Hackers Hold Disney’s Latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" for Ransom

Pirates have pirated the pirates movie? In before someone else comes up with something better.
 
I love the Pirates movies. I don't like Johnny Depp's recent creepy stuff, but he really nails Jack Sparrow.

Disney isn't paying. I hope it starts a trend. Remove the monetary motivation from those thieves. Telling them to fuck off, basically.

I think most of Disney's audience that want to watch this in theaters are going to anyway. This leaking would satisfy many pirates (they'll eventually make a whole movie from the parts), so very little actual sales will be lost. Of course, MPAA & Disney will claim trillions were lost due to the many downloads and want to combat piracy with force....
 
I enjoyed the pirate movies. Enough to watch in theaters? No. Enough to pirate? No. Enough to red box or stream? Yep.
See? No lost sale from me.
 
1p5h3t.jpg
 
zkostik said:
Wow, comparing PotC to Godfather? Talk about taste in movies. Go back to Twitter and Instagram. No wonder there are so few actually good movies these days. You're probably thought Avatar had a great narrative as well? Well, to each their own. You like everyone else are entitled to your own opinion.
Click to expand...

Want to know why there are fewer "good" films? Because what is mass marketed is hollywood regurgitated action flicks. You don't hear about the good ones because they didn't do well in the box office. Because of the risk of filming something that has no world wide appeal most studios don't want to bother with it. It's why we've gone from 1 or 2 blockbusters a year to 5-6+, to feed the appetite of the masses and it works. These movies are constantly pulling in $500M+ and until people stop caring this is what we'll continue to get for the next decade.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Ah the fourth sequel to a franchise that hasn't been good since the first, and we still don't have Dredd 2 :(
Click to expand...


I liked them all..... actually I think there is one I haven't seen yet so I need to catch up.

That being said, I also think this was a stupid criminal move. They'll never pay.
 
lcpiper said:
I liked them all..... actually I think there is one I haven't seen yet so I need to catch up.

That being said, I also think this was a stupid criminal move. They'll never pay.
Click to expand...

Ya, it would just open them up to more attacks like this. Also, while it sucks for Disney, I doubt it will hurt them all that much in the end. If anything, it'll be an interesting experiment to see how much piracy actually impacts movie sales.
 
CannibalTrout said:
They deserve it if they can't manage to keep their network secure. For a motion picture studio why on earth wouldn't all the equipment be basically in a closed loop system with no outside network access. If I'm say a video editor or whatever working on the film why would I need to surf youtube and other internet garbage on that same secure system? I work in a financial processing business and everything is split in Employee Network and Production network, with very little access in between and most certainly the production systems have absolutely ZERO internet access.

Now if someone physically made like a thumb drive copy and leaked that way then that's a bit harder. But even now a days you can make lock down PCs pretty hard, and certainly should be able to track who has access to the completed film, and track file transfers.
Click to expand...



Or ...... it was never actually hacked at all and the "hackers" just don't want Disney to catch on that it was an inside job ..... like it usually is when new movie gets outed early.
 
NickJames said:
Want to know why there are fewer "good" films? Because what is mass marketed is hollywood regurgitated action flicks. You don't hear about the good ones because they didn't do well in the box office. Because of the risk of filming something that has no world wide appeal most studios don't want to bother with it. It's why we've gone from 1 or 2 blockbusters a year to 5-6+, to feed the appetite of the masses and it works. These movies are constantly pulling in $500M+ and until people stop caring this is what we'll continue to get for the next decade.
Click to expand...
Haha! When people make a crap movie that fails at the box office, they try to justify its existence by saying it's a "good" movie that is "artistic" or for a true movie lover. Movies that do well at the box office are the good movies. The crap you must like (assuming nobody pays to see it) is not good. If it's good, it sells. When people say something is an acquired taste, they mean that it tastes like crap, but they were too stupid to learn not to eat it again.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Disney is looking at this and saying "Oh look! Free advertising!"
Click to expand...
I didn't even know about the new movie until I heard about this ransom. So it worked, I'll watch it in the theater. I love all things piracy(including these movies), the ransomers should be drawn and quartered for this. If you've got some juicy bits, spread that shit.
 
I know that I have seen a good film when I am walking out of the theater with my friends or family and we all have smiles on our faces talking about how great the movie was. I can almost name them ....

Jaws
Star Wars
Jurassic Park
Saving Private Ryan

There were others and others come damn close but you guys know what I am talking about.

Now maybe if I had seen Gone With The Wind at the theater, back in the day. I might have had that same feeling ....... but I wouldn't bet no money on it (y)
 
EJ42 said:
Haha! When people make a crap movie that fails at the box office, they try to justify its existence by saying it's a "good" movie that is "artistic" or for a true movie lover. Movies that do well at the box office are the good movies. The crap you must like (assuming nobody pays to see it) is not good. If it's good, it sells. When people say something is an acquired taste, they mean that it tastes like crap, but they were too stupid to learn not to eat it again.
Click to expand...

