What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
35 Comments
- Powerfan5000, on 11/12/2009, -1/+43From the article:
"This is why Hollywood is freaking out -- their whole marketing strategy over the past ten years is to trick people into seats on opening weekend. The movie doesn't have to be good, it just has to be well-advertised."
/nail on head - Powerfan5000, on 11/13/2009, -0/+14No, piracy is about buried treasure, rum, and wenches.
...and scurvy. - Trifold, on 11/13/2009, -1/+13You're welcome! And thank YOU for understanding how media works in the digital age and not just suing everybody!!
- jrm125, on 11/13/2009, -2/+12HE GETS IT!
- OMGRussellCrowe, on 11/13/2009, -0/+7'Ink' is on Netflix instant watch for those interested.
- wrathbone, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6It certainly CAN benefit filmmakers - they will now have a much easier time generating money for their next film because of the success of this one - profitable or not. It also increases the chances of their next film being picked up for distribution.
Now, this might not benefit the bottom line of this particular film, but it will most certainly benefit the filmmakers. - c0mputar, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7I'm going to be buried but as they guys said, there is a difference between movies that cost millions of dollars to produce and advertise, and this movie. The cost effectiveness of getting movies to be pirated in hopes of garnering a revenue is inconclusive for all sides involved. We cannot say if a huge box office hit movie will benefit or not from piracy, nor can we say that piracy did infact make this particular movie more profitable. I can't name any of the top of my head but I think it would be ridiculous to assume that no movie has ever been picked up by a big name after it was locally released and then it had a big splash in the box office.
Sorry fellas, but you can't have the argument go both ways without any data to back yourselves up. It would be very hard to argue that piracy always benefits filmmakers, unless we had a parrallel setting where Ink did not get pirated, but instead had the chance of being spotted by a big name company instead.... If the chances are 10%, and it gets $1,000,000 revenue, that is the same as being pirated and getting $<100,000. (I'm not taking into account the risk, which would probably mean that one would aim for somthing substantially lower then $100,000, can someone correct me on this?) So if this movie had infact maybe earned $10,000,000 in box office, can we really expect that they are going to earn a million from donations and rentals? As I mentioned, this is a very difficult thing to model, and the benefits vary between the costs of production and quality of the movie.
This isn't to say that filmmakers should not have the choice to do what they want with their movies, but I firmly believe that there is absolutely no solution for piracy unless we adopt a social acceptance of donating to filmmakers whose movies we enjoyed. - ZeroCubed, on 11/13/2009, -1/+6Oh cool. The torrent was taking forever.
- grnicon, on 11/13/2009, -1/+5Yeah, except you didn't quote this little gem...
"That said, piracy is a very real thing these days and probably won't go away anytime soon. We're turning into a "make me happy first" society where we expect to be delighted and entertained before we make a purchase."
And that's what is really going on here. People are fickle, have extreme ADD, and are incapable of thinking today. You can't create a $100 million mystery, thriller, or drama today. It has to be action, and it has to be teen-oriented. Which is why opening weekend matters. Next week, that movie is old news. The teens have moved on to the next shiny thing. - ugetab, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4Success, in this case, is how good the public at large thought the movie was, and their reaction to that belief in it being good.
If you made something that nobody cared about, it wouldn't work. Just putting it out there isn't enough. It also has to be good enough to get attention. I didn't even watch their 'Spin' short clip until I had read the comments on this. I liked it, but they didn't get to me until after I had watched 'Ink' and thought it had merit as a film. Added a buck to my donation because I liked the short film a bit too.
I don't donate often, but it's a lot easier to give after the fact, instead of believing the lies about crap movies that are being advertised not because they're good, but because they wouldn't sell unless they were misrepresented. - DonAlfred, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4Which came first:
- The teen that said it wanted to watch garbage?
- Or the studio that told it, it wanted to watch garbage? - poppacherry, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4Awesome. The number of products/careers that have benefited by piracy is now at: 14.
This is absurd. Because one or two people come out and say they've had a little exposure over illegal distribution and downloading, we're supposed to claim it as a success? - warbird, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4Too bad the movie isn't worth the time it takes to watch it.
- Dragonis, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3if clockwork orange, 2001, the shining, or any hitchcock movie were released today it would do terrible in the theaters
- LetsGoToClass, on 11/13/2009, -2/+5These guys are living proof that torrents are an amazing way for unnoticed artists to get recognition. For instance, I once torrented a twenty minute video of my dick making fart noises and now I have a daytime emmy.
- poppacherry, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3Lol there's been countless movies who had solid marketing and strong budgets, yet completely flopped.
