact everyone) want the bulb to light up regardless of what went into its making. So, lack coherent script, insipid acting et. al does not matter as much as the perceived benefit. Always remember, perceived benefit is much different from actual benefit. I can perceive that the light bulb saved my life as it worked when I turned it on just when the burglar was about to kill me, or I can perceive that the bulb does not make any difference to my life while I am working on a laptop while the actual benefit is same in all the cases that is bulb worked when I want.
5) No or Partial Film Industry Standards
We have partial industry or organization standards i.e. censor boards, when we move into a cinema to watch a family movie we are sure that it will not contain nude scenes. There is somehow agreed standard that the family movie cannot have nude scenes, but there is no overall set industry standards for the movies (which is good I believe as I explain in next theory). But we have Industry, International & environmental standards for the bulbs, so they have to work according to them. There can be no exception.
6) Freedom of expression & creativity
I thank god we have no set standards for movies, otherwise we would have standards like this: In order to create a great performing movie you must cast this hero (best), this heroine (best), this director (best), this location (best) and this set (best) which means we will see movies from same director featuring same hero, heroine, location & set.
Links:
Clarification added 10 months ago:
We take cinema essentially as form of art & cast limited freedom of expression of creativity to the director (or story teller). Story teller is essentially like a painter and can paint whatever he feels like. Karan Johar, celebrated bollywoood director says he likes to create different worlds & wants the audience to immerse in it. So, suing director/producer for bad movie is like suing the painter for painting a poor picture, when we cant judge what a good painting is, which when further proposed can sufficiently explain why people shell thousands for a painting which seems rubbish & childish to some people.
Thank for your patience & time.
Clarification added 10 months ago:
Sorry, the 7th theory is actually consumerism that is there is not much awareness & willingness among the movie goers to see what there rights are or what they deserve or what they want from a movie, there are very few movie goers associations.
Les D
Software Quality Assurance Lead
Best Answers in: Government Policy (16), Change Management (12), Organizational Development (8), Equity Markets (8), Career Management (8), Using LinkedIn (8), Economics (7), Education and Schools (6), Business Development (5), Personal Investing (5), Ethics (5), Manufacturing (4), Quality Management and Standards (4), Market Research and Definition (4), Starting Up (4), Energy and Development (4), Biotech (4), Computers and Software (4), Computer Networking (4), Web Development (4), International Law (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Packaging and Labeling (3), Project Management (3), Small Business (3), Job Search (2), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Writing and Editing (2), Wealth Management (2), Positioning (2), Business Plans (2), Green Business (2), Green Products (2), Enterprise Software (2), Facilities Management (1), Travel Tools (1), Certification and Licenses (1), Freelancing and Contracting (1), Occupational Training (1), Conference Venues (1), Accounting (1), Foreign Investment (1), Financial Regulation (1), Government Services (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), Exporting/Importing (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (1), Contracts (1), Corporate Law (1), Guerrilla Marketing (1), Internet Marketing (1), Graphic Design (1), Lead Generation (1), Business Analytics (1), Corporate Governance (1), Labor Relations (1), Planning (1), Bond Markets (1), Derivatives Markets (1), Hedge Funds (1), Non-profit Management (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Individual Insurance (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Personal Real Estate (1), Distribution (1), Engineering (1), Industrial Design (1), Product Design (1), Professional Books and Resources (1), Professional Networking (1), Blogging (1), E-Commerce (1), Information Security (1), Telecommunications (1), Wireless (1)
Actually in the litigation mad America's, the entertainment industry is full of suing , counter sues in depth. You also need to consider the levels, a few tickets is small claims...less than an hour of lawyer time, and many venue's will refund or offer an additional ticket if you directly immediately complain.
Mass public litigation, I am not sure if that has happened,
Almost all other kinds of actions, from actors, investors, writers have happened, and the creative guilds have tons of legalese and rules to slow down issues from ending in court.
It is not so clear, but one should also consider the conspiracy of the ratings institutes to be the result of past legal forces, :-) If you do not want the nudes in your entertainment, depend on the raters to protect you the public
Sanjeev S
Head - Corporate Quality at Apollo Tyres Limited
Best Answers in: Quality Management and Standards (7), Change Management (1), Labor Relations (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Ethics (1), Green Business (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Dear Amit,
Because the beauty lies in the eyes of beholder and light from bulb outside.
