Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why are they sneaking Ratatouille?

This is topic Why are they sneaking Ratatouille? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=001882

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-22-2007, 08:01 AM:

I wonder why this is? Surely PIXAR's name is enough to satisfy the quality of the film.

It's a bad idea. The cam-corders will be going nuts.

[eyes]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-22-2007, 09:05 AM:

I was wondering that too. Best I can figure is that the name is scaring people away from it. It seemed that was the case with "Cars" too, at least for us. It started off slowly, then appeared to pick up a few weeks later.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-22-2007, 09:12 AM:

I cannot fault PIXAR so far...so one would assume they know what they're doing, but in my opinion sneaking this is just a bad idea. The pirates must be wetting themselves.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-22-2007, 09:50 AM:

I thought Pixar already did their sneak preview of Ratatouille last weekend. The sneak preview was also a very limited thing. No theaters near where I live played it. Perhaps some theaters in the Dallas area may have ran the sneak preview; I don't know.

If Disney and Pixar are running another sneak preview this coming weekend, the same booking situation must still be in place.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-22-2007, 10:27 AM:

What title is it sneaking with? They use to do that to boost the older feature's grosses for the night.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-22-2007, 11:19 AM:

We ran the sneak of it last weekend. It took the place of Pirates. However, it was not a stay and see and Ratatouille had it's own movie number to track receits. Not running the sneak this weekend.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-22-2007, 01:34 PM:

I've seen other sneak previews run and not be tied with other releases. I watched Chicago in a sneak preview at our local Carmike theater in THX-DTS. Then the print moved down the street to play in the glory of mono and crappy projection at the rival Cache 8 theater.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2007, 02:02 PM:

I have a feeling this is really going to be a word-of-mouth movie. (If people like it, that is.)

- Strange title that most people won't be able to pronounce
- It's a rat movie
- The main character wants, not to save the world, but to be a chef

Not exactly the stuff that drives huge opening week numbers. I can see why they're doing the sneaks. As for the camcording pirates...maybe they'll have the dudes with the infrared vision out in force?

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 06-22-2007, 03:19 PM:

Or perhaps they could install a large array of IR lamps behind the screen, and blink them in a random sequence. That would play havoc with the camcorder recording, resulting in 'blotchy' or 'bleached' pictures on the tape - while still being invisible to people watching.

I'd probably go and see Ratatouille whenever it comes out, be it at a preview screening or on general release. Pirates 3 didn't have any preview screenings in this country, but I went and saw it the day it came out [Wink]

So far, it's not even showing on the 'coming soon' list on the Vue website though...

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-22-2007, 03:23 PM:

None of this matters; there's already a crappy pirated version floating around online.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-22-2007, 04:25 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Or perhaps they could install a large array of IR lamps behind the screen, and blink them in a random sequence. That would play havoc with the camcorder recording, resulting in 'blotchy' or 'bleached' pictures on the tape - while still being invisible to people watching.

1) What makes you think that'll stop the people from selling the pirated copy?

2) What makes you think that'll stop others from buying it?

If someone uses a camcorder and someone else does this, what'll happen is either the pirates will watch it, not care, and sell it anyway or not watch it then sell it anyway. And the people buying the pirated copy won't know it looks like shit until they've already been had.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-22-2007, 04:36 PM:

I think the sneak was for 2 reasons..........

1) The strange title and subject matter (realistic rat as chef)of Ratatouille. They wanted some people to see it to get word of mouth out there about how good it is.

2) To help the POTC: At World's End gross and make sure it gets over $300 Million with no problem which is very important.

I have a feeling #2 was a bigger part of the decision to do it.

As for the IR thing and camcording. If this was done, wouldn't the bootleggers just figure out how to put an IR filter in front of the lens?

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-22-2007, 04:55 PM:

LOL @ people seriously worried about "pirates" [Big Grin]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-22-2007, 05:04 PM:

The $300 million mark for "Pirates" is important to Disney for reasons other than ego and a press release.

As they say............follow the money!

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-22-2007, 11:57 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
2) To help the POTC: At World's End gross and make sure it gets over $300 Million with no problem which is very important.

The monies made from the sneak of Ratatouille where reported as Ratatouille not as pirates grosses. It had it's own movie ID number for gross reporting. It was not a stay and see, it was a fill and spill.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-23-2007, 12:19 AM:

The numbers might have been reported separately but they were added to POTC:AWE weekend gross. It is referenced in many articles on last weekend's box office.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-26-2007, 10:26 AM:

OTS (Off the Screen) bootleg DVDs are not what costs the studios their claimed billions in lost revenue -- it's the PERFECT copies that come from INSIDE the studios' own post production houses and from those AMPAS private screener copies. THESE are perfect DVD copies and can be duplicated by the millions in foreign markets. THAT's what cost the studios, not the practically unviewable OTS junk that are sold on street corners to people who probably wouldn't pay to see it in a theatre in the first place. Or, who are so into the franchise movies (PIRATES, HPOTTER, STAR WARS, etc) that they will by the junk street copy and then go see it in the theatre anyway.

