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

IvaBigWun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

ps3lover

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

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

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.

ps3lover

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

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

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.

ps3lover

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

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

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.

ps3lover

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.



.

TheDoc

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

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

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

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.

TheDoc

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

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

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

TheDoc

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

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

johnny_ultimate

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

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.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

You are making excuses for it, you're trying to imply that the cost of going to see a film is extortionate and as such you can't afford to regularly go and have to steal the films. If you are such a fan of film then why did you not hold of on watching Locke for a few weeks and then legally pay to stream a copy?

I too grew up with the intervener, as did many others here and we all recognize that we can have things for free but most of us also recognise that doing so is wrong.

Potatoeman

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.

A pirate is a dissatisified customer. The movie industry has been fighting online progression for years. Provide a cheap, reliable a quality service and people will pay. The problem is that these studios are use to extorting whatever price they can from people.

TheDoc

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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 at all

I'm sorry, I'd be under the impression we would take the total cost of the cinema experience as the baseline no, clearly not.

And that's fine. So yes, €10 per person and €9.50 for optional luxuries.

But ,and maybe it's just me, I factor in the total cost of the event/excercise/trip and assess that as the value to whatever the event is. I factor the "luxury" of food, as a part of the cinema experience.

It's a big weird of a point to make though. I'm not going to protray that you breaking it down to that level to make your arguement, like that, you guys are in the right here, I'm in the wrong, I'm not going to try justify it in anyway.

But you wouldn't go paintballing for example and say it costs €10, when we all know you have additional outlays and costs to the experience, that while you most likely don't need to make, you still do, for the experience.

And there is a lot of examples like that. I'd also argue your in the minority(no issues with it) if you are a cinema goer who pay sfor one ticket, and consumes no food or drinks during the viewing. Now I did this myself in college, where breaks in classes for a few hours, or if classes didnt start until afternoon, I used my cineworld pass and would just go in alone, watch a film, no expense on food, then hit class. But I think this is a minority example.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

You are making excuses for it, you're trying to imply that the cost of going to see a film is extortionate and as such you can't afford to regularly go and have to steal the films. If you are such a fan of film then why did you not hold of on watching Locke for a few weeks and then legally pay to stream a copy?

I too grew up with the intervener, as did many others here and we all recognize that we can have things for free but most of us also recognise that doing so is wrong.

I'm not making excuses at all, as I said,( and feel I have to keep repeating to you) I'm making no justifications here. You are in the right, I am in the wrong, I just ( and maybe contrarery to previous posters you debate this with) I fully accept it and really amn't too bothered by it.

Affordability isn't really an issue either, although if we kept up our old cinema habbits it definitly would be. We used to go 2-3 times a week. I'd be finding it hard to justify that spend. So I'm not playing poormouth here.

The budget days that have been brought in at Odeon the last two years definitly have brought us back to the cinema more alright. Although while it was loosely advertised for the first few months, and we were pretty much nearly in empty cinemas as people didn't realise the deals on, soon the place became black with people, in coolock anyway.

We've since moved to going to the Odeon in the Point at the budget day hours, and we are back going once a week to pretty much watching whatever looks half decent.

I think with me it was more the principle of handing over €X that I felt was too expensive for what was being provided.

TheDoc

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.

I agree 100% to be honest. I've seen the film an it's terrible anyway. Copy was perfect, almost blue ray quality. Normally I'd feel bad but I went to the cinema 3 weeks ago with my two nephews to see planet of the apes and had to go 3D. we all know these films are just blurred versions of a 2D films so they can make up for lost revenue, it's a joke. And most cinemas don't even give the choice, so it's an inflated 3D version or nothing (or at tiny 20 seater somewhere).

As long as movie stars are getting paid in the millions for getting free clothes, flights, cocaine
cars etc etc etc, I think I'll sleep fine. I also agree with the ellen point, that's a joke.
Sure howard stern leaked that super 8 movie too and to my knowledge he's not been punished as much as one might think.

pixelburp

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'd be under the impression we would take the total cost of the cinema experience as the baseline no, clearly not.

And that's fine. So yes, €10 per person and €9.50 for optional luxuries.

But ,and maybe it's just me, I factor in the total cost of the aevent/excercise/trip and assess that as the value to whatever the event is. I factor the "luxury" of food, as a part of the cinema experience.

It's a big weird of a point to make though. I'm not going to protray that you breaking it down to that level to make your arguement, like that, you guys are in the right here, I'm in the wrong, I'm not going to try justify it in anyway.

