Slashdot Mirror


Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Popular director Joss Whedon has taken the film world by surprise by releasing his latest offering, 'In Your Eyes', available for download on the same day it premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival. The new release comes from Whedon's own "micro studio", Bellwether Pictures, and is featured on Vimeo as a $5 rental, (free trailer). Whedon mused, 'It's exciting for us because we get to explore yet another new form of distribution — and we get $5.' Mr. Whedon has a history of pushing the delivery envelope, as with Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, in 2008."

137 comments

  1. Looking forward to it! by Slartibartfast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Joss Whedon is just such a fun filmmaker, even if he wasn't the director for this particular movie. Look at Buffy, The Avengers, even Cabin in the Woods, which was a thoroughly enjoyable re-imagining of the tired horror flick. And this one just so happens to be partially filmed in my town; I haven't seen the movie yet, but if you see a gas station with tanks right out of the 50's, that ain't no prop, it's for-real. (Though they stopped pumping gas five or six years ago due to the storage tank needing to be fixed up.) Really excited for this one.

  2. Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can anyone comment about the quality of this film? Is this Cinema quality? Direct-to-Video? SciFi channel? YouTube?

    While watching SHIELD the other week, they transitioned seamlessly to a Captain America commercial -- and I wondered if I was still watching SHIELD until 5 seconds later, a actual car crash stunt happened, and I knew the budget for the 30-second commercial was higher than the entire episode of SHIELD that I had been watching.

    I'll gladly pay $5 to watch a new movie in this "new model" of distribution.

    ....but I won't pay $5 to watch something that should have been released to YouTube.

    1. Re:Quality? by SJHillman · · Score: 1, Funny

      You wouldn't pay $5 to download a car, would you?

    2. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "While watching SHIELD the other week"

      Why? That's the most horrible addition to the superhero universe since Ben Affleck was allowed to debase Daredevil.

    3. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms!

    4. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I knew the budget for the 30-second commercial was higher than the entire episode of SHIELD that I had been watching.

      Let me guess, you also pick your gaming platform based on "teh polygons".

    5. Re:Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      The quality of my entertainment is important to me. There's a big difference between things "filmed" on video and things actually captured on film. You can be better immersed in something if you're not constantly having your suspension of disbelief broken by terrible effects.

      I just want to know if I should be expecting A-Team style car crashes where suddenly the car has tinted windows and goes over a ramp behind a bush....

    6. Re:Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      I was nearly ready to give up on SHIELD. The episodes had become fairly stock procedural fantasy/CSI.

      ...but the last 5-6 episodes were pretty great. So they're back on the list of shows I'm looking forward to watching, rather than begrudgingly clearing it from my DVR.

    7. Re:Quality? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      Of course video looks better than film because of the higher frame rate, and anything you watch at home that started on film has been transferred to video anyway, so has the shortcomings of both formats combined. It's silly to pretend that film is better unless you're talking about IMAX seen at the theater.

    8. Re:Quality? by ah.clem · · Score: 1

      Why not just watch the trailer?

      --
      "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    9. Re:Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Video looks better than film?

      WUT?!?

      Depth of field and dynamic range, and that's just for starters... ....if you honestly believe that video looks better than film, I don't know what to tell you.

    10. Re:Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Short answer? I'm at work, and we block nearly every video streaming site.

    11. Re:Quality? by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Maybe, if I could print it!

    12. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better graphics allows for better environments and immersion. You can keep your blocky Nintendo cartoon crap.

    13. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depth of field occurs in video too and the "dynamic range" in film is a post production effect.

    14. Re:Quality? by rockout · · Score: 1

      The parent obviously has no idea what "depth of field" means, so why bother arguing?

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    15. Re:Quality? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      You aren't going to seriously argue that video looks better than film, are you?

      Riddle me this then: Why are films shot on... ...film, since video is obviously better and cheaper.

    16. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never handled a camera before, so why bother arguing. I do loads of macro photography where adjustments for DOF are extremely important. When you have some experience, then you can come back and talk.

    17. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video can be made to look like film, but it requires more work and when filmising, video quality is actually degraded in order to look like film. We aren't talking about film vs some crappy 80s VHS camcorder any more.

      People are used to the look of film, despite it technically being worse than modern digital video, so it's used mostly out of tradition and familiarity.

    18. Re:Quality? by hobarrera · · Score: 0

      $5 to watch a movie a single time!? Sounds like a huge ripoff. The most expensive cinemas in town cost less than that. The cheap ones cost about a fifth. And I only get to "rent" it, I can't even watch it again later, or with friends, etc.

      I'm sorry, but I'm just sticking to thepiratebay until you fix your business model.

    19. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you posting from the 1970s where a cinema ticket can be had for $2.50? I know the CHEAPEST cinema in my town is like $12. Most expensive is probably around $18. So yeah. Come join us in the 21st century.

    20. Re:Quality? by FriendlyStatistician · · Score: 1

      It's a 72-hour rental, so you can watch it yourself and then rewatch it with friends a couple days later if you want. An option to own it would be nice, but I imagine that will come later.

      I don't know where you live, but $5 is half the price of a cinema ticket where I live.

