This is topic Anti Piracy Trailer Disappointing in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005135
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-22-2003, 08:08 PM:
 
The one that is supposed to play starting Friday 7/25 had a set construction worker explaining how he's just a regular guy who wants to keep working, not a millionaire and how piracy is naughty naughty. Then a tag with the antipiracy web site. I don't know if there are others with other behind the scenes workers as I only saw the one. Frankly, it's rather dumb. Yes, I suppose if piracy starts sapping the strength of the industry then in the long run fewer films will be made. But to suggest that the little people are hurt more than the stockholders (and points holders) is rather silly.

What I would like to see would be something straight and to the point...not unlike the anti taping warning on WB screening prints. Tell the folks that if they see anyone taping the film to let a member of the staff know and they will get a reward--passes, coupons, cash, etc. Don't rely on sympathy; make greed work in our favor!

Combine that with elimination of pre-release screener tapes and substantial rewards to encourage lab and post house workers to turn in the pirates in their midst and the big sources of piracy would be reduced.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-2003, 10:16 PM:
 
I haven't heard anything about this. Is it coming with a certain film, or are they being drop shipped to theaters, or is this just a few particular chains going to run them?
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-23-2003, 12:20 AM:
 
We are supposed to start running them this friday in our pre show ad pack.
 
Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 07-23-2003, 01:51 AM:
 
heh, I love the topic title to this thread. It sounds like it should be an Onion arcticle...
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2003, 06:56 AM:
 
There is also a new website:

http://www.respectcopyrights.org

With on-line versions of the trailers:

http://www.respectcopyrights.org/hear-artists.html

I agree with Steve that rewards can be very effective.

Saddam's eldest two sons would agree too. [evil]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-23-2003, 08:23 AM:
 
According to their web site, the MPAA does offer rewards that lead to the conviction of video pirates:

http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm

Perhaps they should publicize this in the trailer.

Personally, I think that running anti-piracy ads in theatres is like preaching to the choir, though. I would argue that a much better way for distributors and exhibitors to reduce the piracy problem would be to do more to differentiate the theatrical experience from the home viewing experience by improving picture and sound quality and by trying to keep ticket prices reasonable. Why would anyone want to download a crappy compressed version of a film when there is an option of seeing a 70mm print at a local theatre with a big screen and killer sound?

When television became popular in the 1950s, the motion-picture industry didn't respond by running PSAs featuring set carpenters complaining about how they might lose their jobs if people watch TV instead of going to movies; instead, the response was to increase the value associated with the theatrical motion-picture experience by offering customers dye transfer prints, magnetic stereo sound, 70mm prints, and other things that most people could not have at home. Now, why must the industry respond by complaining instead of by actively improving the product (both technically and artistically).
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-23-2003, 08:49 AM:
 
I will be straight up I have only seen one bootlegged video and it came from over seas. the source was a release print because it had the reel change cue marks in it. But it had to be a telecine transfer because there was no apparent flicker caused by the 24 frame per second movement of the film if you were to use a camcorder that is what you would get all this flickering.
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-23-2003, 08:49 AM:
 
Brad, I believe that they are being drop shipped. Cinemark starts playing them on Fri 7/25/2003.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2003, 09:00 AM:
 
quote:
But it had to be a telecine transfer because there was no apparent flicker caused by the 24 frame per second movement of the film if you were to use a camcorder that is what you would get all this flickering.
I have seen pirated videos that were shot from a 24fps theatre screen that had almost no flicker.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-23-2003, 09:42 AM:
 
Maybe someone could borrow the Lucas idea and start the trailer semi-quietly (here the poor sound should be emphasized and the picture very small on the screen), then have it switch to the "theater" with full screen and sound? Whatever they do, this subject is hard to make an effective trailer. You certainly do not want to give people any ideas from it, and you don't want to insult the audience either. IMHO things like this effectively accomplish both.

Used to a telecine was required for an off-print quality copy. Somewhere along the line I think people started using PAL cameras since they shoot at 25 frames per second. Back in the mid 90s all of the example bootlegs I saw on tv reports were shot this way. Now with "24P" cameras readily available it would be a perfect framerate match, yet nowadays I keep hearing of the problem with studio screeners, not actual camcorder bootlegging. That being said, the couple of times I caught customers trying to bring in video equipment I made a pretty big stink about it. Don't know if they took it as a warning not to pull that crap in my theater and went to another or not, but it didn't happen on my watch!

By the way, the weirdest thing is looking at video of a projection room (platters) shot with a 24P camera. You see the decks spinning, film is obviously running, yet the film does not appear to be moving! Weird.
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-23-2003, 10:19 AM:
 
Scott Norwood wrote:
quote:
I would argue that a much better way for distributors and exhibitors to reduce the piracy problem would be to do more to differentiate the theatrical experience from the home viewing experience by improving picture and sound quality and by trying to keep ticket prices reasonable. Why would anyone want to download a crappy compressed version of a film when there is an option of seeing a 70mm print at a local theatre with a big screen and killer sound?
Exactly! I think many people pirate movies and music because they see little differentiation between the actual product and their pirated copy. Music piracy is compounded by the ease at which it can be done, and that ease-of-use is knocking at the door of every movie studio.

Scott's position is the same one that I've had regarding the movie industry in general with the advent of home theaters. Currently, the only major advantage movie theaters have is exclusivity of the product. I have better sound in my living room than many theaters I've been in, and I will soon have an equivalent viewing angle.

That leaves only availability of product, and the pirates are taking care of that situation by doing their deeds. I've never actually watched a pirated movie so I can't say from personal experience, but if the sound and video quality are acceptably decent, people will want them. Even the studios are challenging movie theaters with ultra-short times between theatrical and DVD release.

I agree that movie studios and theaters should be working together to improve the product and maintain pricing at a point where a pirated version will be of unacceptable quality and not worth the time to download or the money to purchase.

This would be the most effective way of combating pirates, but it seems that the industry would rather preach than do something to raise the bar for the industry overall. Publicity efforts like these trailers place the blame on consumers for piracy, which conveniently alleviates any responsibility from the people doing the preaching.

If nothing else, these antipiracy efforts are going to do the same thing that the fight against Napster did; publicize the fact that pirated versions of movies are available and all you have to do is go looking for them.

