quote:

---

LOS ANGELES -- "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" isn't due in theaters until next month, but the prequel has already hacked its way online.

A high-quality, full-length work print of the 20th Century Fox film appeared online Tuesday evening. The studio said it had the file removed, but copies quickly propagated and continue to appear on several file-sharing Web sites.

The movie focuses on the beginnings of Hugh Jackman's clawed Marvel superhero Wolverine and is set for a May 1 release.

Fox vowed in a statement Wednesday that the source of the "stolen, incomplete and early version" of the movie would be prosecuted and said the FBI and MPAA are investigating. The studio also insisted that the version of the film posted online was "was without many effects, had missing and unedited scenes and temporary sound and music."

---

Link to story

Let's see how they spin this one, since they can't blame the exhibitors.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-02-2009, 01:10 PM:
 
Bet you won't see any FBI agents dragging anyone off the Fox lot in handcuffs.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-02-2009, 01:15 PM:
 
I admit having watched it a couple of days ago.

I really enjoyed the half-finished look of it, since I never got to work on post pro on many high-budget films. To me, it was like a big "Making of" featurette.

They should leak more workprints (but after the DVD is out )

I won't comment on the underground handing over of celebrity sex-scenes dailies among the post-pro community. After all, who would want to watch 10 different takes of Penelope Cruz naked?

Of course, during the premiere and advance screenings of wolverine they'll have extra-security now, with night vission goggles, cell-phone confiscations, extra security guards in the projection booth and locked print cans. Full body cavity search would remain optional, but recommended.

Just in case it gets leaked twice before somebody posts a screener or a CAM on the net the day after it opens.

Oh, and don't forget. They'll make you throw out all your current digital equipment and replace it with truly high-class FIPS DCI certified stuff.

Don't you dare thinking most of your current digital equipment meets Hollywood's security requirements.

And if it does, they'll still make YOU pay for more of THEIR security in the future, rest assure.



[ 04-02-2009, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-02-2009, 05:50 PM:
 
The word on the inter web is when it was being transferred at the SFX house it was ripped and taken. This cut of the movie is well over 3-4 months old, does not include the added footage that was shot, two months ago. I really like the stand that most of the sites are taking on this and condemning the leak.

One things for sure, this is an unprecedented thing for the industry. Never has a major summer tent pole movie been leaked this early, or complete. People are saying this is going to kill the box office. This will have little to no effect on the overall box office grosses. The number being thrown around online is that its been downloaded/watched 100,000 times. Even at that number and at $10 a ticket at the high end, that's only a Million lost if those people don't go see it. I would bet a years salary that at least half of those people go and see it in the theatre.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-02-2009, 05:52 PM:
 
My guess is that the movie will have a big opening weekend anyway... but the studio will still claim that piracy is killing them. Bottom line: This was a security leak in the studio's own system. They can't blame this on anyone else.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-03-2009, 04:45 PM:
 
Which, of course, doesn't mean that they won't.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2009, 06:36 PM:
 

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

its been downloaded/watched 100,000 times. Even at that number and at $10 a ticket at the high end, that's only a Million lost if those people don't go see it. I would bet a years salary that at least half of those people go and see it in the theatre.

---

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

This cut of the movie is well over 3-4 months old

---

If you check 0:02:42.729 you see an overlay that says Rising Sun pictues 02 Mar 2009

Of course, it doesn't mean that the cut was that recent, only that the workprint probably leaked after that date and that was the workprint in use at the time by that house.

I have the feeling they are a little behind schedule. Nothing new on this kind of productions. I can foresee plenty of 28h (SIC) shifts in many post houses.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-04-2009, 03:24 AM:
 
Is there any chance the leak of the workprint is actually a thought-over move to get everybody's attention? It's still some time before the movie hits cinemas: sounds like good opportunity to get people talking.
The official statement from the studio saying that "it had the file removed" really got me laughing One should be weigh his words and not put "remove" right next to "from the Net".

[ 04-05-2009, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Janusz Antkiewicz ]
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-07-2009, 12:20 AM:
 
Fox writer loses job over Wolverine review

April 7, 2009 - 1:11PM
Roger Friedman

Fox News columnist Roger Friedman has lost his job after posting a review of a leaked full-length work print of Hugh Jackman's new film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Fox News said on Monday the company's representatives and Friedman "mutually agreed to part ways immediately".

Friedman had been an entertainment writer who has contributed to FoxNews.com for 10 years.

He wrote in his Fox 411 column on Thursday that downloading the 20th Century Fox superhero prequel was "so much easier than going out in the rain" and that the movie "exceeds expectations at every turn".

The early review of the film, which 20th Century Fox described as a "stolen, incomplete and early version", was later removed from the website on Friday.

Fox News and 20th Century Fox are both units of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

The movie, which focuses on the beginnings of Jackman's clawed superhero character Wolverine, is not scheduled for release until May 1, but the leaked version began appearing online last week.

Twentieth Century Fox promised the source of the film would be prosecuted and said the FBI and Motion Picture Association of America were investigating the leak.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine opens in Australian cinemas on April 29.

- AP
Link
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-07-2009, 04:51 AM:
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Fox moved the US release up to April 29. The Wednesday release wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a summer tent pole, plus it gets it in theatres that much sooner.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-07-2009, 05:50 AM:
 
This would'nt be a new form of "advertising", now would it?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2009, 09:28 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

He wrote in his Fox 411 column on Thursday that downloading the 20th Century Fox superhero prequel was "so much easier than going out in the rain" and that the movie "exceeds expectations at every turn".

---

quote:

---

I can't help but wonder if Roger Friedman was tired and fed up with working for Fox News and pulled this stunt to get out of the place. Surely he knew X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a 20th Century Fox release and that 20th Century Fox is a property of News Corp. -Friedman's employer. He had to have posted his review of the bootleg movie on purpose, right? He couldn't have been so stupid to be unaware of the consequences of his online comments, right?

