'Sith' Already Found Online

ScentCone writes "Of course it was bound to happen, so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds, or whether people would or would not have gone to see it now that the usual path has been carved around the opening weekend box office." I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news. It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

Comments

Revenge of the Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news.

CowboyNeal confirms it, this isn't news.

Go see it in theaters

[ValiantSoul]

I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Joel Rowbottom]

I've just got back from seeing RotS. The sound in the theatre (yes, I'm in the UK) was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy. Sadly many films seen at my local cinema and at others don't seem to be 'clean' prints and I'd have expected better of an opening-night showing.

Y'know, I actually believe that had I seen a torrent it would have been *better* quality, sadly. Maybe I've just got used to DVD quality and stuff.

(Wakefield Cineworld, UK, please take note).

Oh, as a film, the first 2 hours sucked ass. The rest of it was cool. But that's a conversation for another thread ;)

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but you are forgetting that plenty of casual fans value free stuff over better quality not free stuff.
Hell even Jesus himself wanted the free barn over the costly Inn to make his appearance to the world.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Anonymous Coward]

It is crappy quality but it is not a cam rip. Since it was from a working copy of the film the audio is near perfect but the video has been highly compressed. There are also two timecode displays present and are quite annoying.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Locke2005]

True; if you watch it on your home computer, you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Imperial Storm troopers, Amidala, young lord Vader, etc. Uh, and this is a bad thing because... ?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Neurotoxic666]

See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?

Yeah. You're right. My computer isn't like that.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

I use Windows I see the dark side everyday.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[TrippTDF]

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer

Of course, the entire film itself was made on a computer. (OK, two computers)

Re:Go see it in theaters

[carpe_noctem]

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

What if I beat my head against the table a few times and then mailed George Lucas $7?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[magarity]

The sound in the theatre was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy

This can happen to the most pristine of prints when put in the load end of a projector in bad need of maintenance/tuning/etc. And movies are prescreened by at least the projectionist (all) if not also the rest of the employees (blockbusters) before the first public screenings.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[DroopyStonx]

Nah, you're wrong: It's actually a very good rip.

You can find it from various newsgroups listed here http://www.newzbin.com/search/query/p/?q=episode&C ategory=6&searchFP=p

Enjoy.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[mesach]

The download version is a workprint downsampled to a VCD then upsampled to a dvd at 1600Meg it looks pretty damn good and sounds good for a movie that was released the day before.

The only problem is the counter at the top that runs through the whole film.

I haven't watched it, just a few samples here and there, as I do plan on going to see it saturday with my g/f and if I watch it before then, I dont "get any" for a long time.

If Lucas has anything to complain about, he needs to look into his chain of distribution as this could only have come from inside somewhere.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[aywwts4]

... because you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Amidala. Duh.

Yeah I saw that guy, Uhg!

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for clueing us in on the sexual bargaining you and your g/f engage in. It really adds to my day to know that you're pussywhipped. What are you, 15?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Xzzy]

Dude, that's just surround sound for your eyes.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[magarity]

No, trust me, they had a review screening before that as well. Theatres sell tickets to midnight "prescreenings" as a gimmick. My brother manages a big theatre in LA and watched the movie in question last week. The logistics involved with getting prints to 3600 screens is too staggering for them to have all arrived exactly the day before public opening.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[kisea]

Well, the print being projected is only as good as the projectionist who builds the film. I have only very limited experience with this through a friend who is a projectionist. I actually got to watch him build RotS. It came on 7 small reels which have to be spliced together into one long version. This is typical of about any movie currently. If the film is wound too tightly then you can get scratches which make the film look 'dusty'. Over time, if this continues to happen then the film continues to degrade at an accelerated rate. Don't blame the film in all cases, blame the theater. I, for one, went to an extremely crappy showing. The 12:00 showing ended up being a 12:50 showing with several major problems causing some very irate fans. They oversold the viewing and had to string the film through multiple projectors. So, they start one movie, wait a bit so they have plenty of reserve then string what has already been through projector A over to projector B and start the film there. It was a very disappointing showing and I plan on getting a refund.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[zakezuke]

I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

From what I'm told, there is a workprint edition floating around the net. It may or not be before special effects have been added, I'm unsure. But such an edition isn't going to be the crappy poor sound some guy with a cam corder edition. Judging from the file sizes I see floating about we are looking at DVD ep mode, which well franky isn't all that great. But on par with VCDs that are still popular.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[syousef]

There's something very perverse about taking (arguably) the movie with the most action and special effects ever made, and breaking the law to watch it in crappy low-fi divx. Can you say cheapskate?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Mikito]

Of course, the entire film itself was made on a computer. (OK, two computers)

You've all heard how George Lucas delayed production on the prequels because technology couldn't adequately produce the special effects he wanted.

The real reason for the decades-long gap in films is that Lucasfilm had been using computers since the early 1980s for the digital effects, and the computers only finished rendering frames fairly recently. Digital rendering takes time on a bunch of 4.77 MHz machines.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[panaceaa]

And nose!

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Neurotoxic666]

Or maybe spend more than $2 at the discount theatre.

