Expendables 3 leaked three weeks before release. What can be done to counter this?

IvaBigWun · 28-07-2014 9:29pm #1

Its very common for screeners to leak during Oscar judging season but apart from that its not really.

What can be done, technically, to stop this sort of thing from happening?

Surely some sort of digital watermarking is possible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTte6BQndTQ

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/the-expendables-3-leaked-online-three-weeks-before-release/article1-1245398.aspx

Sylvester Stallone-starrer The Expendables 3 has leaked online three weeks ahead of its US release.

The online copy of the film has been downloaded through piracy sites more than 189,000 times over a 24-hour period, reported Variety.

Lionsgate, which is distributing the movie, declined to comment. The original source of the pirated copy is unclear and user comments posted on piracy websites indicate the rip is genuine.

Pirated copies of the film cropped up on torrent-sharing sites on Wednesday July 23 and downloads started to spike Thursday, according to data provided by piracy-analytics firm Excipio.

The 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.

A similar leak happened in 2009, when a rough cut of 20th Century Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine was shared on Megaupload.com about a month before the its premiere.

Fox estimated that at least 15 million people downloaded the movie, and represented tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue.

BikeQueery · 28-07-2014 9:36pm

I've read conjecture that it was leaked on purpose. One person put it succinctly by saying it was funny leaked films tend toward being stinkers. If you know your movie is a pile of crap then a leaked copy can be blamed for low return. It's not unfathomable.
That wolverine film with Reynolds/deadpool was leaked, total pile of crap. The unfinished version was better for being novel.

IvaBigWun · 28-07-2014 9:44pm

BikeQueery wrote: »

I've read conjecture that it was leaked on purpose.

That was the first conclusion I came to when I saw it was leaked

Sad Professor · 28-07-2014 10:00pm

The leaking of award screeners can be countered easily enough. Just stop sending out DVD screeners and use iTunes instead. iTunes’s DRM can defeated as well, of course, but at least you don’t have to worry about discs being left in hotel rooms or given to relatives to watch, etc. But the studios won’t do this because the Academy membership is made up mostly of old-timers who don’t how to use computers. And in most cases the films in question are good enough that they may even benefit from being leaked online. After all most Oscar contenders have already survived several months on the festival circuit and numerous press and advanced screenings before their public release.

Leaking of blockbuster-type films like The Expendables, which are basically designed to make all their money back in the first two weeks before word of mouth spreads, is another matter. These films usually aren’t up to much and the last thing the studio needs is everyone hearing how crap they are from their friends on Twitter or Facebook two weeks before release. Studios probably spend more money marketing these films than they do making them, which is why they’d never deliberately leak them.

Besides, it couldn’t be any worse than the first two.

Agent Coulson · 29-07-2014 12:25am

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty screener was leaked with digital watermarking from the Ellen show.

That didn't stop Ellen hosting the Oscars.

takamichinoku · 29-07-2014 12:40pm

Did it actually impact how well Wolverine done? Like, the Expendables is the kind of thing where a bunch of people will meet at the cinema without even deciding what they're going to in advance. It's not like it has the kind of hype that a major Marvel or Nolan film would have either where people literally can't wait until the theatrical release and download it early.

Awards season films probably take a great hit in proportion to their market value, especially outside of the US with how they leak months before getting released here sometimes.

ps3lover · 29-07-2014 5:19pm

Will this impact the movies box office returns?
I've read story's online that Portugal have pulled all their marketing for it and in India they've decided to cut the amount of screenings in half.

I do love how everyone gets up in arms when a movie like this leaks but when it's something like Wolf Creek 2, no one seems to care.

Theboinkmaster · 29-07-2014 8:23pm

What can be done to counter this? Make good films!

I watched this and didn't think it was great and if I couldn't get it for free wouldn't have bothered so I'm not lost revenue to the studios.

When I do download good films and enjoy them I buy the on blu ray.

Dempsey · 29-07-2014 8:49pm

Fox estimated that at least 15 million people downloaded the movie, and represented tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue.