    21. Re:Quality? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Your town isn't a reference for every town in the entire world. Remember, stuff in countries with strong economies tend to be expensive in the eyes of most of the rest of the world.

  3. Sounds like warmed over "The Chrysalids" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will *everybody* have an quick wit and annoying snappy comebacks?

  4. Louis CK by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Louis CK did pretty good with his pay what you want experiment and his own production. If could get a download that plays on any video player tha say day or even month after it came out of the movies I'd be all over it. The last time I went to the movies was to see The Road after spending nearly $50 between me and my son on tickets and popcorn I said fuck it this is enough and haven't been back. At $5 per movie Id' be buying prrtty much any good movies that comes out. Hell even for the price of the ticket $10+ tax each person I'd could buy 4 movies and enjoy them at home.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Louis CK by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I'd be buying it as well for $5. Renting it, on the other hand... no.

      That is more that blockbuster.

    2. Re:Louis CK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the Louis CK link wasn't permanent (each link was one time use only), they sent me a new one without any fuzz when i asked for a new on e because my DSL modem crapped out during the download.

    3. Re:Louis CK by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but anybody would react like that after watching The Road. I only paid a couple of bucks to rent it on bluray and it still put me off of watching movies for a while. If I want that kind of experience again I could sit and poke my self in one eye with a rusty fork repeatedly for two hours until little bits of brain start to fall out.

      ps Not my favourite movie of all time. Definitely not top 5.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  5. micro studio by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    There is no difference between a micro studio and a Giganto Studio. I have the exact same tools in my spare bedroom "micro studio" that they have at MGM. and if I really wanted to shoot with a $190,000 arriflex I can rent it, just like they do.

    This is the wonderful thing. a single person with a spare bedroom is equal footing competition to a $100,000,000,000 studio.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:micro studio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Marvel's new studio that was used to film the Avengers was also a micro studio just a few movies ago (Iron Man).

      Look up http://eztv.it/ep/53417/marvel-studios-assembling-a-universe-x264-hdtv-mvgroup/

    2. Re:micro studio by bankman · · Score: 1

      This is the wonderful thing. a single person with a spare bedroom is equal footing competition to a $100,000,000,000 studio.

      Well, the single person with a spare bedroom and the camera also features quite prominently on a number of porn video sites.... I hear.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    3. Re:micro studio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no difference between a micro studio and a Giganto Studio. I have the exact same tools in my spare bedroom "micro studio" that they have at MGM. and if I really wanted to shoot with a $190,000 arriflex I can rent it, just like they do.

      This is the wonderful thing. a single person with a spare bedroom is equal footing competition to a $100,000,000,000 studio.

      Just nitpicking. The Giganto Studio SFX dept. has got some tricks up their sleeve you simply can't duplicate or match (or at least it'd be incredible if you did).

  6. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Funny

    And he also has this weird fetish for 100-lb. waifs beating up hordes of 250-lb. guys that drives me crazy.

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  7. I hate Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate it. Not in a hipster "I hate it because everyone else likes it" kind of way. I just hate it. It's awful.

  8. As if thats something special? by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If his film is released at Tribeca you can assume its only good in the eyes of people in the industry that love to slobber all over each other about how awesome they are even though its complete crap.

    Its been released the same day because all 6 people that are going to watch it already have so he's praying his name will get some sales outside of that because of his history.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:As if thats something special? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Most likely it's because he shopped it around and couldn't find a distributor. That's usually not a good sign.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:As if thats something special? by Scowler · · Score: 1

      This. Possibly an indie distributor would have picked it up, but Whedon's demands for the marketing or whatever were too much to deal with.

    3. Re:As if thats something special? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Or, he has enough money so he can experiment with different distribution models.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:As if thats something special? by Scowler · · Score: 1

      Typically an artist wants to get as many eyeballs on their creation as possible, no? You are suggesting Whedon would deliberately sabotage his audience numbers (and potential revenue) just to do some parlor trick? If that were the case, why would he even bother with Tribeca? Furthermore... Vimeo??

    5. Re:As if thats something special? by neminem · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if Whedon would do exactly that. It's not like he needs money at this point, so why not try something new? Especially since after Doctor Horrible, he specifically said that is exactly what he was going to do next time? After being totally screwed by Fox on several occasions, it's not surprising that he would want the thing wherein he exerts basically complete control over the creation and distribution of stuff, and I don't really blame him.

      That said, he really does need to work on his marketing strategy a bit. I'm a giant Whedon fanboy, and I hadn't heard a peep about this project until today. Why is that?

      If it is true that you can only get it via Vimeo, though, that'd be pretty dumb. I do recall the available options for Doctor Horrible were kinda dumb at first, too, leading me to torrent it until I could buy it reasonably. If it is really just Vimeo (can't check at work), it does seem likely that I would do something similar this time as well (give him 5 dollars, then go find a torrent.)