With the pop-corn (covered with unsalted grease - no more butter here) and a bottle of water, I'll end up paying the price of a DVD. Just to see the movie once. And no, it's not a discount cinema -- but however big and American it wants to be, it'll be overcrowded and not as comfy as my house.

I also want to point out that I'll be seeing the movie in FRENCH, because 1) my friends prefer it this way (stupid, I know) 2) it's hard to find a cinema around here that has the original English version, unless I'm willing to go downtown and cope with the traffic jams (I'm in Montreal).

As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.

Because I feel like taking a piss, I am lacking attention span? What about the luxury of pausing the movie for whatever reason I want? Can I do that without having some moron telling me to get an attention span? Thank you very much.

The movies aren't cheap, the popcorn/candies/beverage cost way too much, then you get the extra ads in the hope you go get more of the expensive stuff, then you get 15 minutes of preview, then you get to see the movie. I don't see any reason to pay for that, unless your TV realy sucks. Or unless you're doing it for your kids or someone else -- like I do.

I voted "my own couch" in the poll, if you're wondering... There just is no place like 127.0.0.1 :P

Re:Go see it in theaters

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you?

That would be me. I can come over and sit in front of your computer if you like, but you have to buy the popcorn.

YLFI

Re:Go see it in theaters

[vsprintf]

True; if you watch it on your home computer, you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Imperial Storm troopers, Amidala, young lord Vader, etc. Uh, and this is a bad thing because... ?

At the very least, I would wait a few days so those people who camped out in line for a month (and in costume) are long gone from the theatre.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[21st Century Peon]

Plus, they'll occasionally splice a single frame from a porn film in there.

"So just when the snooty droid and the pregnant princess have met with the fallen Jedi for the last time, that's when you'll catch a flash of Tyler's contribution to the film. Nobody knows they saw it, but they did."
"A nice big lightsabre."

Re:Go see it in theaters

[vsprintf]

It seems like you could a modern cinema, where there is no such thing as uncomfortable seats and a tall guy in front won't even touch your line of sight.

It seems like you could the missing word. Design? Build? Finance? Drive 500 miles to? Now, I'm going to lie awake all night wondering what it was.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[lysergic.acid]

why do movie theaters still use film when digital mediums don't wear out at all? are digital projectors inferior somehow or is it because there aren't any digital formats with high enough resolutions for cinema sized screens?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[snuf23]

The rip is a work print encoded to MPEG 2 (the format used on DVDs). So you could burn it to a DVD-R and toss it in your DVD player to watch it on your TV if you like.
Not to mention if you have a media pc (i.e. XP Media Center, MythTV, modded Xbox with XBMC etc.) you could play directly to the TV off the hard drive.
Downloaded of the net onto a computer does not mean you have to watch it on a computer.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[yofal]

"Dust" is likely the result of a low quality release print process, with dirt in the contact printer. With a film like Star Wars they run out enormous numbers of release prints (like 3,000+) and there will be some prints that are worse than others. Horizontal scratching is more commonly found in platter systems when film that is wound poorly and slips side to side, scratching the base or emulsion.

The "building" you mention is the process of taking films off their 20 minute reels and assembling them into one continuous piece. This change was made to save money on projectionists with the advent of the cineplex (a Canadian invention).

In days of yor the projectionist had to manually synchronize reel changes every 20 minutes. You still often see the reel change signals (a white oval or X in the corner of the frame) preceeding the change. Chaining the platters through multiple projectors is another cost saver for the theatre owners.

Watch out for dim projection. The bulbs are quite expensive and often after the initial run of a big film they will turn down the output of a bulb to make them last longer. Best to see a film in the first few days of release if you can bear the crowds.

My advice - look for digital projection - available in some cities.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[drinkypoo]

You know, the majority of movies are crap. Coming up with a bunch of examples of shitty movies does not in any way contradict the prior poster's comment. Of course, it's all subjective anyway, making the whole argument basically a big fat waste of time.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[drinkypoo]

You mean the Endor infiltration outfit? God, I love a woman in camoflague!

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Minna Kirai]

Take for example (SPOILER)

Thanks, because I only heard about him getting a cyborg body twenty-three years ago.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[paul248]

Doesn't the loaves & fishes story sort of correlate with file sharing today? In that time, some people's primary income was derived from fishing or baking bread, and Jesus took the fruits of their labor, made copies, and distributed them to thousands of people.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[cerebis]

I think distributors are still concerned about the efficacy of the DRM employed. As much as DVDs are a pretty decent source, I suspect they really want to avoid the possibility that master copies escape into the wild.

There is also the practicality of how they sell the film to the cinemas. Last I noticed the selling mechanism was going to run contrary to the way cinemas currently operate. I believe cinemas hire the film for a certain length of time, and are free to make their own choices about the number of screenings, and whether to cease showing a flop early to free up screens for better performing films (though they're stuck with their initial hire.)

The digital version was going to be streamed and paid for per showing, all tied to an identified projector. I believe the concern was that cinemas would be forced to schedule showings and lose the control the currently possess. Basically, the system was going to annoy cinema operators in a similar way to how individual consumers are frustrated by the limitations of DRM'd content.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[drb_chimaera]

Thats not true at all...

