Slashdot Mirror
WB Took Pains To "Delay" Pirating of Dark Knight
Jay writes "The L.A. Times is reporting on a new studio tactic — not to prevent piracy, but to delay it, as was the case with special tactics used with Dark Knight. '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 streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million. The success of an anti-piracy campaign is measured in the number of hours it buys before the digital dam breaks.'" You know what else helps to have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie.
I'm just glad the summary had this added on: "You know what else helps have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie." I mean, seriously, the successful opening weekend probably had next-to-nothing with the "extra vigilance" and had everything to do with the fact that the movie is, top to bottom, fantastic. Make a good movie and people will pay to see it. Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science. But, of course, they'll tout the success of the movie and the "extra vigilance" as proof that piracy hurts their other movies which don't have similar record-breaking opening weeks. Never you mind that those movies aren't half as good as The Dark Knight - their success suffered because of those filthy pirates! sigh...
I often wonder why movie studios don't implement some sort of new technology to thwart 'cammers'.
When you see video of say, a fence, or some object with lines close together often the video is distorted when played back, you'd think there would be some way to project an image so it's able to be seen clearly by people's eyes but not able to be recorded due to a camera limitations.
Maybe a dual projector system and seeing that it's getting more common that a modern projector is film-less, all digital, it may be easier to modify it somehow.
A shakey cam is not worth the bandwidth.
However, someone using a multi-thousand-dollar camcorder, with the framerate synced to the projector's, and the audio dubbed directly from the source... It won't be as good as a DVD rip later (or Blu-Ray/HD), but if I missed it in our local theater (which only has two screens), yes, it definitely might be worth watching.
While it won't necessarily be as professionally done, keep in mind that telesync is the same process by which actual DVDs are made from a movie reel.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"If the movie's a stiff, and word gets out too early that it's a stiff, it's devastating to the business model," Garland said."
Let's be fair... those words did not come from the studio, they came from the CEO of a biz that "monitors" file sharing networks--my guess is that no studio would publicly agree with that particular sentiment.
As Morty Seinfeld once said, "You know what sells clothes? Cheap fabric and dark lighting."
You know that sell movies? Dead leading actors and professional film critics on your pay roll.
While I have seen almost every type of asshole on your list, I must say that I find it hard to believe that someone would pay for a movie ticket to actually work on their laptop while in the theater.
First of all, with all their "no pirates allowed" paranoia the theaters wouldn't let someone enter with their laptop.
Second, aren't all shopping malls equipped with air conditioning? They could sit on a bench and work there, for free.
If you have indeed seen such a thing, then that person was not only an asshole, but also an idiot.
"They" are business people, and probably negligent in their jobs if they didn't focus on box-office sales as a metric. Like it or not, the movie going public likes CG-fest blockbusters, and, as long as that's the case, the studios are going to focus on those.
Which is utterly worthless. It is not beyond the promoters to take the line "Whatever you do, do not go and see this film!" from a review and use the last five words in the promo material.
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
If they were that serious then they could stop the 'scourge' of cammed movies at source. Equip cinemas with an IR light emitter just below the screen, pointed at the audience that spreads beams across the cinema, digital camcorders will pick these up and make the movie unwatchable. If cammers start using IR filters on the cameras, upgrade them to field-emitters (or was it wave-emitters?) that send out a signal that distorts whatever the CCD 'sees'.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
On the other hand, going to see smaller, less mainstream movies can be particularly wonderful. In the most extreme example, my ex and I had the cinema to ourselves when we went to see Secretary; but I've managed to see a fair few films with so few other people in the cinema that it really does repay the investment.
On the other hand, only one person needs to decide to relate their thoughts on the film and everything else to their friend on the other end of a cellphone to spoil it for everyone. It should be legal to shoot those people where they sit, frankly.
(With a crossbow, of course, to avoid further disruption. Or a bow and arrow. Maybe even slit their throat or garotte them.)
Because I'd really like paying full price to see a scratchy print?
Some of us like going to theatres and I like to see movies I think would be worth seeing on opening weekend for the primary reason that the scratches on the prints would be less than weeks later.
Another reason I see movies on opening weekend is the premium screen that my local cineplex offers for tentpole releases.
What bothers me about the movie experience is:
A) scratchy prints which is noticeable to me after the first week.
B) this new copy code (the pattern of orange dots) that flashes on the screen and I DO SEE THEM and THEY DO BOTHER ME.
The kids matinees that offer family movies that were released years before are really scratchy but I don't complain for $1 a ticket.
The copy code is a nuisance that I put up with vs seeing a film on the big screen. It really sucks. It was painfully obvious when I saw Master and Commander (storm scenes) and the same with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I still see it when it's flashed but recently I've seen it on scenes with stuff in it instead of a blank frame.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
For example, McDonalds is highly successful, but no-one confuses them with gourmet cuisine. Or confuses Microsoft with ethical and innovative product development.