The lawsuits against Napster did more to harm the music industry than Napster was doing. Telling paying theater audiences that there are people out there getting movies for free is going to make them feel like they just paid for something they could have gotten for free. Probably not the best message to convey...
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-23-2003, 11:28 AM:
 
Andrew opined:
heh, I love the topic title to this thread. It sounds like it should be an Onion arcticle...

How about Anti Piracy of the Carribean?

If you think that's funny wait until you see the trailer itself which ends with:

"Put an end to piracy."

then

"Movies. They're worth it."

I wager this will get bigger laughs than a lot of what passes for comedy these days.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-23-2003, 11:33 AM:
 
So what are the studios doing to prevent screeners from being copied? Doesn't look like they are doing anything, and if they are it is not very effective because tons of screeners still get duped and they seem to be the main source of any given pirated movie.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-23-2003, 12:18 PM:
 
What can be done to protect the screener tapes/disks/etc., other than coding each copy separately to identify which copy was used as the master for widely circulated pirated copies? Macrovision and other copy-protection schemes are essentially useless and trivial to defeat, while inconveniencing legitimate users (by causing poor playback quality on some equipment).
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-23-2003, 12:28 PM:
 
Every one seems to be missing the logic (of lack there of) that is used to justify these trailers. You see these policies are not aimed to prevent piracy, they are aimed to educate people to not use or download the pirated copies. It is almost the same philosophy of the anti-tobacco and drug ads.

"Even though you can buy this stuff on the street corner, please don't"
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-23-2003, 12:51 PM:
 
Brad said, "By the way, the weirdest thing is looking at video of a projection room (platters) shot with a 24P camera. You see the decks spinning, film is obviously running, yet the film does not appear to be moving! Weird."

You almost had me there! I started thinking about how this was comparable to watching a projector under a strobe, etc. But then I realized:

You shouldn't see any 24fps effects anywhere other than inside the projector head between the intermittant and a constant-speed sprocket. Everything else should be smooth continuous motion.

[ Edit: Err, right, nevermind, Brad, it makes sense now. Momentary brain failure, I guess. ]

--jhawk
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-23-2003, 01:04 PM:
 
It's not a joke. Yes you see the film roll spinning and the rollers show motion as well, but the film when stretched out has no movement to it because it is moving at the same capture rate as the camera. You could literally put a light on the floor underneath the film traveling back to the platter during takeup and aim a 24P camera downward at the film and get a flickerless image. The camera becomes the shutter.
 
Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 07-23-2003, 01:08 PM:
 
quote:
According to their web site, the MPAA does offer rewards that lead to the conviction of video pirates
I think to qualify for a reward you have to provide information on a copying facility that has a minimum of 29 recorders. Obviously, they are only looking to reward someone with major insider information. I've turned in bootleggers to their website and have gotten not so much as a thank you.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-23-2003, 01:34 PM:
 
Interesting, Brad. Interesting because even though the capture rate coincides with the frames passing on the film they are indeed still in motion and one would expect some motion blurring, depending on what period of time each frame is integrated over (equivalent of the shutter opening in film).
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2003, 01:50 PM:
 
I agree. You would normally expect to see some motion blur, as it takes time to fill the "wells" on the camera CCD with enough photons to register as an exposure. Unless you have set the camera for a very short exposure time (and have lots of light), as you can on some models (often used to analyze sports subjects like golf swings).
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 07-23-2003, 01:58 PM:
 
We got a scope and a flat one of these drop shipped to us on Monday, and we're a single screen occasional subrun.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-23-2003, 02:31 PM:
 
Sorry John and Steve, I've never bothered to actually go to the trouble of TRYING to videotape part of a film like that. I just noticed it purely during "fly time" between the platter and projector. I think you guys are far overanalyzing things and missing the basic point of the 24P videocamera technology. Instead, should I do some experimenting and make a "tips" page for everyone? [Razz]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-23-2003, 03:32 PM:
 
Not for me, thanks; I just thought it was interesting as it's not what I would expect but then I don't really know what the effective exposure time is. If we all knew everything there'd be no reason to come here. Well, except for checking up on Rachel of course.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-23-2003, 04:27 PM:
 
"Overanalysis is what we do." [Cool]

--jhawk
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-23-2003, 06:25 PM:
 
With the newer type cameras now there may not be a problem with the shutter flicker caused by the 24fps projected image. However, when I was on vacation down in florida at disney world I taped one of the attractions that allowed Video taping inside. The result was a noticable shutter flicker caused by the 24fps rate.
 
Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 07-24-2003, 01:43 AM:
 
I find the message in these trailers completely and utterly moronic. You expect me to believe that someone pirating a movie directly effects the little guys working on a movie, while the star makes 20 million? yea sure [bs]
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-24-2003, 04:21 AM:
 
My problem with this trailer is that it spends a lot of time talking about nothing related to piracy. The guy rambles about films he worked on for 70 percent of the trailer, and then says only one or two sentences relating to piracy.

They should make one with John Pytlak explaining the quality loss in videotaping film. He could talk about CCDs and give spacific luminance levels and aspect ratios, perhaps even throw in a few weblinks! [Wink]
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-24-2003, 10:14 AM:
 
If one of these shows up at the theater, I will make sure it becomes unplayable before it even hits the screen! [evil]

Seriously, this anti-piracy hysteria is bullshit. When Old Man Valenti crawls out of the preservation chamber he shares with Dick Clark and gets up on his little podium and presents PROOF (and I'm not talking "trucks moving WMDs" type proof) that the industry is losing BILLIONS due to piracy (Hint to Valenti: Don't talk about industry losses and record profits in the same speech) and that these billions of dollars in losses are actually caused by people selling low-quality flickering MONO VHS copies on the street corners for $5, then I'll play his little trailer. Until then, ST [fu] U!

Boy, what I wouldn't do to have a chance to pie that loser in the face while he's giving his sermon to the other blue-hairs in suits. [Big Grin]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-24-2003, 10:32 AM:
 
Sometimes when I'm in a theatre and am talking to other customers before the movie, or with my friends, I'm tempted to encourage them all to boo loudly if a trailer about piracy comes up. I've even thought about putting a news item encouraging readers of my site to boo such trailers, but I haven't done it yet. It would say something to the effect of "If you're not a criminal and don't like being treated like one, be sure to complain if you see a trailer about movie piracy before a film."