Besides, sneaks are policed a lot closer nowadays. Studios put people with detector wands at the doors to be sure people aren't "carrying" (camcorders that is). The studio sends a security guard to walk the print up to the booth and sit with me and watch me while I run it (because everyone knows it's the projectionists all across the country who are the evil movie pirates).

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-26-2007, 11:04 AM:

Frank, can you justify that claim? We seem to hear it a lot, but repeating over and over does not make it so.

(As far as I can tell, the problem is both. And neither the person downloading the movie off the Internet nor the person selling DVDs on the streetcorner with ties to organized crime -- neither of those people are very discriminating.)

If one looks at how the pirate "content verification sites" rank pirated versions of films, quite a lot of them, I'd say a majority from a casual glance, are classified as "CAM."

--jhawk

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-26-2007, 11:06 AM:

I assumed most of the early pirate copies are telecines of work prints, screeners or R5s.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 06-26-2007, 07:03 PM:

The few pirated movies I have ever seen were all screeners, except for "Home Alone" which we watched in school with a "Property of " crawl along the bottom, stating to call this number if you saw it as it was an unauthorized copy.

The others I have seen were all videotaped off of the screen, and looked a lot better than one might think. I still would prefer to watch them at the theater and/or buy a studio released DVD, but screeners don't seem to be the primary source for pirating, at least from what I have seen.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-26-2007, 07:49 PM:

There's a Hostel 2 workprint floating around now, that's clearly a screener copy (since it's a workprint with minor differences).

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-27-2007, 08:25 AM:

Let me preface with saying i'm anti-piracy. As someone on the verge of possibly thinking about contemplating making a movie someday, I don't like to see other artists ripped off.

I wasn't particularly clear in my last post. I personally haven't seen any Ratatoullie pirate copies at all. The last "cines" I did see were a while back, maybe a year or more at a huge lan, they were all workprints complete with the annoying timers, although it wasnt of Ratatoullie. I would much rather see these films in the cinema, I won't even read the back blurb of a DVD if i've never seen it [Razz]

. These days the scenes a little different, the MPAA have cracked down tight on screeners, and theres just not that much being made that I can't wait to see at the movies.

My knowledge of the past of telecines was grounded, but truthfully enough, my estimations of the current popularity of telecines are without warrant, and rightfully open to criticism.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-28-2007, 03:48 AM:

Ratatouille's on the net. Regardless of it's a cam or screener...it's been there for over a week.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 06-28-2007, 03:40 PM:

I'm also completely anti-piracy as far as feature films are concerned. I like to go and see a movie in a cinema first, then if I decide it's really good I buy the DVD when it comes out. If it's not worth buying on DVD, I just wait for it to be on regular TV or on the cable company's pay-per-view service.

I have seen people selling pirate DVDs and VHSs before, especially in street markets, and my parents have purchased a couple. In all cases though, when the official DVD comes out I buy that and destroy the pirate copies [Wink]

Pirates I have experienced in the past:
The Lion King - VHS, recorded with a camcorder in the auditorium. The pirates have edited out the bits where people walked past the camera and when the staff came in (forcing them to hide the camera)!

Harry Potter (1st movie) DVD - looks like it was recorded with a camcorder through one of the portholes in the projection booth; sound coming via cable from the headphone jack on the amp unit.

Haunted Mansion DVD - very good quality pirate; except for the fact that the picture goes B/W at various points and has superimposed text so was clearly made from the review copies.

Wallace and Gromit Curse of Were-Rabbit DVD - looks like another cinema recording, sound is very low quality but picture is good.

My parents say that the camcorder recording issue was a very short-lived thing in cinemas. These days, pirates tend to make copies of the review DVDs that are sent to the BBFC for rating. Also, with so many movies coming out in digital, people have cracked the format and made pirate copies this way.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-28-2007, 03:47 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Also, with so many movies coming out in digital, people have cracked the format and made pirate copies this way.

I highly question the validity of this statement.

I have heard that people have found encryption keys for HDDVD and Blu-ray but not the actual digital cinema systems. That's a whole different ball game.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-28-2007, 10:16 PM:

There is no doubt that it will be done. "Bigger lock just needs a bigger key." Louis

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 06-30-2007, 09:51 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
The $300 million mark for "Pirates" is important to Disney for reasons other than ego and a press release.

In my area the drive ins are doubling up Ratatouille with Pirates.... even at venues which have never played Pirates before. I am sure part of the Ratatuilee gross will get allocated to Pirates so that Pirates is assured to hit 300 million.