---

I was a contract employee at Microsoft testing Perfect Dark Zero and as a condition of employment you signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

And yet a dipshit kid posted information about the game on a Microsoft-sponsored website from his work email account. The kid liked working there but just was that stupid.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-07-2009, 12:53 PM:
 
Oh come on...I don't know why all the fuss... Every single one of us would come up with a nice review with phrases like "Jackman's stunnig performance", "extraordinary special effects" etc.
That's why I treat what this guy wrote (whatever we may call it) as a good funny joke-surely he has a sense of humour.
Seems like some people in these economically challenging times some people have lost the ability too laugh at themselves.
 

---

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 04-07-2009, 05:27 PM:
 
Wonder if this has anything do do with the recent FBI Seizure of a Colo data center in Dallas:

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/04/03/fbi-seizes-servers-at-dallas-data-center/

FBI Seizes Servers at Dallas Data Center
April 3rd, 2009 : Rich Miller
The FBI raided a Dallas carrier hotel Thursday and seized equipment from data center space operated by Core IP Networks. Agents armed with a search warrant appear to have confiscated all the servers in the facility, which houses gear for about 50 businesses.

“The FBI has seized all equipment belonging to our customers,” Matthew Simpson, the CEO of Core IP, said in a message. “Many customers went to the data center to try and retrieve their equipment, but were threatened with arrest.”

Simpson says the FBI told him it was investigating a customer of Core IP, but claims the company in question is a prior customer that no longer colocates with Core IP. Simpson told a Dallas TV station that the investigation concerns pirated movies.

That claim has triggered speculation that the probe is tied to the leak of the feature film “Wolverine.” A rough version of the film is circulating online, several weeks before the movie is scheduled to debut in theaters.

The 6 a.m. raid took place at Core IP’s offices on two floors of 2323 Bryan Street in Dallas, a major carrier hotel owned by Digital Realty Trust. Simpson said Core IP leases space from Telx, another provider in the facility.

The FBI told Channel 11 News in Dallas that ”it could take several days to restore the servers of the affected companies.” That’s not happy news for customers, which reportedly include numerous phone companies, impacting e911 caller location services in some areas of the country. FBI officials told the TV station “they could speed up their analysis of the web servers if the affected companies would contact them.”

Simpson said the FBI also showed up at his residence with a search warrant, but said neither he nor Core IP were doing anything illegal. “If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason,” he wrote.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 04-07-2009, 06:04 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I can't help but wonder if Roger Friedman was tired and fed up with working for Fox News and pulled this stunt to get out of the place. Surely he knew X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a 20th Century Fox release and that 20th Century Fox is a property of News Corp. -Friedman's employer. He had to have posted his review of the bootleg movie on purpose, right? He couldn't have been so stupid to be unaware of the consequences of his online comments, right?

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Bet you won't see any FBI agents dragging anyone off the Fox lot in handcuffs.

---

I have heard that the master was sent to Fox Studios in Queensland australia for the final soundmixing. It was said that the online file appeared following this and also 200,000 pirate DVd,s.

maybe someone should rock up with the cuffs
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-09-2009, 05:20 AM:
 
Isn't the Fux Studios in New South Wales? I know we have Warnout Bros here in Queensland.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-10-2009, 08:38 PM:
 
A month ago I didnt see how Wolverine was going to do any business with Star Trek coming out 7 days later. Unless they could hype the film up and give it major press in april .........
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2009, 09:26 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Oh come on...I don't know why all the fuss... Every single one of us would come up with a nice review with phrases like "Jackman's stunnig performance", "extraordinary special effects" etc. That's why I treat what this guy wrote (whatever we may call it) as a good funny joke-surely he has a sense of humour.

---

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

A month ago I didnt see how Wolverine was going to do any business with Star Trek coming out 7 days later.

---

Wolverine is one of the most (if not the most) popular characters in all the comic book world. If someone told me there were more X-Men fans than Star Trek fans, I wouldn't be argue. All three of the X-Men movies went over $150 mil domestically, with 2 and 3 going well over $200 mil. The last Star Trek movie to go over $100 mil domestic was IV: The Voyage Home in 1986.

My point is: Woverine is going to be huge regardless of what marketing they have done this month. I'm guessing it will double the gross of Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-11-2009, 09:50 PM:
 
Rentrak projections have Wolverine at $156.4 and Star Trek at $182.3

Edit

Opening weekend

Wolverine-67.1
Star Trek-72.0
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-11-2009, 10:21 PM:
 
I don't know about final grosses, but opening weekend numbers might just favor Wolverine because it's the first one out of the chute. After all, Iron Man made $98 million on the first weekend of May. The next weekend it was Speed Racer. I don't think Star Trek will do as poorly as Speed Racer, of course, but there is something to be said about stealing everyone else's thunder just because you're first.

quote: Chad Souder

---

The last Star Trek movie to go over $100 mil domestic was IV: The Voyage Home in 1986.

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

Isn't the Fux Studios in New South Wales? I know we have Warnout Bros here in Queensland.

---

yes indeedy the foxes lair is in NSW.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-13-2009, 12:51 PM:
 
Just clicked ENTER too quickly (things happen, right? ) As soon as I learn how to delete an entire post, move along, please.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-13-2009, 01:09 PM:
 

quote:

---

Bobby Henderson

If you have an employee who is directly undermining your business and even going so far to publicly say in a published work how easy it is to do by describing the act as like "walking out into the rain," heh heh, simply put, you fire his ass.

---

Still I wouldn'y get too excited about the whole affair: there obviously are people at Fox who take a great deal of money just to make sure such cases are "spinned" to their advantage. For me it was Friedman who made first attempt at taking this in stride, apparently without anybody's permission.

Let's not forget the culprits(s): those who made the copy of the workprint and put it in the Net. They are to blame; not the guy who wrote the review because he actually MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN the movie. Everyone knows how easy it is to make an opinion about a movie without seeing it.

