Recently watched

Exactly. And honestly, how does watching a divx compare to going to a huge-screen cinema? If some of your friends are going to the cinema to see some new film, and they ask you to go along, who in their right mind replies with "no, i'll wait for it to download and save myself ?4"? It's not just the movie, it's the experience, and you can't download an experience.

Dude, sadly, I know people like this.

I think the RIAA is a bunch of assclowns, and they're getting what's coming to them.

The thing is, it would be different if the musicians didn't want their music downloaded, but a vast majority of them don't care and they see it as an opportunity for more people to hear what they've made. I believe during The Offsprings release of "Conspiracy of One" They wanted to release it online only. But Sony threatened them with a termination of their contract and compromised on the release of one single online (Which Sony then, like bastards, linked up with Mtv for a contest. I believe what they gave away wasn't anything near the price gain of their ratings.)

Also, now, the RIAA is losing all of their cases, because they gained the user information illegally. I believe for it to be legal they'd have to fill out forms for each individual person they wanted to go after. And the time and forms would add up to a very large amount of money (one they're not willing to pay). So, I'm not sure what is going on with it now. I know they send noticed to your ISP, but in most cases the ISP doesn't give a rats ass, since you're paying them for the precious bandwidth the user is using.

Hah, I saw a discussion about that last part on an ISP forum. These small-time ISP owners were all saying how they deliberately don' keep any logs for over 2 weeks, because if some agency came along and wanted to take away some of their servers or something, it would put them out of business. It is far easier for them to say 'we delete all logs after 2 weeks', than for them to spend time helping the RIAA or whoever.

scary_jeff said:
Exactly. And honestly, how does watching a divx compare to going to a huge-screen cinema? If some of your friends are going to the cinema to see some new film, and they ask you to go along, who in their right mind replies with "no, i'll wait for it to download and save myself ?4"? It's not just the movie, it's the experience, and you can't download an experience.

How does buying a DVD or VHS and watching it on TV compare?

<!-- ZoneLabs Popup Blocking Insertion -->Well...... i would do both :biggrin: , see it at the cinema with friends then go buy it.

If you have got digital TV then the quality isn't that much different IMO. Of course you don't get surround sound - it just depends how much you like movies. How many times are you ever going to watch a DVD you paid ?15 for? For me, it's not going to be that many, because I'm not a big movie fan. I will watch a movie for free yes, but balancing the cost and how much I enjoy a film, I wouldn't go and buy that same film if the free option were not available.

I really don't think that being able to get music and films for free affects how much people go out and spend. I know a wide variety of people who have access to mp3s, some of whom have always bought loads of CDs, some who hardly ever bought CDs (before mp3). The people with loads of CDs are still buying CDs now they can have mp3s from my experience, and the people who didn't used to buy many CDs still don't now they have mp3s.

I think I have only ever bought one movie in my life, and that was to use up some gift vouchers. It's only in the last year that movies have been widely available to me on the internet, and the situation of me not buying any movies hasn't been changed by this. In contrast, one of my housemates had always bought DVDs and before that VHS, and now movies are available to him on the internet, although he may sometimes watch them from this source, he still buys as many DVDs as he always did. People who buy DVDs and CDs don't see illegal downloads as an alternative to this, they see it as something extra...

Peesh, the only "experience" I get from multiplex cinemas is one of disgust at the prices to get in, get food etc.. absolutely obscene. I'll stick to legal renting/buying for home viewing, or support the independent cinemas more :smile:

And the best thing is, you can almost guarantee quality and save your wallet from wasting its efforts on another "film by numbers", as it were.

re-railment

Has anyone seen Clint's first film in the role of director? Mystic River, I think it's called.. it's showing soon, wondered if it was worth seeing?

Has anyone seen Clint's first film in the role of director? Mystic River, I think it's called.. it's showing soon, wondered if it was worth seeing?

First film??...WHAT? Dude, Clint Eastwood has been directing for over a decade!

But, no, I wanted to, some friends of mine saw it and told me it was alright (I trust their opinion).

That's cool that it's finally coming out there ... I think it's out on DVD here, though. :smile:

Also, Gwil, you must has some really crappy theaters there if you don't find it worth it to go. And I appologize for that (for some odd reason), since I feel it's something I take advantage of, however, the distribution company that runs here (regal cinemas) is a big bunch of bastards, in less then 2 years they doubled the price of ticket prices (first they tried it on the food, but then they realised: NO ONE BUYS THE FOOD :smile: ). At least Oregon's ticket prices aren't like LAs or New Yorks. (ours is 6 for matinee and 8 for ... after matinee).

