Studios Say Dark Knight Thwarted Pirates?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I’m not sure where the L.A. Times got their information, but they are claiming that the latest Batman movie thwarted pirates for 36 hours and movie execs consider that a success. I suppose no one should tell them that every pirate site on the planet was streaming the movie on day one (some the night before) and the movie still raked in record breaking numbers.

Warner Bros. executives said the extra vigilance paid off, helping to prevent camcorded copies of the reported $180-million film from reaching Internet file-sharing sites for about 38 hours. Although that doesn't sound like much progress, it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the street.
Click to expand...
 
We do NOT condone piracy, period. With that said, it is not our place to judge either. This is just a personal observation:

I find it odd that movies like Star Wars / Dark Knight / Harry Potter are available on the net days before the premier but it doesn’t hurt box office sales at all. Crappy movies get leaked to the net and all the sudden they did poorly because of piracy…not the fact that they were crappy movies.

The latest trend is to claim TPB is the root of all evil. If the movie doesn’t show up there for 36 hours…SUCCESS! Despite the fact that the movie has been widely available everywhere else for 4 days (as in the case of the Dark Knight)

Anyhow, piracy is wrong. Studios blaming piracy for everything is just as bad.
 
Agreed, overall this movie was good so people are more inclined to get the full experience by seeing this moving in the theaters.
 
I think thwarted is the wrong word to use. Besides, it's no competition between the box office and 'pirates', at least for this kind of movie. Who's going to skip the silver screen to watch some shitty cam release?
 
AthlonXP said:
Agreed, overall this movie was good so people are more inclined to get the full experience by seeing this moving in the theaters.
Click to expand...

If by full experience you mean trying to make something out on the poorly projected screen while being surrounded by a bunch of monkeys hollering on cellphones, then yeah. I'm sure thats worth it. The only way I would ever go to a movie theater anymore is if a bunch of my friends are going as well. Otherwise the movie is much more enjoyable on my monitor at home.
 
I always thought that going to the movies was more for the experiance of it then the actual movie youv'e already chosen to see persay.
 
Injection of <3 said:
If by full experience you mean trying to make something out on the poorly projected screen while being surrounded by a bunch of monkeys hollering on cellphones, then yeah. I'm sure thats worth it. The only way I would ever go to a movie theater anymore is if a bunch of my friends are going as well. Otherwise the movie is much more enjoyable on my monitor at home.
Click to expand...
That is a gross exaggeration to say the least. Maybe you need to find better seats or pick a different movie theater. Why would anyone want to see a crappy camera version of a movie is beyond me. If it's not worth your money, then it's not worth your time either. You can't say that watching a camera release at home is better than going to the movies unless you have no interest in seeing the movie in the first place (which still begs to the question as to why you are viewing it at all).
 
helps if their writer provided an email that worked of perhaps they didnt want to get flamed for their lame article.
 
I'm of the mind that movies should be released in all formats on day one.

Theatres
DVD/Blu-Ray
Digital download

I know there are problems with this method, but I'd like to see one movie maker just try it, once, just to see. Just give everyone what they want from day one. Then piracy would have no reasoning (no matter how twisted) for what it does.
 
thunderstruck! said:
That is a gross exaggeration to say the least. Maybe you need to find better seats or pick a different movie theater. Why would anyone want to see a crappy camera version of a movie is beyond me. If it's not worth your money, then it's not worth your time either. You can't say that watching a camera release at home is better than going to the movies unless you have no interest in seeing the movie in the first place (which still begs to the question as to why you are viewing it at all).
Click to expand...

I dont watch cam releases. I just wait for the dvd version to get leaked, which usually happens sooner than later.
 
Injection of <3 said:
If by full experience you mean trying to make something out on the poorly projected screen while being surrounded by a bunch of monkeys hollering on cellphones, then yeah. I'm sure thats worth it. The only way I would ever go to a movie theater anymore is if a bunch of my friends are going as well. Otherwise the movie is much more enjoyable on my monitor at home.
Click to expand...

Where do you live?