    6. Re:As if thats something special? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      why not? rage against the machine i believe it was put up a CD and told people pay as much or as little as you want, and they actually made more then they expected. Its not gonna work for an unknown but joss is fairly well known even to non geeks now due to his appearances on big bang theory

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:As if thats something special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      radiohead (made ok computer - on of the best selling albums of the 2000s...) did that with in rainbows I believe as well. And Joss Whedon is a self proclaimed nerd, so he likes culture, and I can see this as a way of helping support upcoming generations of filmmakers trying to make it independently. maybe he's just as tired of a lot of the hollywood stuff coming out as the rest of us, but he's at least in a position to 'lead the way' for creative films to reach an audience and give the creators a nice profit so they can continue their work. and as mentioned, creative control.

    8. Re:As if thats something special? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      ah yes you are right it was radiohead. I knew it started with an R!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  9. Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The movie was worth the five bucks to watch it on Vimeo, but their Flash-based player (no quick way to switch to an HTML5 version) resulted in such a choppy playback that the constant pauses and buffer attempts added another half hour to the whole thing.

    Since it's a 95 minute movie we're talking about a quarter of the time being spent on just waiting for the fucking site to do its job again.
    Before anyone asks: The 100MBit connection has never been a problem before and the necessary software was up to date as well.

    Hope you'll have more luck. Except for the predictable end it's quite a nice movie.

    1. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before anyone asks: The 100MBit connection has never been a problem before

      My network connection didn't used to suck, until it did.

      Your blanket statement villanizing their software (and then making your network out to be a saint) without performing a proper investigation is a little silly. How do you know the problem wasn't related to the link between your computer and their servers? What experiments did you perform to come to the conclusion that it was their front-end playback software?

      A media player does not typically induce increased bandwidth use. Were you connected over wifi? Were others using your wifi at the same time? Were others using your local network at the same time?

    2. Re:Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Unless you actually know what was going on, shove your assumptions where the sun don't shine.

      This was the first bad HD streaming experience in years and the connection has performed without problems throughout the long easter weekend as well (over here that was an extended weekend from Friday to Monday). HD streams by other sites didn't cause any problems either, the problem was reproducible across tabs and browsers and using the web developer tools you could practically watch the stream arrive too late, piece by piece and with not nearly enough overlap to provide seamless playback.

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

    3. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut the guy some slack: "I was watching this movie over a good connection and had lag problems and investigated other delivery options to no avail" is a legitimate complaint without providing significantly more troubleshooting evidence. He didn't write a paper on it, log a bug report, or write a piece of investigative journalism, he claimed he had problems watching it, and, with reasonable confidence, could blame the distributor.

    4. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try downloading with the Firefox extension Download Helper

    5. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you actually know what was going on, shove your assumptions where the sun don't shine.

      Why can't we just be civil around here?

      This was the first bad HD streaming experience in years . . . HD streams by other sites didn't cause any problems . . . using the web developer tools you could practically watch the stream arrive too late, piece by piece and with not nearly enough overlap to provide seamless playback.

      Ah, indeed, that's what I was inquiring about. :-) So the problem was that the connection was not big enough for the stream they were providing, and they only appear to support two bitrates, which is not particularly user-friendly. (Especially considering that many other sites automatically switch streams based on the downstream available.)

      Thanks for helping to clear that up, it's what I was trying to figure out. :-)

    6. Re:Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Won't work in this case, but thanks for the good intention.

      Unlike regular Vimeo, where it's easy to work around the basic methods, the VOD site loads parts of the video in 40 MB or so pieces, tries to stitch them together again and in my case it failed miserably at doing so (despite a proven and more than sufficient downlink),

    7. Re:Careful! by gregstumph · · Score: 1

      I used to get lousy performance from Vimeo (and a few other sites, but mainly Vimeo), until I fiddled with the MTU size on my DSL router. After changing it (from 1500 to 1492, but YMMV) all the problems with Vimeo cleared up. Since you mentioned having a 100MBit connection I imagine you aren't using DSL, but I thought I'd mention my experience for what it's worth...

    8. Re:Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Your summary still might help some others.

      It's a cable modem and regular Vimeo works just fine. It's only the VOD stuff that shows this off behavior (because it loads the video in 40 MB pieces to circumvent most download tools and fails to stitch them back into seamless output).

    9. Re:Careful! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      If you have to fiddle with your router to make it work well, then Vimeo sucks.

    10. Re:Careful! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I get breakups all the time from home (DSL) on Vimeo but Youtube's Flash Player works, even in hi-def.

      Just tried this trailer from work with a 40meg fiber (same telco) and it worked fine. Maybe it's just time of day, maybe Google has better peering, I dunno.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for warning me about the flash player, I was about to rent it.

    12. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get breakups all the time from home (DSL) on Vimeo but Youtube's Flash Player works, even in hi-def.

      Just tried this trailer from work with a 40meg fiber (same telco) and it worked fine. Maybe it's just time of day, maybe Google has better peering, I dunno.

      What does youtube have to do with anything? GP wasn't talking about the trailer, he was talking about the rented film on vimeo..

    13. Re:Careful! by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Except for the predictable end it's quite a nice movie.

      Thanks, asshat. Now I know that when I think I can predict the ending, I'm probably right. Just couldn't help yourself, could you.

    14. Re:Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Don't get your panties in a bunch, we're talking about Joss Whedon, not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
      In most of his work you can see the eventual outcome from miles away. It's the ride to get there that makes his work fun.