Crono - Heh, it's one of my ingrained anti-capitalist feelings.. cinema was always promoted as a family experience in education et al as a youngster, but being from a 5 child family with 2 state wages to support it meant it was just another expense "we couldnt afford"... and many others couldn't :sad:

Ever since then (and my very few visits, I think i've been to a multiplex for about 7 films in 20 years of living, and 3 of those were the remastered star wars trilogy :razz: ). ive just been against it and it's heinous pricing policy, which cuts out a lot of potential viewers - and alienates them from "peer discussions" in school, which is quite sad, IMO. It didn't bother me, but it's the principal of the issue I guess :smile: - ?4.45 on a student concession is still expensive IMO, but that's just me - uber cynical :smile:

On the plus side I did read a lot more books, developed my art and generally had a wider cultural base to work from, but like I say - it's the principal, when we live under a so called "socialist government".. :razz:

The independent cinema is just as expensive, but I feel like I am getting more worth from it than I would with multiplexes.. personal taste/issue I guess, but thats my reasoning :smile:

If you read all that (that line sounds familiar :wink: ) I thank, and congratulate you :smile:

compare that ?4.50 to having two pints of lager, and IMO it suddenly doesn't seem so expensive for ~2 hours entertainment (if you like films), and subsequent chit-chat :smile:

Heh, sorry Crono - didnt pick up on the point of Clint directing before.. i never enjoyed him as a rule (apart from the obvious exceptions :wink: ).. me looks into the clintster

Jeff; agreed - I will say I do spend money on beer a lot more than cultural outings now, but it more based a deep seated principal formed from childhood years - where money isolates people from common culture, and breeds a thousand other problems with it :smile: And I love films - it just so happens most of them aren't the hollywood hits.

i'd rather put my cash toward an institution commited to showing films with true (and consistent) depth/story/meaning behind them, but I guess that's just personal taste again :smile:

you'll be likely to find me watching TV films (on a scouring of reviews etc, to see if theyre good) or watching indepedent or "non-mainstream" films - eg goodbye lenin, das experiment, battle royale (to cover a few posts, not name dropping :razz: ). that way even if i am unsatisfied I can be confident I didn't fund the hollywood 'crapola machine' (for the most part) and also save money on buses/taxis - and still retain the convenience of pause/play and a toilet and a kitchen :wink:

Ironically enough, I had forgotten that also cinemas are probably a definite no-no now, as my "bad" eye reacts horrendously to artificial light/screens/darkness. And I dont fancy wearing an eye patch to the cinema, either :razz:

I find it worthwhile to see films/movies in theaters. However, which part of "hollywood" do you mean as the crap fest? Because there are a lot of very good films that come out. However ... there are more bad (those are usually the ones that get worldwide presentation, since the production studios push them like crazy).

There are some independant films I enjoy, however, there are a lot that are just ... crap.

I think certain 'inde' directors don't know what it means to create a film because their story is lost in over acting and terrible cinematography. The only problem is that production studios whore out movies. Seeing crap ass movies coming out like "Soul Plane" really pisses me off ...

I do like a lot of "blockbuster" films, just as much as the next man :smile: But I have the chip on my shoulder from youth days/experiences, and it is harder to shake ideals I have believed in since I was a kid :smile:

I dont sit and protest or "refuse" to go, there is just numerous reasons I won't go to a large multiplex cinema, hell, I don't even visit the indepedent one that often - it's all personal taste. But please, dont confuse my anti-Cine stance with a dislike of films in general - and yeah, like you say, most of my dislikes are the international titles...

I think also you raise a good point on the independent director, some do get bogged down with personal agendas or areas they "over focus" on - for the most part you do get better quality for your money, though.

The main thing that hacks me off about cinema is the way bad films can be dressed up with the large screen, impressive sound and general presentation to have a "shine" it doesnt deserve - yet the experience of media on such a scale can blind people to whether it is actually a 'good' film :smile:

Some films have to be watched in a cinema- Kill Bill 1 and 2 were so good in the cinema (mainly because everyone else in the rooms either laughing away at them japs squirming on the floor with no legs or cringing at exploding eye balls...)

hmmm

Anyone seen Van Helsing yet? I've heard its a pile of crap.

Van Helsing seems to be a love/hate film. Either you really enjoy it, or you don't. Depends if you like mindless summer blockbusters really.