Well sorry, the first bit is - film tends to be delivered in 2000foot spools (which equates to about 20min of film) and in the olden days required the use of two projectors and the cue dots and all that - some places still use it, although its more for historical interest than anything - its a more interesting challenge for the projectionist anyway :)

These days as you say film is 'made up' into one collossal reel so all the projectionist then has to do is lace up the projector once and do a single startup.

No projector I have ever used has required a shutdown in the event of a racking problem (the film being out of line by x number of sproket holes as described in parent) as then all have a vertical adjustment on the gate (the specific part of the projector that passes the film in front of the bulb) varying from half a frame in either direction to a full frame in either direction. This of course means that theres at least a full frame of movement so any possible problems of this sort are easily rectified without requiring a shutdown - good job really as its about the most common problem out there - right up with focus being out :)

P.S. IAAP (I Am A Projectionist :) )

Also, no cinema I have ever worked for has done a test screening of a print prior to showing it - hell, at least 30% of the time a new film would only show up just in time to be prepared for the first pay-for showing. Thats not to say that 'training shows' were never done which at the places I worked were literally excuses for the staff to watch the movie a bit early :)

Re:Go see it in theaters

[DrXym]

You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?

Of course if you download the copy doing the rounds, you'll probably get all of the above lovingly encoded into your home viewing experience.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[tchernobog]

I've been a projectonist for a year. You don't get scratchy film the first day a movie is out in theatres! It takes usually > 30 proj. before a film starts getting quite unfocused.
And that in most cases doesn't affect sound (dolby surround is a tiny track on the left of the film read by a laser, and quite hard to scratch).

Anyway, you can report the film is damaged by using the attached form, and the film will be substituted via UPS / or it will be substituted for the next theatre (at least, if it is a big hit, that's it: unsuccesful movies doesn't pay back for the costly substitution).

Instead, you can say that 90% it's up to old machinery or bad equalization, as well as bad adjustements to the object glass. E.g. we still used a Prevost from the first '90, and it did its work quite well, although not the best. Most small theatres have machinery back from those years.

Mounting the two pizzas won't usually damage the film, too ("pizza" is the slangword for the mounted movie since its shape, and usually you end with two or more of them due to their size and weight), it's just normal usage that wears them out and brings in deterioration.

Get real

[Eunuch]

Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is. I know what it is, but I've only used it to grab large demos/obviously free stuff. I have better things to do with my time than wander through various video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

They are just being greedy for the small amount of money they might be losing. The lawyers likely take far more than that amount. The path to transhumanism won't require much money anyway. And that is what counts.

Re:Get real

[dwlovell]

They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.

If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.

If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.

So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.

-David

Re:Get real

[mattjb0010]

Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is.

I just got back from a bar where I was chatting to a girl (ie not a computer geek), and she brought up the topic of bittorrent. So the fact that a generic young (20ish) person mentioned it a bar means it's only a matter of time before the general populace cottons on to bittorents. IMHO.

Re:Get real

[mobby_6kl]

Most people of course have no idea what BT might be, but according to the current CNN poll (probably as accurate as the /. one, but still), 26% would download it somehow.

>video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

Well what did you expect, raw HD footage? ;)

Re:Get real

[Rinikusu]

And you know this.. how? And you have hard numbers to back your assertions... from where? And you are... who?

Just as I'm likely to not believe any numbers the BSA/MPAA/RIAA produce, I sure don't just take the word of some random guy on /. that "everything's okay, everyone's just lying". You may have anecdotal evidence, but consider that I can go down to the laundromat and buy burned DVD's of whatever movie I need from a guy who has no clue what bittorrent is. He knows how to use XCopy and a couple other apps, but his little laptop is ridden with spyware/malware, etc. Hell, he doesn't even know what USENET is. But somewhere, somehow (I gather someone on up the chain does know where to get that, and provides him the initial image), he gets movies, screenies, etc. It just takes one person to know about bittorrent to download and then disseminate amongst his friends or customers.

Re:Get real

[kosmosik]

> Actual damages from bittorrent have to be
> very small.

It is hard to tell in general it can be even the opposite... Meaning BT makes people to see more movies. I can explain it like this:

Disclimer: keep in mind that I am not about piracy and I prefer to go to theater and watch something good instead of watching shitty CAM rip of stupid movie.

*But*

In my country (Poland, but I can imagine it is the same somwhere else) some titles are not distributed at all - take Korean or Japanese movies - I find them great but most of them does not make it to cinemas or even DVD distribution here. So my only chance to actually watch them is either go to some country where it is aviable or get it via BT. So guess what I do? :) But some films *do* make it to cinemas (and DVD distribution) so as now I know I like such movies (I get to know that due to BT) I will go to cinema for those few titles (and get others from BT).

It is not the matter of people wanting to watch stuff on computer (actually I have proper sound system and beam projector to wall), it is not the matter of quality either - it is a matter of old *distribution* methods/channels - they simply do not fit no more - I can imagine a service where you can download movie for $5. Watch it once (I would even agree on DRM here, most of the people also - things with movies are different than f.e. audio - when you go to cinema you pay for the ticket and watch it once - so the analogy with DRM would be painless) and be satisfied - also it would speed up the distribution.