I could see such a trailer having more of a tendency to get damaged and becoming unplayable if management dislikes the idea of showing those things.

I've seen one such trailer, and it was very sloppily spliced into the sequence before the movie. The transitions into and out of the trailer were very nasty-looking. Maybe the person who built that print was making a statement. Those were the only nasty transitions between things that I saw.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-24-2003, 10:37 AM:
 
Actually quite a few years ago when the film New Jack City came out. On the street corners near the theater it was playing it was reported that bootleg copies of the film were being sold right on the same corner the film was playing. This was somewhere in new york. Piracy is a problem and it does cause loss of revenue to the film companies. It has gotten more attention now since internet file sharing became popular. If 100,000 people paid $10 to a pirate for a video of a movie that is a $1,000,000 that the film companies lose. It affects everyone in the long run.

As far as the trailer playing it is no different than an anti-drug trailer or don't drink and drive. In order to get the message out everyone must hear it reguardless if you have never thought of pirating a movie, taking drugs or driving drunk.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2003, 12:13 PM:
 
A bit of humor and better production values would go a long way in improving the acceptance of these types of trailers. A lame or obviously low budget production sends the wrong message. For frequent moviegoers, seeing the same trailer many times soon gets very stale.

I'd like to see what a Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, or Joe Redifer could produce. [Wink]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2003, 01:00 PM:
 
Well my production might be a bit too violent (comically) to be shown on all types of movies, but it would be effective. Also it would be shot on video which would NOT be good, unless someone wants to loan me a 65mm camera and show me how to use it! [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2003, 03:13 PM:
 
quote:
Also it would be shot on video which would NOT be good, unless someone wants to loan me a 65mm camera and show me how to use it!
That's where the creativity comes in! Produce it on DV to show how BAD those pirated videos will look. [evil]
 
Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 07-24-2003, 03:27 PM:
 
I looked up the definition of piracy, and what is happening in the show and music biz is not taking place on the high seas or are they, in most cases, stealing the original product. Copying something of worth is called counter fitting. That is why there are no counter fit pennys, they have very little worth.

The old counterfitting laws are geared towards illegal duplication of hard currency and not dvd copies of The Hulk or the latest cd of Christina Aguliarararara (sp?) So lets get the pirate mentality out of the picture and get the federales to start going after the DVD,film,& music counterfitters and bootleggers.
They have been looking for pirates all these years on land and they are all on the open high seas in their boats. with flags and attitude. Come on Hollywood, the key is to make a worthless product, that nobody wants and then there will be no counterfitting, what,...... oh, .....thats already what you do, oh then its the people who buy this stuff that make it worth some thing. Then its my fault that Hollywood has this problem, so i have to change. Ok, I can do that, from now on I am not going to buy any more music, movies or cd's/
That should solve the problem, the industry will go away and so will the problem.
Great logic ,.....Hollywood, ...when you start putting out stuff people want to own an original copy of, then the counterfitting will stop. The product is what you are selling, not the medium, you are trying to protect the medium and forgetting all about the product. [sleep]
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 07-24-2003, 04:02 PM:
 
There used to be a commercial out that linked using drugs to supporting terrorism. Has anyone seen this?

I think we could use the set worker to link piracy to supporting terrorism, by linking him to drugs...
He gets fewer jobs due to piracy so he looks for other income to support his family...
Say he's selling drugs to movie stars on the set...
He's getting his drugs from terrorists that are getting money for weapons...

it could go anywhere from there
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2003, 10:17 PM:
 
Wow, those trailers ARE lame! I just got my copies in today. For those not working in theaters or who won't be attending anytime soon, here is a bootleg copy in Quicktime format you can download and watch.

(Thanks to Joe for compressing the video for the internet. [thumbsup] )
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2003, 05:54 AM:
 
Legitimate copies of the trailers are already available on the "Respect Copyrights" website:

http://www.respectcopyrights.org/hear-artists.html

Although you might argue as to the effectiveness, this education program is being supported by the craft guilds and unions who represent the filmmakers hurt by piracy / counterfeiting:

http://www.dga.org/index2.php3?chg=

http://www.iatse.lm.com/

http://www.editorsguild.com/

http://new.sag.org/sagWebApp/index.jsp

http://www.wga.org/
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-25-2003, 06:08 AM:
 
[puke]

>>>Phil
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-25-2003, 06:18 AM:
 
Last night at the theatre, we got a print of "The Housekeeper" which was brand-new and shipped (on cores) in a cardboard box directly from the lab to the theatre. TES shipped (separately) two of their tradmark beat-up orange chans with empty reels inside for us to use when returning the print. This is all fine and dandy, but the amusing part was that TES had bothered to use those white "tamper proof" seals on the can latches. Were they afraid that someone was going to open the cans in transit and somehow pirate those empty reels?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-25-2003, 06:33 AM:
 
Make sure you re-apply the "tamper proof" seals to the cardboard box when you're done with the print.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2003, 06:45 AM:
 
Awwwwww John, you ruined my test with that fake bootleg download by providing a link to a real legitimate download. I wanted to see how many people would accept the convenience of a bootleg that only required them to click the mouse, rather than going out to a theater to see it. It would've been one heck of an interesting point of convenience if the downloads were at a high percentage of people viewing that page, especially since the whole discussion is about preventing bootlegging and the damage it does. [Wink]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2003, 09:45 AM:
 
Sorry, Brad. But I had already provided that link to the legitimate downloads very early on July 23, in the fifth posting in this thread.

BTW, how did Joe make the "bootleg" copy? (Looks like he may have some previous experience) [Wink]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-25-2003, 11:33 AM:
 
quote:
Copying something of worth is called counter fitting.
Actually it is called counterfeiting.
 
Posted by Pete Lawrence (Member # 130) on 07-25-2003, 11:34 AM:
 
There is also a TV campaign now running against movie piracy. I saw the "commercial" on two different cable channels last night, one being AMC. The TV version I saw is far better in terms of content and production values. What's that tell you???

If the "movie going experience" was being improved instead of degraded on a regular basis, and ticket prices were more in line with the overall quality of the product, piracy wouldn't be worth anyone's time or effort.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2003, 11:34 AM:
 
Did you download it John?
 