Lyle is right. Disney needs to get POTC3 over $300 Million. The reason may not be obvious to those of you who do not get involved with booking but it has to do with Disney's relatively new national fixed terms policy. Under this policy what every theatre in the nation which plays the picture pays for EACH WEEK of the engagement (no longer do the percentanges drop the longer a picture is held) is now dependent on the final "reported" national gross of the picture. The payment percentage is a sliding scale (the more the "reported" national gross ... the higher the percentage). Under this published scale once a picture hits $300 million the percentage jumps up to 60%.

And of course who determines that it has grossed this magic number? Why the studios themselves. Might that not be an incentive to inflate figures and/or play games?

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-30-2007, 10:41 AM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
drive ins are doubling up Ratatouille with Pirates.... even at venues which have never played Pirates before. I am sure part of the Ratatuilee gross will get allocated to Pirates so that Pirates is assured to hit 300 million.

Maybe. But it's also part of how Disney makes its pictures available for packaging as double features. When you book a Disney on the break, you just about have to have one of their pictures as the second. Otherwise, the percentages are too high.

One thing is certain. This is the longest double I've run. Brad's platter ring is a tight fit, and I do mean tight! A stickapoo overlaps the platter! A lot of people are staying to the end of the night, though.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-30-2007, 11:13 AM:

In my drive-in days you had to split the gross across the board. Basically as long as it was the same film company a certain percentage of the gross went to the main feature and the other remaining percentage went to the second feature. This is how you had to record it in the reports that you filed with the distributors. This was back in the 80's so I am not sure how they do it now.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-03-2007, 04:58 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
Frank, can you justify that claim? We seem to hear it a lot, but repeating over and over does not make it so.

Sure it does, just ask any politician.

And that said, just because the MPAA keeps saying they loose BILLIONS every year to cam copies and street vendors selling them for 5 bucks (that's a WAY lot of street sales) and barely watchable internet downloads, that doesn't make it so either.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-03-2007, 08:42 AM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Also, with so many movies coming out in digital, people have cracked the format and made pirate copies this way.

What does this mean? Are you talking about copying the digital source at the studio (or some other intermediary), or copying the digital "print" at the theater level? If the latter, I'm pretty sure you are mistaken.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-03-2007, 03:32 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
There is no doubt that it will be done. "Bigger lock just needs a bigger key." Louis

Of course, but that wasn't what the guy said. He was claiming that pirate copies have already been made in this way, which is simply a bunch of crap.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
What does this mean? Are you talking about copying the digital source at the studio (or some other intermediary), or copying the digital "print" at the theater level? If the latter, I'm pretty sure you are mistaken.

The former is highly unlikely, requiring access to someone who works inside the studio who likely is extremely skilled. Since the equipment is relatively new, there's gonna be a "smallish" group of people that know how to use the machines so it'd be somewhat difficult to find someone to do the deed. And even then, since these people are skilled, they're gonna most likely be well-paid and as such unlikely to jump ship.

And the latter simply hasn't happened yet.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 07-03-2007, 04:35 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
pirates tend to make copies of the review DVDs that are sent to the BBFC for rating

I think the BBFC reviews most theatrical releases in 35mm, I've had crossovers from them in projection and when signing for the delivery when the title has had a very limited release (less than twenty cinemas in the country say).

Anyway, back to topic, can someone explain what you mean by 'sneak' previewing, and how the grosses from them can get attached to another feature.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-03-2007, 05:06 PM:

A sneak preview is when you have a movie being played (and usually only 1 showing) earlier than the official release date. Usually, they do it 1-2 weeks prior to the release date.

And unlike trade screenings, sneaks are paid for by the viewer.

Then with the grosses getting attached to another movie it probably works like this:
Sometimes the sneak is a double feature (one ticket, 2 movies). So you buy a ticket to the sneak preview and if you want, you get to stay and see the next showing in that auditorium. So they could include the grosses from the sneak into the grosses for the next showing since the people officially bought a ticket that's for both.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 07-03-2007, 05:32 PM:

Many big films come out on the Thursday or sometimes Wednesday before the main friday release, for example Die Hard 4 opens tomorrow here. Never have the double feature thing though, that sounds like a really good deal.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-03-2007, 06:04 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Never have the double feature thing though, that sounds like a really good deal.

You'd think it was a good deal but I've never seen more than 10-20% of the people tops stay for the second feature. I guess it's a combo of people having already seen the second feature and not wanting to stay for a minimum 20 minute intermission and then another feature length movie. If they were matinees more people would stay but they are always 7-8 PM shows.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-03-2007, 06:34 PM:

Most of all my sneaks for the last 4+ years or so are "Fill and Spill". Fill the aud for the sneak and then empty to play a regular show afterward.

The days of a Double Feature seem to be gone. It used to be that you might have a 5 minute break between films to allow the "bio" breaks and then start again.

Then it progressed into you had to publish the second showtime because most of the people left after the sneak.