Right now I have to wait till the title gets published in my region - why? I have to wait till the title gets translation - why? I don't need translation I know english. I have to wait till the title gets marketed locally - why? I don't need marketing - I already know that I want to watch it.

So traditional distribution sucks and that is why BT is so popular among saavy users - traditional model does not fit us.

> Most people simply don't even know what
> bittorrent is.

So what? They don't need to - they know what P2P is - place where you can get fresh and rare stuff. They don't care if it is BT, or Emule or Kazaa or whatever - they just click and if it works it is OK for them.

Also do you know that BT is one of biggest traffic generators in Internet?

(...)

> I have better things to do with my time
> than wander through various video files in
> various states of compression (almost all
> lossy).

Also you are far from reality here. Take a look:

http://trackerwww.prq.to/liveindex.php?cat=19

All DVD rips (looseless) titles. Just click them and get it over your DSL. No need to go to the store or rental anymore. And the choice there is comparable to small rental/store.

> They are just being greedy for the small
> amount of money they might be losing.

Money is not the point here - as you have stated there is no comparsion between watching movie at home or going to cinema. It is beetween getting movie from rental (I don't know anybody that actually buys DVD) and getting it from BT - BT is for some people more convinient, not only (can be) money counts here. Also if BT is only way for me to get movie - where is money in this situation? Either I get it for free or I don't get it at all...

People who distribute and benefit from movies should notice that.

Re:Get real

[NeuroManson]

Actually, you make a good point;

In my country (Poland, but I can imagine it is the same somwhere else) some titles are not distributed at all -

For the case for BitTorrent downloads, consider too that in nations with severe cultural controls (China, Saudi Arabia, et al), not only would most movies have to be heavily censored for whatever ruling class is in place (don't want any dangerous ideas getting around), if they're actually imported at all.

Now say user "X" watches a movie that his or her government censored. Later, said user manages to download a rip of the movie sometime later, and notices the parts that were cut from it.

Or, for that matter, a movie that is run uncut first, and then has some scenes cut because the current ruling party doesn't like the message said scene provides.

What ideas do you think that user would get from seeing what his or her country doesn't want them to see/know?

So in essense, if anyone's against file trading, they're really infringing against a wider reaching freedom.

Re:Get real

[Penguinoflight]

Certainly you can argue that a trend of opposition to sharing will promote less sharing in the future. The problem with your post is that it largely avoids the numbers, and you quantatavite remark is incorrect.

The Napster "reform" caused a emotional setback but with more internet users and much better connections there is still more music sharing now than in 1999 or whenever napster was crushed.

Getting on to the meat of this argument... Each individual case that the media industry persues costs them money. If they settle out of court, the lawyers may be satisfied, but not likely. In reality a business can have several investment decisions all which give a net yeild. Even if throwing the book at troubled fans causes more profits alone, it may be detering more profitable persuits. Reselling quality at lower prices for example may cause a net growth in profits, but by taking the "sue pirates" militaristic attitude the phyche of recording and film industries is against such a possibly lucrative move.

In addition taking such a bully attitude that is made manifest by using DRM and other lame methods to userp fair use rights turns many consumers against their industry who either 1: Only download their movies... or 2: (and worse) Ignore hollywood and the RIAA. Worse of course for the music and film industries whos market is uphelp by reputation and not quality.

Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you expect, really?

Re:Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER

[Anonymous Coward]

> What did you expect, really?

Are you suggesting IT'S A TRAP?

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[croddy]

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable... I can't imagine a low-resolution recording of a movie being any sort of substitute for actually seeing the film.

But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[Skyshadow]

Interesting, "unwatchable" was exactly the word I was looking for. Of course, I was thinking about Ep. 1 at the time...

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[Bri3D]

This isn't a cam, it's a workprint. I know because I have it. It's fairly low-res MPEG-2, but the sound is fairly good. Only problem is the two workprint timers at the top.

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[croddy]

well, that changes everything!

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[Bri3D]

They're pretty near the top. One is larger but transparent so it's not bad. The other is small but has a black background that goes into Lord Dooku in the lightsaber fight scene, amongst other's faces. Do not d/l the one from TPB. It has 20:9 and very out of sync audio. In addition to being a lowres DVD ISO, which is large to download and very annoying.

'Shit' found online?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found lots of Shit online before. Oh, wait...

Not really surprising to me...

[suitepotato]

(...)a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

After reading the script, I'd say the movie itself is fuzzy with garbled writing.

Sadly, since I don't use BitTorrent with much success and instead rely on eMule/aMule, what copies I get will likely take two weeks to finish downloading and be in Spanish with German subtitles. Oddly, this will probably be easier to follow anyhow.

News?

[tpoo22]

I'd say it's news for the same reason that the other half-dozen or so Star Wars related stories which have made the mainstream press - because lots of people are interested, and Lucas has damn good publicists. A few thousands or tens of thousands of downloads won't make much of a dent in the takings, and stories like this all help to create the buzz.

