Film Leak - Official Discussion (NO POSTING/REQUESTING BOOTLEGS)

[chaseter]

Because it was mediocre............

 

[chaseter]

trust there will be people looking for this that if they stumbled upon a legal version theyd get that over an illegal version without any special fx. if 100 people dl the movie and even 10 of them do it legally, fox just made 200 bucks off this leak. multiply that by the thousands or maybe millions that are dl'ing this and fox has a shot to make up thousands of dollars off this leak. plus people will still go see it. i havent seen even free leaks impact a films bo, the majority of movie goers are just that and dont sit around dl'ng movies. it will do nothing but help fox make something of this leak.

Just send them your life savings and your first born while you are at it.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Just send them your life savings and your first born while you are at it.

I'm sorry that unlike most people, I have no problems paying for the products that I receive.

Yes, yes, I know that I'm going to catch flak and be called a hypocrit because I downloaded and watched this film.

The difference is, I didn't download this and watch it to see if it was worth paying to see in theaters. No, I downloaded it because I'm impatient.

I will be seeing this in theaters and buying the DVD regardless of whether I downloaded the leak or not.

Perhaps I'm not entitled to see this movie via download before it's theatrical release, and I'm not claiming that I am. But I'm also not like most people around here who feel they are entitled to see a movie first to decide if they want to see it in theaters or not.

If Fox released a legit, pay to download version of this film RIGHT NOW, I would absolutely pay for it and download it.

More than anything, I am impatient, it is a flaw, but that's it. I'm impatient. I'm not stingy and out to save a buck, or holding a grudge against a studio so large that I'd go through the trouble of paying for ANOTHER movie then sneaking into the Wolverine theater.

 

[chaseter]

Not that hard to pay for another movie and walk into a different movie. How do you think kids see rated R movies?

I am sick and tired of mediocre films that had the hugest potential in the world and were just crapped on continuously. This will not stop until the people that give them their wallets stop doing so. They will churn out another movie in 3 years and the cycle will start all over again.

 

[Timstuff]

I definitely think this movie is going to rank in the bottom 50% on Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer. Even the stuff in the movie that was good to us fanboys, isn't going to get a much hoopla from critics. We might have loved seeing Gambit on film, but what about Joe Critic, who probably doesn't even know who Gambit is? He's just going to see him as a throw away character who happens to be very flashy, and the same goes for Wade Wilson and Emma Frost. These characters were not important to the film, and they're not going to be important to the critics. And don't even get me started on blob... That scene was completely unnecessary and all around cheesey, and the critics are going to tear it apart.

The Critics were relatively restrained in their criticism of X-Men 3. I liked the movie, and so did a slim majority of critics (although most of their reviews do note that it was a noticeable drop in quality from X-Men 2). However, Wolverine is no X-Men 3, and as a lot of you are undoubtedly thinking right now (the ones who hated X3), that's pretty terrible. I expect it to at best score in the mid 30% range on the ol' meter.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I'm expecting the 40s-50s.

 

[chaseter]

If it gets 30% I will lol non stop and love every second of it.

 

[diabolik]

So since freidman ( a Fox employee ) can write an article about the joys of downloading a pirtated Fox movie...and review how much better it is then the Dark Knight...

I'm assuming SHH will allow everyone here to do that same....I mean if its cool with Fox for Freidman to download and discuss...it has to be ok for everyone here..

Right ?

 

[SuperAl]

i thought Dominic was playin Beak, the guy with a deformed face and wings, yet all he seems to do is touch his forehead and make crap happen

 

[chaseter]

Friedman was payed to say that hogwash. If you pay me then I will love this film to death too.

 

[Deaths Head II]

They changed it so Dominic is playing Bolt, a character from the comic that Maverick served as a mentor to.

 

[danoyse]

Apparently, Fox is not so happy about the Roger Friedman issue:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6634&Itemid=99

20th Century Fox Condemns Roger Friedman's Early Wolverine Review
Written by IESB Staff
Friday, 03 April 2009

Earlier today, to the shock of the online community, FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman posted an early review of the leaked X-Men Origins: Wolverine film that hit the web earlier this week.

A shock went through the online community after most reputable websites had refused to post any reviews on the pirated copy. Immediately, the online community condemned Roger Freidman's actions and were all surprised that FoxNews.com would allow his piece.

The IESB was quickly in contact with 20th Century Fox to ask for a comment regarding his posting. The following comment was sent over and the original article at FoxNews.com was quickly removed.

From 20th Century Fox:

"We’ve just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com – an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox -- watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically -- whether the review is good or bad."

 

[chaseter]

I doubt he gets fired.

 

[danoyse]

Another interesting article about the link:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10211136-93.html

Studio: Good chance FBI can trace 'Wolverine' leak

FBI agents have started looking for whoever uploaded to the Web an incomplete version of the unreleased movie "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

The film, which reportedly cost $100 million to make, was not scheduled for theatrical release until May 1 but was leaked to the Web Tuesday evening. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Los Angeles field office, said Thursday that the agency is responsible for investigating copyright infringement and allegations of piracy.

She said the bureau received a call within the last 24 hours from 20th Century Fox, the News Corp.-owned studio that produced "Wolverine." At this early stage in the investigation, Eimiller said the agency is without suspects.

However, studio representatives told news agency Reuters because of forensic marks, the authorities would be able to trace the source of the leak.

Studios embed identification marks on prints and film copies and that's how authorities tracked down Kerry Gonzalez. He was the New Jersey man who uploaded the superhero film "Hulk" to the Web weeks before its 2003 theatrical release. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to felony copyright infringement charges and was sentenced to six months house arrest and ordered to pay a $7,000 fine.