Even the regular definition movie theaters in my area now use digital projection with 4k resolution... No shitty film artifacts for me.

And, I've never been to a movie theater where people talk on their cellphones...

And, also... I saw the dark knight in Imax ;) Best machine to ever come out of Canada.
 
Injection of <3 said:
If by full experience you mean trying to make something out on the poorly projected screen while being surrounded by a bunch of monkeys hollering on cellphones, then yeah. I'm sure thats worth it. The only way I would ever go to a movie theater anymore is if a bunch of my friends are going as well. Otherwise the movie is much more enjoyable on my monitor at home.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain on this one. I don't feel like it is quite as bad as you lead it to seem. To prevent such frustrating movie experiences I usually go see new movies a week after they come out, at the Sunday afternoon matinee.

Side note: I did this with Dark Knight. Awesome movie. Theater was still packed at 3pm on Sunday. That should tell the studios something. Make a good movie, people will follow.

Side note #2: Val Kilmer, George Clooney, and most importantly Michael Keaton should all release public statements to the tune of, "We saw the new movie, we apologize for sucking so hard in our versions of it. No hard feelings?"

 
I went to a local theater, stadium seating, and most important of all - NOT available for purchase on Fandango. That filtered out the typical high school d-bags that would be drowning out the movie.

Regarding the retarded "lost sales" pitch that the RIAA/MPAA blabber about is silliness. Good movies sell well. Bad movies sell well: examples - Pirate3 or Shrek 3.
 
I think it could be considered a partial success since there haven't been any leaks of anything more than shitty TS's. The movie was outstanding, so I paid to see it twice (went with two different groups of friends).
 
Yeah TDK was a badass movie in general. Even the pirates wanted to pay there respects to such a badass movie.
 
WiLLiSTER said:
I think it could be considered a partial success since there haven't been any leaks of anything more than shitty TS's. The movie was outstanding, so I paid to see it twice (went with two different groups of friends).
Click to expand...

you need to find better sources..lol
 
i dont think id even WANT to pirate it, its just such a goddamn good movie definitely worth the money at a cinema. with that said it did still leak out but i dont think many ppl watched it :p
 
Steve said:
I find it odd that movies like Star Wars / Dark Knight / Harry Potter are available on the net days before the premier but it doesn’t hurt box office sales at all. Crappy movies get leaked to the net and all the sudden they did poorly because of piracy…not the fact that they were crappy movies.
Click to expand...
I think this pretty much sums things up.

Want to stop "good quality" piracy, stop sending out DVD screeners all over the place to reviewers, change YOUR business practices with how to get "free" publicity. Someone with a hand held camera recording a movie is not going to impact ticket sales in any significant way, I think "us spoiled Americans" really demand higher quality stuff, even if it's illegal content :D
 
Steve said:
We do NOT condone piracy, period. With that said, it is not our place to judge either. This is just a personal observation:

I find it odd that movies like Star Wars / Dark Knight / Harry Potter are available on the net days before the premier but it doesn’t hurt box office sales at all. Crappy movies get leaked to the net and all the sudden they did poorly because of piracy…not the fact that they were crappy movies.

The latest trend is to claim TPB is the root of all evil. If the movie doesn’t show up there for 36 hours…SUCCESS! Despite the fact that the movie has been widely available everywhere else for 4 days (as in the case of the Dark Knight)

Anyhow, piracy is wrong. Studios blaming piracy for everything is just as bad.
Click to expand...

First off I think it is stupid to say that it doesn't hurt box office sales at all. I also think the numbers studios like the claim as a loss due to piracy are stupid as well.

I can see the studios making it harder to get a copy early as a sucess to them. Same as keeping screeners or telecines off the net as good too.

The movies you bring up Steve are interesting ones though. One being that they are "must see" movies to many and on top of that they are action or darker films. Both the later making them harder to watch if they are a cam or teleysnc job. Because the quality will be worst them say a standard drama that could lead more people to seeing it in the theatre. In the same since I would think the piracy could hurt crappy movies more then block busters but only in the same way the rating of wait for rental/tv would.
 
