Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies The Internet

'Sith' Already Found Online 788

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the water-still-wet dept.
ScentCone writes "Of course it was bound to happen, so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds, or whether people would or would not have gone to see it now that the usual path has been carved around the opening weekend box office." I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news. It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Sith' Already Found Online

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:48PM (#12583799)
    I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news.
    CowboyNeal confirms it, this isn't news.
  • by ValiantSoul (801152) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:48PM (#12583803)
    I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.
    • by Joel Rowbottom (89350) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:52PM (#12583851) Homepage
      I've just got back from seeing RotS. The sound in the theatre (yes, I'm in the UK) was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy. Sadly many films seen at my local cinema and at others don't seem to be 'clean' prints and I'd have expected better of an opening-night showing.

      Y'know, I actually believe that had I seen a torrent it would have been *better* quality, sadly. Maybe I've just got used to DVD quality and stuff.

      (Wakefield Cineworld, UK, please take note).

      Oh, as a film, the first 2 hours sucked ass. The rest of it was cool. But that's a conversation for another thread ;)
      • by magarity (164372) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:01PM (#12583970)
        The sound in the theatre was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy

        This can happen to the most pristine of prints when put in the load end of a projector in bad need of maintenance/tuning/etc. And movies are prescreened by at least the projectionist (all) if not also the rest of the employees (blockbusters) before the first public screenings.
      • by kisea (812095) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:25PM (#12584207)
        Well, the print being projected is only as good as the projectionist who builds the film. I have only very limited experience with this through a friend who is a projectionist. I actually got to watch him build RotS. It came on 7 small reels which have to be spliced together into one long version. This is typical of about any movie currently. If the film is wound too tightly then you can get scratches which make the film look 'dusty'. Over time, if this continues to happen then the film continues to degrade at an accelerated rate. Don't blame the film in all cases, blame the theater. I, for one, went to an extremely crappy showing. The 12:00 showing ended up being a 12:50 showing with several major problems causing some very irate fans. They oversold the viewing and had to string the film through multiple projectors. So, they start one movie, wait a bit so they have plenty of reserve then string what has already been through projector A over to projector B and start the film there. It was a very disappointing showing and I plan on getting a refund.
        • by 21st Century Peon (812997) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:14PM (#12584602)
          Plus, they'll occasionally splice a single frame from a porn film in there.

          "So just when the snooty droid and the pregnant princess have met with the fallen Jedi for the last time, that's when you'll catch a flash of Tyler's contribution to the film. Nobody knows they saw it, but they did."
          "A nice big lightsabre."
        • I've been a projectonist for a year. You don't get scratchy film the first day a movie is out in theatres! It takes usually > 30 proj. before a film starts getting quite unfocused.
          And that in most cases doesn't affect sound (dolby surround is a tiny track on the left of the film read by a laser, and quite hard to scratch).

          Anyway, you can report the film is damaged by using the attached form, and the film will be substituted via UPS / or it will be substituted for the next theatre (at least, if it is a b
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:52PM (#12583857)
      Yes but you are forgetting that plenty of casual fans value free stuff over better quality not free stuff.
      Hell even Jesus himself wanted the free barn over the costly Inn to make his appearance to the world.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:52PM (#12583859)
      It is crappy quality but it is not a cam rip. Since it was from a working copy of the film the audio is near perfect but the video has been highly compressed. There are also two timecode displays present and are quite annoying.
    • by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:53PM (#12583863)
      True; if you watch it on your home computer, you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Imperial Storm troopers, Amidala, young lord Vader, etc. Uh, and this is a bad thing because... ?
    • by Neurotoxic666 (679255) <neurotoxic666@nOsPaM.hotmail.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:53PM (#12583870) Homepage
      See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

      You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?

      Yeah. You're right. My computer isn't like that.
      • by YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT (651184) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:02PM (#12584510) Homepage Journal
        Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you?

        That would be me. I can come over and sit in front of your computer if you like, but you have to buy the popcorn.

        YLFI
      • You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?


        Of course if you download the copy doing the rounds, you'll probably get all of the above lovingly encoded into your home viewing experience.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

      I use Windows I see the dark side everyday.