- shane956, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3but isnt that the same as buying a tv series on dvd ? if i see a show i like, i will buy the dvd set to have it all with no commercials. if i see a movie that i decide i like, that inspires me to get the dvd for special features, deleted scenes, etc, and especially to give my hard earned money to a studio i am impressed with and want to help budget more good movies.
now, what if the dinner was mediocre but the bill was $80? would you still be so quick to front the cash?
likewise, who are they to say each movie is worth the same to see. i would gladly pay more than average to see a killer flick. but i dont think i should get charged $10 to $12 to see the next michael bay suckfest.
if you want to, you could probably read a whole book in a book store. if you get to the end and realize the book was over-hyped and cliched with poor writing and lifeless characters, would you still pay for the book?
why should movies be allowed to be any different? - Travelsonic, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3"if it was not worth your money why did you download or sit through the whole thing?"
Perhaps to see if it was good enough in the first place. Perhaps not to pay for it. There are multiple reasons, never a one size fits all. - sageerrant, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2I was going to, but... no HD (and streaming to PS3 wasn't working, oddly) meant that I might as well torrent it. I'll still rate it on Netflix, though.
- BerateBirthers, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2For most artists, obscurity is a bigger concern than piracy. Once he gets big enough where obscurity isn't an issue, piracy is the concern.
- Travelsonic, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2This success is not enough to kill off the cries of MPAA induced doom and gloom, but sure helps dampen the flames.
- Krakerjax, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Sharing is a 2 sided coin; on the one side you have money, on the other you have notoriety. The question that needs to be asked is, which side will you call when the coin gets flipped?
Tragically, just like everyone always seems to call tails, everyone also seems to always call money. - wkrausmann, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Buried for telling it like it is.
- Cotterdamn, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2Eh. I'll watch it. Then I may or may not recommend to someone who actually buys movies.
- lundman, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1So buy a car without test driving it first? Or perhaps you consider Trailers to be the test-drive. Alas, trailers often lie to fool you into watching it, a bit like car brochures I guess.
I will drive a car a lot, and if I like it, buy it. I will watch a movie (sometimes a lot) and if I like it, I buy it. - JedicodeWarrior, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Man, you bogey'd my response.
- inactive, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2Call me old-fashioned but I don't get this "I have a right to watch it and then decide if I want to pay for it" mentality. If I order a steak dinner, eat the whole thing, baked potato and all, and then say "ok this meal sucked, i'm not paying for it", you are a douche, if you hated it, send it back after the first bite but don't eat the whole meal and then decide.
Likewise it is hypocritical to sit through a 2 1/2 hour movie and suddenly "pretend" you weren't entertained enough to not buy it, if it was not worth your money why did you download or sit through the whole thing? - inactive, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Test driving a car for 30 minutes versus taking it home and driving it for a year and then deciding not to buy it?
- DonAlfred, on 11/13/2009, -2/+3Eat first, pay later.
Get a haircut, unhappy? Don't pay. - wrathbone, on 11/13/2009, -2/+2Everybody watch Ink. Legally. Like, on Netflix.
- Stingwolf, on 11/13/2009, -0/+0"That said, piracy is a very real thing these days and probably won't go away anytime soon. We're turning into a "make me happy first" society where we expect to be delighted and entertained before we make a purchase."
That's precisely the point. The issue is not whether it is right or wrong. The issue is that it's here, and it's not a few kids downloading a few movies. Society has changed how it wants to consume content. Making laws and suing people will -not- turn the tide of public demand. The content cartels waste everyone's time and money (including their own) by kicking and screaming about how it's "not fair." The point is: it is what it is. Those who capitalize on it will win, and those who try to fight it will lose. - rpgmakr, on 11/13/2009, -2/+1Definitely the teen. Just to give you some perspective, where will the next 'A clockwork orange' be released?
- inactive, on 11/13/2009, -2/+1Well technically you can, but most sane people read a chapter or two and then decide if it is worth buying it. Likewise if you can't figure out your steak is under-cooked or your meal is just plain bad after the first few bites, it is your problem not the restaurants.
Same goes for movies, there are plenty of outlets to get a feel for what you are paying for, trailers, film reviews, etc. And honestly even if the movie did suck, you are out what, 5-10 bucks, what is that to you, people who make bad movies still need to get paid, what may be bad to you is great to others. It's not like you got screwed on a lemon car and out 4 grand. - speaky1, on 11/13/2009, -4/+0digg must really like this story: http://digg.com/tech_news/Indie_Movie_Explodes_on_ ...
- wkrausmann, on 11/13/2009, -12/+2I thought piracy was about taking what you won't pay for.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is