Anyone ever notice how when a movie is allowed complete artistic freedom, it does REALLY well? The movie studios really can't admit that the movie did well because of the actors and Chris Nolan.

First of all, there's the fact that it'd be a free pass for piracy sites. The admission alone that a well shot, well performed movie makes people want to watch it would screw their arguements for any future litigation and lobbying.

Then, there's the fact that it'd be a complete admission that an MBA can't run a movie studio. This is a recent trend. The movie studios were independent up until a few decades ago when they were bought by large corporate entities. After that, bottom line became the priority. How do you explain talent to someone who only sees numbers? Even today, movies are funded by investors and investment firms. When Jessica Simpson sold ___ number of crap CD's, it's hard to explain to an investor that she can't act and will tank the movie.

There seems to be a cycle that the movie business goes on. It happened in the 60's and it took Easy Rider to set off a new trend. If another commercially successful independent film tops the box office, it'll happen again. Until then, everyone should continue to speak with their dollars and boycott the crap.
 
Love-Man said:
I'm of the mind that movies should be released in all formats on day one.
QUOTE]

Actually some movies have been released this way. Unfortunately they've been smaller independent releases like Bubble.

I too dream of the day when I'll be able to watch a blockbuster like the Dark Knight at home in full quality without having to go to my local day-care center, a.k.a. theater on the same day of release.
Click to expand...
 
Just wanted to ask where injection lives, out here at many theaters they have signs if you cause a disturbance during a movie you will be removed, some places state no kids past 8 PM and if you go see a movie at 8 and it ends past curfew you cant see it if you are under 18 regardless of the rating..

Oh yeah IMAX of dark knight i thought was overrated
 
Movies that are worth it and what people are waiting forever to see it will pay for it.

The ones that don't pay for it, probably live in a poor country where they don't get the movie premiered in their city.

A lot of these pirated movies are from overseas, cause of the subtitling in whatever language.
 
I saw it in the theaters, I downloaded it and I look forward to buying it (hopefully on Blueray) when it comes out. They more than earned my dollars.
 
Injection of <3 said:
If by full experience you mean trying to make something out on the poorly projected screen while being surrounded by a bunch of monkeys hollering on cellphones, then yeah. I'm sure thats worth it. The only way I would ever go to a movie theater anymore is if a bunch of my friends are going as well. Otherwise the movie is much more enjoyable on my monitor at home.
Click to expand...
It just really sucks to be you. They make pills for social anxieties like that. You should talk to your doctor/therapist.

MrGuvernment said:
helps if their writer provided an email that worked of perhaps they didnt want to get flamed for their lame article.
Click to expand...
I bet he did have one posted, but within 30 seconds of posting said article, they probably got bombarded with, "you have no fucking clue what you are talking about" emails.

Injection of <3 said:
I dont watch cam releases. I just wait for the dvd version to get leaked, which usually happens sooner than later.
Click to expand...
Yep, the Wanted R5 rip that was released a couple days ago comes to mind. Albeit, I also watched it in the theatre.


I will say that there is something to be said to be able to watch the movie in your own living room, on your fancy 42in 1080p Plasma/lcd, on your couch, smoking your own weed, drinking your own beer. But I do feel that the atmosphere of the theatre adds to the movie viewing. When the crowd laughs at the funny parts as a whole, the sharp intake of breath during intense scenes. When there is natural and normal crowd response, it actually adds to the experience for me. When there are 17year old r-tards hooting and hollering and stupid minorities screaming out, "Yo son! dont go there. Awww you done did it now." that makes it kinda sucky.

Bottomline, article is a waste of time. It's built on an easily provable lie due to the laziness of the editor not doing any fact-checking at all. Game reviewers are the only lazy windbags posting crap on the internet...
 
Love-Man said:
I'm of the mind that movies should be released in all formats on day one.