Just because someone is willing to download a pirate copy doesnt mean they were all willing to pay a premium to see it in the cinema.

The Expendables 3 is dire and I enjoyed the other 2 for what they were

IvaBigWun · 30-07-2014 7:38pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty screener was leaked with digital watermarking from the Ellen show.

That didn't stop Ellen hosting the Oscars.

No doubt the contracts were signed by then.

01-08-2014 10:33am

ps3lover wrote: »

I do love how everyone gets up in arms when a movie like this leaks but when it's something like Wolf Creek 2, no one seems to care.

Completely different situation between what happened here and what occurred with Wolf Creek 2. Wolf Creek 2 didn't leak, so much that someone paid to watch it on VOD and then saved the stream. Wolf Creek 2 was available to watch at home the same day, if not before it opened in cinemas. What happened here is that either a copy of the screener was stolen or someone who had a copy lost it or uploaded it themselves.

If people want to counter this type of thing then the answer is quite simple. Don't download a film where it appears on torrent sites. It really is that simple. Every time a film is available on torrent sites you see the same posters, bother here and on other forums talking about how they watched the film. It's those people who are the real problem, if they weren't willing to download for free then people wouldn't be uploading in the first place.

ps3lover · 01-08-2014 11:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

If people want to counter this type of thing then the answer is quite simple. Don't download a film where it appears on torrent sites. It really is that simple. Every time a film is available on torrent sites you see the same posters, bother here and on other forums talking about how they watched the film. It's those people who are the real problem, if they weren't willing to download for free then people wouldn't be uploading in the first place.

That's NEVER going to happen unfortunately. Most people don't view it as stealing and thinks it's their right to do it.
Considering the majority of reviews I've read for Expendables 3 has been awful, I'd say the box office will severely suffer for this.

allibastor · 01-08-2014 12:09pm

Did it not happen with Django unchained also. I remember the story down in Limerick of a bunch of priests seeing it on their Friday movie screening two weeks before it was out.
My younger brother was able to give me a copy in full HD quality the week before it was released.

Still think the film made loads of money at the box office.

01-08-2014 12:16pm

ps3lover wrote: »

That's NEVER going to happen unfortunately. Most people don't view it as stealing and thinks it's their right to do it.
Considering the majority of reviews I've read for Expendables 3 has been awful, I'd say the box office will severely suffer for this.

Box office won't be hurt that poorly and I would imagine that given the rating this may be the biggest of the series to date.

allibastor wrote: »

Did it not happen with Django unchained also. I remember the story down in Limerick of a bunch of priests seeing it on their Friday movie screening two weeks before it was out.
My younger brother was able to give me a copy in full HD quality the week before it was released.

Still think the film made loads of money at the box office.

If you consider the Screener of Django Unchained that leaked to be full HD quantity you may need to go and get an eye check. Leaks are nothing new, it's more common around awards season but it's not unknown of for leaks of this kind. While it may have an affect on the box office, it won't be as big as some assume

ps3lover · 01-08-2014 12:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Box office won't be hurt that poorly and I would imagine that given the rating this may be the biggest of the series to date.

I see the low rating completely back firing now. The teens are just going to end up downloading it. 3 weeks is a long time to be online and have everyone see it, kids are probably just going to want to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Gaurdians Of The Galaxy instead.

allibastor · 01-08-2014 12:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Box office won't be hurt that poorly and I would imagine that given the rating this may be the biggest of the series to date.

If you consider the Screener of Django Unchained that leaked to be full HD quantity you may need to go and get an eye check. Leaks are nothing new, it's more common around awards season but it's not unknown of for leaks of this kind. While it may have an affect on the box office, it won't be as big as some assume

20/20 vision my good man.

and it was like being in the cinema quality, what ever that is. the film was 100% perfect.

01-08-2014 1:40pm

ps3lover wrote: »

I see the low rating completely back firing now. The teens are just going to end up downloading it. 3 weeks is a long time to be online and have everyone see it, kids are probably just going to want to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Gaurdians Of The Galaxy instead.