Blade Runner
Shawshank Redemption
Children of Men
Hugo
Fight Club
The Iron Giant
Treasure Planet

vs

Shrek 3
Spider-Man 3
Transformers et al
Star Wars EP1

One of these movies alone made more profit than all 7 of the movies on top. Now you see why Hollywood doesn't take risks?
 
CannibalTrout said:
They deserve it if they can't manage to keep their network secure. For a motion picture studio why on earth wouldn't all the equipment be basically in a closed loop system with no outside network access. If I'm say a video editor or whatever working on the film why would I need to surf youtube and other internet garbage on that same secure system? I work in a financial processing business and everything is split in Employee Network and Production network, with very little access in between and most certainly the production systems have absolutely ZERO internet access.

Now if someone physically made like a thumb drive copy and leaked that way then that's a bit harder. But even now a days you can make lock down PCs pretty hard, and certainly should be able to track who has access to the completed film, and track file transfers.
Click to expand...

As the article mentioned, it's not quite that simple. There are many points of entry to acquiring a film, and many companies involved, not just Disney. And that's still not to say someone didn't physically walk out with a copy on a thumb drive. Now, Disney could do everything in house, but that would be more expensive. Or, they could provide security to the companies involved, but that too would be more expensive. If you want to shave off money on production costs, it needs to come from somewhere, and sometimes there are consequences.

And in terms of ransomware? In a digital age, you have to assume you can never truly get anything back due to the ease of copying.
 
zkostik said:
Wow, comparing PotC to Godfather? Talk about taste in movies. Go back to Twitter and Instagram. No wonder there are so few actually good movies these days. You're probably thought Avatar had a great narrative as well? Well, to each their own. You like everyone else are entitled to your own opinion.
Click to expand...


There's a shit ton of great movies today just like there's a shit ton of crap in the past. Nostalgia, like a bad ex wife, is a bitch and a liar. We filter out the things we love and remember and see the past as this wonderful time.

A great example of this is also music. Think of all the hot tracks from your Tim period. Now think of the shit that came out the same time. Mambo number five and all.


Personally I adore godfather 1 and 2 but doctor who is campy as fuck.
 
EJ42 said:
Haha! When people make a crap movie that fails at the box office, they try to justify its existence by saying it's a "good" movie that is "artistic" or for a true movie lover. Movies that do well at the box office are the good movies. The crap you must like (assuming nobody pays to see it) is not good. If it's good, it sells. When people say something is an acquired taste, they mean that it tastes like crap, but they were too stupid to learn not to eat it again.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree with you pointing out it does well the box office. I think it does well if it establishes a fan base. With the advent of after theater sales and the Internet age a lot of movies are having great success after the box office. Hell it was that in the past. Big trouble little china did horrible in the box office but VHS, DVD, and streaming sales have made it a cult classic.
 
The first thing that came to my head when reading the headline was "Ahh, I see -- the Somali pira ... *ahem* 'wealth redistributors' finally decided to invest in modern-day techniques, instead of their primitive ones". :p
 
Susquehannock said:
QFT ^^
Decidedly non-disney and non-hollywood, which is exactly why we won't see a sequel.
Click to expand...

No, we're not seeing Dredd 2 because Dredd 1 bombed. Hard. Dredd's entire worldwide gross was $35m on a $50m production budget and probably another $10-15m advertising campaign, if not more. If everyone that bitches about Dredd 2 not getting made actually went to see the first one in theaters, multiple times preferably, then a sequel would have been greenlit.
 
Derangel said:
No, we're not seeing Dredd 2 because Dredd 1 bombed. Hard. Dredd's entire worldwide gross was $35m on a $50m production budget and probably another $10-15m advertising campaign, if not more. If everyone that bitches about Dredd 2 not getting made actually went to see the first one in theaters, multiple times preferably, then a sequel would have been greenlit.
Click to expand...
True ... only made about $13.5-million in the US. Has been said that - "Dredd represents a failure in marketing, not filmmaking."
If it were highly promoted as disney/hollywoods films are more people would have known about it, and not assume it was another lame ass Sly Stone film. I had no plans to see it until a friend enlightened me. Might have even seen it twice if it was in the theater for more than 2 weeks.
 
Just booked my tickets for Saturday morning opening weekend. $5 per...can't nor won't bitch.

I've rather enjoyed the series, with Black Pearl being my favorite.

