Slashdot Mirror
Wolverine Film Leaked a Month Before Release
hansamurai writes "The FBI are investigating the leak of an almost finished copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine a month before the film's cinema release. The movie was reported to have been downloaded several hundred thousand times and has since been 'removed.' Viewers have called the movie incomplete, missing some special effects and music. Fox and the MPAA are still upset, though, but say the copy is forensically marked and can be traced to the leak. The film is due out May 1st in the United States, and the leaked copy is marked March 2nd."
Do I think it will hurt the movie or cause any amount of financial loss? No, it's merely disrespectful and actually kind of humorous that anyone would ruin the initial exposure of what could amount to a great film.
Do I think that they will use it as a scapegoat, much like Ubisoft did when an unfinished and buggy copy of Assassins Creed leaked? Yes. If their movie doesn't do well in the box office (Well as in higher than their expectations) this will be a perfect excuse for them to use with the media and to investors.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
It's the latest wrinkle in the marketer's playbook.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I think you're reading too much into the disrespect thing. I understand that from an artistic viewpoint you might have a certain idea of how you want your work received, but I think if the viewer receives more joy or whatever emotion from seeing inside the work as it were then it's best if they see it that way. Also you know people are never going to get precisely the experience you want them to, although many may lie within an acceptable range. If you accept that life is in the living, then you should accept that you benefited most from creating the work and they benefited most from experiencing it in the way most profound for them. Or uh, so I believe. :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ok, even if I don't agree, I can at least see the logic between "full movie dl's = less ticket sales." But this is a freaking action movie without completed special effects. Can you honestly tell me there are a significant number of people interested in seeing an action movie, minus special effects, who aren't also the fanboy-types who will see it in theatres?
Isn't March 2nd closer to two months before May 1st?
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
This probably all has to do with being under paid in an industry that makes ass loads of cash for the few at the top, and hardly any at the bottom.
You're right about the rapidly declining quality of Hollywood's output. There's no real depth to anything recent. The old proven actors (like Star Trek and Star Wars) have become senile, uncaring, and devoid of soul at the hands of money-grubbers.
The new crop of actors are cretinous, pretentious fuckwits who are chosen for their tits and their "real-life" drama which is as manufactured as their movies are. You know things are sad when Hollywood's releasing movies like "X-men 25: Because you'll see it Anyway" and "Direct to DVD 5: The theater is only for Booze and sex".
It talks about how the FBI has been called like it's a major disaster.
I can picture it now:
FBI: Hello FBI?
MPAA: THE NEW WOLVERINE FILM HAS BEEN LEAKED
FBI: SHIT, EVERYONE DROP THEIR RAPE CASES, THEIR KIDDIE PORN CASES, THEIR TERRORIST CASES, THE NEW WOLVERINE FILM HAS BEEN LEAKED WE MUST FIND OUT WHO DID THIS
It's just the way the leak of a film gets more news coverage than more serious stories. It's like it's an international tragedy. I mean seriously, a film with chunks missing, temporary sound, CGI missing and so on. There are companies every day that have their security breached and IP stolen. Why does it get international coverage when it's a half-finished movie?
The real response from the FBI should be:
FBI: Here's your case number, take your ticket and get to the back of the queue
On a side note the BBC also said that Fox has had the download of the new film taken down now - that baffled me a bit, I doubt very much they've managed to get it removed from the whole internet, if they have they're the first company in history to achieve such a thing!
Grabbing a torrent from a public tracker isn't wise at the best of times, but for something like this it's crazy. The MPAA/FOX may very well have their eyes on those seeder and peer lists.
Out of respect for the artistic integrity of the 20th Century Fox corporation? Now, that's funny.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
"In 2007 director Eli Roth blamed an online leak of his horror film Hostel: Part II for reducing box office returns." Or maybe it had to do with the fact I saw the first one, which wasn't horrible but besides some of the more "entertaining scenes" was a bit.. typical. Did I see the second in theaters? Nope, didn't really appeal too much. Seemed like a cheap follow up to the first one. Maybe it wasn't the leak of the movie that killed box office sales, maybe there were many others out there who, like me, just didn't care to see it in theaters. This holds true with a lot of movies. All I can say is, I'm glad I didn't pay to see Quarantine. The first maybe half hour or so was actually entertaining, but after that it went to hell real quick.
I'd take my chances at not being the on in 60k they choose to sue.
Seeders: 22425
Leechers:36869
total: 59294
Infact that's a snapshot so you're probably closer to 1 in a million chance of getting sued, IF they choose to sue any of the seeders not just the leak!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I will never again willingly watch anything in a cinema so long as I live. Poor food, poor seats, poor video quality, and most of all poor company. The only advantage cinemas still retain over my living room is their sound systems, and frankly it's not worth the bother. I will wait for the Blu-Ray of any new film. It costs about as much as trip to the cinema anyway.