PS.
Raise your hands those of you who haven't got a peek at the Wolverine workprint. I did
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2009, 01:55 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Let's not forget the culprits(s): those who made the copy of the workprint and put it in the Net. They are to blame; not the guy who wrote the review because he actually MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN the movie.

---

Both parties have blame to share. I agree, the person(s) who leaked the work print are the primary culprits. An investigation is underway to find who committed the crime. Nevertheless, anyone watching the Wolverine work print is participating in the act of piracy as well. It is a crime. Sure, the risk of getting caught and prosecuted is very low to non-existent, but the lack of risk doesn't make the act of using pirated media acceptable.

Regarding Friedman, my understanding of the incident is that he did watch the work print and went as far to say that downloading the illegal copy was as easy as taking a walk in the rain.

I also wonder if there is more to Friedman's dismissal than just the Wolverine story -that perhaps the issue may be bigger than Friedman alone. Fox News is a very successful cable network, but rumors suggest its camp does not get along with some of the other media companies under the News Corp. umbrella. Maybe the review of the leaked Wolverine movie was a "shot across the bow" example of internal corporate politics. The Fox News guys know they're making News Corp. a bunch of money and want a greater level of respect for that.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-13-2009, 02:29 PM:
 
Seems like we disagree right from the beginning: I have nothing against downloading and widespreading (via Internet) media content (movies, music).

(I can only imagine how angry you must be now. But before casting some insulting phrases take your time and search the web - you may come across a great deal of thought-provoking ideas).

So for me this whole Wolverine affair is yet another way to rise interest about the movie.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-13-2009, 03:13 PM:
 
Pretty simple: Downloading reduces DVD sales + studios make money off DVD sales = Studios make less money because of illegal downloading; money they could be spending to make other movies.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-13-2009, 03:25 PM:
 
There's virtually no proof to the statement that the more downloads, the fewer DVDs sold. This thing has been reiterated many a times without providing any data (I cannot even imagine how would they look like-there are far too many assumptions to be made).
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-13-2009, 03:49 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

There's virtually no proof to the statement that the more downloads, the fewer DVDs sold.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

There is a point, indeed.
Downloading something doesn't mean that someone is not going to buy DVD (or music CD, or a cinema ticket and so on). Every estimation of money that is supposedly lost to the entertainment industry makes this (too far-fetched for me) assumption.

---

It doesn't matter if it doesn't cost the industry a single penny. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft. Rationalize it however you like, but if you are knowingly viewing content you are not authorized by rightful owner to view, you are stealing it.

How would you even attempt to prove the impact of downloads on DVD or ticket sales? Common sense tells you that if someone has already watched a movie, they are less likely to pay to watch it again. If they have downloaded a DVD quality file, they are less likely to purchase a DVD.

One individual I know has a lot of pirated DVDs, mostly from screen rips. He doesn't buy duplicate titles via official DVD releases, I assure you.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-14-2009, 03:57 AM:
 
Anslem,
don't you think that some things (e.g. consumers' behaviour connected with the products they do/don't buy) aren't ruled by common sense? If your friend downloads stuff without buying it afterwards doesn't mean that the majority of consumers do it the same way.

I think that the economists nowadays tend to incline to the opinion that describing economy with any digestible equations is
impossible since you can hardly predict anything about it. Seems like there are too many factors (variables?) included in the process to say anything for sure.

From your posts above it turns out I'm a thief But are you all sure you don't have little sins on your side? Is every single programme on your hard drives legally obtained? What about taxes-are there any loopholes you use from time to time?
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-14-2009, 05:40 AM:
 

quote:

---

From your posts above it turns out I'm a thief [Wink] But are you all sure you don't have little sins on your side? [evil] Is every single programme on your hard drives legally obtained? What about taxes-are there any loopholes you use from time to time?

---

I have downloaded and viewed pirate copies, I'm not claiming innocence. And guess what, I didn't view them for pay after that. It has been at least 6 years since I checked that avenue out, and I still haven't purchased or rented the titles I viewed.

I am not rich enough to exploit tax loopholes, so that one's off base.

Every thing on my hard drive currently is legal, just so you know. I have a music subscription service for my tunes, and I only view movies and tv shows on HULU now.

Other than that I watch on DVD and via satellite, so I'm pretty safe.

Your argument about others being guilty doesn't change the fact that stealing is stealing. And if you knowingly obtain and view material you are not licensed to view, then you ARE a thief.

I have first hand knowledge of people with pirated movies that do not buy them legally after obtaining them illegally. Do you honestly know anyone that downloads DVD quality bootlegs and then buys them on DVD anyway?

And when it comes to the economics of an industry that I have a personal stake in, I would rather err on the side of caution than pretend it has no impact.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-14-2009, 06:31 AM:
 
Anslem,
actually only the first paragraph of my last post concerned your previous statements-that's why I left 2 lines blank. Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.
Surely I'm not the one to point out your wrong-doings/sins/whatever .
It's very laudable you abide by law. Try spicing your life a bit and do something against it (kidding! )
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2009, 10:00 AM:
 
Anslem -

You're wasting your time trying to reason with this guy. Advocates of illegal file sharing are convinced they're not hurting anyone and they'll never change their minds. They also think they're poor innocent victims when the "law" finally catches up with them and slaps them with a huge fine.

For the record, I have not seen the "Wolverine" work print, but that doesn't really say much....I probably won't see the real thing when we play it either!
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-14-2009, 11:04 AM:
 
Mike,

with all due respect but you miss the point by a mile. Nobody's trying to convince anybody; we're all having a proper discussion here-I've always thought that's what fora are for.

Turns out that playing a devil's advocate is a tough task.
I knew that sooner or later somebody would come up and say the discussion is pointless just because they have the law behind their backs- and that's sort of argument that cannot be undermined. The idea is to look at the facts critically i.e. devote some time to analyzing it. Then you might think that the world is not black-and-white and there are two sides to every coin (don't know if it's the right expression but you get the idea).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2009, 11:09 AM:
 
To borrow a line from Mike Heenan, I'll just say:

 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-14-2009, 11:12 AM:
 
What "side" of your coin makes downloading OK?