But you wouldn't go paintballing for example and say it costs €10, when we all know you have additional outlays and costs to the experience, that while you most likely don't need to make, you still do, for the experience.

And there is a lot of examples like that. I'd also argue your in the minority(no issues with it) if you are a cinema goer who pay sfor one ticket, and consumes no food or drinks during the viewing. Now I did this myself in college, where breaks in classes for a few hours, or if classes didnt start until afternoon, I used my cineworld pass and would just go in alone, watch a film, no expense on food, then hit class. But I think this is a minority example.

Ah to be fair, the paintballing analogy isn't apt because things like the actual balls of paints (iirc they're sold separately) are necessary to the experience: say what you will about the tradition of having popcorn at the cinema, it's not necessary to the experience of watching a movie there. You can still watch the film without problem, and it's not like you can't bring your own snacks to the cinema anyway - I frequently do it as would many of my friends. Sure, you're not meant to, and if you snuck in with a McDonalds burger you might get turfed out, but you can and many do. Johnny's comments seem reasonable enough, 10euro per person is about right. You don't HAVE to buy at the counter of the cinema, nobody's forcing you and it won't make the actual feature presentation any better / worse

i meant expendibles was crap, locke was very good.

TheDoc

Potatoeman wrote: »

A pirate is a dissatisified customer. The movie industry has been fighting online progression for years. Provide a cheap, reliable a quality service and people will pay. The problem is that these studios are use to extorting whatever price they can from people.

Well, I don't know if I am in a smaller pool of people, but I still frequent the cinema, while I guess pirating aswell.

We have gone off the regular weekly viewings in the last few months as we are expecting our first child, but still made it to the big films. As above the budget priced days really hit home with us for value, so we kept going.

And it's not like we blacklisted going to cinema, we just went to the really safe, good films. But we stopped our old style. Like we used tojust walk into the cinema, and decided at the till what we wanted to see. That just wasn't practical anymore as the amount of bad cinema drastically increased.

Drako does have me feeling guilty about Locke. I love Tom Hardy, I'm a big fan, but I had real reservations about this. And I'd be lying if I said there wasn't guilt in parts. Like maybe I'd pirate a film that was suprisingly excellent. Like I stated previously I'd normally add it to the physical collection, but of course I'd be there like " gah I wished I saw this in the cinema".

But I'm just not willing to flush cash down the drain anymore. A recent example would be the Hercules film that had Liam McYntre (spellcheck?) who played Spartacus on TV. Loved his portrayal and thought **** this film might be good. Was utter pony, absolute dire stuff. And then that sets me back into my thought process of " **** taking gambles, pirate to be sure".

Divergent was another that gave me some recent "aw wish I saw that in the cinema". I enjoyed it, misses loved it, but we passed up seeing it thinking it was a cheap Hunger games rip off and would be rubbish.

TheDoc

rusty cole wrote: »

I agree 100% to be honest. I've seen the film an it's terrible anyway. Copy was perfect, almost blue ray quality. Normally I'd feel bad but I went to the cinema 3 weeks ago with my two nephews to see planet of the apes and had to go 3D. we all know these films are just blurred versions of a 2D films so they can make up for lost revenue, it's a joke. And most cinemas don't even give the choice, so it's an inflated 3D version or nothing (or at tiny 20 seater somewhere).

I don't go to any 3D movies because they are garbage in my view. I wanted to go to Edge of Tomorrow in the cinema. However there was no 2D showings, strictly 3D only in my regulars which irked me. I think there was like one showing at like 2pm, on a Tuesday, which I couldnt make cause of work.

So I've actually missed that film entirely, that I really wanted to see. Although I have this on pre-order from Amazon, and actually won't be actively looking for copies online.

But it's another example of the media industry being more focused on how they are being effected, rather then forming progression through figuring out what the customer actually wants. I've barely met anyone who has enjoyed a 3D film since it's re-incarnation.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

I don't go to any 3D movies because they are garbage in my view. I wanted to go to Edge of Tomorrow in the cinema. However there was no 2D showings, strictly 3D only in my regulars which irked me. I think there was like one showing at like 2pm, on a Tuesday, which I couldnt make cause of work.

So I've actually missed that film entirely, that I really wanted to see. Although I have this on pre-order from Amazon, and actually won't be actively looking for copies online.

But it's another example of the media industry being more focused on how they are being effected, rather then forming progression through figuring out what the customer actually wants. I've barely met anyone who has enjoyed a 3D film since it's re-incarnation.