    • You don't get that kind of experience from a computer

      Of course, the entire film itself was made on a computer. (OK, two computers)
      • by Mikito (833242) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:36PM (#12584283)
        Of course, the entire film itself was made on a computer. (OK, two computers)

        You've all heard how George Lucas delayed production on the prequels because technology couldn't adequately produce the special effects he wanted.

        The real reason for the decades-long gap in films is that Lucasfilm had been using computers since the early 1980s for the digital effects, and the computers only finished rendering frames fairly recently. Digital rendering takes time on a bunch of 4.77 MHz machines.
    • by carpe_noctem (457178) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:56PM (#12583905) Homepage Journal
      You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

      What if I beat my head against the table a few times and then mailed George Lucas $7?
    • by DroopyStonx (683090) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:03PM (#12583991)
      Nah, you're wrong: It's actually a very good rip.

      You can find it from various newsgroups listed here http://www.newzbin.com/search/query/p/?q=episode&C ategory=6&searchFP=p [newzbin.com]

      Enjoy.
    • by mesach (191869) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:08PM (#12584045)
      The download version is a workprint downsampled to a VCD then upsampled to a dvd at 1600Meg it looks pretty damn good and sounds good for a movie that was released the day before.

      The only problem is the counter at the top that runs through the whole film.

      I haven't watched it, just a few samples here and there, as I do plan on going to see it saturday with my g/f and if I watch it before then, I dont "get any" for a long time.

      If Lucas has anything to complain about, he needs to look into his chain of distribution as this could only have come from inside somewhere.
    • by zakezuke (229119) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:30PM (#12584239)
      I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

      From what I'm told, there is a workprint edition floating around the net. It may or not be before special effects have been added, I'm unsure. But such an edition isn't going to be the crappy poor sound some guy with a cam corder edition. Judging from the file sizes I see floating about we are looking at DVD ep mode, which well franky isn't all that great. But on par with VCDs that are still popular.
    • by syousef (465911) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:35PM (#12584276) Journal
      There's something very perverse about taking (arguably) the movie with the most action and special effects ever made, and breaking the law to watch it in crappy low-fi divx. Can you say cheapskate?
  • Get real (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eunuch (844280) * on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:48PM (#12583804)
    Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is. I know what it is, but I've only used it to grab large demos/obviously free stuff. I have better things to do with my time than wander through various video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

    They are just being greedy for the small amount of money they might be losing. The lawyers likely take far more than that amount. The path to transhumanism won't require much money anyway. And that is what counts.
    • This may be very true, however the idea behind punitive damages are that they actually punish for the crime/tort committed rather than just costing the person who is in the wrong the amount it would have cost him had he acquired the copyrighted material legally.
    • Re:Get real (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dwlovell (815091) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:57PM (#12583925)
      They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.

      If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.

      If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.

      So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.

      -David
      • Re:Get real (Score:3, Informative)

        Certainly you can argue that a trend of opposition to sharing will promote less sharing in the future. The problem with your post is that it largely avoids the numbers, and you quantatavite remark is incorrect.

        The Napster "reform" caused a emotional setback but with more internet users and much better connections there is still more music sharing now than in 1999 or whenever napster was crushed.

        Getting on to the meat of this argument... Each individual case that the media industry persues costs them mone
    • I have to agree... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by artemis67 (93453)
      Anyone who would settle for the generally poor quality of bootleg movies probably in not a big spender on theaters to begin with.

      Seriously. Somebody showed me the bootleg of Hitchiker's Guide the other day, and I was really sorry I saw it that way. I wasn't planning to see it, but I ended up enjoying it immensely; the only problem was that the low quality of the rip was a big distraction.

      But come on, a movie like Star Wars was made to be seen on the big screen, and most of the public knows that.
    • Re:Get real (Score:3, Informative)

      by mattjb0010 (724744)
      Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is.

