'Sith' Already Found Online 788
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.
Get real (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Lucas might be peeved... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'm nearsighted, MPAA discriminates against me (Score:1, Interesting)
Because my eyes are bad, according to MPAA I am supposed to wait for months (or years) until the DVD comes out. Why? Sure I will download the bootleg. I am doing nothing wrong, when the dvd comes out, I will buy it.
They should offer downloads for visually impaired the moment the movie is out in the theaters. For Star Wars, I would pay twice the price of a movie ticket, even if the download were copy protected.
Re:Get real (Score:3, Interesting)
>video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).
Well what did you expect, raw HD footage?
Re:Get real (Score:3, Interesting)
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
I had the second episode... (Score:1, Interesting)
Torrent is dead... (Score:1, Interesting)
Consider this. Doing a google search for torrents shows most are shut down. Go ten pages deep in the searches, and there is alot of spam and bs.
Second, some websites that were torrent lists, are not MPAA websites. They track IP addresses. Can they do anything to you for just looking at a website? No. Are they trying to intimidate people? Hell yes!
Second, With all the torrent websites down, how many people are seeding? I found one website, just one with a link. It required a registration. It then required waiting 24 hours to use the website. It is a pain in the butt.
After the 24 hours were up, I tried to download a file at a whopping 0.7 k/s. And to top it off, for all I know I just tried to d/l from the RIAA. Who knows.
So what is the moral?
1) It is hard to find torrent listing websites. Good luck. Chances are most are secretive and closed to new members, they are well hidden and happy with their current members
2) Use protection. Use a proxy. You don't want to get one of those letters from the MPAA or RIAA or any **AA telling you that you owe them $10,000 or they will take you to court for some multiple of that.
What we need is an out-of-the USA filesharing network. We need a slashdot like moderation system, to mod files as +1 good quality or -1 MPAA crap.
I remember Napster, it was easy to use. I now use WinMX, but the good old days are gone. Only way out is for someone in a country where file sharing is not illegal, for them to host a service.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get real (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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?
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:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Interesting)
Good quality (Score:2, Interesting)
What ever happened to intermissions? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to agree. Those Lord of the Rings movies were just too much. You couldn't drink your beverage until half way through the show if you wanted a hope of not missing part of the show for a trip to the can.
In the old days movies had intermissions. Live shows still do. What happened to those?
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention if you have a media pc (i.e. XP Media Center, MythTV, modded Xbox with XBMC etc.) you could play directly to the TV off the hard drive.
Downloaded of the net onto a computer does not mean you have to watch it on a computer.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's look at that, shall we?
First off, you must be off on that time estimate... are you saying that the film only got good in the last 10 minutes (no spoilers here, but that pretty much covers the tail end of the "wrap-up" scenes)? It was a 140min movie.
Now let's look at your claim that "as a movie" this "sucked ass"... If you had said, "as a Star Wars movie," then I might have accepted it (though even then, I think it's clearly better in many measurable ways than eps 1 and 2, which puts it at at least 4 out of 6, so "sucked ass" might be a bit strong)... no, you're comparting it to movies in general.
Let's JUST look at this year to see what you're comparing against:
Monster-in-Law
House of Wax
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
xXx: State of the Union
Are We There Yet?
Son of the Mask
Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous
Ice Princess
I just want to be clear that these were all released this year (2005), and you are claiming that, compared to the general field of movies being made (see above) Star Wars Ep 3 "sucked ass".... I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.
Yes, it had flaws (most of which are present in Episodes 4-6 as well), but it was a crowd-pleasing, fun film that brought back much of the excitement of the first three films.
Theaters get different print quality (Score:1, Interesting)
Then they would give the "A" prints to the best theater houses and the "C" prints to the multiplexes and the crappy theaters.
So they do give preferences to movie theaters. You want the best presentation, see it in a first-rate theater.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Both sides need to get a grip. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:2, Interesting)
There is also the practicality of how they sell the film to the cinemas. Last I noticed the selling mechanism was going to run contrary to the way cinemas currently operate. I believe cinemas hire the film for a certain length of time, and are free to make their own choices about the number of screenings, and whether to cease showing a flop early to free up screens for better performing films (though they're stuck with their initial hire.)
The digital version was going to be streamed and paid for per showing, all tied to an identified projector. I believe the concern was that cinemas would be forced to schedule showings and lose the control the currently possess. Basically, the system was going to annoy cinema operators in a similar way to how individual consumers are frustrated by the limitations of DRM'd content.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Reason for downloading and watching it? Just wanted to see the movie asap.
Re:Who cares about garbld sound? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Something I've always wanted to know. (Score:2, Interesting)
But still, the french version brings some new insights: in Episode IV, when the Falcon needs to flee from an ISD, Solo calls Chewbacca "Chico", hence betraying some very secretly kept latino origins of the wookie.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Partly this is down to the fact that people are more used to the idea of seeing things once and then waiting for the DVD, but it seems there are a fair number of geeks who'll see it once then get a rip to tide themselves over until a legit copy can be had, rather than going back to the cinema.