Being an employee of the movie biz, I have to agree that downloading movies is bad. I work only when there is work, and like now, I am unemployed. Shows get cancelled, or end, or the season ends and shooting stops for 3 months out of the year. Most of you don't have to worry about the next paycheck as the nature of your business is year round full time employment. As costs continue to rise in tandem with revenues falling due to theft(or piracy if you will) basically thats going to hurt industry employees like myself first. I don't pirate anything from the web(save for my shortlived foray into the pre-shutdown napster phase). If I like a movie or a song, or some software, it's because I saw it at the theater or bought it on DVD, or heard something good about it, or tried a free trial download.What in the heck is wrong with paying for stuff?. Just because it's on the web does'nt make it right. And in response to those who say "I download it first and if I like it I buy it", thats horse puckey, and you know it.

I hope I hav'nt steered this thread towards a lock down. :rolleyes:

hehehe.

PS in keeping with the original thread topic, Kill Bill rocked. Gothica was pretty entertaining as well.

I also just bought the directors cut of Schindlers list. Amazing movie.

Pearl harbor?, I am relatively sure there are soldiers turning over in their graves over that POS. Michael Bay is a hack(Asteroid!! The Rock!!) Ben Snorefleck?

I doubt it severely :razz: Everyone wants to portray us on the admin team as evil

We're not THAT bad.. are we? :razz:

Surprisingly enough, for all my anti-corporate et al sentiments, I agree with Juim - downloading music/films/games is wrong, if you intend on getting lots of use out of them. People make these things for love, and money - it's only fair we show our appreciation by buying the product IMO..

Having said that, it doesn't excuse the pricing policy adopted here in the UK, by mainstream media companies/suppliers who squeeze ridiculous amounts of cash out of relatively cheap to produce/develop/manufacture goods.

And in response to those who say "I download it first and if I like it I buy it", thats horse puckey, and you know it.

Not completely, I've bought loads of CDs I'd never have bought of bands I found out about due to downloading a few tracks. I've bought vastly more CDs since I've been using the internet to track down and sample music from bands. In the cases I don't buy the CD, its due to being unable to get it easily (I like a lot of smaller lesser known bands) or that I simply didn't like it enough to bother buying it - no different to hearing a song on TV or radio and making the same decision.

I never download movies or games - those I buy. I know its really no different, but I can't imagine you would download a whole game to sample it (most games have demos you could try? and if there is no demo, its probably an old game you can pick up for really cheap!). In the same vein, movies are normally watched once or twice, unlike CDs which are listened to many times over, so downloading a movie is very rarely going to result in you thinking you should go and buy it.

Yeah to be fair, I do read reviews and listen to 2-3 tracks off mp3 or perhaps listen to a friends copy of a musical CD before I buy it - but never, ever do I download entire albums, that's just wrong IMO.

It's just making sure you're not wasting ?10-?20 that you cant really afford to - and the bigger false idea is that the RIAA say it affects their sales... not exactly, junior.

And in response to those who say "I download it first and if I like it I buy it", thats horse puckey, and you know it.

No, it isn't. I do it all the time. However, mostly not with movies. Those I usually see in theaters or something like that and buy them if they're good and such.

Pearl harbor?, I am relatively sure there are soldiers turning over in their graves over that POS. Michael Bay is a hack(Asteroid!! The Rock!!) Ben Snorefleck?

YES!! :biggrin:

I can't imagine you would download a whole game to sample it (most games have demos you could try? and if there is no demo, its probably an old game you can pick up for really cheap!).

Dude, demos are so misleading. I've bought games on demos before and have been verily pissed off.
If there is a game that I don't know anything about, I might check it out. However, if it is good I will buy it. There are games out there that just aren't worth the money.

I know this makes me sound like a piracy monster, I'm not. But, thus far, every game I've either gotten from someone else or downloaded, I've boughten.

How are demos that misleading? Other than for factors such as game length, replayability, extras, etc... they normally give a pretty adequte indication of what to expect. There might some exceptions, but in general the gameplay shown in the demo is similar to that found in the main game.

As costs continue to rise in tandem with revenues falling due to theft

OK, but the type of piracy that affects the amount of money they get, is people actually selling illegal copies of music and films. This type of piracy has always existed. It seems far easier to me to blame kazaa for the woes of an entire industry than to go a bit deeper.. there doesn't seem to have been one statistic on the whole affair that wasn't based on crazy assumptions, didn't take a misrepresentative sample, or wasn't just plain stupid, and I'm talking about surveys from 'both camps' here.