In three weeks time Guardians will be playing very few screens and while Turtles will no doubt do well, it's not going to be pulling in viewers this side of the Atlantic anytime soon.

allibastor wrote: »

20/20 vision my good man.

and it was like being in the cinema quality, what ever that is. the film was 100% perfect.

No it wasn't. It was compressed to hell, had stereo sound and anyone who thinks it was cinema quality is deluding themselves. It wasn't even DVD quality, never mind anything close to what a cinema would provide.

ps3lover · 01-08-2014 1:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wasn't. It was compressed to hell, had stereo sound and anyone who thinks it was cinema quality is deluding themselves. It wasn't even DVD quality, never mind anything close to what a cinema would provide.

How would you know this unless you downloaded it and watched it yourself?

TheDoc · 01-08-2014 1:50pm

My understanding of this incident( I say understanding, its pretty much the confirmed story according to sources which I probably cant outline here) a guy who worked for the production company was fired, wasn't too happy about it, and leaked the screener as a big two fingers.

As someone who used to go to the cinema
Instead of trying to protect their old fashioned way of generating revenue, and keeping various pockets lined, the media industry need to move the atteniton away from what's effecting them, and see what's effecting the customer.

And in short, people want things easily accessible, and cheaper. Why would I get in my car and drive 30 minutes to Easons, on the chance they might not have a book I want, when I can buy it for a fraction of the price on say Amazon, and start reading it in less then 60 seconds.

Why would I hunt down an Xtravision, driving for an hour, to pay€5.99 for a film to watch for a night, when I can load up one of like five applications, and pay €2.99 and start watching it immediately.

The same is starting for cinema. Why should I drive 30 minutes and pay €35-40 to watch a film, potentially disrupted by technical issues or fellow patrons, when I can have the film in a matter of minutes, watching in the comfort of my home.

Eventually people will get over the moral uppityness about it, and realise at the end of it all, the very simple fact is that as consumers, we want conveniance and competitive pricing.

I for one am done taking risks, gambles and exploring titles and movies in the cinema. I go to watch what I definitly want to see, and anything that slightly whiffs of it maybe not been good, gets a download.

I watched Locke for example for the first time this week, and while we thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought it was brilliant, both agreed it probably would have been a little bit of a let down, if we paid €40 to watch it in the cinema.

01-08-2014 1:52pm

ps3lover wrote: »

How would you know this unless you downloaded it and watched it yourself?

Because it was a screener, they are not representative of how a film should look or sound. Screener quality is not quite DVD, it's compressed to hell, the audio is nearly always stereo and much like the picture it's compressed. I had no need to download the film as I was at the press screening in Dublin the week before Christmas and experienced the film as it was intended

A quick google search brings up this screen capture from the screener, real cinema quality there.

.

01-08-2014 1:58pm

TheDoc wrote: »

My understanding of this incident( I say understanding, its pretty much the confirmed story according to sources which I probably cant outline here) a guy who worked for the production company was fired, wasn't too happy about it, and leaked the screener as a big two fingers.

As someone who used to go to the cinema
Instead of trying to protect their old fashioned way of generating revenue, and keeping various pockets lined, the media industry need to move the atteniton away from what's effecting them, and see what's effecting the customer.

And in short, people want things easily accessible, and cheaper. Why would I get in my car and drive 30 minutes to Easons, on the chance they might not have a book I want, when I can buy it for a fraction of the price on say Amazon, and start reading it in less then 60 seconds.

Why would I hunt down an Xtravision, driving for an hour, to pay€5.99 for a film to watch for a night, when I can load up one of like five applications, and pay €2.99 and start watching it immediately.

The same is starting for cinema. Why should I drive 30 minutes and pay €35-40 to watch a film, potentially disrupted by technical issues or fellow patrons, when I can have the film in a matter of minutes, watching in the comfort of my home.

Eventually people will get over the moral uppityness about it, and realise at the end of it all, the very simple fact is that as consumers, we want conveniance and competitive pricing.

I for one am done taking risks, gambles and exploring titles and movies in the cinema. I go to watch what I definitly want to see, and anything that slightly whiffs of it maybe not been good, gets a download.