News? Yeah right.

[Telastyn]

Just like "take our Star Wars quiz!" and "was Darth Vader born evil?" [also CNN content] are news? The site has been posting Star Wars crap all week as a marketing blitz for the premiere.

This isn't news, it's thinly veiled marketing.

Re:News? Yeah right.

[_Sprocket_]

The Star Wars marketing was rather interesting this time around. CNN ran all the usual Star Wars news segments ("look at those wacky fans") and some less-usual ones ("everything you need to know to get up to speed on Star Wars lingo"). Discovery Channel dipped in to the pot with Science of Star Wars and their Animal Planet special on Star Wars fauna and their earthly inspirations.

Me, myself... I got two bags of M&Ms. Jedi Mix and Darth mix. I put them in two seperate bowls. Then I mixed them. Stunning Jedi battles did not ensue.

So what?

[dogas]

The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

It seems to me just like the MPAA pumping the press to make it look like a huge deal. It's not.

Re:So what?

[mowler2]

Actually I have downloaded it and seen it - and will also go to the cinema today and see it there.

Reason for downloading and watching it? Just wanted to see the movie asap. :) Will still consume the stuff they sell though - as many other pirates do. The RIAA/MPAA thinking that piracy = stealing is flawed.

Re:So what?

[iainl]

Actually, it looks like it is the same people. Nearly everyone agrees that Episode 2 wasn't as bad as Episode 1, but the box-office numbers were much lower due to fewer people doing repeat viewings.

Partly this is down to the fact that people are more used to the idea of seeing things once and then waiting for the DVD, but it seems there are a fair number of geeks who'll see it once then get a rip to tide themselves over until a legit copy can be had, rather than going back to the cinema.

Captain Obvious to the rescue..

[devross]

It's still usually shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

Yes, yes it certainly is worth.

Lucas might be peeved...

[jnaujok]

The copy that's on the web (yes, I know where it is, no I won't tell you) is a direct copy from a work print. Thus, it's not a "crummy handheld in a theater". So it's more than likely that Lucas is going to be really peeved about this.

Considering that it has the time-code on the bottom, I'd imagine it's uniquely coded so that Lucas knows exactly who leaked it.

And no, I haven't downloaded it, although my eleven year old will probably try and "whine" his way into it.

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[Derling Whirvish]

The copy that's on the web (yes, I know where it is, no I won't tell you) is a direct copy from a work print.

I will. It's at http://www.piratebay.org./

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[temojen]

You are getting this page because you, or someone else from your ISP, has been spamming on TPB.
This results in a permanent non-negotiable ban.
Sorry, but we will NOT remove it.

Excellent. Nothing like cutting off 750,000 visitors because one was spamming.

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Just like /. does. Who's your ISP?

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You forgot Mininova

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[Bri3D]

The quality of that one sucks. Please do not download it. It is a MPEG-2 DVD ISO, making it big, and is very low resolution(less then 300 lines). It's also 20:9 and the audio is out of sync. Don't download it, you'll be pissed like I was.

Re:Lucas might be peeved...

[mowler2]

For me, the audio was not out of sync. Also the image was 2.25:1 anamorphic, not 20:9.

Re:Why Lucas does not deserve the proceeds

[whitearrow]

If it hits $100 million domestic before Memorial Day, are they *still* going to whine and bitch about how downloading is ruining their industry? Yes, I know. But it strains credulity. I suspect a lot of the people downloading either 1) already saw the movie/plan to see it this week and just want a copy to watch at home until the DVD comes out or 2) have some kind of vague curiousity but aren't planning on seeing it in the theater anyway. It's hard to imagine that any self-respecting geek would be willing to settle for watching an inferior copy on a small screen instead of seeing the movie in the theater.

Predicted on Fark

[mobby_6kl]

2005-05-19 11:01:56 AM vroxx

Reported on Digg yesterday... WITH a BT link.
http://digg.com/movies/longasstitle...

Reported on Slashdot Tomorrow.

/news for nerds my a$$

On a FARK thread here

I have to agree...

[artemis67]

Anyone who would settle for the generally poor quality of bootleg movies probably in not a big spender on theaters to begin with.

Seriously. Somebody showed me the bootleg of Hitchiker's Guide the other day, and I was really sorry I saw it that way. I wasn't planning to see it, but I ended up enjoying it immensely; the only problem was that the low quality of the rip was a big distraction.

But come on, a movie like Star Wars was made to be seen on the big screen, and most of the public knows that.

Re:Quality!

[Mr._Galt]

actually, its closer to 1.4GB..and it looks pretty good

Proceeds...

[soupdevil]

why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds

Let me be the first to say that I think Lucus should make a cut of the proceeds from P2P downloads. In fact, I'll send him 10% of what I paid to download it on BitTorrent. What's your address, George?

Both sides need to get a grip.

