Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Expendables 3 Leaked Online, Downloaded 189,000 Times in 24 Hours

This is topic Expendables 3 Leaked Online, Downloaded 189,000 Times in 24 Hours 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=002819

Posted by Mike Peterson (Member # 4049) on 07-25-2014, 06:01 PM:

It's not even due out in the theatres for another 3 weeks. I hope Lionsgate and every other studio starts to look at themselves instead of trying to push blame and police the theatres. The problem is in house; always has and always will be. Nobody wants to watch a cam video anyways. Also has anyone heard of a successful hack into a server/IMB to record an encrypted feed?

'Expendables 3' Leaks Online, Pirated Copy Downloaded 189,000 Times in 24 Hours

By Todd Spangler

A DVD-quality copy of actioner The Expendables 3, starring Sylvester Stallone, has been downloaded via piracy sites more than 189,000 times over a 24-hour period — three weeks ahead of the U.S. premiere.

The leak of the film on the Internet ahead of its theatrical debut, an unusually rare occurrence, could dampen box office for Expendables 3. It’s also worth noting that the target demo for the movie is young males, who are the biggest users of illegal file-sharing services.

With 21 days left to go before the Aug. 15 premiere, the number of illegal downloads of Expendables 3 will certainly soar into the millions.

Lionsgate, which is distributing the movie, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the leak. The original source of the pirated copy is unclear; user comments posted on piracy websites indicate the rip is genuine.

Pirated copies of Expendables 3 began cropping up on torrent-sharing sites Wednesday and downloads started to spike Thursday, according to data provided by piracy-analytics firm Excipio. As of 6 p.m. Eastern Thursday, the movie had been downloaded 189,052 times worldwide, with 42,216 of those in the U.S., according to Excipio.

Expendables 3 ensemble cast includes Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren, Kelsey Grammar, Terry Crews, Mel Gibson, Wesley Snipes and Harrison Ford.

The first two Expendables movies, both starring Stallone, were released in mid-August in 2010 and 2012 by Lionsgate. The first installment grossed $275 million worldwide and the second took in more than $300 million.

In 2011, Expendables producer Nu Image filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit targeting more than 23,000 individual BitTorrent users that it alleged illegally downloaded copies of the first movie.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 07-25-2014, 07:16 PM:

Glad the studio has a pre-packaged excuse for an obvious under-performer in the making.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-26-2014, 03:08 PM:

Don't worry, they will eventually find a reason to blame consumers for this.

AJG

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-26-2014, 04:28 PM:

So, by the MPAA's own twisted logic and math (assuming an average ticket price of $8 and that every single downloaded copy results in a lost ticket sale), they just lost 0.5% of the expected gross of ths film (video?). That is pretty much a rounding error on the scale of the numbers that a movie like this should generate.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-09-2014, 12:41 AM:

When ole Jack Valenti was around, he would say (any time a news camera was pointed in his direction) "Piracy is a cancer in the belly of the industry," I guess he was right...and the "belly" is the studios/distribution side of the industry where it has matastasized, not the exhibition side.

As for the math...the MPAA never ventured to explain what calculator they used when they'd gingerly throw out the figure that they lose 6 BILLION dollars a year to piracy, and they'd say it with a straight face too. Hard to take that kind of MPAA New Math very seriously. Inevitably in the next sentence, they'd whine that it was all the theatre's fault. They'd make theatres run illc-conceived trailers saying all you pirates out there sitting in the theatres (you know, the theatre customers who PAID for their tickets) are taking the food out of the mouths of the studio industry children. Then every Sunday on the network news they brag about how many millions their bootlegged picture make.

It was also hard to take the accusation seriously when any quality bootleg DVD out on the street had the words "Academy Screening Copy" at the bottom.

And since digital, which supposedly has incorporated so much more security over film so as to prevent piracy on the exbibition end, the loss to piracy magically doesn't seem to have abated one iota. How exactly does that compute? And what will they say if the grosses on this title aren't any worse than the first two outings of this dogturd of a franchise?

What they will use this for will be to argue why their product needs to go to non-theatrical markets SOONER rather than later. Everyone knows as far as the producers are concerned, they have been using the theatrical run as nothing more than advertising for all the other markets, so maybe they won't ever get Day&Date, but a short two to three week window would suit them just fine....just the thought gives all those studio execs an instant erection -- they would be able to throw out the Viagra.