Regards,
Sanjeev
Mark H
Lawyer & Owner, Florida Incorporators, Inc., providing fast & affordable formation of Florida Corporations and LLCs
Best Answers in: Government Policy (5), Equity Markets (3), Car and Train Travel (2), Economics (2), Business Development (2), Energy and Development (2), Mergers and Acquisitions (1), Government Services (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), International Law (1), Criminal Law (1), Corporate Law (1), Advertising (1), Internet Marketing (1), Change Management (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Currency Markets (1), Manufacturing (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Personal Real Estate (1), Wealth Management (1), Green Products (1), Biotech (1), E-Commerce (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
It would perhaps be possible to use neurolinguistic programming techniques to influence members of a movie audience to harm themselves or others. Movies have in the past simply incited hatred and violence against some group or other.
There are clear and documented limits to the first amendment, particularly where commercial speech is involved. And if you're getting a paying audience, it's commercial speech.
If a film is designed to make something bad happen, and that can be proven, victims (even those who didn't see the film) ought to be able to sue over it.
If the film is just junk ... you walk out in the first few minutes and get your money back.
Peggy B
Insurance Professional
Best Answers in: Business Dining and Entertainment (1), Conference Venues (1), Ethics (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
I have to concur with Sebastian. Claims for damages are not about guilt for producing something that is "bad", or cheating someone out of his money. The concept is about negligence that causes harm (bodily injury, personal injury (which is a defined term) or property damage). Your judgement about a "bad" film is completely subjective (not scientifically proven) and the film doesn't cause direct injury or damage. In order to collect damages, you'd have to prove negligence.
Steven S
Director of Sales, Dover Publications
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (2), Public Relations (1), Customer Relationship Management (1)
It is simply objective versus subjective.
The bulb does not work. No question about it, it's dark!
The bulb does work, it is bright.
No opinion can affect the outcome.
The movie sucked....hey, but I liked it.
The movie was great...hey I thought it sucked.
Opinions drive this bus, and you pays your money and takes your chances.
You need bulbs. You do not need movies.
Kevin H
Total Success Teams / New Eras Media
Best Answers in: Ethics (109), Career Management (15), Government Policy (12), Web Development (11), Mentoring (8), Professional Networking (6), Using LinkedIn (6), Starting Up (5), Philanthropy (4), Education and Schools (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Change Management (3), Organizational Development (3), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Criminal Law (2), Property Law (2), Sales Techniques (2), Corporate Governance (2), Business Plans (2), Small Business (2), Certification and Licenses (1), Freelancing and Contracting (1), Financial Regulation (1), Government Services (1), Personnel Policies (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Internet Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Public Relations (1), Lead Generation (1), Writing and Editing (1), Business Analytics (1), Planning (1), Non-profit Fundraising (1), Social Enterpreneurship (1), Professional Books and Resources (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Energy and Development (1), E-Commerce (1)
The writer, the director, the studio, the rest of the crew--all lose credibility and earning power.
I would hate to live in such a world where we would be afraid to create.
For instance, despite "Good Samaritan" laws, someone was recently successfully sued for rescuing, yet paralyzing someone in a car accident. This makes me not want to rescue someone. So instead the car catches on fire, and I am again to blame.
With a light bulb, there is a contractual agreement: This X will do Y. Y is contingent on X.
But I certainly have gone to movies where I was disappointed and wasted two hours, so your point is well taken.
Anyone and file a complaint against anyone else. The question is "Does your case have merit?"
Dave J
Trial / Appellate Attorney & Computer Consultant
Best Answers in: Ethics (4), Occupational Training (1), Career Management (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Ever seen an "art" film? They all suck (in my opinion, of course). It's called freedom of speech. If I'm dumb enough to pay for a movie I don't like, that's my fault (i.e., it's my own subjective view of the film). The producer/director/writer/actor/etc. can't help it if I don't share their vision and conception of a great film. On the other hand, if I buy a light bulb that does not work, that is not my fault (i.e., the bulb objectively does not work). The manufacturer failed to produce a light bulb that worked as promised. I couldn't realistically sue the manufacturer if it is just one bulb that is bad, though. I'd just take it back to the store and get a new one. I'd only have a law suit if all the bulbs failed to work, or if someone got hurt as a direct result of the bulb's faulty manufacture (e.g., it exploded and hurt someone), etc. To top it off, you couldn't sue someone who makes a horrible movie because that just isn't the type of thing courts want to be litigating (at least for now), so they'd just throw the case out.