      I just got back from a bar where I was chatting to a girl (ie not a computer geek), and she brought up the topic of bittorrent. So the fact that a generic young (20ish) person mentioned it a bar means it's only a matter of time before the general populace cottons on to bittorents. IMHO.
    • Re:Get real (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mobby_6kl (668092)
      Most people of course have no idea what BT might be, but according to the current CNN poll [cnn.com] (probably as accurate as the /. one, but still), 26% would download it somehow.

      >video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

      Well what did you expect, raw HD footage? ;)
    • Re:Get real (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rinikusu (28164)
      And you know this.. how? And you have hard numbers to back your assertions... from where? And you are... who?

      Just as I'm likely to not believe any numbers the BSA/MPAA/RIAA produce, I sure don't just take the word of some random guy on /. that "everything's okay, everyone's just lying". You may have anecdotal evidence, but consider that I can go down to the laundromat and buy burned DVD's of whatever movie I need from a guy who has no clue what bittorrent is. He knows how to use XCopy and a couple oth
    • Re:Get real (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kosmosik (654958) <kos@@@kosmosik...net> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:25PM (#12584203) Homepage
      > Actual damages from bittorrent have to be
      > very small.

      It is hard to tell in general it can be even the opposite... Meaning BT makes people to see more movies. I can explain it like this:

      Disclimer: keep in mind that I am not about piracy and I prefer to go to theater and watch something good instead of watching shitty CAM rip of stupid movie.

      *But*

      In my country (Poland, but I can imagine it is the same somwhere else) some titles are not distributed at all - take Korean or Japanese movies - I find them great but most of them does not make it to cinemas or even DVD distribution here. So my only chance to actually watch them is either go to some country where it is aviable or get it via BT. So guess what I do? :) But some films *do* make it to cinemas (and DVD distribution) so as now I know I like such movies (I get to know that due to BT) I will go to cinema for those few titles (and get others from BT).

      It is not the matter of people wanting to watch stuff on computer (actually I have proper sound system and beam projector to wall), it is not the matter of quality either - it is a matter of old *distribution* methods/channels - they simply do not fit no more - I can imagine a service where you can download movie for $5. Watch it once (I would even agree on DRM here, most of the people also - things with movies are different than f.e. audio - when you go to cinema you pay for the ticket and watch it once - so the analogy with DRM would be painless) and be satisfied - also it would speed up the distribution.

      Right now I have to wait till the title gets published in my region - why? I have to wait till the title gets translation - why? I don't need translation I know english. I have to wait till the title gets marketed locally - why? I don't need marketing - I already know that I want to watch it.

      So traditional distribution sucks and that is why BT is so popular among saavy users - traditional model does not fit us.

      > Most people simply don't even know what
      > bittorrent is.

      So what? They don't need to - they know what P2P is - place where you can get fresh and rare stuff. They don't care if it is BT, or Emule or Kazaa or whatever - they just click and if it works it is OK for them.

      Also do you know that BT is one of biggest traffic generators in Internet?

      (...)

      > I have better things to do with my time
      > than wander through various video files in
      > various states of compression (almost all
      > lossy).

      Also you are far from reality here. Take a look:

      http://trackerwww.prq.to/liveindex.php?cat=19 [trackerwww.prq.to]

      All DVD rips (looseless) titles. Just click them and get it over your DSL. No need to go to the store or rental anymore. And the choice there is comparable to small rental/store.

      > They are just being greedy for the small
      > amount of money they might be losing.

      Money is not the point here - as you have stated there is no comparsion between watching movie at home or going to cinema. It is beetween getting movie from rental (I don't know anybody that actually buys DVD) and getting it from BT - BT is for some people more convinient, not only (can be) money counts here. Also if BT is only way for me to get movie - where is money in this situation? Either I get it for free or I don't get it at all...

      People who distribute and benefit from movies should notice that.
      • Re:Get real (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NeuroManson (214835)
        Actually, you make a good point;

        In my country (Poland, but I can imagine it is the same somwhere else) some titles are not distributed at all -

        For the case for BitTorrent downloads, consider too that in nations with severe cultural controls (China, Saudi Arabia, et al), not only would most movies have to be heavily censored for whatever ruling class is in place (don't want any dangerous ideas getting around), if they're actually imported at all.