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 07-25-2003, 05:12 PM:
 
It seems that the movies being most bootlegged on the internet -- Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, etc. are going on to become the top grossing movies of all time.

I think that the relationship between copyright infringement and sales is much more complicated then a simple one to one correlation between downloaded copies and lost sales. The record industry made millions of dollars when fans lined up to replace their vinyl records with new CDs containing the identical music. Whose to say that the same phenomenon isn't driving today's blockbusters. Is the kid whose watched the grainy VCD of Spiderman 20 times more or less interested in seeing the film a second time in the theatre, or in buying the extras-laden, high quality DVD of the film than the kid who saw it once in the theatre and doesn't care about it anymore by the time the video comes out?

The recording industry is finding out what happens when you piss away all your goodwill among your customers. The movie industry should be very, very careful with this sort of campaign.

So far, from what I've seen, I'm not impressed. The implication of the campaign is that piracy threatens to put "everyday workers" in Hollywood out of work. Can anyone provide a concrete example of a movie project that was cancelled because of the hypothetical fear of future eventual piracy of the finished product? The "little guys" in the ads -- costume designers, set painters, caterers, cameramen, etc, are all salaried employees who do not receive points, so they will be making the same amount of money whether the final work is pirated or not, and the movies that are being pirated are the ones that are making record amounts of money.

The whole campaign seems very disconnected from reality and left me with the distinct impression that I was being lied to, or at least deliberately misled, and certainly insulted. I can't believe that they're going to show that trailer. What a terrible idea.

Imagine walking into a Walmart, and being told that before you enter the store, you have to watch a 30 second video entitled "Please don't shoplift", that laid a similar guilt trip on the viewer. I would turn around and walk right out. I arrived with money in pocket to buy something, not to steal something, and I don't need to give my money to anyone who suggests otherwise.

The most insulting part is that the people in the theatre are exactly the people who have already paid money to see the movie. In other words, you have a captive audience who have already paid in full to see your product, and you're going to patronize and insult them by lecturing them not to steal what they just paid to purchase a few minutes ago.

My internal response would be something along the lines of:

[Eek!] [bs] [fu] [bs] [fu] [bs] [fu] [Eek!]

Insulting your audience has no place in good showmanship.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-25-2003, 06:11 PM:
 
quote:
Actually it is called counterfeiting.
Exactly, Mike.

'Counter Fitting' is what the contractors from Proctor do when you get a new concession stand installed. [Big Grin]

-Aaron
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-25-2003, 06:28 PM:
 
Virtually every movie is being bootlegged, whether it's a big Hollywood blockbuster or a piece of crap that goes straight to video. I'll give you an example. A guy where I work is really into surfing movies. Well a surfing movie was made in 2002 called "Local Boys" that this guy was interested in. The movie went straight to video (watch it and see why). A very high quality bootleg was available online several months before the DVD was release this month.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2003, 10:24 PM:
 
I tried to download Joe's "bootleg" trailer at work, but it got rejected by the Kodak firewall for some reason. I thought that maybe the Kodak firewall rejects pirated files.

Then at home, I found out why. [Razz]
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-26-2003, 01:26 AM:
 
quote:
As far as the trailer playing it is no different than an anti-drug trailer or don't drink and drive. In order to get the message out everyone must hear it reguardless if you have never thought of pirating a movie, taking drugs or driving drunk.
Interestingly put, but you'll agree we're all adults here. If we want to do drugs or drink and drive or pirate movies, we're going to do so regardless of how many times we see some trailer in a theater or commercial on TV. Not only is it insulting, but some might even do these things out of spite, knowing they're naughty.

Besides, no one in their right mind pirates a movie with an audience present. Too much talking, laughing, munching, heads in the way, etc. So there's no one to "tattle" on. They should really make a trailer about ratting out the person who duped their screener for you since they "get em for free all the time."

What's with the industries and government these days wanting people to turn in their neighbors with promises of rewards and knowing you're keeping the nation safe from communists, drug dealers, terrorists and movie pirates?

I wonder if Spy Kids 3D is downloadable yet. I'll just stand by the trash can outside the auditorium and wait for some glasses. [Cool]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-26-2003, 03:21 AM:
 
Spy Kids 3D on video would be an improvement. At least you could completely turn the color off and watch the movie without the 3D. Plus there's the SCAN feature!!! [Razz]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-26-2003, 03:54 AM:
 
quote:
What's with the industries and government these days wanting people to turn in their neighbors with promises of rewards and knowing you're keeping the nation safe from communists, drug dealers, terrorists and movie pirates?
I agree with all EXCEPT the movie bit. Jeeeze! Haven't they got something "better" to do?

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-26-2003, 12:34 PM:
 
But why did the Kodak firewall block it? The firewall can't see what it is.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2003, 03:19 PM:
 
Don't know, it just kept aborting the download and asking me to revalidate my password, so I blamed it on the firewall. It acts that way when there is something questionable about the file or source.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-26-2003, 03:44 PM:
 
quote:
The most insulting part is that the people in the theatre are exactly the people who have already paid money to see the movie. In other words, you have a captive audience who have already paid in full to see your product, and you're going to patronize and insult them by lecturing them not to steal what they just paid to purchase a few minutes ago.
Indeed. This campaign is completely idiotic.
I know VERY few people who download and watch pirated movies and for all of them it is more a hunter and gatherer thing, just having it before their downloading friends have it. And many of them still go to the movie theatre and even buy the DVDs for the special features.

I think this campaign is a huge cloud of smoke. It has been thought up by people in the film industry who want to cover up the fact that they turn out too much crappy product. So when they have flops, they can conveniently blame it on the "video pirates".
Like: "Oh, The Hulk and LXG would have been HUGE box office hits, but they were PIRATED too much."
No, they weren`t. They were just VERY bad movies.