I watched Locke for example for the first time this week, and while we thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought it was brilliant, both agreed it probably would have been a little bit of a let down, if we paid €40 to watch it in the cinema.

€40 for two cinema tickets, either you go to the most expensive cinema in the country of you're drastically inflating the price to justify your stealing.

Film is made for the cinema, it's where a film can best be experienced and no home set up is a match for it. Sitting in a darkened theater and watching a film is one of the simple pleasures in life. And sure you have the odd experience where others make it less enjoyable but on the whole it's how cinema needs to be seen.

If you find the cost to be too much then why don't you wait till a film is available legally and pay for it. I know that while I missed Locke in the cinema, I'll certainly be paying to watch it once it hits the home market. Now I may not buy the Blu-Ray but I'll certainly rent it on amazon or one of the many other services offering VOD.

This debate is one that has been had on here many a time and at the end of the day if you download a film then you are in the wrong, it really is that simply. There is no justification that makes it acceptable.

ps3lover · 01-08-2014 1:58pm

TheDoc wrote: »

My understanding of this incident( I say understanding, its pretty much the confirmed story according to sources which I probably cant outline here) a guy who worked for the production company was fired, wasn't too happy about it, and leaked the screener as a big two fingers.

Feels like a really stupid thing to do. Does he not realise he can go to jail for leaking it early? It's not worth going to jail just to give your old boss the middle finger.
Not to mention no other production company will want to hire him when he gets out, he won't be able to work in the film business again!

johnny_ultimate · 01-08-2014 1:59pm

Going to the cinema does not cost €40. Even taking two people, it should not cost much more than €20. I live in the Dublin area, and Cineworld is the only cinema charging outrageous prices. Everywhere else is perfectly reasonable, even at peak times. Avoid there and typical ticket prices are 9 euro, cheaper again in the likes of the IFI.

TheDoc · 01-08-2014 2:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it was a screener, they are not representative of how a film should look or sound. Screener quality is not quite DVD, it's compressed to hell, the audio is nearly always stereo and much like the picture it's compressed. I had no need to download the film as I was at the press screening in Dublin the week before Christmas and experienced the film as it was intended

A quick google search brings up this screen capture from the screener, real cinema quality there.

If you don't mind me asking, are you required to pay for the press screenings? The reason I ask is your normally a big detractor for pirating movies. And I have a friend who goes to press screenings all the time and he would be of the same opinion.

But as I frequently point out to him, if I was able to go to the cinema for free, I would of course choose that option over a pirated copy. I'd be fickle about quality of things, and of course the cinema experienced can't be matched. Sure I've come to live with it, but if I had the choice, of course I'd go to the cinema every single time.

But as I also point out to my friend, who would probably go to the cinema maybe 3-4 times a week. Would he be so dismissive of the reasons why people acquire illigitimate copies of films, if he wasn't being comped everytime he went to the cinema, and instead had to pay €20 each time.

And just to point out, I'm not going to attempt justfying piracy, I think anyone that does it deluding themselves. Of course it's wrong, but I just have no real moral dilemma with it to be perfectly honest. As is obvious with obviously the millions of people worldwide who do it also.

And yet, I would have previously downloaded music aswell. Sick of the price hike that came with the Euro, and the rapid decline in quality in the music industry, I just decided against forking cash out for albums that contained a lot of fluff and only a few quality tracks. But when Spotify came here, I was one of the first to sign up. And happily pay a monthly subscription. I also pay a monthly sub for netflix premium, even though I could easily pirate the stuff, I like the service it provides, for what I deem a quality service and competitive price.

I'm pretty sure it's not far off ( actually happening already, with a title "Believe" due out shortly) where a film will release va the cinema, but you will also be given an option to buy a pass to view at home on the release date. Nearly like an old PPV model.

It's coming down the line with sports as well. In the Us its blown up massively whereby you can pay an annual pass for your team, and get all their games live, rather then paying for a network subscription where you get everything, except what you really want.

Customisable packages and offerings are growing and growing, and the film industry need to snap on quickly. I'd be interested to see how this Believe thing ( albeit early indication a terrible film) catches in terms of who goes to the cinema to watch it, as opposed to paying the pass price to watch on SKy movies.

