Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

About That HULK Workprint You All Claim To Be

Finally First by HailDaHypnoToad	Jun 9th, 2003 08:29:37 AM
Moriarity is right. I've been a comic fan for 40 years and here I am In the golden age of Marvel movies and I HATE that some loser is going to screw it up by piracy. GROW UP!! ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!
Well Played M by reni	Jun 9th, 2003 08:31:19 AM
As much I want to see Hulk, as much as I enjoy the freedom of internet, the speed at which this thing has happened leaves a bit of a bad taste. I feel pretty sorry for Ang Lee. Up to a week, the whole project seemed shrouded in a little mystery. And it seemed to be working nicely for Universal and everyone... this is a bit of a shame, even by my standards which are pretty weak sometimes.
Here is how I justify it... by silentjay	Jun 9th, 2003 08:33:16 AM
fat, meaty fines. And if you don't think there is tons of legislation in the works to prevent and punish those who do swipe material...keep testing the waters and find out. Good stand evil one, its a tough battle.
Gee, thanks Moriarty, you've successfully anounced to the whole by Lil Ze	Jun 9th, 2003 08:36:27 AM
Me for one!!!!!!!!!
pre release copies by captainmonkey	Jun 9th, 2003 08:37:17 AM
I seem to remember a certain harry raving last year about watching an early copy of Attack of the Clones. Practice what you preach man.
Isn't this the same site that reviewed AOTC bootleg? by Gheorghe Zamfir	Jun 9th, 2003 08:37:38 AM
I mean hell, if that review served as anything it was a giant shout to the internet that it was out there for us to get before the movie's release. And I'm sure if I go through the archives I'll find a lot more bootleg reviews, especially on the foreign stuff, though I'm sure that's all justified one way or another too.
woo-har by wreckbless	Jun 9th, 2003 08:38:56 AM
Bickitty bickitty BAM!
You tell them mother fuckers! by Mr_T_Rulez	Jun 9th, 2003 08:39:37 AM
Fucking theives! Get your fucking mitts off of pirated films and get your bitch-asses into a fucking theatre and buy some overpriced concessions and listen to the fucking baby crying in back of you like the rest of us! I am sure that you can save some money by not buying a replica Khan wig from Comic-Con and go to a fucking movie once in a fucking while! And what fun is it to watch a film on your PC? Aside from the pixilating and the canned sound, the films are way too tiny to appreciate and the words "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" cover half of the screen! How can you judge a film based on this kind of viewing? My friend tried to get me to watch some of his pirated films, but I have to say that I value film way too much to participate in this kind of blatant selfishness and greed. BUY A FUCKING TICKET! Fucking turd-brains! Oh yeah ... The Hulk jumps the shark while he has a beer and cheats on his wife because he is the world's sexiest tomboy beanpole and numerous fanboys jack off to his likeness. Fucking fags!
You've got a point. by Psyclops	Jun 9th, 2003 08:42:19 AM
This bootlegging is getting out of control. What's the big deal with waiting a few weeks until the film is released? Also, why would anyone want to see a movie like this on a fucking computer screen and not in a giant theater with a thundering sound system? Don't ruin the experience of watching this the way it was meant to be seen.
A lot of people bootleg films because by Ribbons	Jun 9th, 2003 08:44:11 AM
they want to have something that the majority of the population doesn't. As for those who actually want to bust their cherry on this piece of shit work print, what the hell are you thinking?
Piracy? What? by niai	Jun 9th, 2003 08:49:43 AM
The majority of the moving going public won't give a shit if its faithful to the comic or not. Does piracy actually reduce ticket sales? Or is it a poor economy that does that? Or maybe the poor economy is a result of piracy? Maybe the MPAA can influence governments in ways that individuals cannot. If you make something, expect someone to pirate it, and don't expect to ever be able to stop it without installing digital rights management into peoples brains at birth. All my opinions are copied.
You're being too sensitive about copyright laws. by Human Tornado	Jun 9th, 2003 08:50:29 AM
I've never heard of p2p screwing box office income for anyone. It's like a free sample: you check it out on the net to see if it's any good. If it is, you'll pay full admission price - I know I will, and you will too. If it's not, it deserves to flop and die a miserable death. AICN single-handedly destroyed Batman and Robin (of course they deserved it...), and there was no P2P at the time (well, there WAS, but not like today). AICN reviewed bootleg copies of "Blair Witch Project" and "AOTC" - and look how big box office bombs they were... I say "if it's digital, it's free".