Oh, and the Disney World ride fuckin' rocks, even after multiple run-throughs.
 
zkostik said:
Amazing that people still watch that stuff given how terrible the last few were. At least the first Pirates was somewhat exciting and original, second was pretty bad and third was a massive WTF.
Click to expand...
Yes cause your taste represent everyone's. You might not like them but they all make nearly a billion dollars each. So obviously a great deal of people still like them.
 
Armenius said:
Is this Disney admitting that piracy doesn't lead to lost sales?

:smuggrin:
Click to expand...


Think it is just more of a math thing. They were asked for a sum of money not told to us in an amount but only as a term. Enormous. So that could be any amount, but let's assume that means millions. You already have people trying to pirate the movie so you already have that loss so you have to compute the difference. Do you expect to have an increase piracy with a resulting loss more than the loss of paying.

it is the same as security. Companies look at the cost of a breach vs the cost of preventing a breach. The cost of it is cheaper than preventing so they go that route.
 
NickJames said:
Want to know why there are fewer "good" films? Because what is mass marketed is hollywood regurgitated action flicks. You don't hear about the good ones because they didn't do well in the box office. Because of the risk of filming something that has no world wide appeal most studios don't want to bother with it. It's why we've gone from 1 or 2 blockbusters a year to 5-6+, to feed the appetite of the masses and it works. These movies are constantly pulling in $500M+ and until people stop caring this is what we'll continue to get for the next decade.
Click to expand...

Oh I know this full well. It's just my definition of a good movie is not necessarily that of Hollywood that it must be a blockbuster cash cow. That does not equal good move, it is profitable but not necessarily good. The fact that so many bad movies are being made and they succeed in box office just underscores the fast degeneration of people (is that really a news though?).
 
zkostik said:
Oh I know this full well. It's just my definition of a good movie is not necessarily that of Hollywood that it must be a blockbuster cash cow. That does not equal good move, it is profitable but not necessarily good. The fact that so many bad movies are being made and they succeed in box office just underscores the fast degeneration of people (is that really a news though?).
Click to expand...

Marketing a movie with explosions, guns, and CGI is just a lot easier than something like The Big Short and it draws the largest movie going crowd, teenagers. Even shitty video games can get away with large profits through marketing, now a days it can eat up nearly half the budget.
 
NickJames said:
Blade Runner
Shawshank Redemption
Children of Men
Hugo
Fight Club
The Iron Giant
Treasure Planet

vs

Shrek 3
Spider-Man 3
Transformers et al
Star Wars EP1

One of these movies alone made more profit than all 7 of the movies on top. Now you see why Hollywood doesn't take risks?
Click to expand...
With the exception of Shawshank Redemption, those movies on top were utter garbage. Shawshank Redemption should have been a TV movie, so it doesn't really count.
 
trentchau said:
Completely disagree with you pointing out it does well the box office. I think it does well if it establishes a fan base. With the advent of after theater sales and the Internet age a lot of movies are having great success after the box office. Hell it was that in the past. Big trouble little china did horrible in the box office but VHS, DVD, and streaming sales have made it a cult classic.
Click to expand...
That's what direct-to-video movies are for. Big Trouble In Little China was a good movie, but today it would be best as a Netflix original movie or a direct-to-video title rather than a box office showing. Blockbusters are for the theater. Low-interest titles (Godfather, Shawshank, Fight Club) should be in the realm of direct to streaming.
 
EJ42 said:
That's what direct-to-video movies are for. Big Trouble In Little China was a good movie, but today it would be best as a Netflix original movie or a direct-to-video title rather than a box office showing. Blockbusters are for the theater. Low-interest titles (Godfather, Shawshank, Fight Club) should be in the realm of direct to streaming.
Click to expand...


The original star wars would of been considered a low interest title.

I have enjoyed a lot of straight to video TV shows but I can't really name a lot of straight to video movies that have been standout for me. Maybe because straight to streaming is such a great way to do TV since it allows 10+ hours of story and character development per season.
 
EJ42 said:
Haha! When people make a crap movie that fails at the box office, they try to justify its existence by saying it's a "good" movie that is "artistic" or for a true movie lover. Movies that do well at the box office are the good movies. The crap you must like (assuming nobody pays to see it) is not good. If it's good, it sells. When people say something is an acquired taste, they mean that it tastes like crap, but they were too stupid to learn not to eat it again.
Click to expand...
So mcDonalds makes the best burgers then?

Damn. I'm fucking retarded for going to in n out. Thanks for clearing that up!
 
EJ42 said:
With the exception of Shawshank Redemption, those movies on top were utter garbage. Shawshank Redemption should have been a TV movie, so it doesn't really count.
Click to expand...

Remind me if you ever host a hardocp BBQ to plead with you to make it bring your own food cause your taste scares the shit out of me.
 
trentchau said:
The original star wars would of been considered a low interest title.