Long theatrical runs are indeed expendable.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-09-2014, 12:12 PM:

The MP Industry has always been a Greed Monster going back when Theater Chains started. Why did theater owners have to rely on their Concession Counters to make a profit in this business when People like FOX were getting 75% of a ticket sale.

Reminds me of the IRS;you do the work but make sure I get paid for doing nothing.

I'm sure Prople out there are Crying their eyes out that a Studio is only going to make a 100 million profit on a film verses the 110 they expected... [fu]

Posted by Mike Peterson (Member # 4049) on 08-12-2014, 02:50 PM:

2.2 Million Downloads of Expendables 3 as of Aug. 1st

Looks like the tally is at 2.2 million and climbing. In the article, Lion's Gate at least admits to the leak coming from within. Also I bet all this media publicity about the movie being available for download 3 weeks before it opens isn't helping to deter people from downloading it let alone knowing it is available for download.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-12-2014, 02:54 PM:

I can't help thinking the leak might have been intentional. Someone trying to make a point about how downloads don't hurt the box office - or possibly a twisted way to make a point about how day and date video on demand should not be feared by theatres.

I hope the movie puts butts in my theatre. Beyond that, I would like to see it succeed for the sake of minimizing the piracy arguments. At the same time I would like to see it fail so studios can see how non-theatrical viewing options hurt the theatrical gross.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2014, 07:39 PM:

quote: Steve Matz
The MP Industry has always been a Greed Monster going back when Theater Chains started. Why did theater owners have to rely on their Concession Counters to make a profit in this business when People like FOX were getting 75% of a ticket sale.

Welllllll.... how much SHOULD they get?

First of all I've never heard of a 75% film rent, unless you figure those occasions where there was a big guarantee up front and then the film flopped.

In my nearly 40 years in the biz I've never heard of a rental over 70% and that's usually just for the first week or two. Actual average film rent hovers around the 50 to 55% mark and has for a long time. So if that is too much, how much should the studios get, considering they made the movie and took all the risk in making it?

A lot of movie studios make an awful lot of flops for every big hit they make. Why do you think so many studios have gone out of business over the years? Because they made too many flops (and other bad business decisions).

"Wanting to make a profit" is not greed, it's just business.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 08-12-2014, 08:34 PM:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-10/lions-gate-wins-injunction-over-stolen-expendables-3-.html

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (LGF) won a court order blocking websites from distributing an allegedly stolen copy of “The Expendables 3” viewed by more than 2 million people before the movie’s release in theaters.

U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow in Los Angeles granted the company’s request Aug. 8 for an injunction. A single digital file of the film, which stars Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford, was stolen and uploaded to the websites in late July, the Santa Monica, California-based company said in its complaint.

The movie is scheduled for release Aug. 15. The two predecessors in the “Expendables” franchise generated more than $575 million at the box office, the company said. Operators of six websites including limetorrents.com and billionuploads.com haven’t responded to demands to stop disseminating the file, Lions Gate said.

In addition to costing potential ticket sales to those who’ve watched the movie illegally, such uploads hurt the studio’s marketing of the film and its relationships with theater operators, Lions Gate said.

Spokesman Peter Wilkes said the company isn’t commenting beyond what it said in court filings.

Lions Gate, the studio that makes “Mad Men” and the “Hunger Games” movies, last week reported first-quarter earnings that beat analysts’ estimates, helped by profit margins in its film and television businesses.

The case is Lions Gate Films Inc. v. Does, 14-cv-06033, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-12-2014, 09:12 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
I hope the movie puts butts in my theatre. Beyond that, I would like to see it succeed for the sake of minimizing the piracy arguments. At the same time I would like to see it fail so studios can see how non-theatrical viewing options hurt the theatrical gross.

Justin, you are conflicted! [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2014, 09:33 PM:

quote: Harold Hallikainen
Lions Gate, the studio that makes “Mad Men” and the “Hunger Games” movies, last week reported first-quarter earnings that beat analysts’ estimates, helped by profit margins in its film and television businesses.