Justify? Copyright is just plain wrong, there is no need for jus by EvilNight	Jun 9th, 2003 08:52:41 AM
Come on, Mori. You're in a position to see exactly the kind of damage and creativity-killing effects that copyright has on anyone who hasn't got the deep pockets. It's a tool to control and dominate, nothing more. Look at Disney, I rest my case. The Renaissance happened without copyright, so don't come on pretending like we need it. Perhaps in its original, constitutional form, where 5 years was the MAXIMUM time it offered protection, it might have been a law worth having around. Perhaps if it protected the creator of the work, rather than the big media licensee of the work, it would be worth having around. The middle men are going away. There will be artists, and consumers, and that's it. 43 million people use P2P software. Go ahead and tell me we need to jail 1/6 of the American population. This is like prohibition, we've got an unpopular law, and God himself couldn't enforce it. I understand and agree with the need to compensate artists for their work, however I completely disagree with all of the current business models because the scum sucking talentless hacks playing the middle men are getting 95% of the pie. I'd rather rip my music off the net and send the artist a check for $20 than buy something from any record label. To hell with all of them. We posess the means to eliminate cultural scarcity (books, movies, music, you name it) thanks to computers. I don't think it's right to introduce artificial scarcity into that kind of system. If it means that musicians like Bowie and Madonna can no longer make 100s of millions of dollars, so be it. It'll also mean that any artist with talent can make a living, and frankly artists doing things for the money are doing it for the wrong reason anyway. You know the difference between a movie made for quick money and a movie made by someone who acutally gives a damn about making some real art. Cut out copyright and the real artists will come out on top. Every time.
BAMF by MaulRat	Jun 9th, 2003 08:57:16 AM
For years I have had to listen to fan-boy fucks who claim to have the latest and greatest in home computing technology because they're lacking in any REAL manhood and use that as a benchmark tell me that "Hey I downloaded 'X men 2' last night" or... "Matrix reloaded isn't even in the cinemas yet.. but guess who has it on VCD??? eh?.." and then bitch about the quality of it.. Go to the movies, pay your 8 bucks in change, get your pack of reeses pieces (or whatever the fuck blows your skirt up) and you'll notice the difference and it will be worth the price of admission... fuuuck me... it sounds alot like the same rant I hear time and time again from fanboys waxing about George Lucas and his stubborn refusal to release the original star wars movies on DVD as opposed to the re-release 'special editions'... saying they'll just get the originals on VCD.. saying that they're old VHS tapes will do... saying they'll boycott them DVDs.... christ in a cartoon... 2 things... 1) I think Young george is doing quite well without your $22 dollar per flick donation thank you very much boycotting wont do DICK, apart from YOU missing out on probably THE most anticipated DVD release ever short of the Indiana Jones movies.. and 2) personally I couldn't give a fuck if greedo shoots first... I want DTS.. I want Crystal clear picture and I WANT TIEFIGHTERS screaming past my fucking ears and god knows what speed, and I want an end to pre-release pirates... my work here is done.. *** BAMF ! ***
Right or wrong, you can't stop it. by earthworm	Jun 9th, 2003 09:00:31 AM
Piracy has always been there, and always will be, its just massively more available to the average geek through P2P. BUT, if the film is good enough, I can't think of anyone who WOULDN'T go and see it again at the cinema. If it's crap, it doesn't deserve to do well anyway. I can't justify it, anymore than I can justify speeding or taking drugs both of which have a FAR higher social and financial cost than piracy. And on occasion I do all three. For the record, yesterday I downloaded some of the new Radiohead stuff, as a result I'm off to buy the album. I also spent four hours downloading Hulk, and it turned out to be Moonlight fucking Mile. Either way, Hulk's still got my fiver when it does come out.
Artists deserve to be compensated, plain and simple. by Nordling	Jun 9th, 2003 09:02:21 AM
I think the marketplace is the one who should decide whether or not an artist's work has any value by PURCHASING their work. If the artist's work doesn't get bought, then there's no question, is there? EvilNight, I understand where you're coming from, but this is about a work that hadn't even been released yet. The marketplace should decide the value, and the artists deserve to make a profit off their art, if people think their art has value. And art has more value than people realize. I'd hate to live in a world where artists didn't make their art because frankly, they couldn't afford to make it.
Bothered by KING HEROD	Jun 9th, 2003 09:03:54 AM
Welcome to the 21st Century Moriarty. The ability to download a movie in a couple of minutes is just a fact of life these days. And I'd save my breath appealing to the better nature of movie fans. What? You think people are going to ignore FREE STUFF, to safeguard the profits of the entertainment industry? Not the world I live in matey. And don't give me any of that 'we all suffer in the long run' malarkey. They use that argument to try & stop people chopping down rainforests or driving Sports Utilities, and that doesn't seem to be working. The film industry need to get with the programme, acknowledge a problem that isn't ever going to go away and start to deal with it the one way they can. Better security and universal release dates.