I have enjoyed a lot of straight to video TV shows but I can't really name a lot of straight to video movies that have been standout for me. Maybe because straight to streaming is such a great way to do TV since it allows 10+ hours of story and character development per season.
Click to expand...
Um...no. The original Star Wars was a massive success where some people (e.g. Patrick Stewart) watched the show twice on the same day.

From a budget of $11,000,000, the movie made $220,000,000 (USA) (1977).
 
EJ42 said:
Um...no. The original Star Wars was a massive success where some people (e.g. Patrick Stewart) watched the show twice on the same day.

From a budget of $11,000,000, the movie made $220,000,000 (USA) (1977).
Click to expand...

But it wasn't pushed as a box office success by the studio. It wasn't expected to do well. That's why George Lucas made a shit ton off the initial expectation of failure. Me, I love Star Wars, but unless one of us is an exec in the movie industry I don't think any of us determines what is straight to video and what's straight to theaters. Even Netflix was considering for a time releasing their movies in theaters along with online, so it's not like they think it's for Mega $750+ million dollar movies only also.

We the viewers determine in the end if a movie is a box office success, but your idea of Straight to Video is determined by the studio. Or were you expecting a magical device that all studios have that can determine what will succeed in movie theaters and what won't?

Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Moon, Gran Torino and various other things would be classified in straight to video if theaters were only meant for blockbusters. And the funny part is I did watch all of those at home first, but I'm glad they came out in the theaters first. Mostly Dances with Wolves cause I remember being 11 and the hype of it made McDonalds basically give it away. It was my first personal new vhs that wasn't a hand me down :)
 
Last edited:
trentchau said:
But it wasn't pushed as a box office success by the studio. It wasn't expected to do well. That's why George Lucas made a shit ton off the initial expectation of failure. Me, I love Star Wars, but unless one of us is an exec in the movie industry I don't think any of us determines what is straight to video and what's straight to theaters. Even Netflix was considering for a time releasing their movies in theaters along with online, so it's not like they think it's for Mega $750+ million dollar movies only also.

We the viewers determine in the end if a movie is a box office success, but your idea of Straight to Video is determined by the studio. Or were you expecting a magical device that all studios have that can determine what will succeed in movie theaters and what won't?

Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Moon, Gran Torino and various other things would be classified in straight to video if theaters were only meant for blockbusters. And the funny part is I did watch all of those at home first, but I'm glad they came out in the theaters first. Mostly Dances with Wolves cause I remember being 11 and the hype of it made McDonalds basically give it away. It was my first personal new vhs that wasn't a hand me down :)
Click to expand...
Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Moon, and Gran Torino should have been straight to video. They were not theater worthy.
 
EJ42 said:
Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Moon, and Gran Torino should have been straight to video. They were not theater worthy.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer who determines what is meant for Theater and what is meant for straight to video. Because obviously if it's based on your taste (which seemingly you are more incline to call things shit over offering suggestions of what you like) than it seems a lot of things that were considered major box office successes would of never even been released in theaters.

Obviously you and I have different taste, and I'm fine with that. It's how it's suppose to be. But some of the movies you are saying "Should of been straight to video" makes little sense to me. They are proven blockbusters that have everyright to be in the theater along with their high budget counterparts.
 
There are a lot of vendors that are involved in teh movie making process I'm sure one of them does not have the money for any real security which is where the hack was done.

While Pirates 2-4 haven't been great I'm not an overly critical movie watcher. Was it entertaining, did I forget about all the work I have to do for two hours, am I less stressed than before I watched it? If so its a win. Not everything needs to be 5 star meal sometimes a burger and fries hits the spot. Sometimes you want to just watch the pretty colors and forget about your woes.
 
EJ42 said:
With the exception of Shawshank Redemption, those movies on top were utter garbage. Shawshank Redemption should have been a TV movie, so it doesn't really count.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see you're a troll, never mind then.
 
NickJames said:
Ah, I see you're a troll, never mind then.
Click to expand...
No. Theaters are designed to put you in the middle of a story, not to just tell you a story. Many older movies did well on the big screen because that was the only way to see them. Today's home screens (TVs, computer monitors, etc.) are more than adequate to serve up the full experience of any older movie. A book is a book whether or not it's a blockbuster hit. It's still just paper with letters on it. We're talking about the county fair versus a major theme park. You don't pack up your family and fly down to Disney World just for a pony ride or a carousel (yes, I know they have one at TMK). Taking all the effort to go out to the theater and see a movie should provide an experience worth your time and money. The giant screen (possible 3D features) and superb surround sound should be used to put you in the middle of a story that makes sense for those features. This is why action movies make better sense for the theater. Kid-friendly movies make sense too because of the novelty of the theater. You're going to take your kid because it's special. Some sort of courtroom drama just isn't going to take advantage of what movie theaters excel at anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top