    15. Re:Careful! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Haven't tried disabling the Flash plugin to force the browser to fall back on the HTML5 version (which many of us would probably prefer anyway). Maybe that one will work better for others.

  10. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not so bad if that's your fetish. But it just drives me nuts. I prefer my heroines to be at least somewhat grounded in reality. Personally, I always thought the best sci-fi heroine was Ellen Ripley. She had real strength of heart. There was no need to write her as some kind of superman ninja who could alter the laws of physics to beat down everyone and everything around her.

    Writing your heroine as a guy with tits isn't "empowering." It's just fucking lazy.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  11. Errrr... wat?! by Slartibartfast · · Score: 1

    Subject pretty much sums it up.

  12. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    I should add that, ironically, the last Alien movie was scripted by Joss Whedon. Anyone care to guess what they turned Ellen Ripley into in that installment?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  13. Well... no. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The *EQUIPMENT* has come huge lengths. You do, however, lack the writers, acting talent, stage hands, etc., etc., etc. If you give me eggs and cheese, I give you cheesy eggs. A French chef gives you a souffle. Having the ingredients is only the first step.

    1. Re:Well... no. by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You do, however, lack the writers, acting talent

      Lacking those doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of big studios either.

    2. Re:Well... no. by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Acting and lighting are what usually really give the no-budget indies away these days, not the FX. The acting, in particular, in most of these homemade movies is fucking godawful. Some things you just have to spend real money on. You can pirate a copy of After Effects, but you can't pirate a real actor.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Well... no. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Those can be rented as well, just like they do.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Well... no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even your pirated copy of After Effects doesn't get you that far unless you have a team of artists spending 6 months working on it. Additionally, while you may have the same software, and essentially the same hardware, the big studios have a lot more of it. Rendering a single scene from a big budget movie on your home rig could easily take months if not years.

    5. Re:Well... no. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Renting those things takes a budget that indies (other than long-time industry veterans) tend not to have.

    6. Re:Well... no. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter's Hall of Fame movie projects all indies that did not have the money that studios have....

      1. "Blue Like Jazz" by Steve Taylor
      A feature film based on Donald Miller's New York Times bestselling memoir, directed by Steve Taylor and starring Marshall Allman.
      Pledged: $345,992
      4,495 backers

      2. Minecraft: The Story of Mojang by 2 Player Productions
      A feature-length documentary on the first year of Mojang, the studio built upon the runaway success of indie computer game Minecraft.
      Pledged: $210,297
      3,631 backers

      3. Neil Gaiman's The Price by Christopher Salmon
      A uniquely stylized CG animated film based on the short story "The Price" by award-winning author Neil Gaiman.
      Pledged: $161,774
      2,001 backers

      4. MY REINCARNATION by Jennifer Fox
      Be the CATALYST. Spread MY REINCARNATION, an epic documentary about spirituality, family and destiny...
      Pledged: $150,456
      518 backers

      5. Urbanized: A Documentary Film by Gary Hustwit
      Help finish the new design documentary from the director of "Helvetica" and "Objectified".
      Pledged: $118,505
      1,814 backers

      6. I Am I - Feature Film by Jocelyn Towne
      A woman meets her mentally ill father who abandoned her as a child. He is convinced that she is his wife and tries to win her back.
      Pledged: $111,965
      902 backers

      7. "Finding Vivian Maier" - a feature length documentary film by Toneloof
      This film unravels the discovery of 100,000 negatives from a mysterious photographer that shocked the world of photography.
      Pledged: $105,042
      1,495 backers

      Sounds like that is not a problem, and only a fool wants a big name hollywood actor, better actors are out there to be had for less. Just look at game of thrones for a perfect example that "nobodies" are fantastic actors.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....dr. horrible's sing-along was fucking terrible mind-numbing garbage. I do not want more work like that.

  15. Rent vs own by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do not like renting, I prefer to own.
    Just put it up on AppleTV so it conveniently becomes part of my iTunes lib.
    Also I don't have patience for sloppy flash based players.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    1. Re:Rent vs own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think you own your iTunes library? How cute.

    2. Re:Rent vs own by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      How many times do you watch each movie? Generally they're $15 and up to own when new, versus $5 to rent, which will be included as a netflix in a year anyway. Sure, I can understand if they kids always watch Lion King every weekend, then owning is a bargain.

    3. Re:Rent vs own by lgw · · Score: 1

      My cost per rental on Netflix is far, far below $5. $5 is a fair price to own a direct-to-video movie, but is vastly overpriced for a rental.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Rent vs own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes Music is certainly DRM free, movies probably. Don't generalize and troll harder.

    5. Re:Rent vs own by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd agree. But I just skipped the New Captain America movie, even though I wanted to see it, because I simply couldn't put up with the theater experience anymore. I'll wait for the BluRay.

      I have no problem paying $5 to watch it 10 feet from a 133" screen at home (first-run), over having to drive down to the theater, a half-hour early, to get a decent seat, sit through endless previews, listen to everyone chatter on and continuously shove food into their mouths, for $10.