Theatres
DVD/Blu-Ray
Digital download

I know there are problems with this method, but I'd like to see one movie maker just try it, once, just to see. Just give everyone what they want from day one. Then piracy would have no reasoning (no matter how twisted) for what it does.
Click to expand...
As long as they don't try charging some high price like $20 for the DVD, I'm cool with buying it.

I haven't seen this movie yet, I sure wouldn't want to ruin the experience by watching a "cam" download.

I also won't buy crap with DRM, I am opposed to DRM for many reasons, and, when I have tried to buy products in the past with DRM it's always been a big headache for me, I hate it.

If I wanted a song, and I could buy it in high resolution lossless format without DRM, I wouldn't mind paying a dollar for it.

For a movie, I'd generally be willing to pay $5 for HD w/o DRM.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I think this pretty much sums things up.

Want to stop "good quality" piracy, stop sending out DVD screeners all over the place to reviewers, change YOUR business practices with how to get "free" publicity. Someone with a hand held camera recording a movie is not going to impact ticket sales in any significant way, I think "us spoiled Americans" really demand higher quality stuff, even if it's illegal content :D
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, I would only watch a download of a screener of a movie that I would not otherwise buy/see in a theater - mostly because it's more convenient to watch at home on my PC, though, I don't like it nearly as well. I used to go to the theater often, but now with a wife and kid and responsibilities it's harder for me to find the time to get to the theater.

I'd LIKE to go to the theater for every decent movie that comes out, I used to when I was single.

I've bought hundreds of DVDs, now, I regret having spent over $4,000 on them.

How much would it cost for a lifetime membership to a company to be able to watch any movie you want on demand?
 
I saw the movie on an Imax screen that was a dome like the Planetarium. My neck hurt from looking around but the movie was awesome watching it that way. If anyone is near Garden City, NY they are playing it on the Imax screen at the Cradle of Aviation museum. The day I saw the movie they had the origial batmobile on display in the lobby really cool stuff.
 
The movie is so good (saw it opening night) that I'm going to see it for the 2nd time on IMAX this Friday. A 36-hour anti-piracy hold-out won't make a difference if a movie goes well beyond any expectations & rocks people's socks off.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I think this pretty much sums things up.

Want to stop "good quality" piracy, stop sending out DVD screeners all over the place to reviewers, change YOUR business practices with how to get "free" publicity. Someone with a hand held camera recording a movie is not going to impact ticket sales in any significant way, I think "us spoiled Americans" really demand higher quality stuff, even if it's illegal content :D
Click to expand...

I don't know why they can't create a special encryption on these discs that you have to use a unique 10 digit code to unlock and watch the screener movie. I think it would reduce the piracy at least, or slow it down some.
 
gibber said:
How much would it cost for a lifetime membership to a company to be able to watch any movie you want on demand?
Click to expand...

Netflix is making that happen and soon enough HD content. Some cable companies offer on-demand movies as well.

Only reason we will never see day 1 movie releases for rent, is because it would cripple movie theaters everywhere.
 
This 36 hours thing is just bullshit to try and save face on the part of the MPAA, they've been preaching their "OMFG!!! PIRACY IS KILLING THE INDUSTRY AND MURDERING BABIES!!!" so long that they can't let a movie be really successful on it's own merit, they have to push a "This movie was only so successful because we stopped the damn dirty pirates" message.

The simple, brutal truth that they can't acknowledge is that: "If you build it they will come".

If you make shit movies, people will not pay see them but people will probably not pirate them either.

They are absolutely talking out of their asses if they are trying to suggest that a movie written by two of the best writers working today, with a cast of some of the best actors out there, with a director who, so far, has aced every film he's made, with a Brand that people go batshit (heh) crazy over, with budget to do the story justice and with a cool (expensive) marketing campaign had it's success contributed to by some half-assed anti piracy scheme.

People went to see it because it's awesome. They will but it on DVD/Blu-Ray because it's awesome, they will rent it from netflix because it's awesome, Networks will pay out the ass for the TV rights because it's awesome. It's that simple.

I guess they want us believe that Epic Movie would have had the same level of success if it wasn't for those damn pirates too?

Yeah, right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top