Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Almighty Buck

WB Took Pains To "Delay" Pirating of Dark Knight 642

Jay writes "The L.A. Times is reporting on a new studio tactic — not to prevent piracy, but to delay it, as was the case with special tactics used with Dark Knight. 'Warner Bros. executives said the extra vigilance paid off, helping to prevent camcorded copies of the reported $180-million film from reaching Internet file-sharing sites for about 38 hours. Although that doesn't sound like much progress, it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million. The success of an anti-piracy campaign is measured in the number of hours it buys before the digital dam breaks.'" You know what else helps to have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WB Took Pains To "Delay" Pirating of Dark Knight

Comments Filter:
  • Der... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:12AM (#24368237)
    I'm just glad the summary had this added on: "You know what else helps have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie." I mean, seriously, the successful opening weekend probably had next-to-nothing with the "extra vigilance" and had everything to do with the fact that the movie is, top to bottom, fantastic. Make a good movie and people will pay to see it. Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science. But, of course, they'll tout the success of the movie and the "extra vigilance" as proof that piracy hurts their other movies which don't have similar record-breaking opening weeks. Never you mind that those movies aren't half as good as The Dark Knight - their success suffered because of those filthy pirates! sigh...
  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:13AM (#24368253)

    of new theatrical releases available for rent too at the same time the movie is in theatres?

    Not everyone wants to go watch a movie with a bunch of unruly kids / idiots who can't be bothered to shut up and/or turn off their cellphones

  • by Easy2RememberNick ( 179395 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:23AM (#24368459)

    I often wonder why movie studios don't implement some sort of new technology to thwart 'cammers'.

      When you see video of say, a fence, or some object with lines close together often the video is distorted when played back, you'd think there would be some way to project an image so it's able to be seen clearly by people's eyes but not able to be recorded due to a camera limitations.

      Maybe a dual projector system and seeing that it's getting more common that a modern projector is film-less, all digital, it may be easier to modify it somehow.

  • Telesync, then. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:25AM (#24368489) Journal

    A shakey cam is not worth the bandwidth.

    However, someone using a multi-thousand-dollar camcorder, with the framerate synced to the projector's, and the audio dubbed directly from the source... It won't be as good as a DVD rip later (or Blu-Ray/HD), but if I missed it in our local theater (which only has two screens), yes, it definitely might be worth watching.

    While it won't necessarily be as professionally done, keep in mind that telesync is the same process by which actual DVDs are made from a movie reel.

  • Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ethanms ( 319039 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:28AM (#24368549)

    "If the movie's a stiff, and word gets out too early that it's a stiff, it's devastating to the business model," Garland said."

    Let's be fair... those words did not come from the studio, they came from the CEO of a biz that "monitors" file sharing networks--my guess is that no studio would publicly agree with that particular sentiment.

    As Morty Seinfeld once said, "You know what sells clothes? Cheap fabric and dark lighting."

    You know that sell movies? Dead leading actors and professional film critics on your pay roll.

  • by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:35AM (#24368665) Homepage Journal

    assholes who come for air conditioning only and take out their laptop or other work and shuffle papers and other objects

    While I have seen almost every type of asshole on your list, I must say that I find it hard to believe that someone would pay for a movie ticket to actually work on their laptop while in the theater.

    First of all, with all their "no pirates allowed" paranoia the theaters wouldn't let someone enter with their laptop.

    Second, aren't all shopping malls equipped with air conditioning? They could sit on a bench and work there, for free.

    If you have indeed seen such a thing, then that person was not only an asshole, but also an idiot.

  • Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tzhuge ( 1031302 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:36AM (#24368697)
    "They" are business people, and probably negligent in their jobs if they didn't focus on box-office sales as a metric. Like it or not, the movie going public likes CG-fest blockbusters, and, as long as that's the case, the studios are going to focus on those.
  • Re:Honestly, now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yahweh Doesn't Exist ( 906833 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:37AM (#24368707)

    it's two and a half hours and barely a minute wasted. you have not seen it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2008 @10:42AM (#24368793)

    Infrared light patterns would be invisible, but would screw up any CCD based camera. Just for fun, you can watch your remotes flash on a digital camera viewscreen.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:05AM (#24369213) Homepage

    Still. They probably download a lot more than they ever would have watched in the cinema.