    6. Re:Rent vs own by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's rental when not new. New rentals from amazon and others right after release to DVD, as well as pay-per-view, tend to be $4.99.

    7. Re:Rent vs own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Audiobooks are still DRM'd up the ass, and you're delusional if you think Hollywood lets anyone get away with no DRM. Also, you have to be careful with the music - you have the OPTION to buy DRM free music at an inflated price - it's not default like Amazon.

      So 90% (music, audiobooks, video, apps, books) of the content types coming from the source you're defending (that's half of music, because of above) as being able to "own" ... you don't actually own.

      LOLOLOLOLOL

    8. Re:Rent vs own by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yes it is (now)... I just bought some music literally yesterday from iTunes, for 99 cents, same price as it's always been. I didn't have to toggle anything, and as soon as it'd finished downloading, where once upon a time I would have to burn it to a virtual cd then rip it back, now I could just immediately convert it to mp3.

      I have no idea the status of movies or books, as I don't ever buy those off iTunes, and it's possible not every artist is the same? The dozen or so artists I've bought music from via itunes in the past couple years, though, have all been DRM-free for the expected price...

    9. Re:Rent vs own by lgw · · Score: 1

      My Netflix DVD comes in the mail same as always, and IIRC Redbox charges the same as always. PPV before release to DVD is different, but that's a premium for stuff with successful theatrical release.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    Firefly was good. Angel and Buffy early seasons were good as well (although I do agree that Angel was at it's best with Tim Minear at the helm.)

    Dollhouse was terrible. It was terrible for many reasons but the biggest was because it had so much potential to be more than it was. The TV show Marvel is pretty bad as well.

    Cabin in the Woods was clever marketing. It's great to make the type of movie that if someone doesn't like it, you can just say that they didn't get it. I liked it but not the end (and yes, I understood the point of the ending and all the wonderful metaphors involved.)

  17. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

    To be fair, Joss was not happy with the final product either, feeling it greatly differed from his script.

  18. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone care to guess what they turned Ellen Ripley into in that installment?

    I wasn't aware that 'viable human/alien hybrid clone 48-year-old woman' is the same thing as '100-lb. waif.'

    For added irony:

    Writing your heroine as a guy with tits isn't "empowering." It's just fucking lazy.

    The entire cast of the first movie was written so that any and all roles could be cast as male or female. The 'empowering female lead' bit of it was because the authors didn't make the whole story about the existence of her ovaries. Oddly though, Alien 4 was all about giving human ovaries to a hive species...

  19. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by sribe · · Score: 1

    The TV show Marvel is pretty bad as well.

    ...oh god, so boring, so cliche, so stilted, so awful I can hardly believe he's involved...

  20. It's an even easier by geekoid · · Score: 1

    way to watch my favorite character die.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    I know '100' pound women who can kick the ass of 250 pound men. Closer to 120, then 100 but still.

    SO lets see:
    Buffy: Super human powers is the entire premise
    Dollhouse: Brain altered to the mindset and abilities of killing machine.
    Firefly: Altered brain.
    Serenity. Blech.

    So in context those are all plausible, plus they are all psychopaths.
    None of those character are masculine, as all.

    Maybe equating violence and being fat to masculinity is the issue?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. Louis CK by morinpatmorin · · Score: 1

    This. Louis CK did this the right way. Pay $5 and get sent a link to a clean video file that you can download up to five times and watch on any device that supports it (or transcode to any other format you want). I'd like to watch this movie, but the old xbmc box connected to my TV probably won't do a good job playing back an HD Vimeo stream (as some others have already reported).

  23. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

    Firefly was good, Serenity was good, Avengers was good. Doctor Horrible wasn't just good, it was wonderful. Dollhouse, as you said had great potential that was wasted.

    Cabin in the woods wasn't just marketing. I had heard the name, but knew nothing about it when I watched it. It was awesome. I loved how it twisted all the horror tropes and built something funny and yet still horrifying out of it. It isn't to everybody's taste, and that's okay. But I really don't think it is particularly pretentious or marketing based.

  24. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by lgw · · Score: 1

    When it come to a fist fight, or feat of strength, there are few female actors that can be convincing. "Mother Russia" in Kick Ass 2? Totally convincing, but also the exception.

    Now the whole "butt-kicking waif" thing works just fine if you make her a robot. That Terminator TV show, or the whole Ghost in the Shell franchise? I'm fine with that.

    But I'm just not buying your typical Hollywood female lead in an action role featuring fisticuffs or throwing heavy stuff about. The thing about good fantasy stories is you explain the stuff that doesn't match reality. Not doing so is, in fact, just fucking lazy.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    The rest of the movie may not have been very good, but it did give us the basketball scene where Sigourney Weaver actually made that shot.

  26. Hmmm ... Jennifer Grey by NoSalt · · Score: 0

    Coulson's wife.

  27. WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary mentions a download, but only fleetingly, and then it just talks about vimeo (a proprietary streaming service, last time I visited them). And if I follow the link to vimeo, indeed: all I see is vimeo offering some kind of rental streaming thing.