[SuperBanana]

I don't know which is funnier:

• People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)....OR...Hollywood claiming BitTorrent/P2p is only used for illegitimate purposes
• Downloaders claiming that they see/buy everything they download, as does everyone else on p2p....OR...Hollywood, claiming that every download = not just the lost ticket price, but some insane multiplier, when most people don't even bother to "seed" more than half or less of what they download.
• Downloaders whining about how they'd go see/buy more movies/music, if only it was better, but still download the "crap" and don't go for independently produced stuff...OR...Hollywood claiming that downloaders are hurting them, while ignoring massive Group Think among producers, directors, and writers for churning out crap not worth paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water, your eardrums will get blown out, and your shoes will stick to the floors for a week.

I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...

Re:Both sides need to get a grip.

[gumbo]

People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)

Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things? Is the US mail system not legitimate because you could mail someone a DVD-R of Star Wars?

Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."

Re:Both sides need to get a grip.

[magarity]

paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water

Just FYI: The movie theatre keeps 5% to 10% (yes, percent, not a flat fee) of each ticket sold for first run movies; the rest is the ticket price goes straight to the studio producing the movie. Furthermore, the ticket prices and percentages are negotiated (dictated?) by the distributors, not the theatre. So when it costs $10 for a ticket, it's because the owners/managers of the theatre negotiated DOWN to that from what the distributors initially demanded. The management wants LOW ticket prices to convince you to come in and still ahve money left over to buy concessions; it's the distributing studios who want to pillage you for the high ticket price. At 5%, the profit on a $10 ticket is 50 cents and on a $12 ticket it's only 60 cents. Who cares about that kind of money? The theatre (a big building with a lot of expensive sound and projection equipment) doesn't have any other way to turn a buck other than to hit you up for some inflated concessions.

Re:Both sides need to get a grip.

[rbarreira]

Please don't confuse Bittorrent with the things shared with it. Bittorrent is perfectly legitimate, but many things shared with it aren't...

Re:Both sides need to get a grip.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the booking agent for a theater in a metropolitan market in Florida. Our Friday/Saturday after 6:00PM ticket is $8.25. For every Start Wars III ticket we sell, we get to keep $0.06 of it. Yes, six cents. And originally we were going to lose money on it--the negotiation took a lot of time. We have 6 prints, BTW. I just ran the report for tonight, and we had 14,000 or so people come and see it. We made a profit, but not from ticket sales. Ticket sales don't even cover the people in box office, not to mention booth, concessions, ushers, and management, overnight janitors, and maintenance.

"but somehow this is still news" ????

[Aqua OS X]

"I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news."

Well, for the love of god, stop treating it like news.
Post something else. Shess.

My Naive Boss

[ranson]

Our whole company was treated to a screening of ROTS this morning. My boss, who doesn't watch television and later admittidely never saw a Star Wars movie prior to today, asked us after it was over, "So do you think they'll make movies about those two twin babies now?" I still have not stopped laughing.

Re:My Naive Boss

[jbarket]

As amazing as it seems on /., it really is possible for people to not know a damn thing about Star Wars. Last night, after taking her to the midnight showing of Episode III, I discovered that my girlfriend's only exposure to Star Wars was Episode I, and RotS left her very confused because it pratically depends on a basic knowledge of the final three episodes.

Already?!

[erroneus]

Damn!

I left for Japan on Wednesday and now I don't get to see it until I get back (in two weeks). If I wanted to download it, I would... but frankly, and I think many people will agree with me on this point, I don't want to see it until I can see it in its full glory. Seeing it compressed and trashed and tiny isn't the way to see it the first time.

Now if I enjoyed it, I might download it and keep it until the DVD is released... then I'll buy he DVD when it comes out.

I wish the jackasses at the MPAA would just figure it out too.

Do they buy what they download, or not?

[SuperBanana]

The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

Slashdot Citizen! Do not oppose the Group Think that P2P is used for 'TEST DRIVING' content, and that EVERYONE buys what they download! And that if Hollywood/MPAA only produced better stuff, we'd...buy...more of...

Wait...I thought we said we bought everything we downloaded?

Aaaaaaa! [head implodes]

Definitely see it on the big screen

[Bifurcati]

The lightsaber battles and special effects, the thunderous roar of the ships - watching a crappy download on the computer simply doesn't do it justice. Even with the best home sound system, etc, I think the big screen still has something to offer.

Of course, after seeing it on the big screen I've got noproblem with going and downloading it to watch it again (although I've sheepishly got ot admit that I've seen it in the cinema twice - once at the midnight screening (which we Aussies got before the U.S. - go time zones!) and once with my partner.)

I really loved the movie, and definitely think it was worth it - a truly memorable conclusion to the Star Wars saga.

Wow

[The Bungi]

so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds

It's interesting and telling that this needs to be "discussed".

So whats the problem?

[bigwayne]

If this isn't news anymore, why post it?

From the site:
"At least two copies of the film, which was first shown in theaters in the early hours of Thursday, have been posted to the BitTorrent file-sharing network -- a new and increasingly popular technology that allows users to download large video files much more quickly than in the past."

First, I love the spin the article gives on BitTorrent. The spotlight on its seedier (no pun intended) elements seems to completely negate any legitimate uses [mybookmarkmanager.com, blizzard.com].

