What is Digg?153 Comments
- dasbush, on 03/12/2008, -5/+190MPAA / RIAA opening a torrent site and pay for it all with ads... that's actually a brilliant idea.
- diggonit, on 03/12/2008, -21/+116Me to Hollywood: Make some movies that don't suck and people will pay to see them.
- fkr3, on 03/12/2008, -19/+65Right.... people are pirating movies that suck because they don't want to see them. Uh huh. Must get boring downloading all that stuff you don't want all the time, then sitting through it, maybe pausing it for a minute while you make some popcorn you also don't want.
- Wetzilla, on 03/12/2008, -0/+38If you actually paid to see 10,000 BC then you deserve to have your money taken from you.
- weeFred, on 03/12/2008, -4/+41Maybe if they stopped paying actors $20m a movie then the content creation wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does. They need to invest in smaller well made films and stop releasing ***** films with loads of special effects and high profile actors.
- NathanielJ, on 03/12/2008, -3/+35I like the idea "in theory" as much as the next guy, but how much money do people think internet ads actually bring in? Especially now that everyone and their mother has at least some form of ad blocker, do they really think that Hollywood would make even 5% of what they make now on DVD sales if they opened their own (legal) Torrent site?
Seriously, Netflix and a few other companies have had download movie rentals for a few years now, do you see any of them doing it for free? No, because even if they blasted you with ads for 20 minutes before you could download your movie, they'd still be out of business in no time. - badjokes, on 03/12/2008, -3/+28I'm sure they would still sue their users for downloading their torrents.
- weeFred, on 03/12/2008, -0/+23Youtube videos? yeah because theres nothing at all between youtube videos and big budget movies. I'm talking about films like donnie darko, city of god, trainspotting, good will hunting, clerks, infernal affairs, etc. Why can't they make more films like these that rely on good film making and actors who need to prove themselves, rather than just pointless special effects and actors who only care where their next golden toilet seat is coming from.
- nonsequitor, on 03/12/2008, -7/+25People pirate movies that they don't want to risk being suckered into paying for. When you torrent a movie, you can turn it off after 5 minutes if its awful and not be out any cash. Movie ticket sales are final.
- bblande, on 03/12/2008, -1/+15Remember when the Pirate Bay was underground?
- noelsusman, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13I recently quit my job at a movie theater (don't get a job there), and I will tell you that you can get a refund as long as you don't ask for it when the movie ends. If a movie sucks, go ask for your money back. If you suspect them to be stingy then just tell them you had an emergency and you had to leave. As long as you haven't sat through too much of the movie, you can always get your money back. Movie theaters barely make anything off of ticket sales anyway. The vast majority of that money goes straight to Hollywood, which is why popcorn is 6 dollars.
- thallium205, on 03/12/2008, -1/+13I'd just pirate the clean version...
- darkmist, on 03/12/2008, -1/+11Then why is youtube so successful?
- gooberguy, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10not all low budget movies are what you describe. infact there are many many good movies out there with extremely low budgets.
- nizzy1115, on 03/12/2008, -1/+11I would watch plenty of advertisements. Hell i would even put up with those laughing smiley faces for free legal torrents.
- Vironex, on 03/12/2008, -3/+13Not in most places. You must live in a slightly more reasonable alternate universe.
- dupswapdrop, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10Hollywood starting their own torrent site? But what about all the lawyers, who will feed them? And you know Hollywood doesn't like to hire geeks.
- theredwhyno, on 03/12/2008, -3/+12MPAA / RIAA: Your failed business model is not my problem.
- kylere, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Expecting the Hollywood that made "The Net" and "Hackers" to do anything technologically sophisticated is hilarious.
- snapple112, on 03/12/2008, -7/+15All three video's very informational on whats going on with The Pirate Bay in its modern state. GO TPB- Live Forever!
- xdevit, on 03/12/2008, -1/+9The Pirate Bay, Is brought to you by Sony Ericsson.
- fkr3, on 03/12/2008, -2/+10No, it's just another fantasy where you guys get what you want without having to contribute anything at all. There will be a compromise out there but it's not going to be as far fetched as giving you immediate and complete access to everything ever made in exchange for nothing.