Why don't they just say, "But don't worry about LionsGate, folks, they've still got plenty of cash in the bank! So stealing their movie is perfectly fine."

That's how people read a dopey, unnecessary (to the article) sentence like the above.

Man I hate the media and their stupid hidden agendas sometimes.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-12-2014, 11:58 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
"Wanting to make a profit" is not greed, it's just business.

During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of International Cinema Equipment Co. graphic

If you've got a blockbuster like Titanic or The Lord of the Rings, with audiences that keep streaming in for weeks, everybody's happy --

(suppose it doesn't make it to the 5th or 6th week)

40 YEARS in the Business only takes you back to the 70's,
that's still modern Cinema. I'm talking about when Theater
chains started in the 30's and FOX was taking a BIG chunk of
that Movie Ticket and this was the Depression ERA...

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-13-2014, 02:17 AM:

You haven't been sleeping under a nice, cozy rock the last 40 or so years, haven't you? I suppose you didn't, but just missed a few of the details. A lot happened in the movie industry, those last 40 years, maybe even more than in the 40 years that came before. [Wink]

By around the 70s, everybody had a TV, killing off the newsreel for good.

Then came the affordable video recorder and the trend to twin, triple or even quadruple existing theaters into little shoe boxes, to seemingly combat the new influx of (mostly bad quality) content on video cassettes.

Then we got the multiplex building boom and the slow decay of the remaining classic movie theaters, including many of those bad examples of twinned and tripled theaters. The omnipresent multiplex finally ended the notion that going to a movie is some kind of event, much like going to a theatrical play, musical or concert. Going to a movie became something you do before going out or after an afternoon of mall shopping.

Video cassettes were replaced by shiny discs in about three iterations. Expensive, digital sound systems were no longer a movie theater exclusive.

Then studios figured out that they could save tons of money by eliminating those pesky 35mm prints. They also figured out that digital technology was finally "good enough" and thus forced everybody in the exhibition industry to upgrade or die.

And just a few years back, after studios struggled for years to get to a deal (the technology itself has been viable for at least the last 10 or so years), we got streaming movies, which was the final nail in the coffin for the traditional video rental business.

Meanwhile, the "theater-to-rental" window has been steadily shrinking, just like the "rental-to-tv" window.

quote: Frank Angel
As for the math...the MPAA never ventured to explain what calculator they used when they'd gingerly throw out the figure that they lose 6 BILLION dollars a year to piracy, and they'd say it with a straight face too.

Their math just reaches kindergarten levels, as long as it is in their favor. It usually looks something like this: 2M illegal downloads, average movie ticket: $8, damage: $16M.

They forget to mention that many of those 2M people that downloaded it, wouldn't spend a single dollar on this movie anyway.

quote: Justin Hamaker
I can't help thinking the leak might have been intentional. Someone trying to make a point about how downloads don't hurt the box office - or possibly a twisted way to make a point about how day and date video on demand should not be feared by theatres.

Given the bad reviews this movie is getting, I'm afraid if this was the original intention, it might backfire.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-13-2014, 03:03 AM:

quote: Steve Matz
the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales

I thought studios got rid of the old 90/10, 80/20, and so on splits and went to the "aggregated" booking where percentages of 50 to 55 (?) percent were in place so the theatres didn't take such a big hit in the first two weeks and could make a little money with the flat percentages throughout the lease contract?

Remember when the boycott hit with a popular studio on a film when they wanted almost 60 percent for the lease term and theatres told that studio to stuff it hard where the sun didn't shine?

Can't remember the studio, or the film, thus need help with this one, but just remember the occasion

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-13-2014, 01:49 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
I thought studios got rid of the old 90/10, 80/20, and so on splits and went to the "aggregated" booking where percentages of 50 to 55 (?) percent were in place so the theatres didn't take such a big hit in the first two weeks and could make a little money with the flat percentages throughout the lease contract?

Some studios have done that but it still depends on the movie. Disney for example uses a sliding aggregate model that ranges all the way up to 68% if a movie is a blockbuster hit. But if a movie is a few weeks old and not a hit, they'll still sell it for a 40% rental sometimes. But if the movie is any kind of a sizable hit, you still have to pay the aggregate percentage unless you play it just before it hits video.