    OTOH, I see the declining cinema experience being more of a driver than anything else.
    This is coming at the SAME EXACT TIME as very good home theatre setups both in terms
    of audio and video as well as pervasive DVD and download availability.

    Even if you don't pirate there is little motivation to put up with spam and inconsiderate
    people just so you can pay more for the movie than you would have buying the DVD on the
    day of release. ...which reminds me. There is a kiddie movie I wanted to pick up over at Netflix for 6 bux.

  • Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rugatero ( 1292060 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:06AM (#24369227)

    I still remember the time when people would wait for movie critics to give their opinion on a movie before they went to see it.

    Which is why movie critics get advance screenings and then their (favourable) opinion gets blasted all over the mediasphere as part of the advertising campaign.

    Which is utterly worthless. It is not beyond the promoters to take the line "Whatever you do, do not go and see this film!" from a review and use the last five words in the promo material.

  • by alexgieg ( 948359 ) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:18AM (#24369459) Homepage

    Well, sometimes the suits do things right. For instance, I've read the idea for Kung Fu Panda, and not only that, but also the one to have actual combat scenes in there, not mocking combat, were both from a suit.

    But we cannot deny that most of the time its suits who manage to wreak havoc over otherwise good scripts. "Hollywooded movies", as some call this, are an undeniable fact of life.

  • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:20AM (#24369479) Homepage

    Another problem is that the general public also doesn't know what a "good movie" is.

    I bet you more people saw the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of) in the theater than Blade Runner.

    I wanted to point out what an ignorant statement that was - I sure as hell never wasted my time with Batman and Robin and I thoroughly enjoyed Blade Runner. So, I went after some numbers to shut down that disgusting and spurious statement of yours.

    Unfortunately, it appears that you're not only right [B&R link] [imdb.com], but really distressingly right [BR link] [imdb.com]. Although (based on my rough interpretation on the rather odd box office numbers for BR and [falsely] assuming that the re-releases were free to the studio), it appears that Blade Runner was eventually profitable while Batman and Robin cost the studio almost $20M.

    What a world...

  • by Goffee71 ( 628501 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:26AM (#24369585) Homepage
    If they were that serious then they could stop the 'scourge' of cammed movies at source. Equip cinemas with an IR light emitter just below the screen, pointed at the audience that spreads beams across the cinema, digital camcorders will pick these up and make the movie unwatchable. If cammers start using IR filters on the cameras, upgrade them to field-emitters (or was it wave-emitters?) that send out a signal that distorts whatever the CCD 'sees'.
  • Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:30AM (#24369677) Homepage

    What's the difference between Batman and the Hulk?

    In there original forms, perhaps not so much.

    However, their onscreen versions have been different as night and
    day. Even within the same franchise you see stark differences. It's
    not the source material but how it's treated.

    This is what leads to all the variation in the Batman material AND
    the variation in the Hulk material.

    The Hulk managed to survive on TV for years. That version wasn't
    nearly as bad as the recent cinematic version.

    If that last Hulk would have just stuck to the canon of the well
    established and successful comic book, it might not have been so
    bad. You can't dis the source when it's obviously successful and
    has stood the test of time in it's own way.

    It also helps to pick the more successful works.

    You can do this with "literature" just like you can with comics.

    Pick a poor book and you will probably end up with a poor movie.

    There are reasons that Superman, Spiderman and Batmans are icons
    of their own without film and TV and Daredevil and Ghost Rider
    aren't. Use the novel equivalent of Daredevil and you'd probably
    end up with the same cinematic result.

  • by lysse ( 516445 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:31AM (#24369689)

    On the other hand, going to see smaller, less mainstream movies can be particularly wonderful. In the most extreme example, my ex and I had the cinema to ourselves when we went to see Secretary; but I've managed to see a fair few films with so few other people in the cinema that it really does repay the investment.

    On the other hand, only one person needs to decide to relate their thoughts on the film and everything else to their friend on the other end of a cellphone to spoil it for everyone. It should be legal to shoot those people where they sit, frankly.