Somehow, I don't think you could convince the owners of the stolen content that your rationale is correct.

And as for having the "law at my back", that's all I need. Don't like it? Change the law. Any rationale you come up with won't make it right, polite discussions or not.

Agreed...


 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-14-2009, 11:27 AM:
 
As for : if you're not interested in a discussion, just don't participate. Plain and simple. There are so many interesting topics out there on these forums, why you waste your time over here?
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-14-2009, 11:42 AM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

don't you think that some things (e.g. consumers' behaviour connected with the products they do/don't buy) aren't ruled by common sense? If your friend downloads stuff without buying it afterwards doesn't mean that the majority of consumers do it the same way.

---

quote:

---

From your posts above it turns out I'm a thief [Wink] But are you all sure you don't have little sins on your side? [evil] Is every single programme on your hard drives legally obtained? What about taxes-are there any loopholes you use from time to time?

---

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

One individual I know has a lot of pirated DVDs, mostly from screen rips. He doesn't buy duplicate titles via official DVD releases, I assure you.

---

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

Common sense tells you that if someone has already watched a movie, they are less likely to pay to watch it again. If they have downloaded a DVD quality file, they are less likely to purchase a DVD.

---

What he did is called Converse Fallacy of Accident

The 2nd quotation from my post that you're refering to:
what I wanted to say is that we shouldn't be too hard on others (and call them thieves ) since we ourselves do mistakes (i.e. act against the law).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2009, 01:15 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

we shouldn't be too hard on others (and call them thieves ) since we ourselves do mistakes (i.e. act against the law).

---

Why not? There's probably not a person alive who hasn't stolen a little something at some point. That doesn't lower the "standard" for what constitutes theft.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-14-2009, 01:41 PM:
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but you claim the right to call somebody "a thief" for doing the same thing that you probably did in the past/will do in the future?

Isn't that called hypocrisy ?
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-14-2009, 01:50 PM:
 
Why are you justifying this by turning a fact back on the people who, rightly, point out that it is wrong.

Whether they or I may (or may not) have done the same thing does not make it right, nor does it justify it for you.

I used to get this same noise from my kids, before they grew up, and some of my customers try the same...

"sir, you need to stop honking your horn".

"why? that guy over there is doing the same thing".


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2009, 02:07 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but you claim the right to call somebody "a thief" for doing the same thing that you probably did in the past/will do in the future?

Isn't that called hypocrisy?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

You can throw two convicted murderers in the same jail cell with each other. One can call the other a murderer and still be correct by that call regardless of what he did himself. Perhaps the other guy can try to throw the "hypocrite" response, but it doesn't change the fact he is indeed a convicted murderer.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I don't see anyone here fitting that description.

---

But you have to agree that you don't know everyone on this forum and the sentence just states your belief, not a fact (BTW, you can call me hypocrite for I suit your definition perfectly)

Step by step we're getting closer to fundamentals for instance, is law perfect? (are those who make it really doing that for our benefit?); what about the civil disobedience? (and before you cast an "A" word at me- i'm NO ANARCHIST-I do pay taxes )
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-14-2009, 04:27 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Inspired by your example, let me give you the one that has ocurred to me: a guy who steals therabites of movies is by no means a thief and a kid that repeatedly steals food because it's hungry is also (according to law) a thief. But are they "equal" thieves? Whose side are you on? Would you even dare to take sides in this situation?

---

quote:

---

Step by step we're getting closer to fundamentals for instance, is law perfect? (are those who make it really doing that for our benefit?); what about the civil disobedience? (and before you cast an "A" word at me- i'm NO ANARCHIST-I do pay taxes [Big Grin] )

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

No one here is arguing that our laws are perfect

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

real civil disobedience

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

But still you (and I don't necessarily mean you Chris) choose to follow the laws that in some instances may be bad; you have a gut feeling it's bad and nevertheless choose to abide by it because "that's the law".

---

quote:

---

civil disobedience
n. Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Doesn't a certain action become a true civil disobedience only after we know the overall outcome (and I don't mean a win/lose situation)?

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Sure, it doesn't change the obvious (simple definiton: sb who stole sth = a thief) but it takes away the power from the statement "You're a thief!" It just doesn't sound so pejorative anymore.

---

quote:

---

BTW, you can call me hypocrite :wink: for I suit your definition perfectly

---

Wrong. You're advocating piracy and implying you may be taking part in the practice of it. That isn't hypocrisy. Still, the statement is advocacy of a criminal activity.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-15-2009, 02:31 AM:
 
I can see the discussion came to a point where emotional statement (opinions) prevail over sound arguments. I would have to repeat myself all the time and I don't like it.

What I don't like is the implication that I download stuff from the Internet- you cannot say that for sure. For the sake of discussion I may even admit that-then you have only my statment that still doesn't proof anything.

Thanks for the discussion

Wishing you all good luck

Janusz
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-15-2009, 02:34 AM:
 
Janusz, if you come on here and state that you are proud that you illegally downloaded a unfinished unreleased copy of something and even if you put next to it every time (The devil guy would say to me that you know what your doing is wrong, but you don't care) you still did something illegal. If you want to admit it or not is beside the point, you've done nothing in your first 30 or so post on here to make anyone take anything you have to say in the future seriously.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-15-2009, 02:50 AM:
 

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

you've done nothing in your first 30 or so post on here to make anyone take anything you have to say in the future seriously.

---

Losing credibility in 30 posts, that's a feat, wouldn't you say? If you (and again I'm not refering to you Kurt) didn't want a discussion why posting a reply?

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

that you are proud that you illegally downloaded a unfinished unreleased copy

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

What makes you think so? Confession to something is not the same as being proud of it.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Troll.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Troll.

---

There are certain words and phrases we use when a we don't want to discuss. For instance, we say "You're just a kid. How can you possibly know?" to our children since we are tired of them challenging our ideas; "I don't have time for this." is yet another example.
It's pretty much the same with Internet fora: there are various ways of discrediting your oponent- you can label him "a troll" for instance. That surely ends the discussion but does it solve the issue?