That case is an example of how hard it is for studios to protect their multimillion-dollar products, according to a film industry insider.

Gonzalez had nothing to do with the movie business. He told FBI agents that he obtained a videotape copy of the film print from a friend who worked at an advertising agency connected with the movie.

The problem comes down to two issues: lots of different people need access to a working print of a feature film. The second problem is the Internet hands anyone the power to disseminate digital information to a vast audience with little effort or expense.

"You have to realize that toy manufacturers, advertisers, editing houses, preview houses, they all need access to some form of the film cut," said the industry source. When it comes to business partners, the studios are "only as safe as the partner company's last hire."

"When they find this guy," the source continued, "and they will, he will become the poster child for never doing this again."

Not everyone agrees that a movie is harmed by this kind of early Internet release.

"Sicko," director Michael Moore's documentary on the health care industry, appeared on the Web a week before being screened in theaters. The film still saw a respectable opening when compared to other documentaries.

Some say the Web can act as a promotional tool for films, provided that they receive positive word of mouth. In the case of the "Hulk," the movie was widely panned after going out on the Web. When it reached theaters, the film saw a big opening but quickly lost steam and is considered a financial flop.

 

[Timstuff]

So... Hulk got leaked weeks before release, got bad reviews, and then flopped at the box office. Wolverine got leaked weeks before release, and is getting bad reviews. I wonder what happens next?

 

[danoyse]

Another forum I read - decidedly not a fanboy crowd - started a thread about this summer's movies and everyone is listing the ones they want to see the most. Wolverine was mentioned quite a few times, and the thread is a few pages long now. And not one person has mentioned the leak. I honestly don't think any of them know about it.

I'm curious to see what the reaction to all of this is outside the comics-fan crowd. The NY Daily News ran a poll with their story about the leak - 61% said they are waiting for the theatrical release.

I've also been reading the comments sections with a lot of the news stories about this, and I've noticed that there are lot more positive reviews than negative ones, and many comments from people who can't be bothered downloading it.

Obviously a lot of people have downloaded it and watched it...but overall, I wonder how much of the overall moviegoing audience hasn't bothered?

 

[Anita18]

Apparently, Fox is not so happy about the Roger Friedman issue:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6634&Itemid=99

Heh, so they're still sane after all.

 

[danoyse]

Heh, so they're still sane after all.

Roger Friedman is such a moron, he should have been gone years ago. Hopefully this will do it once and for all.

 

[TNC9852002]

Well, at least they're trying to stay fair here.

 

[PTZ]

So... Hulk got leaked weeks before release, got bad reviews, and then flopped at the box office. Wolverine got leaked weeks before release, and is getting bad reviews. I wonder what happens next?

Where have you seen actual reviews yet?

 

[mclay18]

I don't see the appeal of downloading a workprint of a movie that hasn't been finished, let alone incorporated scenes from the reshoots this past January. The reaction and WOM could change once the finished product is in theaters, so who knows.

Although when I first got wind of the news on Wednesday, I thought Fox was pulling a bad April Fool's joke on the public. But no, it's deadly serious... quite surprising for a studio who mails out DVD-R screener discs as opposed to final product (and I don't see Fox ever changing that after the Wolverine fiasco).

 

[chaseter]

They were not reshoots...they were pickups.

 

[def28]

They were not reshoots...they were pickups.

They were scenes with Reynolds that were originally planned but he couldnt shoot cause he was to busy.

Dominic Monagaun said they did reshoots and pickups in an interview.

In that aintitcool article it also said that after this workprint was watched producers asked for reshoots.

So who knows exactly. But Reynolds did confirm the scenes where for him as did alot of other sources.

 

[icelemt38]

Another forum I read - decidedly not a fanboy crowd - started a thread about this summer's movies and everyone is listing the ones they want to see the most. Wolverine was mentioned quite a few times, and the thread is a few pages long now. And not one person has mentioned the leak. I honestly don't think any of them know about it.

I'm curious to see what the reaction to all of this is outside the comics-fan crowd. The NY Daily News ran a poll with their story about the leak - 61% said they are waiting for the theatrical release.

I've also been reading the comments sections with a lot of the news stories about this, and I've noticed that there are lot more positive reviews than negative ones, and many comments from people who can't be bothered downloading it.

Obviously a lot of people have downloaded it and watched it...but overall, I wonder how much of the overall moviegoing audience hasn't bothered?

This is so true, of people I know at school (college) and my family and friends, not 1 person knew about this leak or downloaded it, even the ones that found out will all rather wait to see it in the theaters. A lot of the general audience people that are going to pay to see this movie are not aware of this leak. Fanboys are aware, some liked it, some didn't. Of the non fanboy types that have seen it, I have read more positives than negatives too, so it really makes me wonder how much of the movie audience is made up of fanboys.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Of the people that I have talked to about the leak, only one of them was able to find information on it outside of the fanboy community.

My friend saw a mention of it on the Drudge report.

I've also mentioned it to my mom, who hadn't yet heard anything about it. I recommended she go to the theaters.

My brother hadn't heard anything about it, and wants absolutely nothing to do with it, as he wants to see it in theaters.

A couple of my friends at work have heard nothing about it.

All these people that I have talked to haven't heard about the leak, except my friend who read it on Drudge Report. All of them have zero interest in the leak, and will just be going to the theaters to see the film.

There won't be a large, if any, impact from this leak. The anti-Fox fanboy community will be the biggest hit, but they are all theives anyways who will just sneak into films or look for illegal bootleg downloads anyways so that they don't have to spend money on it.