I know, it's shocking and always the big blockbusters too, where they know they'll get the crowds. Like it's over 11 Euro in UGC parnell street, then add the glasses etc, it's a joke.
I went the cinema every week as I'm not a huge drinker but now I simply cannot throw the cash away. I go when there's a hugely interesting film Id like to see or something like avenger 2 maybe. For all the rest, I've no problem downloading end of story.
Like I said, do you see robert downey and tom cruise starving any time soon???
twenty million to act??? seriously?? tough, aint life hard!!

TheDoc

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah to be fair, the paintballing analogy isn't apt because things like the actual balls of paints (iirc they're sold separately) are necessary to the experience: say what you will about the tradition of having popcorn at the cinema, it's not necessary to the experience of watching a movie there. You can still watch the film without problem, and it's not like you can't bring your own snacks to the cinema anyway - I frequently do it as would many of my friends. Sure, you're not meant to, and if you snuck in with a McDonalds burger you might get turfed out, but you can and many do. Johnny's comments seem reasonable enough, 10euro per person is about right. You don't HAVE to buy at the counter of the cinema, nobody's forcing you and it won't make the actual feature presentation any better / worse

Your spot on. No quabbles there from me. There is a personal preference on our part for cinema popcorn, especially Odeon who still rock butter

But I factor that as part of the cinema experience, because when I go, I know there is that additional purchase. None of my previous posts were(well didnt mean to be) massive qualms about the price of the cinema, and it being a rip off. When I come out of the cinema seeing a great film, I'm not gauging its value based on the price I pay. A good cinema experience is worth its weight in gold, and I go home happy.

But if I come out from garbage, then yeah, I'm kinda going "**** me that was €40 flushed".

so I'll apologise in advance since it was a point of contention for a few posts. I factor the cinema trip at two tickets + two combos. That's my cinema experience, thats what we want and go for. I wasn't compaining about the actual pricing, or claiming it a rip off( a seperate debate, but I feel it is btw) but if I come out of a film chuffed, the money paid is entirely irrelevant.

but it's a different story when you watch rubbish, and that's actually accross the spectrum in anything, with everyone. Very few people in this world will spend money on something that is trash and be in anyway happy about it, or feel it was worth a punt

TheDoc

rusty cole wrote: »

I know, it's shocking and always the big blockbusters too, where they know they'll get the crowds. Like it's over 11 Euro in UGC parnell street, then add the glasses etc, it's a joke.
I went the cinema every week as I'm not a huge drinker but now I simply cannot throw the cash away. I go when there's a hugely interesting film Id like to see or something like avenger 2 maybe. For all the rest, I've no problem downloading end of story.
Like I said, do you see robert downey and tom cruise starving any time soon???
twenty million to act??? seriously?? tough, aint life hard!!

Edge of Tomorrow really annoyed me that I was forced to miss it. But looks, I'm sure they arn't looking at low numbers. Customers vote with their feet. People are en mass obviously happy to watch that 3d stuff, and if I'm the minority I'll need to accept it.

I was annoyed though that there was a lack of options. Odeon are normally very good with having 2D showings. I got to see Godzilla in 2D no problem, and actually more of the recent films I've seen that were pushed as 3D, I'd no issues with seeing them. This is the first time I've been forced to miss a film because there was no 2D showing accessible to me.

Now in saying that, there is no high quality Edge of Tomorrow release available online. I've a copy on pre-order with amazon. If I went home tonight and there was a high quality release, I'd be lying to you straight if I said I wouldn't download it and watch. I would however, keep the pre-order in place, unless it turned out to be garbage.

If you're including the popcorn for the cinema price why not include the electricity, internet, snacks, drinks, heating, wear and tear on sofa and other furnishings etc.etc. for when watching a film at home?

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're including the popcorn for the cinema price why not include the electricity, internet, snacks, drinks, heating, wear and tear on sofa and other furnishings etc.etc. for when watching a film at home?

ok I've apologised for any misdirection that caused. I wasn't aware there was a large majority of cinema goers that buy a ticket and nothing else. My bad.

ps3lover

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/lionsgate-sues-expendables-3-leak-722806?mobile_redirect=false

Looks Like Lionsgate are suing over this now.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'd be under the impression we would take the total cost of the cinema experience as the baseline no, clearly not.

And that's fine. So yes, €10 per person and €9.50 for optional luxuries.

But ,and maybe it's just me, I factor in the total cost of the event/excercise/trip and assess that as the value to whatever the event is. I factor the "luxury" of food, as a part of the cinema experience.

It's a big weird of a point to make though. I'm not going to protray that you breaking it down to that level to make your arguement, like that, you guys are in the right here, I'm in the wrong, I'm not going to try justify it in anyway.