Second, I know this a widely arguable reality, but 16,000 times $8 (a generous ticket price) is $128,000. A drop in the bucket considering the pile (any) movies make. Its an interesting statistic, but a flawed argument (on both sides, I know the number is really a lot greater in this instance) for the proposed "loss in quintillions the movie industry suffers from pirating movies".

A few more opinions (I'm really pissed at this article):
- Yea, pirating is a problem, but like music CD's the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with that it takes to go see the movie, or buy the music, legitimately.
- The people that can afford to buy the music and see the movies are the real pirates, but a lot of the folks that do download first, often go out and buy the legit copy afterwards, myself included.
- Perhaps theres something to be said about the expansive overhead that all aspects of movie production have. Nothing like someone poking a hole in your business scheme to provoke some creative thinking. Their solutions thus far, not creative (Read "Sue first, ask questions later, lets attack innovation and defend our archaic business models!")

This argument is tiring. BitTorrent isn't going anywhere, developers continually change how they do things to adapt to the new environment these lawsuits and spun news create, while these businesses still claim to be losing money on all fronts.

That's absurd!

[cfalcon]

...I'll only be seeing it one additional time this weekend. Unless this other circle of friends of mine that isn't big on movies wants to go. Then I'd see it two more times this weekend.

Also, I'm using the gnutella network, which is less dishonest than bitorrent because it is slower.

That's sarcasm, thx.

Ratings

[Dakisha]

According to a well known ripped movies ratings site, RoTS is rated at 6.0/10 for video, and 6.2/10 for audio (may change as more ppl rate it) - and thats keeping in mind it's a pre-release workprint.

There is a version out with a large timer across the top, and there is a rerelease with it blurred out. Anything under 8/10 is usually pretty 'meh'. However, I have no doubt a dvd screener or some other form of release will be out sooner or later.

It's better than a cam by all accounts, but only the truely broke or people who can't be assed will dl this. I certainly don't imagine this crappy quality release will knock much off the initial ticket sales - by the time a decent release is out, the '2 weeks sales' or whatever they look at these days to determine initial success will have passed.

Bothan death toll mounts...

[EdZ]

Many Bothans died to bring us this leak.

Not A Cam Rip

[BRock97]

From what I have been able to gather online, it isn't a cam rip but actually a work print. This is significant for two reasons.

1) The quality will be better than a cam.

2) Workprints are usually only available to those within the industry which means someone close to the studio leaked this out.

Workprints are usually pretty hard to get, hence why you don't hear about them in the leaked movie news very often.

All said, though, go see it in the theatre. I went to the 12:01 showing last night and it was awesome. Truly awesome.

Noooo...!

[__aaclcg7560]

I got finals on Monday! I will resist the Dark Side... I... will... not... download... BSD 3.7 until then...

Who cares about garbld sound?

[kindbud]

Who cares about garbled sound, when the dialog so low-brow?

"You're so beautiful."
"That's only because I'm so in love."
"No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

BARF!

Re:Who cares about garbld sound?

[aarku]

Why must everyone need a love scene to be some sort of suave Bond or Hugh Grant garbage, instead of an awkward misguided lust that is the relationship that Lucas is portraying? I liked the awkwardness, it was refreshing.

NO SPOILERS!

[MyHair]

those two twin babies

Stop! No spoilers! I haven't seen it yet!

Re:NO SPOILERS!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yeah! If I wanted to know what happened in the end, I'd have watched the sequels first!

Lucas deserves the proceeds?

[spideyct]

Why would we discuss that? Is there even a question? What would be the argument against the creater/funder/owner of the content deserving the proceeds of their work?
Was that remark based on the fact that people are mad at Lucas because they didn't like the last 2 movies?
Or is it that people really dont think any creator deserves proceeds from their work? I'm not talking fair use or anything like that - I understand those arguments - they don't seem relevant here.

Re:Lucas deserves the proceeds?

[DigiShaman]

Because we have a bunch of pinko commies on slashdot. Isn't it obvious? Oh well, just read my sig.

Gee, you know...if I planted a farm, do I not deserve to reap the fruits of my labor? Hah, not on this forrum!

Well if you want to be a stickler that way

[Sycraft-fu]

Then NOTHING is perfectly legitimate. I cannot think of one thing in this world that has not been used illegally in some way at some point in time.

In BT's case it's quite clear to see that it has very,v ery widesperad legitimate use. If you are getting a Linux distro, it's hard not to get it via torrent these days. Whenever any download gets slashdotted, someone throws up a torrent and people come in droves (I've done over 5mbytes/second seeding those, that's about a DS-3's worth of bandwidth). Or go to 3dgamers.com and download something. They do have some direct download servers, but the method they push is Bittorrent.

You can argue till you are blue in the face about how much of it is legal vs illegal, point is it wasn't created for the intent of breaking the law and there is a substanital amount of non-infringing use. That's why it's legit.

Good quality

[northcat]

Idiots. I haven't downloaded it, but I do know that it's good quality - as good as or even better than DVDs. Heck, even TFA says that "it may have come from within the industry rather than from someone who videotaped an advance screening." Of course, there are other reasons why you might watch it in a theatre - the sound is better and the screen is bigger. (These might not be very appealing to you if you have some home theatre though.)