        Now say user "X" watches a movie that his or her government
  • by Anonymous Coward
    What did you expect, really?
  • by croddy (659025) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:49PM (#12583813)
    Cam-rips are usually unwatchable... I can't imagine a low-resolution recording of a movie being any sort of substitute for actually seeing the film.

    But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...

    • by Skyshadow (508) * on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:51PM (#12583842) Homepage
      Interesting, "unwatchable" was exactly the word I was looking for. Of course, I was thinking about Ep. 1 at the time...
    • by Bri3D (584578) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:00PM (#12583955) Journal
      This isn't a cam, it's a workprint. I know because I have it. It's fairly low-res MPEG-2, but the sound is fairly good. Only problem is the two workprint timers at the top.
    • Not A Cam Rip (Score:5, Informative)

      by BRock97 (17460) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:24PM (#12584191) Homepage
      From what I have been able to gather online, it isn't a cam rip but actually a work print. This is significant for two reasons.

      1) The quality will be better than a cam.

      2) Workprints are usually only available to those within the industry which means someone close to the studio leaked this out.

      Workprints are usually pretty hard to get, hence why you don't hear about them in the leaked movie news very often.

      All said, though, go see it in the theatre. I went to the 12:01 showing last night and it was awesome. Truly awesome.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:49PM (#12583815)
    I've found lots of Shit online before. Oh, wait...
  • by suitepotato (863945) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:50PM (#12583826)
    (...)a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

    After reading the script, I'd say the movie itself is fuzzy with garbled writing.

    Sadly, since I don't use BitTorrent with much success and instead rely on eMule/aMule, what copies I get will likely take two weeks to finish downloading and be in Spanish with German subtitles. Oddly, this will probably be easier to follow anyhow.
  • Lets mod this story +1 Obvious Sir, would you like that in English [novatina.com] or Spanish ? [novatina.com]

  • News? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tpoo22 (813505)
    I'd say it's news for the same reason that the other half-dozen or so Star Wars related stories which have made the mainstream press - because lots of people are interested, and Lucas has damn good publicists. A few thousands or tens of thousands of downloads won't make much of a dent in the takings, and stories like this all help to create the buzz.
  • News? Yeah right. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Telastyn (206146) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:52PM (#12583852)
    Just like "take our Star Wars quiz!" and "was Darth Vader born evil?" [also CNN content] are news? The site has been posting Star Wars crap all week as a marketing blitz for the premiere.

    This isn't news, it's thinly veiled marketing.
    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:08PM (#12584049)
      The Star Wars marketing was rather interesting this time around. CNN ran all the usual Star Wars news segments ("look at those wacky fans") and some less-usual ones ("everything you need to know to get up to speed on Star Wars lingo"). Discovery Channel dipped in to the pot with Science of Star Wars and their Animal Planet special on Star Wars fauna and their earthly inspirations.

      Me, myself... I got two bags of M&Ms. Jedi Mix and Darth mix. I put them in two seperate bowls. Then I mixed them. Stunning Jedi battles did not ensue.
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dogas (312359) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:53PM (#12583864) Homepage
    The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

    It seems to me just like the MPAA pumping the press to make it look like a huge deal. It's not.
    • The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

      Slashdot Citizen! Do not oppose the Group Think that P2P is used for 'TEST DRIVING' content, and that EVERYONE buys what they download! And that if Hollywood/MPAA only produced better stuff, we'd...buy...more of...

      Wait...I thought we said we bought everything we downloaded?

      Aaaaaaa! [head implodes]

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mowler2 (301294)
      Actually I have downloaded it and seen it - and will also go to the cinema today and see it there.

      Reason for downloading and watching it? Just wanted to see the movie asap. :) Will still consume the stuff they sell though - as many other pirates do. The RIAA/MPAA thinking that piracy = stealing is flawed.
  • It's still usually shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

    Yes, yes it certainly is worth.
  • by jnaujok (804613) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:54PM (#12583874) Homepage Journal
    The copy that's on the web (yes, I know where it is, no I won't tell you) is a direct copy from a work print. Thus, it's not a "crummy handheld in a theater". So it's more than likely that Lucas is going to be really peeved about this.