There's a lesson to be learnt: if you feel strongly about something, use arguments especially when you know there are so many of them. And don't get angry! It doesn't help either.

Astonished as I was when first I looked at the number of posts some of you have, I keep reminding myself that quantity is no quality. So save the posts consisting of single word/emoticon or blank for some less serious matters.

PS. Edited to correct grammar mistake: sure it's "a lesson" and not "an lesson". Thanks for pointing that out guys

[ 04-16-2009, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Janusz Antkiewicz ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-15-2009, 03:43 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

I can see the discussion came to a point where emotional statement (opinions) prevail over sound arguments.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I admit having watched it a couple of days ago.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

(Are movies/music only for entertainment or can they play much more vital role in certain communities/countries/nations?) Again I'd say it is.
Can you imagine a situation where an illegally downloaded movie actually saved somebody's life?

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

I'd like to bring to your attention this civil disobedience In the definition certain expression seems to be vital: the active refusal to obey certain laws and in the next paragraph these laws are referred to as unfair laws.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Is denying people freedom of speech an example of an unfair law? I'd say it is.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Downloading something doesn't mean that someone is not going to buy DVD (or music CD, or a cinema ticket and so on). Every estimation of money that is supposedly lost to the entertainment industry makes this (too far-fetched for me) assumption.

---

quote: Carl Martin

---

the notion of "intellectual" property has been around for, what, 200 years or so? nowhere near as long as that of physical property. and they've always been treated differently under the law.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

There's an lesson to be learnt

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Yeah, like: "Speak English properly and maybe you'll have more credibility with me."

---

FYI: Learnt is proper English. Learned is only used by us Americans.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-16-2009, 12:03 PM:
 
Please, let's not make it a discussion about grammar/linguistic(al?) mistakes because I admit there are plenty of them in my posts. However much I care about everything I write (in both grammatical and ideological sense ) I know there's a lot to be learnt. If you come across any mistake (and I'm especially interested in phrases/idioms like "to have law at one's back" instead of "to have law behind one's back" which is direct translation of the same phrase) fell free to let me know. I'd really appreciate that.

quote: Chad Souder

---

Thus far, you've alluded to these devil's advocate stances, but you have not plainly stated you believe them. I am just looking for clarification.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL meaning "AGAINST THE LAW" meaning it's a CRIME and if you do it, you are a THIEF.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

Are you saying that after illegally downloading a movie, that person is more likely to either go buy a ticket or buy the same movie on DVD?

---

That's a bold one Is it even remotely possible that a person download illegal stuff and then actually buys a legal version? Have anyone tried estimating how many such peope are out there? Is it at all measurable? You're right to say that common sense tells you it's rather improbable but still not impossible to find many of such people. But, like I previously claimed, the economy is, by it's sole idea, something uncontrollable since you cannot govern certain variables (for example consumer moods i.e. are they going to buy a particular good or not).

These all are broad statements; fundamentals to think over and have a discussion about.
That sort of thing I had originally in mind:

quote: Carl Martin

---

stealing is not necessarily stealing. there are different senses of the word. if i steal your shoe you don't have it anymore. if i steal your idea you probably still have it. if i steal your girlfriend you don't have her anymore but the law has nothing to say about it.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

But bearing that in mind, I allow myself to think that generally law is not perfect. (Actually it sometimes can be so far from perfection that we think to ourselves: "What kind of !@#$% came up with that regulation! I'd do so much better than that!.) There may be cases where some regulations can be interpreted quite differently and at times act in favour of something (someone) that in light of facts (not opinions!) should be punished.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Is it even remotely possible that a person download illegal stuff and then actually buys a legal version? Have anyone tried estimating how many such peope are out there? Is it at all measurable? You're right to say that common sense tells you it's rather improbable but still not impossible to find many of such people.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

FYI: Learnt is proper English. Learned is only used by us Americans.

---

Speak American then.

I was actually referring to "an lesson". Is that proper too? If it is, maybe I should start speaking in binary.
 

---

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 04-16-2009, 02:55 PM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Again, I have to point out that your reasoning here appears to be NOT that this law is bad and allowed to be broken, but that laws generally are not perfect.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

the people in industry are going to reasonably react to the actions of the majority of people that download

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

your newspaper example is ridiculous

---

I'm sorry to hear that because I spent some time trying to make it a nice reading.
The story about the murder is in no way connected with the discussion about illegal downloading. Except for one thing. Its aim is to show how our preferences may vary as we get to know more facts and something that we originally strongly disapprove of might turn into tolerance. It surely doesn't put an equation mark between a murder and illegal downloading. Unless you've started finishing off those who do that last thing
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-16-2009, 03:20 PM:
 

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

You know what bothers me: the fact that we (as humankind) are able to set foot on the Moon but we (and I mean large powerful companies) fail miserably trying to come up with an idea to put an end to piracy? Come on, there are so many computer/technology geeks around the world; we're so technically advanced so where's the problem?

---

It bothers me more that this is considered a reasonable argument.

But I'll bite:
How many people actively try to circumvent anti-piracy methods? It's at least hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. Now how many people actively try to circumvent our ability to land on the moon? Not very many; I'd say it's close to 0. In fact, I'd say even terrorists don't really care about the astronauts and aren't focusing on stopping them.

Also, for us to succeed in landing on the moon it only really needed to be done once. Once we do it, we could forever say "we did it." But if we make an anti-piracy method, it has to work repeatedly over many, many trials.

And since you ask "since we're so technically advanced, where's the problem?" The problem is that EVERYONE is technically advanced... not just the people making anti-piracy technology. If the people working against the anti-piracy technology were all a bunch of idiots with no understanding of computers, you'd have a point. But since there are "computer geeks throughout the world" working against the technology, your point fails.

This analogy fails big-time.

And to take your analogy further,
We were able to go to the moon but unable to cure cancer. We have lots of doctors/pathologists throughout the world. Where's the problem?