Usually Have Nothing Against File Trading, But...... by TheEwokThatDied	Jun 9th, 2003 09:08:36 AM
The main difference, and it is important for more than one reason ( although the validity of those reasons is suspect ) between the advanced copy of AOTC that Harry saw and the trading of the Hulk is: The AOTC copy was one person watching one advance copy. Now that difference breaks down into factual and perception. Factually, there is a immeasurable difference between 2 geeks watching an advance copy of a film and many thousands watching an advanced copy, simple math, 2 vs thousands. Now, that in it's self is not the problem. And, in my opinion, I do not believe that all of these people seeing the film will hurt more than 1-5% of it's opening business. Face it, 99-95% of the people that would have seen it opening weekend without the leak are STILL going to see it. Only a handful of fringe fence sitters may be turned off by reading some random knock against the condition of the CGI. ( Although, if a knock against the CGI was enough to scare people away, NO ONE would be seeing the Hulk ). Anyhow, the real, severe problem with the situation is that unless the film meets or goes over 100% of the expectations the suits at the studio have for it's box office, they will be able to fall back and say, "Well, ya know, the film's performance was a disappointment because the key demographic for this type of movie was able to see it one week early on their computers. We should redirect our focus and make more movies like "The Devine Secrets Of The Ya-Ya Sisterhood. No 50ish frumpy house wives pining for their youth ever down load movies." So.....there is the chance for us to get more crap because the studio has an easy out for the film........so.....because of that problem of incorrect perception - excuse providing to the studios I am against pre-release trading. Yub Yub
Moriarity, you're two-faced... by Angelus Rex	Jun 9th, 2003 09:10:33 AM
Aren't you the one who got the UNPRODUCED AND UNRELEASED screenplay for SUPERMAN and opined how CRAPPY this movie will be before it's even made? You failed to take responsibility for the backlash of your review? You rant about people voicing an opinion about a rough-cut pirated download of an unfinished movie, then you should BE ASHAMED of yourself for what you did to the SUPERMAN screenplay. When you start casting stones, you better be sure there isn't someone standing above you ready to unload a bag full of them on your head, idiot.
Point of Legal Fact by harsten	Jun 9th, 2003 09:10:43 AM
Whatever your position on downloading copyrighted materials without permission, you have to observe a point of legal fact, Moriarty. Doing this is a copyright violation. Not theft. Theft is, legally, larceny, and this is NOT theft. The MPAA would like everyone to believe it is, but it is, in legal fact, not. So, technically, you can't call people who do this thieves. Because, legally, they're not. They're copyright violators. Different thing. Now a work print - if someone released it who was not authorized, then THEY are guilty of larceny (removal of property in part or whole). It's not illegal to look at stolen property. Also, just because some action that a person takes devalues a product that you own does not necessarily make it illegal, or even immoral. If you make a car, and I point out correctly that it's a piece a crap and then you can't sell any cars... well... And even if I based that determination on an analysis of the CAD drawings of your car that were shown to me by someone who was not authorized to have them, well, that's still not illegal. You may not like it, but don't call it something it isn't. Not theft. Copyright violation. Get it right.
get a clue, evilnight by simon72	Jun 9th, 2003 09:11:53 AM
"The Renaissance happened without copyright". WTF? Quick history lesson: photocopying, file-swapping, and any other method of quickly and easily duplicating and distributing illegal copies of someone else's work didn't exist in the 15th century, fuckwit. And as for your suggestion that we get strike from the lawbooks any "unpopular" law - do you really need me to point out the holes in that one?
Harry's AOTC review by slayage	Jun 9th, 2003 09:14:00 AM
Next time, before you spew venom at everyone else, justify your own use of piracy in maintaining this site and posting those early reviews. The word "hypocrisy" doesn't begin to cover this.
