Bad news for Mozart And The Whale

[Guest guest]

From what I have read on the Internet Movie Database member

postings, " Mozart And The Whale " is not going to get its nationwide

distribution due. The producers are in search of another audience

after its failure in Spokane, Washington and Cour D'Alene, Idaho. Mr.

Newport assumes it will make its way to DVD but it may go into a

television market before that.

[Guest guest]

>

> From what I have read on the Internet Movie Database member

> postings, " Mozart And The Whale " is not going to get its nationwide

> distribution due. The producers are in search of another audience

> after its failure in Spokane, Washington and Cour D'Alene, Idaho.

Mr.

> Newport assumes it will make its way to DVD but it may go into a

> television market before that.

>

I am on this list so I am not sure why you felt the need to post

that but you are correct and I posted this before. The main reason

the movie didn't go further was because Josh Hartnett refused to help

promote it, claiming the final edit was not what he wanted. I am

grateful to Josh for what he did to make the movie possible,

including his acting but as I reminded him last Friday, I wish he had

helped promote a movie that deserved a national theater audience.

The movie will be used by various autism/asoerger groups as a

fundraising tool while another market is being sought. That is all I

know.

Jerry Newport aka The Whale

[Guest guest]

Hey,

I was just wondering (no particular reason) - what kind of rights do

you have over how/by who the movie is used in the future? When they

bought the rights to your story, did they give you any creative

control options?

Just curious,

-Ari

>

> The movie will be used by various autism/asoerger groups as a

> fundraising tool while another market is being sought. That is all I

> know.

>

> Jerry Newport aka The Whale

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Hey,

>

> I was just wondering (no particular reason) - what kind of rights do

> you have over how/by who the movie is used in the future? When they

> bought the rights to your story, did they give you any creative

> control options?

>

> Just curious,

> -Ari

and I had no legal rights as far as creative control, other

than a legal right to prevent anything in the movie from portraying us

or other autistic people in a manner that could be seem as ridicule or

defamation. The distribution of the movie is completely determined by

the studio. We get a theoretical 2.5% of " profits " but try to get that

unless you are a VIP like Art Buchwald, who sued to get his fair share

from a movie based on his book, " Coming to America. " Hollywood

accounting makes the fringes of autism look pretty good!

However, Ron Bass, screenwriter, sought our input on the script

from the first draft in 1997 until the movie was done. We are

responsible for many of the good changes and we put Ron in touch with

some other peers as well as Tony Attwood, who gave us critical support

on the changing of one scene that really bothered us.

Unfortunately, because of the insurance company who underwrote the

film, neither , myself or any of our peers got any credit on the

screen or in print for our help. The only indirect mention of us is

that the film does claim to be " based upon the experiences of a real

life couple with asperger syndrome. " That was also the case with

" Rain Man " where none of the savants who helped create the

Babbitt character got credit either.

We did retain our rights over any use of material from our life

AFTER the day filming began on March 1, 2004. That means that another

movie, based on life later on in the relationship, can be done

independently of this movie and by another studio if any becomes

interested.

Jerry Newport

[Guest guest]

>

>

> the studio. We get a theoretical 2.5% of " profits " but try to get that

> unless you are a VIP like Art Buchwald, who sued to get his fair share

> from a movie based on his book, " Coming to America. " Hollywood

> accounting makes the fringes of autism look pretty good!

>

Jerry

I remember the horror story from the writers of forrest gump. They were

paid from profits. But despite being a box office hit the accounting made

into a loss. Always net not gross!!

[Guest guest]

I had a " problem " with the word 'failure' being used earlier, in regard to

the film

in a previous post. No idea, as it was probably out of context somewhere

down the line.

I am immensely proud the film exists, period.

I am tired of the " You can't be married if you have Aspergers, " comments...

Just the fact you've done this, you are yet to reach the audience. And you

will.

I will certainly buy my copy when it is available to me. Monetarily

speaking, I do feel

at this point it is time to measure success with a different yardstick, and

you can be

proud.

It is a sad reflection on the industry of course, that the people behind the

story don't have more input.

I wish there were a way you Jerry could promote it, personally so people

would listen.

We have a small theatre in town that plays " independents. " There are many

places like that

but how to reach them, I know nothing about that.

K

>

>

> >

> > Hey,

> >

> > I was just wondering (no particular reason) - what kind of rights do

> > you have over how/by who the movie is used in the future? When they

> > bought the rights to your story, did they give you any creative

> > control options?

> >

> > Just curious,

> > -Ari

>

>

> and I had no legal rights as far as creative control, other

> than a legal right to prevent anything in the movie from portraying us

> or other autistic people in a manner that could be seem as ridicule or

> defamation. The distribution of the movie is completely determined by

> the studio. We get a theoretical 2.5% of " profits " but try to get that

> unless you are a VIP like Art Buchwald, who sued to get his fair share

> from a movie based on his book, " Coming to America. " Hollywood

> accounting makes the fringes of autism look pretty good!

