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

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.

Agent Coulson

Lionsgate has filed a lawsuit against 10 anonymous individuals the studio alleges were responsible for illegally sharing a high-quality copy of “The Expendables 3″ three weeks before its theatrical debut.

The studio is seeking unspecified monetary damages for contributory copyright infringement, and seeks to block the operators of several cloud-storage and torrent-sharing websites from linking to or distributing the poached copy of the action film.

In addition, Lionsgate’s lawsuit demands that the defendants, identified as John Does 1-10, turn over all digital copies of the film, including hardware like servers that contain pirated copies, and that they be barred from continuing to operate the websites.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/lionsgate-sues-pirates-over-expendables-3-leaked-internet-copy-1201273600/

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

These people get a flat wage. They dont get a share of the profit so its the studio/label that would lose out.
The quote seemed to be more about the lack of power these people have negotiating pay.

I dont feel the slightest bit of sympathy for this industry. They have failed to move with technology and been left behind. Look at examples of other industies that have provided online services and you see that even now they are living in the dark ages.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

These people get a flat wage. They dont get a share of the profit so its the studio/label that would lose out.
The quote seemed to be more about the lack of power these people have negotiating pay.

I dont feel the slightest bit of sympathy for this industry. They have failed to move with technology and been left behind. Look at examples of other industies that have provided online services and you see that even now they are living in the dark ages.

And what happens when productions are put on hold or cancelled due to piracy. It's not Brad Pitt and the like who will suffer but those on a wage. Hollywood has been moving with the times, granted they've been slow but they are catching up. VOD is taking off in a huge way and studios are making smaller, more niche titles available digitally before they hit a cinema.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And what happens when productions are put on hold or cancelled due to piracy. It's not Brad Pitt and the like who will suffer but those on a wage. Hollywood has been moving with the times, granted they've been slow but they are catching up. VOD is taking off in a huge way and studios are making smaller, more niche titles available digitally before they hit a cinema.

It might be too late as people are used to getting these for free now. Netflix is the type of model they should have gone for.

Look at steam for a good model of online sales.

I dont believe production is being put on hold for anything due to piracy. These studios greatly exaggerate its impact. People download things they would never buy and these companies trot out figures pulled from thin air.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

It might be too late as people are used to getting these for free now. Netflix is the type of model they should have gone for.

Look at steam for a good model of online sales.

I dont believe production is being put on hold for anything due to piracy. These studios greatly exaggerate its impact. People download things they would never buy and these companies trot out figures pulled from thin air.

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

You had two options an illegal free service and an inferior expensive legal service. This has contiued for years now where the industry is trying to still stop pirates and not looking at their own model. Make it cheap, reliable and of a decent quality and people will pay.

Theres a great webcomic where a guy tries to legally download game of thrones. He tries going the legal route and hits wall after wall then goes to an illegal site and gets it immediatley. Its an example of how bad the current legal way of getting certain media is.

Edit: Steam have their own sales too. They just provide a good service though they should be cheaper for new titles as you dont get a physical copy.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

You had two options an illegal free service and an inferior expensive legal service. This has contiued for years now where the industry is trying to still stop pirates and not looking at their own model. Make it cheap, reliable and of a decent quality and people will pay.

Theres a great webcomic where a guy tries to legally download game of thrones. He tries going the legal route and hits wall after wall then goes to an illegal site and gets it immediatley. Its an example of how bad the current legal way of getting certain media is.

Edit: Steam have their own sales too. They just provide a good service though they should be cheaper for new titles as you dont get a physical copy.

If there was a streaming service offering the latest releases then the monthly price would be ridicolous, you'd be looking at 50 euro a month. It simply isn't feasable and even if such a service existed it wouldn't apply to films in cinemas and as such there would still be people downloading leaks such as this. Anyone looking for the latest releases at a good price can find them on amazon, itunes or one of the other services offering VOD but the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people simply won't pay for it no matter how cheap or easily accessed it is.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

Little confusing here, but the "steamkey sites" only came about, due to the popularity of steam itself as a platform.

It's new releases pricing models arn't very enticing, but the steam sales generate millions of customers flocking to the service and buying what is outragously good bargains, but generating revenue for the developers and publishers, mostly on games well past their sell by date.

Steam key websites, were created and developed to jump on the back of Steams success, and who's operation is based from buying keys cheaper through currency differences, and hoping to sell enough of them onto customers to make profit. So a re-seller website might buy a bulk of keys in say Us Dollar, then being able to sell them cheaper to a Euro customer, and sell in enough bulk to flip a profit.

Steam is an excellent example of a platform that looked at a problem, identified a demand with the customer base, and went ahead an supplied it. It's now a model a number of big publishers are following and copying and Digital Delivery is now very much accepted and the norm in the gaming indsutry ( albeit pricing can leave a lot to be desired). But it's moved the trends on, and brought about a standard, that wasn't there ten years ago.

Also you might want to elaborate on that scum remark. Are you outlining people that get things for free are scum, or that people who expect things for free are scum? "Used to getting things for free, are scum". That's a pretty open ended statement that probably needs more refinement to be fair.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone looking for the latest releases at a good price can find them on amazon, itunes or one of the other services offering VOD but the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people simply won't pay for it no matter how cheap or easily accessed it is.

depends what "a lot" is. Of course there are people who will pirate everything and anything because they just won't hand over money for things. Fair enough. But does this portion of the total actually represent a majority, or the minority.

The problem is no one knows, any figures we see are grossly exagerated from whatever type of media organisation are peddling poor mouth. And it doesn't help the situation.

