Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Ugly Hecty

"Blond Ambition" biopic happening. Madonna doesn't approve!

Recommended Posts

 

Maybe they will use "Cosmic Climb" :wow: ?

Maybe they will use songs Madonna hasn't written, like Borderline, Holiday, Material Girl, Dress You Up and Like a Virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

People have to have the artists or writers permission to use their music. That is how Glee were able to do the Madonna episode and were so excited about it and saw it as a major coup.  Madonna herself gave them permission to do so.  I remember seeing how they said she opened her entire catalogue for them. 

I recall the media reports for this at the time too (I think Entertainment Weekly broke the story if I'm remembering right), but that's not how licensing actually works. An artist doesn't just say "Yes this is OK" and that's that. There are multiple stakeholders who need to sign off.

Chances are that EW and others wrote these "full catalogue rights" stories because entertainment reporters don't understand or care about copyright law. Or maybe, because Fox / "Glee" was asking for the rights to so many songs (they did like seven or eight songs that episode), the record and publishing companies sat down with M and made sure she was on board with such a large contact being signed. Or maybe she has a clause in contracts that requires her to be consulted whenever lyrics are changed (as in the "Borderline" / "Open Your Heart" mash-up and in the "Vogue" rap) or images of her are reproduced (as in the "Express Yourself" performance, which is lifted heavily from the BA performance and in "Vogue," where the character of Sue does an almost shot-for-shot remake of the video).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This is part of what makes the freakouts in this thread such nonsense. The way movies are produced today put much more power in the hands of directors than screenwriters. No one has any idea what this movie will look like until a director signs on.

 

This idea that I've seen floating up on M forums the past year or two that "American Life" was "only" a failure in the U.S. is blatantly rewriting her career history. "Music" sold 12 million copies outside the United States. "American Life" sold four million. That's a 75 percent drop in non-U.S. sales from one album to the next.

The backlash was overwhelming. The threats to her family were so serious that she censored herself for the first time in her career.

 

I don't know who's saying what about her. I don't know that I've ever read or commented on any of the billions of "so-and-so said such-and-such" threads that come up about her here or on other forums. It just seems so unimportant. I come here to talk about the woman and her work, not random celebrity gossip.

 

 

@jazzyjan I love you and I always love your comments. You're one of my favorite posters on this board. But "character assassination" just seems like such conspiracy theory thinking. I don't think there's any grand Hollywood scheme to make M look bad.

I read the screenplay when it topped the Black List last year. I thought it was good. It's not entirely accurate, but most of the liberties they took with her history are for pretty obvious storytelling reasons. The most obvious to me was having Jellybean be a composite character of the real life Jellybean, Kamins and maybe Bray. It inflates Jellybean's role in her early career, but it's a much easier story to follow than introducing three different male leads, explaining their backgrounds, exploring their relationships with M, and getting each of their early M collabs resolved in a two-hour film.

But as I said above, Hollywood gives enormous creative control to directors. Directors rework dialogue, scenes, and sometimes entire plots during production. We really have no idea what this could be like until a director signs on.

 

 

Actually, they probably can. Movie and television licensing is managed separately from other uses of copyrighted music, and is governed by an entirely different section of copyright law.

First, it's important to note that there are two licenses for every song -- a songwriting license handled by a publishing company and a recording license handled by the record company. Securing the former license would allow for a song to be covered by another singer and used in the movie, and securing the latter license would allow for an actual M recording to be used. And, believe it or not, it is much easier to secure an M recording license (or a license for any hit song by any artist) than it is to secure the publishing license.

Recording licenses are shockingly easy to obtain because media conglomeration over the past three decades has left the United States (which basically sets copyright law for the world) with just three major labels: Universal, Sony and Warner. Movie and television licensing is an enormously important revenue stream for these companies, as the internet has devastated most of the rest of the music industry. Recording licensing is therefore highly streamlined to maximize profit -- basically every proposal over $X for Y song is approved by an accountant, and a contract is signed by an attorney. That's it. License granted.

Publishing companies never saw that same sort of conglomeration, though. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of publishing companies in the U.S. today. And because there are so many publishing companies, hit songs highly decentralized. So, if a publishing company holds the rights to, say, Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" and 1000 shit songs from bands no one's heard of, then the publishing company is going fight movie and television studios tooth and nail to extract every last penny they can before allowing the use of "Bohemian Rhapsody" in a movie or TV episode because it's the one song that makes them money.

It is the often-ignored world of publishing that allowed Michael Jackson to take control of the Beatles catalogue in the 80s -- Jackson basically took all his "Thriller" money and bought the publishing company that licensed Beatles music. He probably made $1 billion off that $50 million investment.

The ability to handle recording licenses is a core part of any recording contract and, since this movie is about M's early career -- AKA using music she would have recorded at a time when she had absolutely zero leverage to negotiate for herself to have a say in that licensing -- it's unlikely M has any say in Warner's licensing of her recording material for a project like this. The question is what publishing house (or publishing houses) she used in early-80s, and who owns those publishing houses today.