Obviously, the problem is that "curing cancer" and "removing all forms of piracy" is a lot harder than you might've thought.

Or we can fly to the moon and not cure HIV/AIDS. Now what's the problem? Well, the moon doesn't mutate into forms that make it impossible to fly to whereas HIV mutates a lot.

[ 04-16-2009, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Slycord ]
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-17-2009, 07:35 AM:
 
I just came to this thread this morning and am on my third cup of coffee to get to page six, and my thinking as I am reading is, "Lawdy lawd, they've all gone crazy."

That aside, my only comment would be that I think a person could have his own ethical stance regardless of the law, as in, I want to download this particular movie because, as in this case, I am very interested in the movie from the get-go and being able to see a rough cut is enticing, but not exclusive of my wanting to to do what I planned on doing in the first place, i.e., paying the ticket price and seeing in the theatre. I KNOW my downloading it will not change that. Indeed, it may very well motivate me to want to see it all the more, so PERSONALLY, I know I am not stealing anyone's intellectual property....they are gonna get my money (and it seems that money is all this argument hinges on...i.e., who's getting ripped off by the action of someone downloading an unauthorized copy). This doesn't, however, stop me from being labeled "thief" and I will be the first to admit that because technically, that is correct -- I am a statutory thief. And it doesn't bother me. I would also ponder whether my action would in some way encourage more piracy and that would make a BIG difference, but since I am not paying anyone for this illegal download, that would be unlikely. BUYING a bootleg DVD would finance bootlegging and that would be a totally different set of ramifications. But my personal act of downloading this particular title, no. Thievry, it is by definition; unethical on my part, no. I think that is where this argument got entangled.

For me, this kind of statutory breaking the law would be the same as if I am driving on an open road country road at 3am and I come to a stoplight and I can see in all directions that there are no other cars as far as the eye can see; do I stop and wait for an dumb stop signal to turn green to tell me I can go, or do I use my reason to determine that it is perfectly safe to proceed, regardless of what the inanimate device says. If I ignore the red light, sure, I am breaking a law. Am I uncomfortable with that? No. In fact, I would be VERY uncomfortable thinking that I made my own powers of reason and deduction subservient to a mechanical device. It would be a act against humanity.

Uh-oh, what is it about this thread.....now I am going crazy too.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-17-2009, 11:15 AM:
 
Excellent post, Frank. I think the thing that puts the wind into Janusz’s sails is that the copyright protectors have gone a bit overboard in trying to claim “damage” for the slightest infraction.

Example: I made a silly monster movie with my friend and his kids. We made it even goofier by using music and sound effects from Hollywood movies. We put it on YouTube and, presto! A few months later it was flagged for copyright violation for a 30-second clip of music from Outland. How in the world did we hurt the copyright holder? If anything, we were bringing more publicity to Outland than it’s received in decades! And I doubt anyone would say, “Oh, good. Now I don’t have to buy that soundtrack CD myself because I can get this 30-second clip of music from YouTube!”

So we took it off of YouTube and now we just enjoy our “illegal infringement” in the privacy of our own homes. I didn’t want to “appeal” the issue to the powers-that-be at YouTube (but, yes, there appears to be a process for that). And that’s another point. Those who engage in “civil disobedience” have to be willing to be arrested for what they do. I’m not. I quickly surrendered based on a simple warning. But I still thought it was unfair and I wasn’t hurting anyone. If anything, I was helping the copyright holders.

Some people in Hollywood “get it.” You’ll find countless tributes to Star Wars or Star Trek on YouTube using pictures, sound effects and music from the copyrighted material. And some copyright holders realize that this kind of derivative, fan appreciation is a good thing.

Meanwhile, I oppose the unauthorized distribution of a Wolverine work print online. But make no mistake. The blame for this goes squarely on the people who were responsible for the movie in the first place. They were in charge of keeping it secure. If the people who downloaded it and then sent it to their friends are punished more than the real culprits, then this is the end of civilization! …or something like that.

And I just had another thought. What's the difference between letting your friend into your theatre to see a movie for free and giving him an official pass to do so? What if there's no rule to limit the number of passes you can give out? What if there is a limit but you never reach it? Lots of people see movies without paying to see them... sometimes at your theatre with your knowledge! But they aren't theives because "it's who you know." Either way, the studio lost money.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-17-2009, 12:24 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

The blame for this goes squarely on the people who were responsible for the movie in the first place. They were in charge of keeping it secure. If the people who downloaded it and then sent it to their friends are punished more than the real culprits, then this is the end of civilization! …or something like that.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Indeed, it may very well motivate me to want to see it all the more, so PERSONALLY, I know I am not stealing anyone's intellectual property....they are gonna get my money (and it seems that money is all this argument hinges on...i.e., who's getting ripped off by the action of someone downloading an unauthorized copy).

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

And I just had another thought. What's the difference between letting your friend into your theatre to see a movie for free and giving him an official pass to do so? What if there's no rule to limit the number of passes you can give out? What if there is a limit but you never reach it? Lots of people see movies without paying to see them... sometimes at your theatre with your knowledge! But they aren't theives because "it's who you know." Either way, the studio lost money.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

The problem is that EVERYONE is technically advanced... not just the people making anti-piracy technology.

---

That would somehow imply that there's kind of balance of power between the two opponents (here we have clearly defined adversaries)-the idea that doesn't necessarily appeal to me. It seems the entertainment industry (allow me to use this broad term to include various people connected with music/film as well as companies e.g. distributors) has a lot more resources (both creative and financial ones) than illegal downloaders (also those who share it, burn it on DVDs etc.). However the first ones are probably outnumbered. There's really nothing the rest of the people (that is those who aren't part of any of these two groups) can do to prevent the illegal activities other than preach and reason with them.