    Do you realize this is the difference between night and day, between steak and shit? Between something that maybe works but you won't know for sure until after you've paid your money, and something that is normal like our other experiences, that people can be pretty confident about?

    Louie C.K. has led the way, but you have to understand that a pro-revenue approach is still really rare, and while I trust him now, I don't have any faint idea about whether or not Whedon is actually trying to run a serious business yet. Most Hollywooders are still (indirectly, through DRM) advocating piracy, last I saw. (And I sure as hell, haven't heard of Firefly or Buffy files being for sale yet.)

    Announcements like this need to be very explicit about the type of file they're selling. I wanna see words like "Matroska" or "MP4" and probably the codec mentioned too (not that the codec matters a whole lot to me, but if the seller doesn't know the codec, then I know they aren't for real). Not luddite bullshit like "stream" or "flash" or ".Net and we haven't tested it with Mono yet" or other nonsense like that. That vimeo was mentioned, they ought to know is a big red flag telling people to keep their money in their wallets, and if they're actually selling then they need to make sure people know it.

    How hard is it, for someone on staff to just think for 30 seconds about what things look like, from a prospective customer's point of view?

    As far as I can tell, and I even took some time to click around a little bit (though maybe I missed something) this download announcement is somewhere in that dark gray spectrum of "someone doesn't know what they're talking about" to "joke" to "fraud." I'll try to attribute this to stupidity, but whenever we're talking about Hollywood, historical "post-judice" urges everyone to assume the worst: that they are attempting theft through dishonesty, and $5 gets you nearly nothing.

    Whedon, fire someone over this, at a minimum. Your NAME is one this. Do you think Louie C. K. wouldn't fire someone over a disaster like this? Names are important, especially right now.

    1. Re:WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? by jsdcnet · · Score: 1

      If names are that important, perhaps you'd care to spell Louis C.K.'s properly.

      --
      no longer working for cnet
    2. Re:WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      He's only Louis when he's being introduced or billed in credits.

      His friends call him "Louie," he calls himself "Louie" -- or so I'm lead to believe from all of his interviews and radio appearances.

      It'd be no different than saying Bob De Niro or Sam Jackson.

      What's next, complaining he didn't say call him Louis Szekely? Cit him some slack.

  28. Please justify $5 for one rental by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear Mr. Whedon,

    Please justify the $5 cost to rent your film. I can rent your latest superhero blockbuster over the weekend for $2 from Redbox. I can own Louis CK's latest show forever for $5. Why is your content so much more expensive?

    Thanks,
    a fan

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      Dear fan,

      I am sure that you can find many other entertainment content options that also cost significantly more than $5, especially among those available on the first day of theatrical release. Many of them also require you to get off your ass and go somewhere, rather than letting you enjoy your entertainment experience in bed, at home, on your tablet.

      So, yeah. $5. It costs that much because we think it's worth that much, and because we think that enough people will agree with that assessment to make this business financially viable. In a very real and tangible way "what people will pay" is very much "what something is worth", at least for dollars-and-cents pricing decisions.

      Sincerely,

      Joss Whedon

      P.S.: I'm funnier than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your latest superhero blockbuster already made m/billions of dollars from $15 theaters tickets? and LCK's show is probably weeks / months old?

    3. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can buy an older computer at a yard sale for less than a recent computer too. You may say that the new movie isn't necessarily better than old ones, but people already saw the old ones if they wanted to, so that's irrelevant. People are impatient and they get to pay for it. Nothing to do with this movie in particular. Wait a few years and probably this movie will be at a lower price point, if you can still get it.

    4. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices don't have to be justified. Think it's too much? Don't rent it. Was that so hard?

    5. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Please justify the $5 cost to rent your film. I can rent your latest superhero blockbuster over the weekend for $2 from Redbox. I can own Louis CK's latest show forever for $5. Why is your content so much more expensive?

      Because people are willing to pay $5 to watch it now. If Whedon's company is smart, the price will go down over time to pick up the folks who won't pay $5 to watch it out of the gate.

      If it goes down to $2 in a year, then to me that's better than 100% RoI in 1 year, so it's a great deal to me to watch it next year. But some people value being able to be the first to blog about it, chat about it over the water cooler, etc. I watch TV on Netflix 2-3 years after it's been on a network (because cable & satellite are way too much money), but I realize I'm very atypical in that view.

      Check out some stuff from Menger if you want a more academic treatment.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't think long term demand will work like that. I'm willing to pay $2 to watch it now. Two days form now I will have completely forgotten what this is. If I stumble across it a year from now, I'm not going to care unless it is on netflix or amazon prime (basically free for me). I have over 100 items in my netflix queue. How will Whedon convince me to go out of my way to rent his film after the initial hype has died down?

    7. Re:Please justify $5 for one rental by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Dear fan,

      I am sure that you can find many other entertainment content options that also cost significantly more than $5, especially among those available on the first day of theatrical release. Many of them also require you to get off your ass and go somewhere, rather than letting you enjoy your entertainment experience in bed, at home, on your tablet.

      That doesn't make sense. Seeing it from home should be cheaper, since they don't need a huge cinema, lots of personel, cleaning people, rent, etc, etc. They just deal with server costs which a way lower.