Boy Toy, Inc. Was established on 2/3/1984 so there wouldn't be much involvement from other publishers during the time they are supposedly focusing on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that Guy O is one of the most important guys in holywood nowadays, he can move some sticks and just be done with this fuckery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Boy Toy, Inc. Was established on 2/3/1984 so there wouldn't be much involvement from other publishers during the time they are supposedly focusing on. 

Boy Toy wasn't a publishing company, though. Webo was her earliest publishing company that she controlled, so far as I know, and I don't believe it was founded until after the first album. I simply have no idea who published her songs for the first album, or who controls the rights to the songs she didn't write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

People have to have the artists or writers permission to use their music. That is how Glee were able to do the Madonna episode and were so excited about it and saw it as a major coup.  Madonna herself gave them permission to do so.  I remember seeing how they said she opened her entire catalogue for them. 

Yes, same thing with American Idol.

Madonna stands to profit from ‘Glee’ episode

By Dominic Patten
TheWrap.com

If everyone hits the notes they're supposed to, Tuesday’s Madonna-themed episode of “Glee” is going to leave the Material Girl very, very happy — and not just from the female empowerment motif or Jane Lynch's stylized version of “Vogue.”

For one thing, it’s the only episode so far of the hit series dedicated to a single artist.

“I could see it happening again infrequently in the future,” Adam Anders, “Glee’s” music producer told TheWrap. “But Madonna was a great choice to start with because of the depth of her catalogue."

Indeed, that catalogue will hand Ms. Ciccone a nice chunk of financial joy from the licensing fees for the “New Directions” kids’ performance of 10 of her songs. Licensing, like live performance, is one of the few areas of the music business that is still actually growing.

It’s a very strategic move when you take a look at the calendar.

The “Glee” episode — “Glee: The Power of Madonna” — and accompanying record are out one week after Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour CD and DVD hit the market.

The album debuted in the Top 10, and the DVD topped the music-video charts.

“This ‘Glee’ episode is still a win/win for her and Live Nation's investment in her touring and related merchandise because of the publicity and the spike in sales they'll get for her new live DVD and CD," a music industry insider told TheWrap.

Most expensive ‘Glee’ 
According to one individual close to the show, Madonna and her management granted the show total access to her entire catalogue after being personally approached by “Glee” co-creator Ryan Murphy last year.

It won’t hurt ratings for the already top-rated show, either.

“Glee’s” Anders wouldn’t confirm how much the show paid to use Madonna’s songs, but he did say that quantity helps. “The more you do, there is a bulk rate involved, so you do get a better deal. Still, because of the production numbers, this was the most expensive ‘Glee’ we've ever done."

Network programs usually have a music budget of around $150,000 to $200,000 and spend about $10,000 to $15,000 to license the right to use a track.

Simon Harris of Fabric Publishing, who has had songs by its artists licensed for “Ugly Betty” and “CSI,” says “an artist or writer is not going to get rich from one song placement.” However, Harris says the rules and revenues of the game become a little different if you are a legacy superstar like Madonna.

Like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles, the singer — who has not just a deep catalogue but a strong current fan base — can command about $50,000 a tune, according to licensing agents who spoke to TheWrap.

Regardless of the discount Madonna gave “Glee,” the themed episode mostly likely will end up extremely lucrative for both the show and the performer.

The mini-album, featuring seven of the 10 songs that'll be on the show, comes out online and in stores the same day the show airs. Also, fans that purchase the album off iTunes will get a version of "Burning Up" as a bonus track.

Similar to that other Fox powerhouse “American Idol,” artists who appear on “Glee,” "get a halo effect on the track level," Silvio Pietroluongo, Billboard's director of charts, told TheWrap.

In a business beset with double-digit sales drops, “Glee” has proven a welcomed tonic, with single songs from the show — both the “Glee” cast version and the original — selling in the millions.

Profitable venture 
And the “Glee” albums are doing pretty well, too. “Glee Volume 1,” which came out in November, has sold 776,000 units to date, and “Volume 2,” which came out in December, has sold 574,000.

"Those are very good numbers, both on their own and in contrast to performers like Ke$ha, who has sold 558,000 units of her album since it came out in January,” Pietroluongo said.

Madonna's greatest hits collection "Celebration," which has sold about 218,000 units since it came out in September of 2009, will likely see a bounce from the 2,000 copies a week it’s selling right now, thanks to the “Glee” connection, he said.

"This isn’t really about Madonna being on ‘Glee,’" a former label executive and industry insider told TheWrap, "it's about Madonna’s place in the market."

In October 2007, Madonna left Warner Music to sign a 10-year, $120 million deal for all her future music and all music-related businesses with concert promoter Live Nation. That deal included the Madonna brand, albums, digital sales, revenue from her tours, merchandise, online presence, DVDs, TV and film projects that are music related and associated sponsorship agreements.

Additionally, the deal gave Madonna stock in Live Nation, who recently merged with Ticketmaster to form Live Nation Entertainment. The venture has certainly already proved profitable to all concerned with Madonna's 85-show 2008/2009 Sticky and Sweet world tour grossing over $408 million for the performer and the promoter.