As to the meaning of the word "pirate", here is an excerpt from an etymological dictionary:

pirate - 1254, from O.Fr. pirate, from L. pirata "sailor, sea robber," from Gk. peirates "brigand, pirate," lit. "one who attacks," from peiran "to attack, make a hostile attempt on, try," from peira "trial, an attempt, attack," from PIE base *per- "try." Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-27-2003, 10:54 AM:
 
First off, I agree with the guys that starting my show with the inference that my patrons are thieves and that their neighbors, as in Nazi Germany, should rat on them, is nothing short of absurd and certainly not the atmosphere I want to create for my patrons before the show, especially in the service of the MPAA. The theatre, where patrons have PAID to see a specific movie, is not the place for the MPAA to air its security problems (real or imagined) about people who DON'T want to pay to see movies. As much as the studios claim that counterfeit movies cost them BILLIONS of dollars every second, you don't find them offering to REDUCE the price of tickets if the movie-going public is able, somehow by their snitching actions, to reduce the supposed loss. It's not my honest, ticket-paying, THEATRE GOING patron's responsibility to police the theatre for video pirates.

Showmanship should not be compromised for the sake of one segment of the industry which, it should be noted, has never shown any propensity to help exhibition with their problems....and with the expectation that exhibition do it for free. Wanna pay me for screen time by reducing my percentage or my guarantee? Well, that would be a start, but you know what? I STILL wouldn't play your trailer if the tone is that everyone sitting out there is conspiring to steal their "product."

Frank
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-28-2003, 12:55 PM:
 
Just downloaded that bootleg of the trailer Joe posted. Is this trailer to be played on all ratings? I would never put a trailer that says "a-hole" on something like Finding Nemo.

What is this thing, like 3 seconds long anyway?

[Wink]
=TMP=
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-28-2003, 01:12 PM:
 
I saw the trailer with SK3D. It's very low-key. I don't see what the big deal is. And no, it probably won't do any good either. Basically it's an inoffensive waste of film.
 
Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 07-28-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
Counter Fitting' is what the contractors from Proctor do when you get a new concession stand installed.

I REALLY thought counter fitting was the name of the little booth/COUNTER(SOME PLACES ITS A TABLE) at the GAP, or Old Navy Store WHERE you show Blanche what you want to try on, AND SHE COUNTS THE ITEMS, AND GIVES YOU A BOOTH NUMBER.

BUT I was informed that it is actualy a German word, derived from early Germaic/Latin origin, "Coontar Fytieting," meaning to: copy secretly material of an origin unknown, and to claim it for oneself as said originator."

I kinda like that better than the word "pirat/piracy"deriived from the Graeco-Roman world (peirates) meaning "undesirable others". Piracy was very much linked to banditry in early times, , and both words were used interchangeably in early Greek literature.
Bandit or Bandito has a more "Johnny Depp" flair to it, and has a more romanticised connotation when used in this context, ie, The Frito Bandito.
So my pirate friend, who lives down the street, now prefers to be called, The Video Bandito, it almost sounds cartoonish and not so threatening and i believe it is also more politically correct. If and when Jack Valenti sends this guy to the Film/Video Pirates Prison, in Penzance, Illinois, he can tell the other inmates he is doing hard time for being a Video Bandito, and everybody will laugh, but some of us will cry because we miss him, and because he is also the mayor of our town.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-28-2003, 03:11 PM:
 
What IS offensive, is that someplace along the line, the studios have come to regard my product, i.e., my theatre, my projection services and my screen time, which anyone else rents from me for a fee, is theirs, free for the taking. Well, I've got a bit of news -- it's not. They want to play their silly little self-promoting vignettes? Fine....line up with the rest of the merchants who can rent screen time for a fee. They certainly won't go to NBC and say, "Gee, would you play this spot during prime-time? Not to worry....it's low key" and think NBC would play it for them for free! What makes them think exhibition should? As I said, if they start treating exhibition as a partner and pass on savings, be it the billions they claim will be saved if they get rid of having to make prints or the billions they loose by some guy videotaping a movie screen, fine, then we can talk about cooperation. But since that fantasy may not happen unless we can somehow move to a parallel universe, then they don't get to say what I put up on my screen in my theatre. They don't get to do that just because they are charging me a hefty rental fee to play THEIR product -- the feature.

Frank
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-29-2003, 01:26 AM:
 
The only reason the studios are worried about piracy is, they're afraid the bad word-of-mouth about the movies will start flying around BEFORE the dollars are in the cash registers.
 
Posted by Jonathan Ralston (Member # 1775) on 07-29-2003, 01:39 AM:
 
We received a box of those trailers last week. Of course they sent us one for each projector, half flat, half scope, when most of the current movies are scope. So we can only run them on a few prints. We had a sneak of Freaky Friday last week, and Disney made us put up Anti-Piracy signs, and even had guards in the theater looking for cameras.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-01-2003, 11:17 AM:
 
The cost of the signs and the guards' wages will probably be more than the total gross of Freaky Friday...

Once again, ANTI-piracy is costing the industry billions... [Roll Eyes]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-01-2003, 06:38 PM:
 
Just saw this today in front of American Wedding. Everybody laughed harder at that then the movie itself.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-01-2003, 11:32 PM:
 
Too bad the good ol' "David Goldstein" trailers didn't have the Fox logo at the beginning of them. Then people would be laughing at Fox too. [Smile]

"Sure, it doesn't hurt the producer's, they're millionaires."

Common' you could'a done so much better.
 
Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 08-02-2003, 02:32 AM:
 
All I have to say is.......F@#$ YOU Anti Piracy trailers for making my work so backed up this weekend, I dont even have time to take a [bs] !!! [fu] [fu] [fu] [fu]
 
Posted by Jonathan Ralston (Member # 1775) on 08-09-2003, 01:08 AM:
 
I just find it funny that the guy in that is a set painter. Aren't they contract workers, and therefore not really affected much by piracy?
 
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-09-2003, 04:47 AM:
 
exactly, that's what so funny about it. They are paid way before the film even gets into the hands of pirates.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2003, 10:23 PM:
 
NATO President John Fithian talks about piracy in the current issue of NATO "In Focus" Magazine:

http://www.infocusmag.com/03August/prezdesk.htm

quote:
Piracy is no longer just “their” problem. It’s our problem too. That’s why NATO has added piracy to our priority list.
quote:
Early efforts to raise these themes in the trailer format have met with some mixed audience reactions. So we’ll all need to refine the message until we find something that works.

quote:
As you know, the studios have undertaken a variety of sophisticated activities to detect and thwart recording of movies at screenings. From “wanding” to searches to night goggles and more, these techniques can be very effective in detecting piracy. They can also intimidate the attendees. We will work to better educate our patrons and screening attendees so they understand and become comfortable with these activities. And we will work with the studios to find the appropriate balance between piracy prevention and patron enjoyment.
quote:
Each NATO member should adopt a company policy to combat piracy, working with their staff to identify and then expel patrons with recording equipment. NATO counsel has developed language that can be used for signage on this issue (please contact the NATO offices for a copy of that language.)