PARENT HAS SPOILERS

[rokzy]

nice one.

Hmmm, the Torrent is...

[heavyboots]

... strong in this one.

Torrent is not dead...

[antiaktiv]

Top three torrents at a large torrent site right now:

1. Star Wars III Revenge of the Sith. Seeders: 1290, leechers: 14824 2. Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith. Seeders: 241, leechers: 4777 3. Star Wars Revenge of the Sith Episode 3. Seeders: 148, leechers: 4148. And yeah, this is the ultra-crap version with a timecode imprinted.

What ever happened to intermissions?

[Kludge]

Because I feel like taking a piss, I am lacking attention span?

I have to agree. Those Lord of the Rings movies were just too much. You couldn't drink your beverage until half way through the show if you wanted a hope of not missing part of the show for a trip to the can.
In the old days movies had intermissions. Live shows still do. What happened to those?

Re:What ever happened to intermissions?

[mmontour]

Those Lord of the Rings movies were just too much.[...]not missing part of the show for a trip to the can.

That's what the Arwen scenes were for.

Re:What ever happened to intermissions?

[Nossie]

I think your looking at this wrong (no offence)

Theatres apparently make little money off the actual movies... hence why the food and drink is so damn expensive.. (as another poster stated)

You say that an intermission would waste time and time means money yet you forget about the (up to) 45 minutes of adverts beforehand. fortunately living in the uk, I dont believe we have so many adverts as the Americans do... but that doesnt mean I go to the cinema dead on time -- more like 20 minutes or so after to miss the crap on before.

So why not split these adverts in the middle? I mean the advertizers wont admit it but few of us enjoy sitting on our asses watching the damn things.. so why cant the cinema owners make some money out of selling icecream, drinks etc ...

It kinda makes sense to me that way than the current setup they have.. I hate the idea of both personally.. I dont want any adverts period ! but what can you do? I guess this way I might actually have to watch one or two lol.

The people to blame I feel is the MPAA.. If they sold the cinema reels (licenses) at a reasonable price to the theatres then they wouldnt have to bump up the price of the food and drinks... people would buy more consumables (and tickets!) and the *Cash flow* for everybody would be much higher... Sadly this is not the case and the film consortiums ripp the pish out of everybody involved.

but thats just my opinion..

Re:What ever happened to intermissions?

[jdcook]

I was forced to conclude that Peter Jackson hates the audience. Now, it is true that just before viewing LOTR:FOTR I drank a washtub-sized coke at the piza joint. But *man* that's a long movie. And I'm holding out, crossing my legs, trying to concentrate on the action instead of my bladder. And then there's a fuckin' WATERFALL. Oh man I gotta go. And then he does it AGAIN with the flood during the ent attack in Two Towers. Fortunately I was prepared that time. I saved my cup from the pizza joint.

CowboyNeal's reasoning?

[schnell]

CowboyNeal: It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

I'm not trying to be a shill for the movie industry here or anything, but whatever happened to "it's still usually worth shelling out the cash so that the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed?" You're not supposed to pay for stuff you watch because it's higher quality, you're supposed to pay for it because it's the right thing to do.

Re:I refuse to see it in the theater

[splint3r]

That's usually my motivation for seeing it through other means.

I've disliked going to the cinema since 16 I think. The people suck, I can't pause it, I refuse to watch adverts, it costs too much and it's not a good social event (what's the point of going with your friends if you have to sit in a dark room in silence for an hour and a half?). ... having said that, I've just come back from the cinema ;)

This film was daaaaark. It should have been a 15. I think I'm going to cry everytime I see Darth Vader now.

Worth watching in the cinema? Probably more so than most films, but that's not saying much in my opinion.

I can top that.

[955301]

Some coworkers and I saw the 3:30 showing here in Atlanta. The movie cuts to Vader's mask being put on for the first time and one of the guys in our group whispers "wait, now who is this guy?".

We're still punching him as I type.

again

[jumbledInTheHead]

I star wars at 12:01 technically really early thursday, but now I am tempted to download it and watch it again. I'll probably see it in the theatres at least once more, Lucas has gotten my money, now where is my convenience.

Re:Something I've always wanted to know.

[cafard]

He does yeah. Not so much difference here.

But still, the french version brings some new insights: in Episode IV, when the Falcon needs to flee from an ISD, Solo calls Chewbacca "Chico", hence betraying some very secretly kept latino origins of the wookie.

Exactly!

[DeadScreenSky]

I do too. It reminds me of when I was a stupid teenager. I wonder if that is part of the reason so many people don't like it?

The movie industry...

[scharkalvin]

Needs to police itself and look for moles rather than going after bit torrent users. This time it was an inside job (and that's probably where MOST of the 'leaks' come from).

Anyway for a flick like this one I'd much rather find a THX equipped movie with a wide screen and pay the price of a ticket than watch it with my kids in the family room on the boob tube. (We usually sneek our own M&M's in rather than get ripped off at the concession stand!)