    Considering that it has the time-code on the bottom, I'd imagine it's uniquely coded so that Lucas knows exactly who leaked it.

    And no, I haven't downloaded it, although my eleven year old will probably try and "whine" his way into it.
  • "BitTorrent file-sharing network -- a new and increasingly popular technology that allows users to download large video files much more quickly than in the past."

    if I remember correctly bittorrent was created in 2000 or 2001 which to me is not that new.
  • Well, I doubt G. Lucas will loose major cash over this. Espcially when people find out the torrent is only 772.89 MB. I garuntee that ain't a great copy.

  • This not only isn't news (as most people already knew about it), if anyone on here has done any searching they would probably figure out that it isn't a cam rip either. It's one of the review screeners. Not that I've downloaded it (was tempted). I actually want to go out and see this on the big screen and get the full effect of all the people around me as well. Some movies, yeah, you download. Others, nothing is going to replace the experience of being around a mass amount of other people sharing the same e
  • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:56PM (#12583906)
    2005-05-19 11:01:56 AM vroxx

    Reported on Digg yesterday... WITH a BT link.
    http://digg.com/movies/longasstitle [digg.com]...

    Reported on Slashdot Tomorrow.

    /news for nerds my a$$

    On a FARK thread here [fark.com]
  • ... and I'll be seeing two more times this weekend. That being said, I'm downloading the torrent right now so I can just drop in and watch it when I want till I buy the DVD.
    • by cfalcon (779563)
      ...I'll only be seeing it one additional time this weekend. Unless this other circle of friends of mine that isn't big on movies wants to go. Then I'd see it two more times this weekend.

      Also, I'm using the gnutella network, which is less dishonest than bitorrent because it is slower.

      That's sarcasm, thx.
  • Proceeds... (Score:3, Funny)

    by soupdevil (587476) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:00PM (#12583958)
    why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds

    Let me be the first to say that I think Lucus should make a cut of the proceeds from P2P downloads. In fact, I'll send him 10% of what I paid to download it on BitTorrent. What's your address, George?
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:01PM (#12583967)

    I don't know which is funnier:

    • People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)....OR...Hollywood claiming BitTorrent/P2p is only used for illegitimate purposes
    • Downloaders claiming that they see/buy everything they download, as does everyone else on p2p....OR...Hollywood, claiming that every download = not just the lost ticket price, but some insane multiplier, when most people don't even bother to "seed" more than half or less of what they download.
    • Downloaders whining about how they'd go see/buy more movies/music, if only it was better, but still download the "crap" and don't go for independently produced stuff...OR...Hollywood claiming that downloaders are hurting them, while ignoring massive Group Think among producers, directors, and writers for churning out crap not worth paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water, your eardrums will get blown out, and your shoes will stick to the floors for a week.

    I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...

    • by gumbo (88087) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:04PM (#12583997) Homepage
      People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)

      Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things? Is the US mail system not legitimate because you could mail someone a DVD-R of Star Wars?

      Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."

    • by magarity (164372) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:15PM (#12584123)
      paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water

      Just FYI: The movie theatre keeps 5% to 10% (yes, percent, not a flat fee) of each ticket sold for first run movies; the rest is the ticket price goes straight to the studio producing the movie. Furthermore, the ticket prices and percentages are negotiated (dictated?) by the distributors, not the theatre. So when it costs $10 for a ticket, it's because the owners/managers of the theatre negotiated DOWN to that from what the distributors initially demanded. The management wants LOW ticket prices to convince you to come in and still ahve money left over to buy concessions; it's the distributing studios who want to pillage you for the high ticket price. At 5%, the profit on a $10 ticket is 50 cents and on a $12 ticket it's only 60 cents. Who cares about that kind of money? The theatre (a big building with a lot of expensive sound and projection equipment) doesn't have any other way to turn a buck other than to hit you up for some inflated concessions.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I am the booking agent for a theater in a metropolitan market in Florida. Our Friday/Saturday after 6:00PM ticket is $8.25. For every Start Wars III ticket we sell, we get to keep $0.06 of it. Yes, six cents. And originally we were going to lose money on it--the negotiation took a lot of time. We have 6 prints, BTW. I just ran the report for tonight, and we had 14,000 or so people come and see it. We made a profit, but not from ticket sales. Ticket sales don't even cover the people in box office, no
  • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:02PM (#12583976)
    "I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news."