Has anybody factored in that you can now pay a few $/? a month, and have cable channels that show pretty new films all week, often at various times for your convenience - wheres the need to buy a DVD if at any one time there are 10 either new or good films for you to choose from? Don't any of the movie industry people notice how pretty much year on year, the 'first week', 'first weekend', and 'total' takings records are broken? And among this, we are meant to believe that a minority (and a small minority at that) of people downloading movies are putting people out of business? Please.

How about not wasting millions on encryption methods that are invariably broken in a few months at most, and that can reduce functionality? How about not trying to scare people into buying your product by threataning them with legal action? How about not spending millions on amazing special effects for crap films?* This is what I would say to the movie industry.

*Not saying all special effects films are crap, but you do see a lot of awful films that have obviously had a big special effects budget.

Just watched battle royale yesterday and tonight, really enjoyed it. It's a bit f**king depressing though.

Alien_Sniper said:
Just watched battle royale yesterday and tonight, really enjoyed it. It's a bit f**king depressing though.

depressing.. certainly an interesting way of describing it :razz:

excellent film, nice commentary on a few social ideas (in my interpretation, at least). also, a strange obsession with the number 42...

Battle Royale = uber great. The sequel isn't anywhere near as good, but still worth watching if you get the chance.

depressing.. certainly an interesting way of describing it :razz:

It's just not the run of the mill happy hollywood stuff that I've become accustomed to. How is depressing interesting? Four sucicides that I can recall and a pretty accurate (and chilling) look at human nature.

To get back to a question on the previous page, Mystic River is definitely worth the watching. Incredible performances and a really smart script that was written without a formula. I went in cold turkey with little knowledge as to what it's about other than a friend's accolade and I recommend you view it the same way.

I could be wrong, but I think it might be the first movie Clint directed without appearing in. I remember there being some sort of Eastwood first to go along with it, but I just can't be certain what it was.

Alien_Sniper said:

depressing.. certainly an interesting way of describing it :razz:

It's just not the run of the mill happy hollywood stuff that I've become accustomed to. How is depressing interesting? Four sucicides that I can recall and a pretty accurate (and chilling) look at human nature.

Shocking and graphic perhaps, depressing message - but not depressing as a film/atmosphere, if you see what I mean- i wasn't saying it was interesting because it was depressing, i was saying i wouldnt describe it as depressing :razz: faints

I think the leading actor in Battle Royale plays his role to absolute perfection...and of course Beat Takashi, the teacher, is wonderful as usual.

The reason I loved the film was because it had everything - love/romance, revenge, action, tension, horror, friendship, sacrifice, and more. There are very few films which give such a complete range of emotion and human nature.

I got ya :wink: Maybe it's just because I watched it on two not particularly cheerful days.

We all know you dig asian chicks and that's the only reason you like it so cut the sensitive emotion bulls**t Blair. That cutie from Kill Bill is in it too. :wink:

A_S: Aaah, the freakish psychotic with the mace thingy? I havent seen KB all the way through, but I thought I recognised the "slightly tapped" look on her face :biggrin:

Juim said:
I hope I hav'nt steered this thread towards a lock down. :rolleyes:

nah.. but i would like to mention.. i do have a substantial download library, but i also want to add, 90% of them are movies i have already paid to see in one form or another, and with them being on disk, and not my hard drive, i limit my contribution to the file swapping process.

i realize this is really no distinction to those who feel its still piracy, but IMO it is a step in the right direction.. as hypocritical as that may be.

you must remember, i do not believe in piracy, so its as good as i can honestly make an assumed bad situation.

i feel for you juim, but i cannot really sympathize... its part of your job, at least as much as mine has to deal with cell phones killing drivers.. i doubt its going away any time soon..

:dodgy:

I don't see how having the divx on CD is all that different from capturing the film from digital TV, editing out the adverts, and then putting that on CD? I'm pretty sure that it is perfectly legal to record from the TV and keep that recording in your house... In what way does the movie industry lose out more from somebody downloading the film than they do from somebody recording it from the TV and taking the adverts out?

scary_jeff said:
I don't see how having the divx on CD is all that different from capturing the film from digital TV, editing out the adverts, and then putting that on CD? I'm pretty sure that it is perfectly legal to record from the TV and keep that recording in your house... In what way does the movie industry lose out more from somebody downloading the film than they do from somebody recording it from the TV and taking the adverts out?

if someone could explain this to me in a compelling way, i might consider it.. but as yet, no one has, not cause i am close minded, but their definition has not exceeded my own to date..

radio plays music, over free airways, you pop in a cassette, and press record.. same with VCR's, and now DVD's

no moneys exchange hands..

anywhos.. i think we are stuck at an impasse, cause i know we have already beat this around more than once..