The old 90/10 thing is of course based on a "house nut" that is based on seating capacity and is deducted from the gross before the 90% is figured. I think those studios that have adopted the sliding aggregate have done away with that, but the others still use it.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Then we got the multiplex building boom and the slow decay of the remaining classic movie theaters, including many of those bad examples of twinned and tripled theaters. The omnipresent multiplex finally ended the notion that going to a movie is some kind of event

Movie palaces are very cool but how do you think the "biz" would be doing if it was still just a few screens in each big city, with 1000 or 1400 seats, and it took you weeks to be able to get into a movie? Until the mid/late 70s it took our theater up to 18 MONTHS to get a movie because we had to wait until the city theaters were done with it. Even a marginal movie would take 3 or 4 months to get here sometimes. So while today has its problems, no way would I want to go back to those "good old days."

I don't know, around here I think people still think of going to the movies as an 'event.' Maybe because there's not much else to do in this town?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-13-2014, 04:22 PM:

Back during the time when large, single screen palaces (or twins & triples) were common movies weren't released "wide" in thousands of theaters. There wasn't any home video industry either. During that time it was feasible, but not very fun, for a movie to take a year or more migrating from big city theaters to screens in small towns.

There's no way we could return to that distribution model. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of how both multiplex theaters and the home video sales/rental industry have changed and sped up the life cycle of a movie.

I think the far more brief life cycle of modern movies today contributes to what makes so many so forgettable. We're now at the point where a movie can go from opening day at the box office to being played out on cable and relegated to the DVD bargain bin and Netflix streaming in under a year. 30 years ago it could take years for a movie just to go from theater screens to home video and premium cable. The movie stayed around in some form for longer. I have an easier time remembering bad movies from the 1980's than I do bad movies released in the last few years.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know, around here I think people still think of going to the movies as an 'event.' Maybe because there's not much else to do in this town?

That could be part of it. But it may also be a generational thing. How much value do people who came of age in the 60's, 70's or 80's place on the theatrical experience versus high school age people now?

I think it's critical for a movie theater to provide a quality "experience" similar to that of a good restaurant, that way the customers feel like they are attending an event. It sure doesn't need to give off a "fast food" vibe. Unfortunately, I think a more than a few people both young and old see going to movie theaters in just that respect. They don't see the value in it and are perfectly happy watching at home, legally or illegally.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-13-2014, 04:49 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
During that time it was feasible, but not very fun, for a movie to take a year or more migrating from big city theaters to screens in small towns.

And, it was rare to receive a new print during this era when only a number of prints migrated down from large venues on down to us small town venues.

And, it was real lucky to receive a decent print even after the depot QA people went through the prints with their cleaning and inspection procedures...and I still did my final inspection to ensure any splices, nicks and similar that had to be checked and rebuilt and that was back when wet splicing was the norm.

Course, we small town venues didn't have the big percentages that had to be paid for rent since we received prints way after the "break."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-13-2014, 06:42 PM:

I remember in my earliest days as a projectionist (1974 and on), being surprised/happy to receive a print that "hardly had any splices" in it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2014, 08:05 PM:

As a kid, I NEVER heard ANYONE, kid or adult, say "I hate[/] going out to the movies." You hear that all the times now. Something has drastically changed. And while we can moan about the short legs titles have now before they go to video (although in the theatre it IS video, but you know what I mean), you don't hear people saying the reason they hate going to the movies is because they know they can wait to see it on video -- that might be a factor in why they might choose to see it at home, but it still isn't the reason they "hate" going to the movies. That reason is because of a combination of a myriad of things that make the assembly line, utilitarian experience of the multiplex very unpleasant in their minds. So far, exhibitors seem to be unable or unwilling to address reason so many people feel this way. In fact, I would wager that even those who GO to the cinema go IN SPITE of that perception.