      So, yeah. $5. It costs that much because we think it's worth that much, and because we think that enough people will agree with that assessment to make this business financially viable. In a very real and tangible way "what people will pay" is very much "what something is worth", at least for dollars-and-cents pricing decisions.

      Sincerely,

      Joss Whedon

      P.S.: I'm funnier than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

      Cinemas cost less in different parts of the world. Maybe in the US a cinema costs $5, but not everywhere. Heck, even an Imax is around $5 where I live, and Imax is the most expensive one around.

      This movie costs $5 even in places where that's more than twice the daily salary.

  29. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, she made the shot, but the version they show in the film isn't the time she made it.

    Apparently, she'd been practicing beforehand in anticipation of the scene and when they got to that part, they said they'd just CGI it. But she said that she wanted to try it once just to prove she could do it. So they decided to give it a single take and when she tried to make the shot, it went right in. The entire cast was understandably shocked at this and had genuine reactions, but Ron Perlman went a step further and ran directly up to the camera with a "Can you believe that just happened!" and they had to throw the shot away.

    It's an extra on the DVD though.

  30. +2.... Flamebait? by MikeTheGreat · · Score: 1

    As of right now (12:23pm PST, 4/21/2014) the parent post is showing +2.... Flamebait.

    I've been here a while but never seen a negative word attached to a positive score (it's always been +3 Informative, or +4 Insightful, or +2 Funny, or whatever). I don't think that my personal 'score adjusters' would give anything enough points to boost a -1 or 0 up to a +2.

    I'm assuming it got mod'd up with a couple different modifiers (one insightful, one interesting, etc), then mod'd down with only Flamebait (and so Flamebait is the most common modifier), but I'm curious (1) if anyone else is seeing this and (2) does anyone have a better explanation about the score/modifier?

    1. Re:+2.... Flamebait? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, Overrated/Underrated give no specific label. So someone who starts at 0, with one Troll mod and 6 Underrated mods, would appear as +5 Troll.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:+2.... Flamebait? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Correct.

      The post is currently 50% flamebait, 50% underrated, and presumably it picks up another flamebait and/or underrated here and there to keep it in the +2 Flamebait range.

      I still have no idea what the overall quality of the $5 movie is though...

  31. Allegedly free games by tepples · · Score: 1

    The entire "freemium" video game revenue model is predicated on the fact that so-called "whales" would pay $5 to download a car.

  32. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Were the metaphors in question, not enough(read none) multi-megaton nuclear weapons were not emplaced to target the eldritch horrors as a last ditch defense in case the entire elaborate system of sacrifices came crashing down? Cause that was all I really got from the ending.

  33. FAKE! by Cammi · · Score: 1

    This is false advertisement. You cannot purchase this as there is no place to download this ...

  34. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I know Whedon always creates some thin excuse in an attempt to give this ridiculousness the veneer of plausibility. But even his excuses are pretty weak. I doubt there is anything you can "do to the brain" of someone who's 5'1" and 100 lbs. to give them the punching and kicking strength of Ivan Drago mixed with Superman. It's just takes me out of the story.

    I can suspend my disbelief for some stuff, but when something is ostensibly set in the real world, I expect to it be somewhat believable. It's like the scene in Die Hard 3, when Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson fall off a bridge and drop about 50-ft. onto a solid metal barge deck--without injury. That was the moment I realized that the Die Hard franchise had finally gone too far. It crossed the line from EXTREMELY unlikely to flat-out fucking impossible.

    It also doesn't help that the beautiful ass-kicking waif is a recurring Whedon character in almost everything he does, leading to the disturbing conclusion that this is some sort of weird fetish thing for him. Or maybe he's just too lazy to write real strong females, and falls back on the easy out of just taking the standard bimbo and giving her superpowers.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  35. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rather think you're proving the OPs point. Those archetypes are all about a young woman exhibiting unnatural strength and martial prowess. It does seem a bit like a 'fetish', seeing as it pretty much appears in all his work..

  36. Summary lacks important details by neminem · · Score: 1

    Like, say, what kind of movie it is. I had to google to find out anything about the movie itself, rather than just its distribution strategy - apparently it's a "supernatural romance" about two people, not currently in a relationship with each other, who realize that they can communicate psychically with each other over any distance.

    That, coupled with the Whedon name, does seem interesting enough to give it a shot. It is pretty lame of him to only release it via a streaming-only site, but you know what? I'm sure there'll be a way around that. I have no problem tossing him 5 bucks anyway, and then immediately turning around and figuring out a way to get the results onto my hard drive one way or another. I can't imagine Whedon would mind, either; he's a pretty cool guy. :p

  37. I can solve the mystery for you by Silvrmane · · Score: 0

    Wheddon is an over-rated, talentless hack. Nothing he does really succeeds because of this simple fact. With the single exception of Cabin in the Woods, the bulk of his output is unwatchable, unenjoyable dreck. I suspect, for this reason, that Cabin in the Woods was an idea stolen from someone else.

    1. Re:I can solve the mystery for you by __aailob1448 · · Score: 0

      Dr. Horrible sing along is the work of a hack?