But you wouldn't go paintballing for example and say it costs €10, when we all know you have additional outlays and costs to the experience, that while you most likely don't need to make, you still do, for the experience.

And there is a lot of examples like that. I'd also argue your in the minority(no issues with it) if you are a cinema goer who pay sfor one ticket, and consumes no food or drinks during the viewing. Now I did this myself in college, where breaks in classes for a few hours, or if classes didnt start until afternoon, I used my cineworld pass and would just go in alone, watch a film, no expense on food, then hit class. But I think this is a minority example.

Your analogy simply doesn't work. When you go to the cinmea the only essential cost is the price of the ticket, everything else is a luxury you chose. If I go shopping tomorrow and buy a Blu-Ray and my total shopping comes to €100, I don't tell people that the film cost me €100.

I'm taking my little brother to see Guardians of the Galaxy over the weekend and he will want popcorn and a drink but I won't include that in the cost of seeing the film as it's a luxury.

rusty cole wrote: »

I agree 100% to be honest. I've seen the film an it's terrible anyway. Copy was perfect, almost blue ray quality. Normally I'd feel bad but I went to the cinema 3 weeks ago with my two nephews to see planet of the apes and had to go 3D. we all know these films are just blurred versions of a 2D films so they can make up for lost revenue, it's a joke. And most cinemas don't even give the choice, so it's an inflated 3D version or nothing (or at tiny 20 seater somewhere).

As long as movie stars are getting paid in the millions for getting free clothes, flights, cocaine
cars etc etc etc, I think I'll sleep fine. I also agree with the ellen point, that's a joke.
Sure howard stern leaked that super 8 movie too and to my knowledge he's not been punished as much as one might think.

Wow, I really don't know how to respond to any of that nonsense. 3D may not be cinemas most essential tool but to say that it's just a blurry version 2D film is ridiculous. 3D when used correctly can add to the experience, it's not something I would regularly pay for but there's the odd film which utilises it correctly. Hugo in 3D is just wonderful, it's a great film in 2D but the way in which Scorsese uses the tech is a joy to watch. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about and just pandering to the lowest common denominator with your justifications for stealing. At the end of the day, people who pirate over watching a film through legitimate means really don't have a voice when it comes to criticising cinema.

johnny_ultimate

TheDoc wrote: »

ok I've apologised for any misdirection that caused. I wasn't aware there was a large majority of cinema goers that buy a ticket and nothing else. My bad.

Well, at least the fact that some cinema goers opt for popcorn and drinks probably keeps the ticket prices down for the rest of us I'm sure if overpriced snacks weren't taking in such profit for multiplexes we'd see actual ticket prices sneak up a notch!

One thing I would say is that it's never been easier to avoid actual duds. Now naturally none of us will know whether we like a film or not until we've seen it. But definitely the many reactions online mean it's pretty easy to gauge a general reaction. I go to well over a hundred, maybe even two hundred films in the cinema a year (I'm always a bit worried about counting the exact number!), and it's a rarity I've felt like I've wasted my time. Even if I don't like or love it, I wouldn't consider it a waste if the film was interesting or well made but just didn't appeal to me personally. Usually the only truly awful films I end up watching are on lazy trips with friends, cases where I really should have known better or the odd impulsive festival screening.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

I know, it's shocking and always the big blockbusters too, where they know they'll get the crowds. Like it's over 11 Euro in UGC parnell street, then add the glasses etc, it's a joke.
I went the cinema every week as I'm not a huge drinker but now I simply cannot throw the cash away. I go when there's a hugely interesting film Id like to see or something like avenger 2 maybe. For all the rest, I've no problem downloading end of story.
Like I said, do you see robert downey and tom cruise starving any time soon???
twenty million to act??? seriously?? tough, aint life hard!!

You do realise that pirating a film doesn't hurt the huge stars but rather those who work in the industry and earn a wage. On any given set, there will be very few people earning huge amounts of money. Most, including established actors such as Peter Coyote, Tom Berenger and so on would earn a fraction of what Cruise and Downey Jr. would. A lot was made of the fact that Jonah Hill was only paid $60,000 for his role in The Wolf of Wall Street but that's what most actors would take home for a role. It's those people who suffer thanks to piracy as well as all the technicians who work for a weekly salary. Most people involved in the film industry are not millionaires but rather just people like you and I, they work to put food on the table and if enough people pirate a film that a studio decides not to go forward with a film then they suffer.