Perhaps because you can only record from TV when it is on TV - and when it is on TV at least the makers have made some money out of it being shown.

ReNo said:
Perhaps because you can only record from TV when it is on TV - and when it is on TV at least the makers have made some money out of it being shown.

hmm scratches chin in thought

so if we only share video's of paid viewings its ok? IE my enterprise collection?

Eeer, it's probably best not to :razz: This is all just vague talk compared to actual legal nitty gritty :smile:

Gwil said:
Eeer, it's probably best not to :razz: This is all just vague talk compared to actual legal nitty gritty :smile:

my question was rhetorically based.. i wanted a definition for Duncan's comment.. not a by-the-book recollection of the fine print on a DVD box :biggrin:

I'm just saying that recording from TV is generally accepted, while downloading is not. My view on why this is the case, is that the film makers have made money from their film being shown on TV - money that was paid by the TV company to get you to watch their channel. If you record this for later use, they still made some money out of you watching the film on TV (I know you might not always watch it on TV when you record, but you may).

Somebody buying / renting a DVD and ripping it to their computer and sharing it, isn't really comparable. I guess the company still made money out of that one person buy the DVD but the money that person spent on it was to let them and immediate friends / family watch it, not to allow hundreds around the world to watch it.

sighs

duncan, did you read my post? or just gwils..??

you are talking about a different area than i.. not flaming you, just asking again to draw your attention to my word.. "Enterprise"

I don't think sharing them is right, just that videoing the TV showing for your own / immediate friends'/family's use is ok.

ReNo said:
I don't think sharing them is right, just that videoing the TV showing for your own / immediate friends'/family's use is ok.

ok then, that makes more sense..

thanx duncan..

Television and radio shows are paid for by the advertisers who run commercials during that show, hence, it is free to you.You see an average of 30 commercials during a half hour show. Prime time we'll say they are paying 100,000 to 500,000 for each spot. Add to that all the local affilliates who have in turn, their own local spots at considerably less cost (like Schmenke and sons hardware, on Podunk st, downtown!). These affilates all pay for the rights to air the shows and therein lies a considerable chunk of change being made per episode. Not to mention all the aftermarketing, syndication etc. None of this comes out of your pocket hence the free part.

Juim said:
Television and radio shows are paid for by the advertisers who run commercials during that show, hence, it is free to you.You see an average of 30 commercials during a half hour show. Prime time we'll say they are paying 100,000 to 500,000 for each spot. Add to that all the local affilliates who have in turn, their own local spots at considerably less cost (like Schmenke and sons hardware, on Podunk st, downtown!). These affilates all pay for the rights to air the shows and therein lies a considerable chunk of change being made per episode. Not to mention all the aftermarketing, syndication etc. None of this comes out of your pocket hence the free part.

i always considered myself, pretty much economically savvy.. free has never been worth much IMO, so it sort of disproves the theory somehow that TV is free..

economics aside.. i understand what you said juim.. you have my condolences, if my piracy steals food from your table..

/me pets stacks of cd's

The whole thing doesn't add up. If I download a divx of a film that I have seen on TV, is this ok, because it is the same result as me just recording it off the TV when I watched it, and recording from the TV is accepted as fine/'fair use'? What if I rent a movie, then copy it to divx (I couldn't do this if I wanted to because I have no DVD drive), and share it only with close friends/family? How is this not equivelant to recording it off the TV and showing it to close friends/family? It turns into a big grey area where the deciding factor is how you define a 'close friend'.

What if I then shared the movie on the internet, and somebody who had seen it on TV downloaded it? What if that person changed chanels during the adverts so as not to watch any of them?

I'm getting dizzy here...

Kage_Prototype said:
I'm getting dizzy here...

lots of horses in these here parts mate.

personally, i think it all boils down to this... someone cannot figure out a way to charge for free file swapping, so its considered "wrong/illegal"

i bet you even money, if they could, the wrong portion would somehow vanish, even if the money never made it into the pockets of the rightful owners.. :rolleyes:

just finished watching "Holes"

tis truly a 2 thumbs up flick..

went to see a private screening of Troy last night. I would have to classify it as mildly entertaining on a film basis, truly UNBELIEVABLE historically speaking. Watching Brad Pitts glowing abs and suntan becomes a bit boring after 2 hours.

SPOILER!

He Dies!!!!!!!!(As we all know Achilles did )anywho, Hope I did'nt ruin it for ya

question: why is there a private screening of troy, when the movie is in theaters already??

or.. am i missing something?