What also doesn't help is the tests they are doing to see if releasing new titles simultanously alongside cinema releases works. The titles being chosen are typicaly low budget, horrible films that have horrendous reviews and critique before they even hit general release, and end up being avoided anyway.

What would be interesting is to see a big title, or eagerly anticipated title, receiving a release same day as cinema, via a Video on demand server, be in amazon, itunes, google play, whatever.

I think they would be pleasently suprised to see the pickup, if they had a simultanous release via a VOD service, with a reasonable price.

When you consider people pay up to €50 for PPV events, and do so in large quantity, I see no reason why people wouldn't spend money to see a film in the comfort of their own home, on the same day release.

Sky release data quarterly on their Box Office stats, and it's normally very impressive. And shows growth year on year. It used to be they would have top titles on the release day of a film simultanous with the DVD release, but now its moving towards being earlier then DVD release, and in some cases only a short while after leaving the cinema.

The pricing has also dropped since it was first introduced, and the varierty and selection has multiplied rapidly. I think it's only like €5 now to grab a film on box office and you've unlimited viewing for like 48 hours or something.


Hulu, Itunes, Amazon, Netflix, Sky now Google with Play. There is quaterly growth year in year out in these services of both revenue and membership numbers. But the film indsutry is too often trying to hold on board the gravy train, and not embrace the change that their customers want. And what they want is competitive pricing, but most importantly choice.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Little confusing here, but the "steamkey sites" only came about, due to the popularity of steam itself as a platform.

It's new releases pricing models arn't very enticing, but the steam sales generate millions of customers flocking to the service and buying what is outragously good bargains, but generating revenue for the developers and publishers, mostly on games well past their sell by date.

Steam key websites, were created and developed to jump on the back of Steams success, and who's operation is based from buying keys cheaper through currency differences, and hoping to sell enough of them onto customers to make profit. So a re-seller website might buy a bulk of keys in say Us Dollar, then being able to sell them cheaper to a Euro customer, and sell in enough bulk to flip a profit.

Steam is an excellent example of a platform that looked at a problem, identified a demand with the customer base, and went ahead an supplied it. It's now a model a number of big publishers are following and copying and Digital Delivery is now very much accepted and the norm in the gaming indsutry ( albeit pricing can leave a lot to be desired). But it's moved the trends on, and brought about a standard, that wasn't there ten years ago.

Also you might want to elaborate on that scum remark. Are you outlining people that get things for free are scum, or that people who expect things for free are scum? "Used to getting things for free, are scum". That's a pretty open ended statement that probably needs more refinement to be fair.

My scum remark really doesn't need any more refinement. People who have gotten used to getting thigns for free and expect them to be so are scum. If you pirate then you are the problem and no matter how you justify it you are scum.

We're all aware of how Steam works but Steam's monopoly on the market saw them raise prices beyond what anyone was used to paying. PC games traidionally had a lower price point but since Steam grew in popualirty the price of games bought through the service has risen and the sales, which were once one of the services best features are now just a pale imitation of what they once were.

There already exists a number of services like Steam that cater to film. We have amazon and itunes to name but two and yet people still pirate. You yourslef chose to pirate Locke rather than hold off a week or so and legally watch it through one of the services.

TheDoc wrote: »

depends what "a lot" is. Of course there are people who will pirate everything and anything because they just won't hand over money for things. Fair enough. But does this portion of the total actually represent a majority, or the minority.

The problem is no one knows, any figures we see are grossly exagerated from whatever type of media organisation are peddling poor mouth. And it doesn't help the situation.

What also doesn't help is the tests they are doing to see if releasing new titles simultanously alongside cinema releases works. The titles being chosen are typicaly low budget, horrible films that have horrendous reviews and critique before they even hit general release, and end up being avoided anyway.

What would be interesting is to see a big title, or eagerly anticipated title, receiving a release same day as cinema, via a Video on demand server, be in amazon, itunes, google play, whatever.

I think they would be pleasently suprised to see the pickup, if they had a simultanous release via a VOD service, with a reasonable price.

When you consider people pay up to €50 for PPV events, and do so in large quantity, I see no reason why people wouldn't spend money to see a film in the comfort of their own home, on the same day release.

Sky release data quarterly on their Box Office stats, and it's normally very impressive. And shows growth year on year. It used to be they would have top titles on the release day of a film simultanous with the DVD release, but now its moving towards being earlier then DVD release, and in some cases only a short while after leaving the cinema.

The pricing has also dropped since it was first introduced, and the varierty and selection has multiplied rapidly. I think it's only like €5 now to grab a film on box office and you've unlimited viewing for like 48 hours or something.


Hulu, Itunes, Amazon, Netflix, Sky now Google with Play. There is quaterly growth year in year out in these services of both revenue and membership numbers. But the film indsutry is too often trying to hold on board the gravy train, and not embrace the change that their customers want. And what they want is competitive pricing, but most importantly choice.

There have been numerous examples of big films released in theaters and on VOD on the same day and it's generally been that the VOD viewing figures only make up a small percentage. When you factor in the cost of some of the major blockbusters, then it simply doesn't make sense for the studio to offer them on VOD at the same time as theaters. Especially when you consider that if a studio did so then every major theater chain in America would refuse to screen their film.

The film industry has embraced change, that you can get pretty much any film bar the blockbusters on VOD at the same time if not before they hit theaters. What you seem to want is for the studios to offer up something like Guardians of the Galaxy for a couple of euro on VOD the same day it opens in cinemas, that or have a streaming service like Netflix which has all new releases. If they were to do so then you'd be paying a hell of a lot of money each month, it simpy isn't a service that could be sold at an affordable price.