      Avengers?

      Firefly?

      You so crazayyyyy

    2. Re:I can solve the mystery for you by neminem · · Score: 0

      I'm actually one of the few weird people in my social group who really didn't think The Avengers was that great. It wasn't *terrible*, but it wasn't that great. On the other hand, it wasn't Whedon's movie, he just had a hand in it.

      On the other hand, I feel like you are trolling. Firefly, characters you can't possibly care about? Like frack it does.

      If by some miracle you aren't trolling, just crazy, though, I would agree - if you don't like Firefly, you probably also wouldn't like any of his other stuff, either; and I'm surprised you liked Cabin in the Woods, either, given that you have no taste. :p

  38. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

    You're right about this..(e.g. River in Firefly) but on top of that, his shows have a very Orange-County/SoCal vibe to them..everything is very polished and Hollywood-esque. It would be much more realistic to have characters who look more rugged, look the part and not like they all live in LA and have daily skin treatments. All of the characters in Whedon's shows emphasize this Southern California plasticy concept of beauty, which is somewhat repulsive to my (and I'm sure others') tastes.

  39. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but the only thing that matters in a fight is speed and physical strength. I could stand perfectly still and allow a 100lb woman hit me all day without hurting me. All of that martial arts crap you see in movies is just that. You try busting out your karate or something in a real fight where there are no rules and you can't predict what your opponent is going to do you're going to end up dead.

  40. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

    Buffy and Summer Glau both had superpowers in their Whedonverses. Cordelia is a waif with no superpowers. She couldn't fight her way out of a Nordstrom's.

  41. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarah Michelle Gellar the kick ass hero of buffy is 5'4. A lot of movie stars who can kick ass in real life that range from 5'6-5'8 Jet Li, Tony Jaa, Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee. Strength doesn't come from size or having a dick but from the mind.
    In the Matrix Neo downloaded Ju-Jitsu to his brain, so what, you wanted to see a nice montage with Journey Eye of the Tiger? It's not important to the plot either.

  42. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually no there is something more important the speed and strenght, it's called being an experienced fighter that's why fighters don't lift weights all day, they spar.

  43. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sparring is worthless. It's rule based, which leaves one unprepared for a real fight. No matter how well you think you spar, you will never beat someone bigger and stronger than you in a real fight unless you are willing to pull hair, bite, punch balls, eye gouge, throw rocks/dirt/sand and strangle someone with your belt/shirt/jacket.

  44. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    What am I missing here? Something from comics or? What superpowers does Summer Glau have? I understand she was very graceful and has heavy martial training, but superpowers?

  45. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    I would pay to watch that. A 100lb girl can still kick you in the groin, or gouge out your eyes or rip off your ear. With sufficient training, they will break your nose with their elbow, or crush your throat with a kick.

    Sure, if she tried to beat your chest or legs or arms, not a whole lot is going to happen. But with Martial arts training, you are also taught all the sensitive weak spots (not nerve clusters) that you can hit to inflict real pain.

  46. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sparring is rule based, which leaves one unprepared for a real fight. No matter how well you think you spar, you will never beat someone bigger and stronger than you in a real fight unless you are willing to pull hair, bite, punch balls, eye gouge, throw rocks/dirt/sand and strangle someone with your belt/shirt/jacket.

    So if you agree to not pull a Kill Bill 2 and rip the persons eye out it's not a real fight? How many fights have you seen take place where someone throws a rock? You're post is so nonsensical it's hard to find anything that isn't completely made up to see what point you were trying to make. As if someone just said, "lemons can't find gold with a metal detector on the beach because they taste like a truck". Everything is based on laws we have lined out in Physics, Thermodynamics etc. If someone could break the laws of physics would they magically know more about physics than a physicist? No. So how come just because someone can pull a knife out in a fight they would suddenly know about a whole world of fighting dirty that someone who has studied and practiced a form of martial arts would not? They don't because it's all the same, to a trained fighter the threat of throwing, strangling, biting, drawing a weapon is always there. So to hell with your stupid garbage I don't have time to address all of it's teeming pressure points. :p
    you can find examples of martial artists stopping armed people and gang members of 4+ with ease by simply googling it. The cases where some are not stopped it's usually because they ran away while their "willing to punch balls" friends were getting beaten

  47. Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitting three baddies in three shots without looking.

  48. It's starting out as a rental, limited marketing by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Also, the thinking is probably along the line of theaters which charge at least $5 to see something immediately instead of waiting for rental. This is competing with theaters not with rentals -- and he must go up against the stigma of direct to rental movies (which are usually crap.)

    Movies make their money back BEFORE getting to rental. They spend about 1/3 marketing the things so that they make it back with the theaters or if it's a failure, they can make it back during rentals. Not all, but it seems like most do.

  49. no seriously, ill pay what i want or you get zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    torrented it, loved it.

    tempted to pay $5USD (im from new zealand) after the fast.

    BUT BECAUSE ITS MY ONLY OPTION, he gets nothing.

    i might have given more. id probably just flick him a few dollars and it wasnt even his bandwidth.

    pay what you want torrents are the future. LIVE THE DREAM.