01-08-2014 2:07pm

TheDoc wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, are you required to pay for the press screenings? The reason I ask is your normally a big detractor for pirating movies. And I have a friend who goes to press screenings all the time and he would be of the same opinion.

But as I frequently point out to him, if I was able to go to the cinema for free, I would of course choose that option over a pirated copy. I'd be fickle about quality of things, and of course the cinema experienced can't be matched. Sure I've come to live with it, but if I had the choice, of course I'd go to the cinema every single time.

But as I also point out to my friend, who would probably go to the cinema maybe 3-4 times a week. Would he be so dismissive of the reasons why people acquire illigitimate copies of films, if he wasn't being comped everytime he went to the cinema, and instead had to pay €20 each time.

And just to point out, I'm not going to attempt justfying piracy, I think anyone that does it deluding themselves. Of course it's wrong, but I just have no real moral dilemma with it to be perfectly honest. As is obvious with obviously the millions of people worldwide who do it also.

And yet, I would have previously downloaded music aswell. Sick of the price hike that came with the Euro, and the rapid decline in quality in the music industry, I just decided against forking cash out for albums that contained a lot of fluff and only a few quality tracks. But when Spotify came here, I was one of the first to sign up. And happily pay a monthly subscription. I also pay a monthly sub for netflix premium, even though I could easily pirate the stuff, I like the service it provides, for what I deem a quality service and competitive price.

I'm pretty sure it's not far off ( actually happening already, with a title "Believe" due out shortly) where a film will release va the cinema, but you will also be given an option to buy a pass to view at home on the release date. Nearly like an old PPV model.

It's coming down the line with sports as well. In the Us its blown up massively whereby you can pay an annual pass for your team, and get all their games live, rather then paying for a network subscription where you get everything, except what you really want.

Customisable packages and offerings are growing and growing, and the film industry need to snap on quickly. I'd be interested to see how this Believe thing ( albeit early indication a terrible film) catches in terms of who goes to the cinema to watch it, as opposed to paying the pass price to watch on SKy movies.

I rarely go to the press screenings, only the odd time, maybe once or at most twice a year when I would be up in Dublin and there was one on. When I go to the cinema I pay and I have never paid close to €20 for a ticket. You keep using that figure and it's a lie. It does not cost anything close to €20 to see a film. Even the luxury screen in the Eye in Galway isn't that much.

If you pirate film on a regularly basis then you are in the wrong and are part of the problem. You say a lot about how cinema is going to adapt in the years to come but even then I imagine that you will still pirate. Did you pay to watch Locke or simply torrent it? Surely if you were the fan of cinema you imply then you could have held off the few weeks and legally paid for a rental copy?

TheDoc · 01-08-2014 2:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I rarely go to the press screenings, only the odd time, maybe once or at most twice a year when I would be up in Dublin and there was one on. When I go to the cinema I pay and I have never paid close to €20 for a ticket. You keep using that figure and it's a lie. It does not cost anything close to €20 to see a film. Even the luxury screen in the Eye in Galway isn't that much.

If you pirate film on a regularly basis then you are in the wrong and are part of the problem. You say a lot about how cinema is going to adapt in the years to come but even then I imagine that you will still pirate. Did you pay to watch Locke or simply torrent it? Surely if you were the fan of cinema you imply then you could have held off the few weeks and legally paid for a rental copy?

http://www.odeoncinemas.ie/cinemas/coolock/23/#choosebook

As you can see from there, screenings after 5pm at €10 per adult. As stated in my post, and I'll clarify again, when I go to the cinema it is two of us, myself and the misses.

So thats €20 for tickets. She is a fiend for cinema popcorn. As much as we have gone down the route of bringing our own stuff, cinema popcorn is the bees. So considering the pricing they have, it always makes more sense to get the large combos.

€9.50 each.

So that brings the total to €20 + €19 = €39

You'll forgive me for rounding it off to €40.