Here's an interesting letter that Peter Coyote wrote to highlight the differences in earnings between the A-listers and every other actor on set.

Dear Colleagues,
A small minority of actors are internationally known, iconic figures, whom audiences flock to see in films and on television. Producers know these actors as the best means to insure return on their investments and reward them appropriately for that security. In addition to talent, these actors have had that extra measure of good fortune, and have been propelled to the very top of our profession. It is to these actors that this letter is addressed, because your good fortune may have insulated you from issues currently afflicting the majority of actors who support you as the ‘friends’, ‘lovers’, ‘cops’, ‘lawyers’, ‘judges’, ‘villains’, and ‘side-kicks in films, and who are also hard-working, talented and skilled professionals.

Since 1990 the earnings of the top leading actors have increased exponentially while the salaries of nearly all other actors have been systematically driven down. In many cases, the earnings of established character actors have been rolled back by 60-70 percent. This occurs, in large part, because the working professional (as opposed to the star) is at a disadvantage when negotiating in the new corporatized production environment. We do not possess a unique, marketable (and often media exploited) brand, and consequently lack the power to make or break the existence or profitability of a film. Consequently, respected, veteran actors with numerous credits and hard-earned “quotes” now routinely receive “take-it-or-leave it” offers, often at “scale”—a beginners wage.

Our actor’s Guild has two weapons to employ in protecting its members: the threat or fact of strike, and the power of its “star” members. The power to strike is the union’s ultimate weapon, but it is a crude and draconian one and wounds everyone in our industry. Consequently, like nuclear weapons, it is rarely used. The industry is currently facing its second strike this year because the majority of its membership is suffering and feel they have no other recourse. If you possess only one weapon, it’s the one you use. Given the radical depression in earnings there’s little wonder that a strike is on the table again.

There is a simple way leading actors might bring a second, more flexible and targeted weapon into the fray on behalf of your colleagues which incidentally, would provide the ancillary benefit of insuring that you consistently play opposite actors of the highest caliber. If you were to include language in your contracts specifying that, in your films, the “quotes” of your peers must be recognized as a negotiating floor for their compensation, if you publicized that fact, and, if you kicked back a modest amount, say on salaries over six million dollars a film to make that money available, each and every actor negotiating to play opposite you would be empowered to demand the fair compensation that he or she has won for their work.

Why should you be asked to kick back, you might well ask? (and even wonder at the nerve of the suggestion? ) There are a few reasons that make sense to me. 1) You are the engines of the industry, and consequently immune to pressure and intimidation. 2) You are the wealthiest sub-community of the actors, and, possessing the awareness and sensibilities of artists, understand the mutuality of our work in a way that producers never will. 3) Such a gesture would buttress your peers who cannot win such gains for themselves except by sabotaging the entire industry with a strike, which prevents much work in which you have points from getting made.

Also, let’s relate to the non-celluloid world for a moment. Once an actor reaches the six or ten million dollar mark for several months work, they are financially secure for life unless they are morons or have extremely bad habits. By the time they’re earning 15-20 million, some measurable percentage of those earnings is meaningless. A major star on a film we were doing together, once told me, (We were discussing this issue) “Hey there’s no difference between 17 and 18 million to me! My agent tells me so-and-so gets it and so should I.”

That “no difference money” is the difference between earning a living or not for most of the rest of us. A modest return to insure the health of the entire community (the principle behind income taxes) hardly seems excessive. While this would not solve all the problems of our community, it would certainly remove much of the desperation and rancor from negotiations and make earning a living once again possible for far more of the membership. It cannot be legislated by law, only by custom, but as a custom it would lend a definite grace to our industry, and perhaps set a model that might inspire others. (Why do the words “Corporate executives” leap to mind?)

You cannot grow roses without mulch. While stars represent the beautiful blooms of the industry, the soil of the industry, the medium of growth supplied by all those who surround you, is being starved for nourishment. Eventually, this lack of payback to the medium supporting all the growth will kill, if not the plant itself, at least its quality and vitality. Our industry is not secure while the majority of its players are not. To change the situation requires consciousness, solidarity, and power. We have the consciousness and solidarity. We appeal to you for help with the power.

Sincerely,
Peter Coyote

timetogo

After the turd that was Expendables 2 I wouldn't even spend the bandwidth downloading this screener. I went to see another movie tonight and Expendables 3 was advertised. I think the average sentence length in the trailer was about 4 words long so it's probably not for me. I'm probably just getting old.

Jumboman

No body should feel guilty for not supporting hollywood. They have a major problem with pedophilia within the industry.