    Well, for the love of god, stop treating it like news.
    Post something else. Shess.

  • by ranson (824789) * on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:04PM (#12584003) Homepage Journal
    Our whole company was treated to a screening of ROTS this morning. My boss, who doesn't watch television and later admittidely never saw a Star Wars movie prior to today, asked us after it was over, "So do you think they'll make movies about those two twin babies now?" I still have not stopped laughing.
  • Already?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:05PM (#12584009) Homepage
    Damn!

    I left for Japan on Wednesday and now I don't get to see it until I get back (in two weeks). If I wanted to download it, I would... but frankly, and I think many people will agree with me on this point, I don't want to see it until I can see it in its full glory. Seeing it compressed and trashed and tiny isn't the way to see it the first time.

    Now if I enjoyed it, I might download it and keep it until the DVD is released... then I'll buy he DVD when it comes out.

    I wish the jackasses at the MPAA would just figure it out too.
  • by Bifurcati (699683) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:08PM (#12584051) Homepage
    The lightsaber battles and special effects, the thunderous roar of the ships - watching a crappy download on the computer simply doesn't do it justice. Even with the best home sound system, etc, I think the big screen still has something to offer.

    Of course, after seeing it on the big screen I've got noproblem with going and downloading it to watch it again (although I've sheepishly got ot admit that I've seen it in the cinema twice - once at the midnight screening (which we Aussies got before the U.S. - go time zones!) and once with my partner.)

    I really loved [illuminatingscience.org] the movie, and definitely think it was worth it - a truly memorable conclusion to the Star Wars saga.

  • by EdZ (755139) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:22PM (#12584180)
    Many Bothans died to bring us this leak.
  • Noooo...! (Score:3, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:24PM (#12584198) Homepage
    I got finals on Monday! I will resist the Dark Side... I... will... not... download... BSD 3.7 until then...
  • by kindbud (90044) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:31PM (#12584252) Homepage
    Who cares about garbled sound, when the dialog so low-brow?


    "You're so beautiful."
    "That's only because I'm so in love."
    "No, it's because I'm so in love with you."


    BARF!
    • Why must everyone need a love scene to be some sort of suave Bond or Hugh Grant garbage, instead of an awkward misguided lust that is the relationship that Lucas is portraying? I liked the awkwardness, it was refreshing.
      • Exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DeadScreenSky (666442)
        I do too. It reminds me of when I was a stupid teenager. I wonder if that is part of the reason so many people don't like it?
  • by spideyct (250045) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:39PM (#12584307)
    Why would we discuss that? Is there even a question? What would be the argument against the creater/funder/owner of the content deserving the proceeds of their work?
    Was that remark based on the fact that people are mad at Lucas because they didn't like the last 2 movies?
    Or is it that people really dont think any creator deserves proceeds from their work? I'm not talking fair use or anything like that - I understand those arguments - they don't seem relevant here.
  • by schnell (163007) <me&schnell,net> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:08PM (#12584911) Homepage

    CowboyNeal: It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

    I'm not trying to be a shill for the movie industry here or anything, but whatever happened to "it's still usually worth shelling out the cash so that the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed?" You're not supposed to pay for stuff you watch because it's higher quality, you're supposed to pay for it because it's the right thing to do.

  • by scharkalvin (72228) on Friday May 20, 2005 @08:06AM (#12587628) Homepage
    Needs to police itself and look for moles rather than going after bit torrent users. This time it was an inside job (and that's probably where MOST of the 'leaks' come from).

    Anyway for a flick like this one I'd much rather find a THX equipped movie with a wide screen and pay the price of a ticket than watch it with my kids in the family room on the boob tube. (We usually sneek our own M&M's in rather than get ripped off at the concession stand!)

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...