Second, treating illegal downloading as an incurable disease in terms of our technical advancement and our effort in putting an end to them is not fair, however good it might at first appear. (As far as I know there's a cure that helps in some cases of cancer e.g. breast cancer and it's surgical operation.) From time to time there's some news that new medicines are discovered that make a breakthrough in this anticancer/AIDS war. It shows that it's time and money well-spent as they give a chance of winning it. (I'm certainly no medic but it seems to me that an uncurable disease is the kind of enemy whose steps cannot be predicted, figuratively speaking.).
What I really claim is that maybe certain parties in this anti-dowloading war are, at the core, not so much interested in succeeding.

Frank, thanks for you insight-it shows you've actually read what's been written in this thread.

quote: Frank Angel

---

I think a person could have his own ethical stance regardless of the law

---

I like this idea. I would go as far as to say that he shouldn't keep his ethical stance for himself but he's morally obliged to challenge the society with it. If an individual wants to be a part of society he has to meet certain requirements, one of them being: working to make the situation of society (all the people living around) better (as in improving existing law).
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-17-2009, 01:17 PM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

That's like saying that if I have a weapon that I'm supposed to secure and some guy breaks in, takes it, and kills people with it that the only person to blame is me.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

They sue people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading one album's worth of songs, for example.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

What is the industry supposed to do? If they DON'T portray it as a major crime, then people would develop a ho-hum attitude about it.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

If you released an unauthorized copy of a U2 album to the whole world, you should be punished accordingly. But should the person who downloaded it from you be sued for many thousands of dollars too?

---

quote:

---

This also points out the hypocricy of web sites like Aint It Cool News. They have no problem posting reviews from test audience screenings or even reviewing a script! But they suddenly found "standards" when they refused to review this particular work print. Oh, I admire them soooo much!

---

quote:

---

Too late. Treating it as a major crime now just antagonizes the customer. The average consumer is thinking, "Wait a minute! The music industry is just part of "Big Business." Big Business created the CD, the Internet, MP3 files and the iPod. I'm just using what they made for me to use, and I'm being creative about how I use it!"

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Today's average teenager thinks absolutely nothing of sharing music with his friends. That kid's going to grow up and still think very little of it. And then that kid's going to be elected to legislative positions and, well, I wonder how copyright laws will look after that.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

That would somehow imply that there's kind of balance of power between the two opponents (here we have clearly defined adversaries)-the idea that doesn't necessarily appeal to me. It seems the entertainment industry (allow me to use this broad term to include various people connected with music/film as well as companies e.g. distributors) has a lot more resources (both creative and financial ones) than illegal downloaders (also those who share it, burn it on DVDs etc.). However the first ones are probably outnumbered. There's really nothing the rest of the people (that is those who aren't part of any of these two groups) can do to prevent the illegal activities other than preach and reason with them.

---

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz

---

Second, treating illegal downloading as an incurable disease in terms of our technical advancement and our effort in putting an end to them is not fair, however good it might at first appear. (As far as I know there's a cure that helps in some cases of cancer e.g. breast cancer and it's surgical operation.)

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Few people get to attend test screenings. Few have access to scripts of movies in production.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Anyone that likes watching movies and TV shows with any kind of budget at all had better hope the copyright laws are maintained and enforced.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I talk about kids "sharing" files online and calling themselves clever for doing it and you equate that with stealing cars. Again, the escalation in your analogy is what's hurting our cause. Most kids who think nothing of "sharing" their favorite song with their friends would never dream of stealing a car or stealing gas. When you lecture them and suggest that connection, you lose credibility with them.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

It seems like the record companies aren't even happy about legal downloading (like the iTunes music store). After all, they can no longer "force" you to pay $15 for an album that only has one good song on it.

---

quote:

---

"The brain is a recording device," explained RIAA president Cary Sherman. "The act of listening is an unauthorized act of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or remembering a song is unauthorized playback."

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

a “music industry expert” (I don’t really know who it was so I can’t vouch for his credentials, but he seemed to know what he was talking about) and he had determined that the proper pricing for downloaded songs (like on iTunes), considering supply-and-demand, “manufacturing costs,” royalties and a host of other factors was actually just 5 cents per song.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

And as much as I understand Bobby's concern as an artist who earns a living by his creativity, you have to admit that there is quite a distinction between that song writer or graphic artist or novelist who actually do the real creating, and say a big record label which notoriously been known to steal from those very same artists.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

This, apparently, was not illegal.

---

I'm pretty sure in my country (which is part of the EU and has its legislation adapted to "European standards") it's not against the law to taperecord music from radio- I clearly remember one of our artist, who takes part in antipiracy campaign, to encourage taperecording (seems like ideal proposal for the poor) rather than illegal filesharing.

So we come to the money issue. Don't know about an album price vs. an average wage in the USA but in my country they are way too expansive (there are not many albums I can buy for my monthly payment e.g. I can buy 62 copies of Metallica's last album and it's only because it's half a regular price).

Letting customers buy individual tracks rather than whole albums was a godd move. However I've been said that this music is not perfect i.e. (some?) tracks have lower bitrate (or something-wish I was an expert on that, too ); the idea is that they are deprived of some (hardly distiguishable by a human) lines and beats.

Suing individual people and claiming multimillion fines is no good strategy either. I think it's been proved that a big punishment (exemplary punishment) does not actually deter people from acting against the law (as far as I can remember the research for correlation between the capital punishment that exists in some states and the number of serious crimes on their territory did not deter people from committing them). It's worth pointing out how silly this RIAA sometimes seems to act; and it's possible to win with it RIAA loses
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-18-2009, 01:45 PM:
 
I admit that the 5-cent song theory sounded extreme to me too. But you can listen to the guy yourself if you want to.

It's LEGAL to download this free MP3 file of a podcast. And then listen starting at about the 31:15 mark for the relevant speech.

I suppose the reason this seems so crazy is that we've been conditioned to believe, for the past 20 years or so, that a CD should cost $15. Odd, then, that the price hasn't changed despite changes in manufacturing costs, studio costs and everything else related to creating an album. We just know, without wondering why, that a CD should cost $15. So, I found the speech interesting, to say the least.