    (With a crossbow, of course, to avoid further disruption. Or a bow and arrow. Maybe even slit their throat or garotte them.)

  • Re:Honestly, now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kthejoker ( 931838 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:36AM (#24369791)
    That's kind of the point of ethics, though, isn't it? You get to decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong.
  • Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:49AM (#24370015)

    On the other hand, The Crow certainly didn't suffer from the publicity surrounding Brandon Lee's on-set death.

  • by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @12:26PM (#24370671)

    I know someone who stopped paying for movies and just downloads them now. So some download or bootleg DVD = movie ticket.

    I know someone who stopped going to theaters and just uses Netflix.

    Just because you can't (or just don't) download movies doesn't mean you'll go to the theater.

    There is no 1:1 ration of piracy versus lost sales.

  • by pbaer ( 833011 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @12:41PM (#24370919)
    It is called the monomyth, [wikipedia.org] and it was deliberately followed by George Lucas so his original Star Wars would be a success.
  • by DeadDecoy ( 877617 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @12:54PM (#24371161)
    If I go to watch a movie in the theaters, I'm going/paying for the better quality sound and video as well as the bigger screen. If a movie is good I don't mind paying the extra money to see a high quality version rather than wait for a camcorder or dvd version to come out. Thing is, if producers can't make a product worth the paper or plastic it's print on, then no one will want to pay for it or spend time downloading it.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:17PM (#24371469)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:From the article: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ucklak ( 755284 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:28PM (#24371649)

    Because I'd really like paying full price to see a scratchy print?

    Some of us like going to theatres and I like to see movies I think would be worth seeing on opening weekend for the primary reason that the scratches on the prints would be less than weeks later.
    Another reason I see movies on opening weekend is the premium screen that my local cineplex offers for tentpole releases.

    What bothers me about the movie experience is:
    A) scratchy prints which is noticeable to me after the first week.
    B) this new copy code (the pattern of orange dots) that flashes on the screen and I DO SEE THEM and THEY DO BOTHER ME.

    The kids matinees that offer family movies that were released years before are really scratchy but I don't complain for $1 a ticket.

    The copy code is a nuisance that I put up with vs seeing a film on the big screen. It really sucks. It was painfully obvious when I saw Master and Commander (storm scenes) and the same with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I still see it when it's flashed but recently I've seen it on scenes with stuff in it instead of a blank frame.

  • Consider McDonalds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Livius ( 318358 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:36PM (#24371791)

    For example, McDonalds is highly successful, but no-one confuses them with gourmet cuisine. Or confuses Microsoft with ethical and innovative product development.

  • Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:55PM (#24372075) Journal

    So apparently you have some device that can determine the true intent of a human from afar?

    No, I don't. But I know my intent and you know yours and a thief knows his own. Sometimes his intent is obvious; no device needed. I only wish I did have such a device, I would make an honest killing with it and a lot of people would cease to be scammed.

    How is this even relevant?!? Shoplifting is illegal

    What does "illegal" have to do with right and wrong? Adultery is legal, prostitution is not. Why is it legal for me to fuck your wife so long as I don't pay her for it? Anyone who equates "legal" with "moral" has no clue about morality or ethics.

    Show me on the ticket where everyone who buys a ticket is guaranteed to be entertained.

    You not only miss my point, you run from it screaming in terror.

    If you were STUPID enough to make a judgment about a 1:45 hour movie based on seeing 60 second OR LESS of it, then you deserve what you get.

    Your straw man is on fire. And I have no "at-will contract", it is a written, signed document. Is jumping to conclusions and dodging reponsibility your only exersize?

    IHBT.

  • Re:Honestly, now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Danny Rathjens ( 8471 ) <slashdot2NO@SPAMrathjens.org> on Monday July 28, 2008 @02:16PM (#24372415)
    "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
  • by HeadlessNotAHorseman ( 823040 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @08:07PM (#24377801) Homepage

    I don't get how you can measure how good a film is based on it's opening weekend? The opening weekend only measures how good the marketing is...I would put more stock in the second and third weekends, when word-of-mouth has had time to spread.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...