Madonna herself told Us Weekly that she thought the “Glee” episode was “brilliant on every level.”

For a performer who has never shied away from exposure over her nearly three-decade career, looking at the bottom line, it’s not hard to see why … on every single level.

Copyright 2012 by TheWrap.com

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36666635/ns/business-us_business/t/madonna-stands-profit-glee-episode/

I remember 'Hard Copy" always bitching about Madonna not letting them use any official videos/ pictures/ music for their segments, same thing with some tv specials from networks like E!., they could only use paparazzi videos and photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving all the Madonna buzz and the headlines and BLOND AMBITION in the news!!

And they're using lots of great early photographs!

 

BIOPIC NEWS .png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Boy Toy wasn't a publishing company, though. Webo was her earliest publishing company that she controlled, so far as I know, and I don't believe it was founded until after the first album. I simply have no idea who published her songs for the first album, or who controls the rights to the songs she didn't write.

You're right, it's for royalties not publishing..... Webo Girl wasn't founded until quite a while later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think Madonna will use the Force and just say no.

databank_forcechoke_01_169_93e4b0cf.jpeg

I hope so. As much as I would love to see a good film made about her, I don't think this will be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's the same script that was floating around a few months ago, this is going to be a shit show!! :rotfl:

No wonder she's pissed.

 

:madonna2::madonna2::madonna2::madonna2::madonna2:

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 7.47.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 7.53.39 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting bit of news from Deadline Hollywood's article about Madonna's Instagram post about the film:

Interestingly enough, NBCUniversal Vice Chairman Ron Meyer used to rep the singer while he was an agent at CAA."

The weasels are starting to become clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! 

There is SO much  going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a gossip report on twitter that Paris Jackson was going to be cast as Madonna in Blonde Ambition. Surely, this is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I read a gossip report on twitter that Paris Jackson was going to be cast as Madonna in Blonde Ambition. Surely, this is not true.

vqsja1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a soundtrack with a few new hits? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm loving all the Madonna buzz and the headlines and BLOND AMBITION in the news!!

And they're using lots of great early photographs!

 

BIOPIC NEWS .png

The only good thing that COULD come with this is releasing BA DVD and use the buzz plus overshadow that already doomed movie and give the public some receipts of the talent behind all the man eater nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Madonna write her own autobiography,which could then be turned into a movie....WITH her involvement (maybe as co-producer?).I have no interest in seeing an unauthorized biopic that she herself strongly disapproves of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only interested in a well researched documentary with lots of money spend to get original footage and material and interview partners.

Other than that I'd take a high profile TV or Netflix show with 10 episodes at least. Involving ALL the protagonists and not some weird mash up. Could be as well about NY music scene with Madonna's story embedded in centre. 

Concerning the movie all I'd like to add is: Hands off, Baz Luhrmann!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

People have to have the artists or writers permission to use their music. That is how Glee were able to do the Madonna episode and were so excited about it and saw it as a major coup.  Madonna herself gave them permission to do so.  I remember seeing how they said she opened her entire catalogue for them. 

I doubt Madonna handles all of that personally, it would take her hours on end to just look at all the demands for uses of her music. She must delegate to someone in her management who takes care of these things. For Glee, she was personnally involved because she was personnally contacted by the director or producer. For this movie, she maybe hasn't been approached, but she knows about it and probably could work to prevent them from using any of her songs.

I can understand the fear some have that this biopic would come out as a negative, but I only see good stuff from it. If it's bad, I'm still going to see it and it will be entertaining to complain for days on end here about all the things they got WRONG! Endless fun. If it's a success, ... it'll be the same here. Anyway, it's free publicity, her music could get a momentum on the charts, etc.

I disagree with Madonna's opinion, actually, that making a biopic on a celebrity is sacrilegious unless the person is involved. She herself has made a biopic (WE). Of course, since the characters are dead, it gives the film a historical perspective. But I don't see any difference. The film was even sharply criticised by historians (she could have hired historians beforehand to make sure, instead of relying on only her own research). She played in Evita as well, a biopic. They tried to make it the best they could, but it is always a reconstruction, a rewriting of the facts. It's a movie. Every biopic is fictional. It's meant to be a spectacle, not a scientific documentary on rodents. And it certainly is open to criticism. It won't be the reference point for Madonna's history... Innocence Lost will remain. :asian:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If it's the same script that was floating around a few months ago, this is going to be a shit show!! :rotfl:

No wonder she's pissed.

 

:madonna2::madonna2::madonna2::madonna2::madonna2:

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 7.47.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 7.53.39 PM.png

An unexpected cool move on his part. That's writing?

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem of this project is not that the biography is unauthorized, because sometimes it is rather a quality since it allows to have a more objective view on the artist. No, the major problem that will plunge the project is that Madonna will refuse them the use of her songs making the film pointless. The second major handicap of the project is the script, because if the one that circulates online is the real deal, it will require a serious rewrite, because the dialogues are totally shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×