Open letter to Leo Burnett
- Started
- Last post
- 56 Responses
- raf0
Interesting that they sneaked in what easily has an appearance of a blatant lie into their polite apology. It makes it sound like "because fy, you don't get this game".
- pepe0
leo burnett shouldn't have responded.
- kingkong0
they havent
- ETM0
Leo Burnett claims the other production was from script only and the production company never saw the original film. I find that hard to believe.
- 20020
Hey good luck finding another agency to work with you on next shit project.
- monospaced0
... and ... scene.
Fade out.
- tOki0
All of you guys complaining about if Leo Burnett hired Asylum then it's totally fair - FYI most agencies retain copyright of their work, as well as ownership of the working files. The transaction is merely a license to use said work.. this is to protect their investment and any knowledge or trade secrets associated with it eg. to stop people taking their concepts and creating derivative works. It's anti-competitive sure, but this is a good example where they, the small guy, gets fucked around by the big guy and miss out on what they deem to be work that should of gone to them.
This kind of thing happens all the time - whilst Leo Burnett probably haven't broken any kind of contract they've definitely not played particularly fair to the smaller shop who seemingly helped them out. It highlights how business in general can be pretty douchey if anything..
- Horp0
Lovely piece of film.
Sue the fuck out of them.
- raf0
Didn't Burnett own the first film?
- I fucking hate agencies as much as everyone but this is a good point.Ambushstudio
- 20020
MONZA THIS THREAD
- 20020
MONZA THIS THREAD
- differenz0
Someone somewhere thought that the same idea could be done "better" (or different) than it was done by the Asylum Films. Which is ok, but not fair to give someone else the same job and they literally use almost the same shots and make it more "flashy" looking.
I liked the original Asylum Films one because it had this gritty feel to it, more "realistic" and honest. The other one is more polished, gives a different view on the subject itself.
I think it's cool that Ben Falk came out with this so openly but I don't think it will make a "ripple" nor change anything on similar grounds.
- fresnobob0
I donno... Asylum was hired by Leo Burnett, made work for them, and was compensated for it. Isn't that pretty much the end of the story?
If Leo Burnett wanted to remake it because someone, somewhere in the agency line felt it wasn't up to par, that is perfectly ok, legal, and everything else....
Asylum dudes just had to get all egotistical...
- rootlock0
Not the same job, one was a low budget piece for a Gala one was a high budget piece for Cinema. The script and idea was Leo Burnett and these companies were hired to execute.
The only wrong was Leo Burnett should of reached out to Asylum and communicated what they were doing. But based on Asylum going childishly public they probably had reasons not to hire them back.
Maybe the account got a new account director who has a connection with the new company and loved working with them.
Think about if it was any other industry. I hire a company to paint my house blue , quick job , small budget...they get compensated and do a great job. Next year my wife says I want a darker shade of blue , better paint, maybe some fucking glitter .... but she wants to work with her uncle who is a painter who has ball cancer.
I dont call up company a and explain the situation...that said If headed up another paint job or could still refer them to a colleague if they were a good fit.
- you know this because you worked at Leo Burnett? I've been on many pitching jobs, where the concepts were developed by studios, so unless you know this for sure, you're just speculatingtwooh
- studios. So unless you know this for a fact, you're just speculating.twooh
- thought it was clear I was speculating and explaining a possible ..rootlock
- scenariorootlock
- pr20
Both are done as ads = no soul. Lets call the BS. I would care if the original was a short film or something that was ripped off otherwise it's the same poop going down the same hole.
The original guys are probably pissed becaue it was done for a few $s while the remake was done for $$$.
- missing the point...OSFA
- what is the point??pr2
- The point is that another agency got the contract for Asylum's entire concept and hard work.monospaced
- if it was their concept it's one thing, if it was simply their work based on agency's idea is another.pr2
- What monospaced said.OSFA
- OSFA0
LOL they claim the other studio never saw the original film?
- that's a load of shit - some of it was shot for shot.bulletfactory
- monospaced0
If I was in the second agency and was assigned to execute the "big budget" version, I wouldn't even want to take this project because it would be like asking me to work with a stolen concept. I'm not even comfortable designing something that resembles other people's work, let alone their entire concept and script. And I wouldn't care if LB owned the film and could do whatever they wanted with it, the very principle stands: it's a stolen concept. If I was responsible for the remake, I'd be ashamed.
- I'm assuming the script and direction was Asylum's.monospaced
- Clearly states that the script was burnetts.rootlock
- I'm assuming the script didn't include little box people wandering through a hospital.monospaced
- You assume the agency was transparent with the second co. - probably said 'here's something WE cobbled together quickly'babaganush
- OSFA0
Unfortunately mono, there are tons of people that have no problem at all stealing concepts, clients, etc. Some people in this business are in it only for the money, and if it is easy money like in this case, even better!
- I'm fully aware of that. That's why I framed my comment from the perspective of me as an employee.monospaced
- Stealing clients I'm all for. I'm also in this for the money, especially easy money. But this is against the creative code.monospaced