I don't really know for sure, but I've always heard that the only way a band really makes money is by touring and selling T-shirts. The profits from the recordings are pretty-much eaten up by the record company anyway. (Again, not that it makes it okay to steal recordings, but I'm just saying that I'd rather pay the artist for the music I enjoy.)
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-18-2009, 04:55 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Odd, then, that the price hasn't changed despite changes in manufacturing costs, studio costs and everything else related to creating an album.

---

I don't know why I have to repeat this EVERY SINGLE TIME music discussions come up, but it's still true: CDs don't have to cost $15. Some do, but many are much less. Anything from the Universal Music Group (the largest company) has a list price of $13.98 and a shelf price would be less than that in stores. While it's true that many disks have a list price up to $18.98, the shelf price in stores can be all the way down to $13 or less and it's possible to buy far cheaper in many other ways: Catch'em on sale when they first come out, buy a used copy within days for a third of the cost on Amazon or eBay, etc.

CDs are one of the few products whose prices have come DOWN in recent years. Even movies can't make that claim.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-18-2009, 06:28 PM:
 
I can't bear the guilt of buying a used CD. How do I know that the previous owner has destroyed every back-up of the CD or every track on his iPod before I bought it. I'd feel like I was receiving stolen property.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-18-2009, 08:21 PM:
 
I don't have much of a problem buying used CDs. As long as they're in proper working order it's fine by me.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

While it's true that many disks have a list price up to $18.98, the shelf price in stores can be all the way down to $13 or less and it's possible to buy far cheaper in many other ways: Catch'em on sale when they first come out, buy a used copy within days for a third of the cost on Amazon or eBay, etc.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

So your solution to artists being paid poorly is to guarantee them to be paid even less? They're paid a (very small) percentage of sales, so you making sure the sales decrease doesn't exactly help them.

---

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

My theatre has officially won the World Premiere of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

---

I thought that was at Janusz's place weeks ago.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-20-2009, 04:53 AM:
 

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

Well back to the Wolverine topic, My theatre has officially won the World Premiere of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It will be held at Tempe Marketplace 16 in Tempe, Arizona on the 27th of this month. There will be a press conference tomorrow morning at 12 with a message from Hugh Jackman.

I'm super excited for this and can not wait. Go Marketplace!!!

Ok you can go back to your arguing and what not.

---

I thought the vote picked the city. How did your theater get chosen?

I'm happy for you, I'm just curious how they chose a particular theater, especially when Scottsdale and the Phoenix area have so many theaters.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-20-2009, 05:11 AM:
 
Tempe won the contest, and it was decided that if Tempe won then it would be held in the Cine Capri at Tempe Marketplace. Which would be my theatre.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-20-2009, 06:38 AM:
 
Was it already determined by Fox that if Tempe won, it would be held at your theater? I only ask because what is the incentive for other theaters to promote the contest?

Again, I'm not trying to take anything from you or your theater, I am merely curious as to the logistics for the contest.

Congratulations are DEFINITELY in order, enjoy it.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-20-2009, 07:39 AM:
 
Harkins put everything behind Tempe and Tempe Marketplace. The Marketing team for the company did a great job, everyone from Bryan and Melissa down to every last team member pushed our zip code to win.

I'm sure AMC, Cinemark, GQTI, or any other theatre or company could of done the same thing. They may even have.

Thank you everyone as well

[ 04-20-2009, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Kurt Zupin ]
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-04-2009, 09:26 AM:
 
This movie suffered from bad reviews and the most well-publicized on-line leak ever. But it still made $87 million on its opening weekend. So, why don't I trust the industry's estimation about how much piracy is killing them? It seems to me that if piracy is really hurting the industry then it must only apply to low-profile movies which weren't going to do big business anyway.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-04-2009, 09:59 AM:
 
The last X-Men (Last Stand) also suffered from bad reviews, was a really bad movie, yet did $102 mil opening weekend, so you could still make the piracy hurts argument.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-04-2009, 10:49 AM:
 
More likely some people are just getting sick of bad X-Men sequels.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-04-2009, 09:33 PM:
 
The producers of Wolverine & Star Trek must be so stupid.

Don't they know that their movies would've undoubtely grossed two, three or four times as much if they would've made them 3D instead of 2D?

They must be total idiots losers that don't know squat about the movie business.

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-04-2009, 11:33 PM:
 
The real idiots are the business people who expect each successive sequel to make even more money than the last, no matter how increasingly shitty and derivative the next sequel may be. On more than a few occasions the general public plays along letting these douches think they have a great business strategy.

To apply this seriously bent logic on something else, let's say I decide to eat 10 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all in one sitting -one right after the other without stopping.

Movie business guy logic says each PB&J sandwich eaten should taste even better than the last. By the time I finish that tenth PB&J sandwich I should just be absolutely hell bent on eating an eleventh sandwich and perhaps be willing to pay a shit load of money or even kill for that sandwich. Getting the same damned thing over and over again is increasingly great!

In reality, if I ate 10 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all at once I would be in some serious pain and very angry at myself for such a gluttonous act of stupidity. I'd hate peanut butter so much that I might shit in that jar of Skippy™ and hurl it at a speeding truck. Jelly is still pretty good stuff. High fructose corn syrup rocks!
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-04-2009, 11:53 PM:
 
Yeah, I watched the last 15 minutes or so, and was pretty disappointed. In that space of time, they used Deus Ex Machina like five times, and contradicted my prior knowledge about Wolverine's backstory significantly. I'm going to pass on this one.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-05-2009, 09:46 AM:
 

quote:

---

Getting the same damned thing over and over again is increasingly great!

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The real idiots are the business people who expect each successive sequel to make even more money than the last, no matter how increasingly shitty and derivative the next sequel may be.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Once upon a time, a "series" was something you made for TV. Film was "art" and TV was furniture. And everybody knew that the best writers were working in film.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

For instance, try to use a DVR to record "American Idol" to watch the next day and manage not to find out who was voted off before you watch.

---