>

> However, Ron Bass, screenwriter, sought our input on the script

> from the first draft in 1997 until the movie was done. We are

> responsible for many of the good changes and we put Ron in touch with

> some other peers as well as Tony Attwood, who gave us critical support

> on the changing of one scene that really bothered us.

>

> Unfortunately, because of the insurance company who underwrote the

> film, neither , myself or any of our peers got any credit on the

> screen or in print for our help. The only indirect mention of us is

> that the film does claim to be " based upon the experiences of a real

> life couple with asperger syndrome. " That was also the case with

> " Rain Man " where none of the savants who helped create the

> Babbitt character got credit either.

>

> We did retain our rights over any use of material from our life

> AFTER the day filming began on March 1, 2004. That means that another

> movie, based on life later on in the relationship, can be done

> independently of this movie and by another studio if any becomes

> interested.

>

> Jerry Newport

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > Hey,

> > >

> > > I was just wondering (no particular reason) - what kind of rights do

> > > you have over how/by who the movie is used in the future? When they

> > > bought the rights to your story, did they give you any creative

> > > control options?

> > >

> > > Just curious,

> > > -Ari

> >

> >

> > and I had no legal rights as far as creative control, other

> > than a legal right to prevent anything in the movie from portraying us

> > or other autistic people in a manner that could be seem as ridicule or

> > defamation. The distribution of the movie is completely determined by

> > the studio. We get a theoretical 2.5% of " profits " but try to get that

> > unless you are a VIP like Art Buchwald, who sued to get his fair share

> > from a movie based on his book, " Coming to America. " Hollywood

> > accounting makes the fringes of autism look pretty good!

> >

> > However, Ron Bass, screenwriter, sought our input on the script

> > from the first draft in 1997 until the movie was done. We are

> > responsible for many of the good changes and we put Ron in touch with

> > some other peers as well as Tony Attwood, who gave us critical support

> > on the changing of one scene that really bothered us.

> >

> > Unfortunately, because of the insurance company who underwrote the

> > film, neither , myself or any of our peers got any credit on the

> > screen or in print for our help. The only indirect mention of us is

> > that the film does claim to be " based upon the experiences of a real

> > life couple with asperger syndrome. " That was also the case with

> > " Rain Man " where none of the savants who helped create the

> > Babbitt character got credit either.

> >

> > We did retain our rights over any use of material from our life

> > AFTER the day filming began on March 1, 2004. That means that another

> > movie, based on life later on in the relationship, can be done

> > independently of this movie and by another studio if any becomes

> > interested.

> >

> > Jerry Newport

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > > Hey,

> > > >

> > > > I was just wondering (no particular reason) - what kind of rights do

> > > > you have over how/by who the movie is used in the future? When they

> > > > bought the rights to your story, did they give you any creative

> > > > control options?

> > > >

> > > > Just curious,

> > > > -Ari

> > >

> > >

> > > and I had no legal rights as far as creative control, other

> > > than a legal right to prevent anything in the movie from portraying us

> > > or other autistic people in a manner that could be seem as ridicule or

> > > defamation. The distribution of the movie is completely determined by

> > > the studio. We get a theoretical 2.5% of " profits " but try to get that

> > > unless you are a VIP like Art Buchwald, who sued to get his fair share

> > > from a movie based on his book, " Coming to America. " Hollywood

> > > accounting makes the fringes of autism look pretty good!

> > >

> > > However, Ron Bass, screenwriter, sought our input on the script

> > > from the first draft in 1997 until the movie was done. We are

> > > responsible for many of the good changes and we put Ron in touch with

> > > some other peers as well as Tony Attwood, who gave us critical support

> > > on the changing of one scene that really bothered us.

> > >

> > > Unfortunately, because of the insurance company who underwrote the

> > > film, neither , myself or any of our peers got any credit on the

> > > screen or in print for our help. The only indirect mention of us is

> > > that the film does claim to be " based upon the experiences of a real

> > > life couple with asperger syndrome. " That was also the case with

> > > " Rain Man " where none of the savants who helped create the

> > > Babbitt character got credit either.

> > >

> > > We did retain our rights over any use of material from our life

> > > AFTER the day filming began on March 1, 2004. That means that another

> > > movie, based on life later on in the relationship, can be done

> > > independently of this movie and by another studio if any becomes

> > > interested.

> > >

> > > Jerry Newport

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> Hi Jerry and all,

> Going " indie " would be worth a try. Do you know anybody with

connections to such film festivals as Sundance? It's worth a shot.

Don't give up on your project. It's important people know about this

and we all here n cyberspace have faith in your endeavor. Educational

and straight to video are also other routes to consider as well.

> Good luck,

> Wanda

>

It already is an indie film and those avenues have already been

tapped. It has been in film festivals all over the world and is doing

better in other nations than the USA.

Jerry