 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-12-2003, 01:39 PM:
 
NATO Prez said: Each NATO member should adopt a company policy to combat piracy, working with their staff to identify and then expel patrons with recording equipment.

It is quite dismaying that NATO has bought into this nonsense. Does anyone really believe that a guy making a recording of a film in a movie theatre is a wide enough economic threat that exhibitors should subject masses of patrons to an education lesson about how bad it is to break the law? Show me any movie-goer who is not aware that making copies of movies in the theatre is illegal.

NATO prez is right about one thing, patrons don't take well to being preached at before they settle in to watch a movie. It's bad enough they have to watch those horrid slides.

Do you think a restaurateur would be willing to post signage all over and play a recording over his music system in his establishment explaining how skipping out on the bill or stealing silverware "hurts us all?" Or wand people as they leave to be sure they haven't stolen anything? I simply do not accept the fact that the loss to the industry is caused specifically by the video pirate in the theatre as the main source of the billions that are claimed to be lost. I certainly don't believe this activity is rampant enough to inflict an uncomfortable atmosphere on my all my ticket-buying, law abiding customers and I surely don't believe I should "educate" them to accept this kind of intrusive, confrontational attitude. They are supposed to get used to getting wanded for video equipment? You know how small those video cameras are getting....what's next, body cavity searches?

Has ANYONE on this forum actually seen anyone videotaping in the theatre? No one I know has, so how rampant is it that everyone from now on everyone who goes to a movie has to be bombarded with this "education"? So if the counterfeit tapes are coming from not from off-the-screen copies, where are all these pirated video tapes coming from?

While I have never seen some guy in a trench coat videotaping a movie in a theatre, I HAVE seen pirated video tapes of perfect quality that have time code running at the bottom -- what does THAT tell you? And I have seen perfect pirated copies that had text emblazoned across the bottom of the screen: "Academy Member Evaluation Tape" So how come we NEVER hear about the BILLIONS of dollars that the industry is loosing from pirated tapes -- that are actually watchable and hence a real threat -- which are made from AMPAS members evaluation tapes? You don't hear Jack It's-A-Cancer-In-The-Belly-Of-The-Industry Valenti telling the academy to put signage up in the Kodak Academy Theatre admonishing members not to sell their evaluation copies to buy extra botox treatments.

Who wants to take bets that they won't run their little "We are all criminals" antipiracy trailer at the next Academy Awards!

Frank
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2003, 03:44 PM:
 
Although I personally have not seen people actually videotaping in a theatre, I have seen pirated videos seized by the FBI and MPAA that were obviously shot off a theatre screen rather than a professional video transfer on a telecine. In-theatre piracy is only part of the problem, but it IS still a real problem that theatres need to address.
 
Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 08-12-2003, 08:10 PM:
 
Well if it's in-theatre video taping it would have to be done by an employee or a friend of an employee during the theatre's "preview" before opening the film. Why not make all employees sign an "non-piracy" aggreement before work each day? Makes about as much sense as forcing the paying audience to watch silly trailers. [Frown]

Also, wasn't the "Cap Code" system supposed to track pirate videos to the print they were made from? How has that been working (or is it)? [Confused]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2003, 09:07 PM:
 
The CAP Code I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA has been in use since 1982. If it didn't work, I doubt it would have been used so long. [Cool] As you know, in the last year or two, the original CAP Code has been supplemented by additional watermarking/tracking codes, some obvious, others not.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-12-2003, 09:18 PM:
 
So THAT's why the movies nowaday have that shake to their picture. All this time I thought that was a printing error, not an anti-piracy watermarking/tracking code. [Razz]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2003, 09:24 PM:
 
[Confused] AFAIK, any unsteadiness is not deliberate and not due to any of the anti-piracy codes. As noted here before, vertical unsteadiness is often introduced when the correct short pitch original to long pitch raw stock relationship is not maintained when using a continuous contact printer. Labs are often not given enough time to use much slower pin-registered printers for making the duplicate negatives.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-14-2003, 10:06 AM:
 
Still, before I would play ANY trailer, which is essentially an ad (especially for free), and especially if I think it is insulting to my audience, I would like to see hard, substantiated proof of the claim that an almost unwatchable video tape of a film, even if it is put out on the street within the first week of a major film's release date, could possibly be a major economic impact to the studio. Where is the market for such poorly pirated tapes? Is it out there, yes, but in what numbers? Are there hundreds of thousands of people who would forego seeing a major release in a theatre because of a junk video tape that costs nearly the price of a theatre ticket? I don't believe it. And until MPAA can justify their claims, don't ask exhibtion to subject the entire moviegoing public to such a campaign which will have, IMHO, a negative impact on presentation (I know I'll be sitting in my seat fuming that I have to be subjected to such drivel after paying 10 bucks). The MPAA needs to come up with more than just vague proclamations about the billions their members loose to this kind of sitting-in-a-theatre-with-a-camcorder piracy.

Let them do their CAP codes and put in place any and all high-tech security mechanisms they can muster, as long as they are TRANSPARENT, but let's not insult the audiences that are PAYING to see the films. If they are in the theatre, then they haven't bought a pirated video copy on a street corner. I don't see it as a widespread problem that needs such a draconian, wide spread solution.

If the MPAA thinks the entire population needs to be reached with a message that piracy is illegal, then let them take out TV
ads or, as I suggested, run the spots during the Academy Awards. If they really believe what they claim, put their money down on the table; I am sure ABC will give them a break on few dozen 30 sec. ads -- as many as they want, in fact. Or they can BUY screen time from exhibitors. Which ever works for them.

The real threat as we all know are GOOD video transfers -- the ones that make it to foreign markets or to unscrupulous video retailers, and those, I submit, come from the very people who are doing all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. When a studio executive wants to show off to his friends and lends his perfectly transferred tape of the latest blockbuster to a neighbor who then makes a dozen copies for his friends, one of whom has another friend who runs a trucking company that delivers supplies to video rental stores, which suddenly has an endless supply of this blockbuster available under the counter, it's the bigshot studio exec who needs to be educated and see some trailers on the evils of piracy -- "Just Don't Do It!" Not my patrons.

