'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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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."

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: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: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:Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER

[Anonymous Coward]

> What did you expect, really?

Are you suggesting IT'S A TRAP?

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: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.

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.

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?