- pianomahnn, on 03/12/2008, -3/+11You don't speak for the me.
Then again, we all hate the MPAA/RIAA. So maybe I'd still use TPB just to spite them...oh the complications of such a decision!! - LordVance, on 03/12/2008, -2/+10Movie starting No-Name Actor #12314 - People that like the concept behind the movie go to see it.
Movie starting Big-Name Actor #66514 - People that like the actor go see it. People that like the concept behind the movie go see it. People that like the concept behind the movie, but only ever heard of the movie because of all the publicity that Big-Name Actor #66514 got it go see the movie.
Sucks, but at the end of the day - everyones in it to make money. For every great small-budget movie (like those examples you listed) there are a plethora of movies that never make it past their local film festival because they simply aren't any good. Big name actors give people a way to find movies that might be decent amongst the huge sea of crap out there - for instance, I assume that if Anthony Hopkins is in a movie - I'll probably like it. Hasn't failed me yet. Do I still watch other movies? Most definitely - I've seen and enjoyed every one on your list. However, I simply don't have the time to actually watch allllll the movies staring people I've never heard of in hopes of finding another one of those gems.
I didn't discover any of those movies until they were already wildly popular. It's sad to think of all the equally great films I've missed because they never quite made it to the lime light, but at the end of the day - there's nothing I can honestly do about that. I *need* a way to find decent movies, and big-name actors tend to be a decent indication (as are certain directors, writers...). I'd love it if there was some sort of internet database of movie reviews (>.>), but sadly the only one that comes to mind is an extremely poor indicator of movie quality as indy films tend to all be incredibly overrated. - fuckingusername, on 03/12/2008, -2/+10"that would be to smart" we wont have it!
- PainToad, on 03/12/2008, -7/+14TPB FTW
- ArmchairAthlete, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Except selling DVDs for $15 or $20 or whatever they want for them is a lot more lucrative than the pitiful money in comparison that would come from ads.
- BoneheadFarker, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7As an extention of that...seeing as I recently paid to see the craptacular display of "10,000 BC", I feel completely vindicated in downloading something actually worth watching...
- Jeffler, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6If it meant my torrenting was legal I'd watch a 2-3 minute ad for a free, legit album.
- NathanielJ, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Er, your figures are more than a bit off. I run a website that gets between 200k and 300k pageviews a day and pulls in $250/month from Google Ads. Do you really think that the full $0.25 per 1,000 pageviews goes directly to the publisher?
Even with your distorted numbers though, that's a whopping $1.2 million dollars per month for the MPAA to run such a site, so let's be generous and say $15 million per year.
Great, that just paid for one extremely low-budget movie. - LordVance, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6Because youtube revolves around 2 main things.
1) Very short user-created content (under 5 minutes). This category is filled with all sorts of great gems, but it HAS to be short because nobody is going to be able to sit through 20 minutes of buildup before they figure out if LonleyBitch12's new movie is decent or not. With very short films, you can normally give something a good 30-60 seconds and make a good consideration on the quality.
2) Pirated material. Yup, it's the pirated video's that took youtube out of obscurity and into the lime light. Many would have never started going to the site if they didn't go their to see some funny commercial, or music video linked from elsewhere on the web. We all know it, we all love it.
It's not feature length indy films that made youtube popular though. - melat0nin, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6Just because they are the exception now hardly means they aren't something positive to aim for.
- cfleap, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7For sure! Every modern business has had to alter its business model because of technology. The film and music industries are the only ones that refuse. If they actually utilized data distribution technologies, they could lower the cost of the supply chain, and give their customers choice of how they viewed their media and still make money. Imagine that? Money & Choices!
- BoneheadFarker, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6My sister picked it. I knew it was probably going to suck, but figured the CGI would at least be worthwhile. It wasn't...
- Gadianton, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6I wouldn't say they have a failed business model. Maybe unsustainable or failing, but given Hollywood's profits this year, it certainly hasn't failed.