And if the studio refuses to release in my region simultaneously with others, I'll download the film. Tough luck guys. I had the money in my hand, ready to give it to you, but you gave me the finger instead. So guess what I'm giving you.
May the Maths Be with you!
I also hold the very unpopular viewpoint that it's basically a slap in the face to an artist to view their work before they're done with it.
I would agree with you about most artistic endeavors but not about the sausageworks that is big studio moviemaking. Artistic integrity left that building long ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this were an intentional leak, done to generate more interest in the movie. I didn't even know there was a Wolverine movie being made, but I do now. News = free publicity. And there's no downside. Nobody who wants to see the real movie is going to be satisfied by a work print with missing effects, sound editing and God knows what else.
Its a shame the FBI will spend time and resources to investigate civil crimes such as media piracy --- yet the FBI continuously fails to investigate political corruption, vote fraud, and a number of other seriously criminal acts that happen in the US.
I am somehow reminded (living in CA where it is illegal) of the local police and highway patrol constantly using their Cell Phones while driving...
I guess the FBI knows not to bite the dirty hands that feed them.
Nothing gets on my nerves more than unskippable DVD chapters. It's bad enough that the stupid MPAA/FBI warning is pretty much always unable to be skipped, but lots of DVDs actually stick commercials and previews at the beginning that you can't skip over either.
On the other hand, if I pirate the film, I can have it in less than a half hour (less than the time it takes to run to the video store), the movie is never out of stock, I can watch it as many times as I want (making it superior to "on demand"), and all of that annoying crap is removed.
I only buy a movie on DVD if I really, really like it.
Game... blouses.
The new crop of actors are cretinous, pretentious fuckwits who are chosen for their tits and their "real-life" drama which is as manufactured as their movies are.
I love to be the one to break this to you: the old crop of actors is primarily a bunch of cretinous, pretentious fuckwits who were chosen for their attractiveness to the public. (There are of course limited counterexamples.) Their "real-life" drama was as manufactured as their movies were. One seriously great example is Sean Connery, the favorite James Bond. SNL "Celebrity Jeopardy" -- it's funny because it's true!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I very strongly suspected this myself... if one was inclined to download it, usenet would be a much better choice.
In theory, of course.
You're correct, but even though movie stars may or may not be pretentious fuckwits, the overall quality of acting is taking a nosedive. Back in the day acting had to be believable because it drove the plots much more than overuse of special effects did. Now, even the oldheads don't even need to really act, they can just lend their voices to mostly-convincing CGI replicas of themselves.
Watching Natalie Portman or Halle Berry onscreen reminds me of Kelly Bundy in that episode of married with children where she tries host the weather segment on the local news station...their real-life acting ability is on par with an act of a dumb blonde with a blank stare. Holywood has no other choice but to go the Microsoft route and throw money at anybody willing to hype the thespian du jour.
And about the recycling of sequels - Hollywood have run out of original ideas and are now strip-mining all of the money-making franchises they can, especially comics. There are plenty of good ideas out there which haven't been done ad nauseum, Watchmen being a good example.
There's plenty of great actors and actresses around. The fact that there are a LOT more movies coming out might give the appearance of low quality, but, frankly, there were a lot of low quality movies "back in the day".
As for actors being chosen for their "real life drama", come on. We live in a society of the most venomous fans I've ever seen. If an actor has real life drama it's more of a death knell than a sign of success to come.
If the movie is good the positive feedback will bring out more viewers, if the movie sucks then nobody will want to go see it in theaters.
Well if you want better movies you need to pay to see ones you like.
The slashdot crowd always says movies suck, alongside bashing the MPAA and proudly defending their right to torrent everything.
newsflash: Movies are made for people who *pay* to see them. if you don't pay, the movies are not aimed at you, so don't act amazed when you don't like them.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
So has this site given up all pretence of being 'news for nerds' and become a side-project for the pirate bay now?
Every story concerning piracy takes the pirates POV, every criticism of thepiratebay is brushed aside, and now top stories are new hollywood movies, complete with +5 modded links to copyrighted material.
I thought bit-torrent was only used for free speech and linux distros?
+5 hyprocrites
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Each suit is an individual case and stands on its own merits and evidence. They probably don't have the time or money, or expect enough retribution, to sue 60,000 people, or even more than a handful.
Bah, it's probably just the MPAA's new business model. They know the movie is a piece of crap that won't do well in the theatre... so instead they "leak" it then sue everyone that touches the torrent.
(-1 cynical)
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
First. I agree with the OP and the BBC. How the hell does this get some sort of express FBI coverage? It's a freaking movie. Not a bomb threat or a kidnapping. So some sweaty fanboy snagged a pre-release copy. So freaking what?