Frank
 
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-14-2003, 05:15 PM:
 
You don't see this "Anti-Piracy" trailer in AMC Theatres because AMC is not a member of NATO.

Another reason why at AMC you "Experience the Difference!" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-14-2003, 08:52 PM:
 
quote:
Several pages back Brad wrote:
It's not a joke. Yes you see the film roll spinning and the rollers show motion as well, but the film when stretched out has no movement to it because it is moving at the same capture rate as the camera. You could literally put a light on the floor underneath the film traveling back to the platter during takeup and aim a 24P camera downward at the film and get a flickerless image. The camera becomes the shutter.
Check out this 24 frames per second closeup of film running with a light in the background. Now granted there is motion blur, but you can easily see what Brad is talking about. This video was shot and presented at exactly 24 frames per second.

Click Here to Download. 4.5 MB

This was at the default shutter speed.

[ 08-21-2003, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]
 
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-20-2003, 05:17 PM:
 
I take back my earlier comment. AMC is now playing the anti-piracy trailer [evil] as part of rolling stock. I had to put up with the anti-piracy trailer in front of Dirty Pretty Things at the AMC Hamilton.

This [bs] reminds me of the music industry crying wolf 25 years ago about bootleg albums. According to one interview I read back then, the music industry was getting ripped off by tape piracy. They looked the other way when the Mafia put out counterfeit 8-tracks and sold them to wholesalers for less than what the major labels charged for the real stuff.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-21-2003, 02:45 AM:
 
They didn't look the other way. There was a toll-free number to call, & frequent stories with pictures in the news of bootleg tapes & albums being confiscated & destroyed.

I dropped a dime on many a truck stop selling bootleg 8-tracks, & when next I stopped at one of them for gas, the bootleg 8-track box or rack was gone.
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 09-03-2003, 06:23 PM:
 
*getting in late in the game*

I've seen about 10 movies in the last 3 weeks, and I have to say, hearing the same old story from the same orange-bearded guy gets really old after the second time.

I think the message could have been better communicated through having a variety of ads they could run. Instead of it being "Oh not this guy again."

I wonder though what people are going to think when they STOP seeing these ads at the front of movies. I saw a screening without one and turned to my friend and said "Damn, I should've brought my video camera. Apparently piracy is encouraged during this feature."
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-25-2003, 05:47 PM:
 
Bump for Scott... you already ranted here, you theatre dork!
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 09-25-2003, 11:46 PM:
 
Here's something strange...has anyone else noticed that the guy on the Anti-Piracy trailer (David Goldstien makes movies, yada yada yada) is wearing a cap with a skull and bones on it?
Very ammusing.
 
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 09-26-2003, 06:46 PM:
 
The AMC Hamilton has installed an NCN digital preshow -- which runs before the trailers much like Regal/UA runs The 20wenty. Guess what's in the NCN digital preshow? The anti-piracy trailer. Only it looks and sounds worse. [Wink]
 
Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-26-2003, 07:33 PM:
 
Yes, it looks horrible. It's funny how they can make popcorn and drinks look nice digitally, but they can't make a decent transfer from film. I couldn't believe when we started playing that in our digital preshow. If you haven't seen it, consider yourself lucky. I get complaints about the picture being out of focus. I have to tell them "sorry, that's just the new digital preshow, the trailers and feature will be fine."
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-17-2003, 05:50 PM:
 
At the NATO Fall/Winter product seminar they debuted (on crappy video no less)the all new and improved 'Anti-Piracy PSA Episode II'(aka 'The Big Lie); this time with a Hollywood stunt man telling us all what a bunch of videotaping theiving pirates we are and that we must respect copyrights... [Razz]

It's coming...thought I'd warn you. [evil]

-Aaron
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-20-2003, 03:01 AM:
 
I don't work in a chain or even a commercial theatre so forgive me if this sounds rudimentary, but what obligation is any theatre under to run these crappy things? They don't come attached to the feature, do they? Are they just sent to the theatre separately, just assuming that the theatre will run them....gratis? Suppose the theatre chooses not to run them at all? Or suppose the theatre insists that the MPAA pay for screen time the same as any merchant has to do if they want their spots played. Personally, I would send these things back COD without even opening them; my second choice would be to charge them for screen time.

Has any theatre simply ignored them?

Frank
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-20-2003, 03:38 AM:
 
quote:
what obligation is any theatre under to run these crappy things?
None legally as far as I know, but if you are a NATO member they [NATO] strongly recommends you place one with each title you are running.

quote:
Has any theatre simply ignored them?
If I were still projecting in a plex, I wouldn't have played them. [Mad]

-Aaron
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-20-2003, 11:53 AM:
 
Frankly, I don't think the audience could care less about this trailer or any other advertising trailer. I totally agree with Frank that camera recorded bootleg copies are absolutely NOT a threat to the business. Personally, even though Frank makes an excellent point that the people in the theater have obviously not bootlegged or downloaded the film and have paid for their ticket, I still don't find this trailer insulting -- it might not do any good, but I don't think it does any harm. I think it's a much better approach than the heavyhanded RIAA approaches to the problem. And the truth is that if illegal digital downloading of films ever happens in any scale, it will affect jobs in the film industry, just as it has in the record industry. Universal Records, which is probably going to be sold to EMI, announced thousands of layoffs last week.

I'd bet most of the audience wouldn't even remember seeing it. Sometimes I hear a few groans at the number of advertisements and sometimes they'll be a reaction to a new trailer, but most of the time, the audience doesn't react at all to this stuff.