As Bobby rightly points out, we are never going back to the pre-video days when GOOD films had legs that lasted months, and the blockbusters could play out for years, moving from the big cities to the smallest hamlets. I don't think that was a terribly bad system; everyone knew that they eventually would get to see the film, even if they had to wait a bit. In fact, that wait period engendered a strong desire to see a movie, more-so than if they could go see it immediately...anticipation is not a de facto a bad thing. Good marketing could actually turn it into a positive -- one of the chains in my neighborhood even played on that aspect. They had 1-sheets in all their second run theatres that said, "Movies, MOVIES, [i]MOVIES (in ever-enlarging font size), Everyone should have one to look forward to!" People looked forward to a film that would be in a month or two.

That pattern certainly was good for the consumer -- we knew which theatres were get the "flag ship" houses and if we missed it there, a few weeks later we could catch it at the first run house and if we missed it there, we knew which were the "under-belly" houses where we knew we still had a chance to see if even though it was long gone from the first and second tier cinemas months prior.

Today the picture opens everywhere and closes everywhere and either you catch it on its opening playout or your are forced to go the video route, even though you very well may have intended to see that film in an actual movie theatre, but you weren't fast enough. Oh yah, and then any film that did well at the box office, would more than not a good chance at being re-released as they used to say, "at popular prices."

No, we will never be able to go back to those slower paced distribution patterns, but slowing how picture playout might just profit everyone.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-13-2014, 08:21 PM:

Sometimes I get the feeling the bean counters working at the parent global media corporations would rather a movie's theatrical release be distributed and shown just like a one night only pay per view event. Get it over with as quickly as possible and then immediately onto home video. The fantasy is they think they'll still get all the money their making now, but get it all at once.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-13-2014, 09:29 PM:

How is it that the studios can't figure out how to serialize or watermark the files and workstations used by individuals. Seems a way could be devised that would connect content to a particular workstation and user.

Bet the CIA's been doing this since... oh... forever?

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-13-2014, 11:10 PM:

Is this the Expendables Movie that has that Woman UFC Fighter"RHONDA ROUSEY" in it! She kicks everybody's A$$ right
now but I can see the writing coming on the Wall.She will
be doing less training for UFC Fights and more Playing with
Actors,etc. She will eventually get her Butt kicked on PPV
and probably won't be in anymore Movies either..."Concentrate
on What you know not what you think your going to become"...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-14-2014, 12:14 AM:

Not to contribute to thread drift, but I see no problem with Rhonda Rousey working on making it in action movies. She is a great MMA fighter, easily one of the very best female MMA fighters in history (if not the best ever), but it's only a matter of time before some younger, faster fighter comes up and rings her bell. It happens to every fighter eventually if they stay in the ring long enough. Rousey is a beautiful woman. So she ought to work on her acting craft or at least have some plan of being a broadcast play by play sportscaster while she can still do so.

Shit, look how fast people forgot about Chuck Liddell. He seemed unbeatable, but got surprised by Rampage Jackson. He tried to cross over from MMA to movies, but hasn't been very successful. Randy Couture (who Liddell beat for the UFC Heavyweight title) has had a more successful career -having roles in all 3 Expendables movies by the way. I think Couture was already working on trying to cross over to movies, sportscasting, etc. before he was "washed up" as a champion fighter.

A female MMA fighter may have an even shorter window of time to get established in movies or sportscasting. Rhonda Rousey obviously has to take advantage of her sex symbol status, much in the same way Gina Carano has been doing. BTW, I'm skeptical the UFC will succeed in getting Carano to re-enter the Octagon against Rousey. They would have to pay Carano a ridiculous amount of money to do so. Carano has a lot to lose and little to gain by coming out of retirement to fight Rousey.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-14-2014, 04:16 AM:

Personally, I'm not advocating the "old model" of the big movie houses getting the premieres and the small-town movie theaters having to wait until prints are available after they ran to shreds in the big city theaters. It's not like this was ever the ideal model to begin with. In this day and age where a "print" fits on a cheap hard disk and end-to-end digital distribution is starting to be the norm, there really is no excuse like "print shortage". Actually, you would say that the fact that a movie can now go into premiere on a global scale on almost any screen simultaneously, could also push the grandeur of such a release. Unfortunately, the grandeur is almost nowhere to be found.

On the contrary, this whole exercise has diminished the value of movies considerably. The illness of the ever decreasing attention span of our society also got hold on movies. And like Bobby already mentioned, that also made many of them so forgettable. They are literally produced that way. Make the movie look good in the trailers and marketing, try not to bore them away and just in case the stuff might stick, make sure there's at least room for a sequel or two...