It's sickening how the government will instantly bend over backwards for big business. Pathetic.
Second thing.
But it is reasonable to pursue something like this, because realistically a work print this early will drive down sales in a major way costing the producers millions, easily.
Prove it.
How do you know this won't work like an extended commercial, drumming up interest? Studies have shown that people who illegally download music also happen to spend more on music than other people.
The FBI may be trying to bust someone who helped, rather than harmed the studio.
The main problem with crap like this is how do you assess damage? We all know that it's possible to skew the numbers in such a way that a single mp3 download is equal to either thousands of hours worth of free advertising, or thousands of dollars worth of lost sales.
Until someone resolves that debate, you really can't call this anything more than a single copyright violation. And certainly not worthy of anything more than a raised eyebrow from the FBI, rather than this gigantic government funded reacharound they're giving the MPAA.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There is nothing wrong with choosing someone for their tits.
except when it's to watch someone who has no acting talent for 2 hours straight without showing a single nipple...
You should get to know your local FBI agents, you will get a better feel for the cases they work. you might change your opinion when you see the variety of different cases they pursue. Join a local chapter of Infragard so you can become informed. Most interesting are the sessions where they break down a case from beginning to end, explaining how and why they got involved, the course of the investigation, and how they closed the case. FBI Agent even have a pretty good sense of humor believe it or not..
Here in Cleveland they DO go after political corruption (The number of local raids this year has been astonishing), Child porn, Computer based Crimes, the list goes on and on.. The decision to accept or not accept a case is sometimes determined by the Financial losses incurred, Of course that criteria would not apply to all types of crimes.
I hope you aren't basing your opinion off of how the FBI is portrayed on television and in the movies. If so then maybe you believe Wolverine is a real person too...
far...out
Did you even see Michael Clayton? Or Little Children, or In the Bedroom, or The Queen, or Doubt.
Guess what, dude. The acting in the original Star Wars and the first three Treks is pretty bad, too; there's nothing exceptionally bad about newer films-- You're just remembering it through rose-colored glasses. Acting in CGI/scifi/action films has always been pretty "eh."
Film has always been a prime actors medium, just not when acting against a green screen.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Because the cost involved in trying to track down and sue 60k users, many of whom will be in foreign countries or using isps who won't cooperate would just be stupid.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Not to nitpick, but the MPAA/RIAA doen't sue downloaders (despite the bad reporting of the media. They only sue uploaders. So you're not 1 out of 59,294 to them. You're 1 in 22,425.
Except for the fact that leechers are also uploading the file as well. They just don't have a full copy yet. Try again.
After a night of watching movie channels, I can say authoritatively that the 80's and 90's were chock full of shitty movies.
We tend to remember the memorable movies, which were typically the best. Need I remind everyone of the existence of movies like Tremors, 2, 3, 4 and the series?
Ok, now that your eyes are bleeding from the pain, you'll realize there always were, are and will be shitty movies. Just gotta see the good ones.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Hollywood have run out of original ideas and are now strip-mining all of the money-making franchises they can, especially comics.
The Simpsons did it!
Every story that can be done has been done and done several times. It is rare that you get to see something truly unique (Donnie Darko). Until then I'll try to enjoy the new spins hollywood puts on old classics.
The Joker's point throughout the movie is that people are self-serving and will turn on heroes as soon as it suits their whim. When he talks to Batman in the police station, he basically says as much, explaining that Batman's token obedience to his "one rule" counts for shit when the chips are down. To prove his point, he gives the people on the boat the means to save themselves at the expense of breaking what we would hope is each person's "one rule." The fact that they didn't is the movie telling us that there is hope for people and that we're not just a base collection of alienated individuals. The people on the boat are the ones who really defeated Joker in the movie by rejecting his premise. That's why the ending was so comparatively weak. Batman's not really the hero.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Those people are meant to work in strip clubs, not films. If you can't act you don't belong in a movie. Just because there are a bunch of other famous people in the movie doesn't make you a good actor. It just means you're the eye candy and they're the ones that are going to make the film tolerable despite your complete inability to act. There are too many movies like that. It's dreadful.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
I can't remember where I heard the joke that "trying to take something off of the internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool".
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
I hate to ruin it for you, but he dies in the end.
Since when did we start referring to freedom in the western world as 'He'?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I could probably live with most of these changes but for the screens. I've been to several different theaters here in San Diego, and I constantly marvel at how poor the picture is. The screens are often too bright with no contrast, or blurry. While sound systems seem to get upgraded every few years on a relentless campaign to deafen moviegoers, the screens and projectors seem oddly neglected. I've seen better film quality in the $1.50 theater in Eugene. There's no quicker way to make me feel swindled than to have to squint at a movie I paid close to $10 to view.
The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!