By the way, I attend at least one film a week (in NYC) and maybe I'm not very observant (although I seem to notice scratches, specks, splices, automation cues and reel change dots easily enough), but I never notice the CRAP code. Are they not putting these on prints destined for prime Manhattan theaters?

quote:
They didn't look the other way. There was a toll-free number to call, & frequent stories with pictures in the news of bootleg tapes & albums being confiscated & destroyed.
That's absolutely correct. In fact, at one time American Can owned the Sam Goody record store chain. They got caught dealing with bootlegs and had to sell the chain as a result.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-22-2003, 02:12 AM:
 
Martin, you are right....most general audiences wouldn't much mind....hell, they sit through inane slide shows and full blown ads and say nothing. I guess I am the one who objects, mainly because I want to be the one who controls my presentation and resent the idea that some third party thinks they can strong arm me into running some sorry promo of their own. I think Aaron is probably right, but I'd still like to find out if they somehow figured out a way to make me legally obligated. I wouldn' tput it past them. What happens if it just sits up on a shelf until it rots?

And, come to think of it, I actually do think my audience would notice. We've coaxed and educated them into differentiating between bad and good presentation, lots of them really get it. We certainly devoted lots of editorial space in our *Scope news letter to why classic films can be seen more than once and why they deserve to be seen in a theatre and not on a 19" tv screen. So they might very well comment about being preached to by this silly trailer and they might ask why I was running it.

But of course that would never happen, because I wouldn't be running it. [Razz]
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 10-23-2003, 06:30 PM:
 
The “David Goldstein" set painter person in the trailer does not exist. In the trailer his film credits supposedly include “Beverly Hills Cop,” “Father of the Bride,” “Dick Tracy,” “The Natural,” “The Big Chill,” among others. However, a quick check on the Internet Movie Database ( http://www.imdb.com ) revealed that no one named David Goldstein worked on ANY of the movies he mentioned in the commercial.

Would have been hard for them to have actually get a REAL set painter to do the commercials instead of making up a person or would it have been some kind of union problem with that (Screen Actors Guild or something)?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-23-2003, 08:59 PM:
 
I would presume he is probably real despite what IMDb says. Has anyone looked at the actual film credits? It just seems likely that they would not want to do something that would subject them to such easy ridicule. But I could be wrong.

Episode 2, starring the black stunt driver or whatever he is, opens October 24. Not any better and will still be derided by the audiences it is inflicted upon. I still say an appeal to greed would be more effective: Rewards for turning in tapers or other pirates.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 09:18 AM:
 
Again, here is the "Respect Copyrights" site, where they have on-line versions of the trailers:

http://www.respectcopyrights.org/main.html

http://www.respectcopyrights.org/hear-artists.html
 
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 10-24-2003, 12:04 PM:
 
I didn't think " David Goldstein " was real. I did the IMDB search too and came up with nothing. I checked the ending credits of Beverly Hills Cop and there was no David Goldstein mentioned or credit for a set painter. There was a credit for a Standby Painter, that was credited to John Hutchinson.

So it's very possible that he wasn't credited or he isn't real.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 01:11 PM:
 
The "real" David Goldstein does exist:

Jakeopolis Article

quote:
The fact is, David Goldstein, star of the first batch of movie piracy trailers, is a real set painter. How do I know this? I just got off the phone with him. And after briefly talking to him I can tell you, that not only is he a consummate professional, but one of the nicest people I have ever met, even if it was just on the phone.

He's a warm individual who just wants his concerns voiced and understood. To give you a grasp on how widespread this trailer is, it is running in over 5000 theatres in the United States and in almost every Canadian theatre.

Goldstein has been working in the industry for over 28 years. He originally got hired the old fashioned way, he put in an application in 1975. Since that time, he's worked on the production of over 40 feature's from The Natural to City Slickers 2. But the downturn in the Hollywood scene and the raising concerns of movie piracy are starting to effect how much work Goldstein is able to get on features. A number of productions have moved to other parts of the continent, such as Vancouver and Toronto. There just isn't as much work out there.

In order to make a living and support his family, Goldstein has moved into Television work, for the time being, as that is the only constant right now in Los Angeles. He worked on Joss Whedon's now defunct show, "Fire Fly" and is currently working in the art department at NBC.

I now understand where he's coming from. David Goldstein is a man that loves working. Goldstein is a man that loves doing a great job and takes enormous pride in what he does. He's a man who's been in the business for a long time and paid his dues.

The issue of movie piracy runs deep and only scratches the surface on the problems that Goldstein and his fellow union members are facing (Yes, David Goldstein is in the Union, again, I'm wrong). There are issues involving run away productions to Canada and there are a multitude of issues that deal directly with movie piracy.

That said, I'm not going to talk about them now. After I research the issue a bit more and talk to Mr. Goldstein more formally about everything going on in Hollywood, I'll have an in depth feature for you. I just wanted to get it out of the way... that I was wrong.

As for the beard, it started as a dare from his kids and then suddenly became his trait. Goldstein himself said, "I get recognized whenever I go out now, whether it's at Dodger games or just out in the street".

From what I gather, I don't think Goldstein would have it any other way.

Check back in about three weeks for more on David Goldstein and the movie piracy issue.

Until next time,

Jakob Brzovic aka Big Jake
Editor-In-Chief of JAKEOPOLIS.com


Arizona Central

CBS News

KTLA Article
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-24-2003, 02:24 PM:
 
I still have yet to see one of these things. I must be doing an unintentionally good job at avoiding these. Someone send me one. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-24-2003, 03:50 PM:
 
See them online.

As for the article, oh come on. Runaway production is not because of piracy it's because of labor costs, exchange rates, tax incentives and rebates etc. Let them cite some statistics to show that production is down overall. It could happen if piracy becomes rampant but at least initially the immediate effects will be felt by the big shot profit participants and/or stockholders not the small people and that makes the trailer simply flat out wrong.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 04:05 PM:
 
Steve wrote:

quote:
As for the article, oh come on. Runaway production is not because of piracy it's because of labor costs, exchange rates, tax incentives and rebates etc.
The article notes that those opinions are Mr. Goldstein's.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-24-2003, 05:15 PM:
 
Funny how these antipiracy trailers come with a note saying, "Your home office has agreed to run these trailers on 100% of your screens."

Actually, I AM my home office and I never agreed to nothin'! [Cool]
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-26-2003, 12:52 AM:
 
So let me get this straight.....the authors of this hokey litlle promo about respect for the law and honesty and ethics, they have no scruples about LYING to get you to run it. I guess they think, what's the big deal?....it's only a LITTLE lie. Well, hey, what's the big deal?...it's only a LITTLE copyright infringement.

And my mom wonders why I am so cynical.

Frank
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2