I believe Movies @ Swords is the same price, and that's the lot in terms of the cinemas I have in my vacinity. We started going to Odeon in the point more frequently as the cinema is usually pretty empty, or even when full the patrons are no hassle and I've had no incidents in there.

Movies @ Swords for examples I've had issues anytime I've gone with a packed cinema and hassle with patrons.

so what is the alternative where people tell me they arn't paying the €10, Cineworld cheaper?

SherlockWatson · 01-08-2014 2:22pm

I'd imagine the 20e or 40e for two people is including tickets and food.

01-08-2014 2:26pm

TheDoc wrote: »

http://www.odeoncinemas.ie/cinemas/coolock/23/#choosebook

As you can see from there, screenings after 5pm at €10 per adult. As stated in my post, and I'll clarify again, when I go to the cinema it is two of us, myself and the misses.

So thats €20 for tickets. She is a fiend for cinema popcorn. As much as we have gone down the route of bringing our own stuff, cinema popcorn is the bees. So considering the pricing they have, it always makes more sense to get the large combos.

€9.50 each.

So that brings the total to €20 + €19 = €39

You'll forgive me for rounding it off to €40.

I believe Movies @ Swords is the same price, and that's the lot in terms of the cinemas I have in my vacinity. We started going to Odeon in the point more frequently as the cinema is usually pretty empty, or even when full the patrons are no hassle and I've had no incidents in there.

Movies @ Swords for examples I've had issues anytime I've gone with a packed cinema and hassle with patrons.

so what is the alternative where people tell me they arn't paying the €10, Cineworld cheaper?

So it's not €40 for two people to go see a film or €20 for just one as you state in your posts but rather €10 per person to see a film. €10 per person for up to 4 hours of entertainment is a bargain in my books. You won't get that value for money in many other places.

ps3lover · 01-08-2014 2:27pm

I find it strange that Lionsgate have yet to comment on the leak.

johnny_ultimate · 01-08-2014 2:31pm

But popcorn has nothing to do with the price of a cinema ticket, they're separate entities. You can easily pay a tenner to see the film on its own. Popcorn is an optional luxury you are choosing to indulge in, inflating the price of your own accord.

You can always head to the IFI - no popcorn temptation at all

TheDoc · 01-08-2014 2:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If you pirate film on a regularly basis then you are in the wrong and are part of the problem. You say a lot about how cinema is going to adapt in the years to come but even then I imagine that you will still pirate. Did you pay to watch Locke or simply torrent it? Surely if you were the fan of cinema you imply then you could have held off the few weeks and legally paid for a rental copy?

Like I said I'm not justfying the actions itself, but more shedding light on why I do it. I know it's wrong, and as I said I'm prefectly fine with it.

And yes I did acquire Locke illegally, but as with many films that I really enjoy, I purchase on DVD/ Blu ray as I appreciate the collection I have. Have Locke paid and ready from Amazon.

Man of Steel for example, I saw twice in the cinema, have the Bluray disc purchased, but also have a Bluray downloaded copy.

Some of my favourite titles I'll always get a downloaded backup copy.

Again this isn't justification, just some explanations. But of course there are film I'll download, watch a never pay a penny for. But as I had a think back there over the last year, the films I didn't buy to add to the collection were things I thought were ****e.

I think with me anyway, it's also part of the sort of timeline and age where I first hit the internet. I was one of the first people to have the internet really in my area, and actually wider Dublin, and when the new waves of P2P came about, I was in at the ground level seeing all this new technology and "hang on a second, I can get this for free".

You have can have a blurred view on certain things that are right or wrong when your a teen, and obviously as I got to my mid teens I knew that what I was doing was wrong, but it can be a hard thing to shake out off. You have a DVD in your hand costing €22 quid, you havn't seen it in the cinema, you heard mixed reviews. My default was to go download it, and check it out.

As you say, this has been debated so much on here, I'm not going to bring anything new to the table, bar maybe not making excuses for it and admitting that I know what I'm doing is both frowned upon or wrong, but that I've a certain "meh" about the situation.

Expendables 3 leaked three weeks before release. What can be done to counter this?

Comments