If a big budget movie doesn't recover its production costs at the box office within a week or so, it's already considered a failure. Allowing a movie to build an audience by word of mouth (or social media for what it's worth), rarely ever happens anymore.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know, around here I think people still think of going to the movies as an 'event.' Maybe because there's not much else to do in this town?

I can't comment on the experiences in your town. The "small town experience", where the nearest city is a hour and a half away isn't something that's very common around here [Wink]

. So, going to the theater will probably be a larger social event than it is here.

But, around here it's not very much different than any "(sub)urban experience" in the U.S. It's much more like fast food than a restaurant. The last "restaurant" around here, closed just a few days ago, it lost out to the newest "fast food chain" with all the newest gimmicks but an overall utterly mediocre experience.

Multiplexes aren't designed for the "big event experience", although some of them have recognized that money can be made by selling "special experiences", hence the whole PLF fad.

But still, there are those many small things that could be done to make the experience just a little bit more noteworthy.

Try to get rid of those stupid commercials for example. I can live with two or three trailers, actually, I'm sometimes even looking forward to them. But, did I just pay for a ticket and a bunch of concessions just to be treated like I would be watching this stuff free on TV?

And what's so bad about reintroducing an Intermission? Skip the commercials and you're about even on the running time scale and everything you lost on not showing the commercials will be earned back by selling additional concessions. People aren't used to intermissions? They get one every 20 minutes or so when they're watching TV, so I guess they will manage. Heck, maybe they will even like it?

Also part of that multiplex experience is the general lack of excitement. There's nothing that's trying to get you into the mood. Generic radio blaring trough the speakers, a blank white screen in front of you. It all feels clinical, automated and without the slightest hint of dedication and love.

The big movies of the past used to have an Overture, Intermission reel and often even an Entr'acte. If you spend like 100M+ dollars on a movie, is it really so hard to create a bunch of them and distribute them alongside your DCP? Maybe even create a separate CPL that includes all the goodies. Maybe, but just maybe, you could even include a few items from your soundtrack in your distribution. Stuff a theater could play before the show starts or during the above mentioned intermission. Damn, I would give another buck just to avoid having to listen to "Wrecking Ball". It's rather unbelievable theaters willingly pay an extra fee to be able to play this kind of shitty music throughout their lobby and in their theaters.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-17-2014, 11:13 PM:

Turtles, Guardians, and Cops crush weak Expendables

Brace yourselves,

The MPAA is coming

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-18-2014, 12:02 AM:

I'm astonished that they couldn't identify the source of the leak within minutes of the pirate file going online. I mean, all the digital media assets produced by the major studios are watermarked up the wazoo, and to a level of sophistication that would make the 35mm CAP code seem neanderthal, right?

My guess is that they have identified the source of the leak, that it is either from within the production company itself or a post house hired by them, but that revealing that fact would contradict the party line that theaters are the source of all piracy. Though to be fair, they could be keeping quiet because they're still investigating and want to be able to bring criminal charges that actually stick.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-21-2014, 01:09 PM:

Yet:

Next year at the Mid-Atlantic N.A.T.O. meeting the M.P.A.A. will conduct a movie piracy seminar on how to spot camcorders in the audience.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-21-2014, 01:17 PM:

Leaked on line like I would waste my time watching it or something? I'd rather watch old Three Stooges shorts!

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-22-2014, 11:38 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
My guess is that they have identified the source of the leak, that it is either from within the production company itself or a post house hired by them, but that revealing that fact would contradict the party line that theaters are the source of all piracy. Though to be fair, they could be keeping quiet because they're still investigating and want to be able to bring criminal charges that actually stick.

Actually, Leo, your assessment is right on the money AND you are being quite fair to boot.

You can bet they are not going to parade a producer or a major star or a director in front of the press or worse, drag any of "their" people off to jail. If they can find some low-level worker in a post-production facility somewhere, they MIGHT make an example out of him, but arrest a Stallone or a Lundgren or a Snipes or a cinematographer or assistant director? Hardly. Even the MPAA couldn't spin THAT in a way so as to blame exhibitors.