- babyimreal, on 03/13/2008, -3/+7part of being successful in business is adaptation. The inception of new technology can kill what seems to be a mass market. Think of all the horse drawn carriages that dropped of the face of the earth when the automobile came along. The horse drawn carriage manufacture didn't sit around, bitching, threating suit because the car stole its road (granted intellectual property is an issue not conducive to this analogy), instead they probably started making cars or ferries or some other product. If the MPAA and RIAA had used all this money spent in litigation to develop a system, with on demand content streamed to your TV, Stereo, or PC , that was either subscription based or ad supported they could riding a wave of cash, instead of seeing their profits fall. Yes, there may be something to be said for you shouldn't "pirate" works, but when you don't evolve with the times, you die.
- weeFred, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Fair enough, but I think those big companies should be putting more effort into finding those movies, releasing them and marketing them. It might be a bit more hit and miss but when they do find great films they are going to make a killing of them. I mean everybody I know owns donnie darko and it must have cost next to nothing to make.
- hammburglar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4that would be way to smart and risky for the music and movie industry to try. plus the dont know anything about the internet. just mention the word lolcat and their brain shuts down.
- melat0nin, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5The point is that the precious hollywood elite should expect less $ from their efforts which are often *****. Paying matthew mcconaughey r some other vacuous individual untold millions for a festering pile of ***** flick is a travesty, and if that practice ended then actors/directors/etc might start expecting more realistic wages (I say 'wages' because of the implication of 'earning'), and in turn, the desperate clamouring for profits for profits sake might end.
- specialK16, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4@lordvance: And there is also a plethora of crappy "big budget" films, which proves that it is about the talent of everyone involved, and not only big name actors have talent.
- inactive, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4My favorite movies this year was Juna, Death at a funeral and run fat boy run. non of those had high paying actor but were more entertaining then big budget movies. Rehashed movies suck ass. its about time they go back to the drawing board and come up with real innovation.
- austinnowlin, on 03/12/2008, -2/+6Direct link:
http://www.dayrobber.com/content/view/152/ - daFilms, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Me to diggonit: There is world of cinema outside of Hollywood!
And to your claim that 'movies suck these days' is *****; from the very first to todays, there has always been a cohort of movies that sucked.
To be a spectator of Cinema Today is best than any other decade, period. We have an opportunity of access to films ranging the full spectrum of the globe; unprecedented knowledge base (e.g. imdb) and markets (festivals to international online stores). What you call bad movies I call a laziness in not exploring what's being offered outside your comfort of boundary.
*****, if you're so damn inclined to preach your view of what is a great movie, you have the resources to make it, and get millions of views. No, I'm not declaring you're going to get a distribution deal, but then again, you didn't invest millions nor even hundred-of-thousands in getting it done.
In conclusion: stop being lazy and bitching that movies suck these days. - dsmx, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3I don't like going to the cinema because it's so expensive. The moment more than 2 of you go you might as well wait the 2 or 3 months it takes for the flim to come out on dvd and pay less.
- javaroast, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3i guess Hollywood needs to work on cutting cost like every other industry has had to do. It's becoming increasingly clear that they can no longer maintain the margins they have been used to in the past. They will have to adapt to this reality. They have an example in a related industry. Ask yourself how many Televisions are manufactured in the US these days.
- dicksta, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3hollywood creating a torrent site wont make sense simply because for the majority of the population (the barely computer literate) downloading a torrent is too complicated. Keep an eye on Hulu, Joost, etc for the future of digital content. On demand video thats as simple as tv... thats where its at!
- shark72, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3exactly: why make millions, when they could make thousands? TPB have stated that they make almost no money; they've even claimed that they might be losing money. Why follow that model when they make much better margin on DVD sales and rentals?
- salmonmoose, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3You spend $80 on food?
I'd guess price isn't the issue, fitting in the seats is. - Blandyman, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3LordVance:
If you mean IMDb, I'm right with you... a majority of the indie work is so overrated it makes my balls hurt.
However, rottentomatoes can probably help you... since it's the opinions of critics, who usually don't talk ***** about indie films or or nestle the director's balls in their mouths, it makes the world a little better. - theaceoffire, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Points to Monty Python films.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is