Well Said Man by Dmann	Jun 9th, 2003 09:14:01 AM
Well, Mori said it at the end. The next time someone wants to make a big budget geek film. We have to realize, us nerdy ass movie geeks are kings right now, we pushed teeny boppers out of the way, fisted the ass talking comic, and showed that our allmighty dollar is king. Why is this? I think its because we do silly, passionate things like lining up in costumes for opening midnight showings of movies. We spend our hard earned dollars (not everyone gets to make a living selling his geek ideas) on things like Hulk Hands, super fancy DVD's of movies we already own, soundtrack and score CD's, action figures, Lego sets, and so on and so forth. If pirating makes the lucrative geek dollar smaller, we lose our edge, the big budget spectacles wont cater to us, and marvel movies will fade away, leaving us with a worthless pile of foil embossed rob liefeld comics to read. What i am saying is.....piracy is bad....mmmkay (unless it involves some sexy chick who eats beans with a pole)
why do we do it by redeye2000	Jun 9th, 2003 09:14:47 AM
Dear Moriaty, as a True Movie pirate myself. I understand the problem very well, but please dont forget that in the first place it is the problem of the movie companies themselfs. please let me explain this for instance I live in europe. movies are played here most of the times like 3 till 6 months later. do I want to wait like so many months before I can actually watch the movie everybody in the usa is talking about like on in aint it cool news? No I dont want to wait that long because I am a movie geek myself too. Finding Nemo will play in my country around november!!!! can you believe that! November! This is ofcourse unbelievble! so how do I satisfy my desire. yes with pirate copies! ofcourse some movies like Matrix Reloaded or X-men 2 I watch in theatre because they had an world wide release. so I was very happy to see that in theatre and I could watch it at the same date as everyone. so a movie company can have my money for the ticket! but if they start using tricks like disney does with their movies then I am forced to do watch a pirate copy, because I will not wait just because Disney likes that. It Even happens that movies from the USA get even out on DVD while the movie itself still has to to turn up at the movie theatre in my country! this is just unbearable! Also the region codes on all the dvds is very bad. why is it not allowed we can import USA DVDS? why the protections? I think movies are what we call culture exhange. but movie companies rather prefer the berlin wall style of mentality. also not every pirate is the same. a good pirate I think is how I explained above. a bad pirate is someone who sells copied dvds by mail or internet like ebay. those fookers should be arrested and thrown into jail! about the hulkworkprint. as a release it just kick ass that someone was able to do it. and I can understand the kick it gives to release a movie that early, but those losers that review a workprint are really stupid! they just should be banned. they really give us a bad name. in my book , a movie pirate just like to watch a movie same time as everyone should be able too and keep that movie in his own collection because he is a collector as well. so no hiring or selling. so if you see me as a bad person because I am a pirate, then go ahead. track me down, send the FBI or who else is in charge, I dont care. if that is what it takes to fight the system I will!
The problem with justifying criminal action ... by Halski	Jun 9th, 2003 09:16:30 AM
I can totally sympathize with people who criticize a law as unenforceable; I'll soon be in law school where intellectual property may be the hottest topic around. I can't say where I stand on the issues exactly (it's a hot topic at law school BECAUSE it's so undefined as of yet), but I can say that you have no right bemoaning criminal prosecution if you knowingly break the law. That's called civil protest. If you want to pirate movies and sit in jail to prove a point, I have all respect for you. That's how it's been done before with varying degrees of success. If you want to pirate movies, hope the feds don't bust you, and then whine that people (like yourselves) just can't control themselves and will always pirate movies ... well, let's say my respect lessons. If you want to point out the flaws in the legal system, present your case before the public in whatever forums are available to you, and lobby to get the law changed, then you've picked what is probably the most sensical (and effective) choice ... This hinges on you resepcting that law in the meantime, however, because who are you to criticize the legal system after you've already deemed it irrelevant to the way you live your life? In short, why even bother fixing the system if you've decided the system doesn't apply to you?
Harry's right, you know by Lance Turk	Jun 9th, 2003 09:17:12 AM
What if some guy came up to you and showed you a workprint of Attack of the Clones 3 months before release? Would you post a review on that? Oh wait a second...
Well said, Angelus . . . by slayage	Jun 9th, 2003 09:17:26 AM
Idiocy being the key word. Entire lack of logic. No thought whatsoever. I think your little rant, Moriarty, should be removed before you embarrass yourself more. Pitiful. Two-faced, pitiful nonsense.
The Cold Equations, and you. by Lobanhaki	Jun 9th, 2003 09:18:02 AM
Thank you Moriarty for bringing that point up. Y'all know what an economy is, right? Supply and Demand. Here is the problem. If people get the wrong ideas about a print in progress, well, then, what have is a problem, because that is reducing demand for the putative film, while at the same time, a more deserving, more refined, and and more tightly constructed film is being released. We are reducing the demand for good work, because we are assuming things about a workprint, and in another sense, the sense of having stolen the movie and taken a look at it, we have stolen a first experience that can't be had again, and which will never show up in the coffers of those executives who are going to determine every damn big budget movie we're going to see, executives, who by the way tend not to have much to do with actual filmmaking. They just tick off the profits and go make something that makes a damn profit. I don't want to hear all this bullshit about how we don't need to be feeding the corporate greed. It's hard not to nowadays, not without living in a shack in the woods. But what can do is watch finished products in the theatre, get our first time experience in the closest we can get to an ideal environment, and then judge what we've seen. Now, of course, that costs money, and takes some of the control out of our hands, but then again- Whoa, what if we already have control? I mean, let's put it this way: The control we fight right now is the first weekend. That all important "number one movie in America" weekend. It allows them to dump shit on the market, because we'll jump on it on account of marketing, and not because we've heard it's good. Well, duh. My advice to all you people is this: Go see the movie in it's final form, not now, Not on the first weekend, but on the second. Find out what the word of mouth is. Then, if the movie works for you, go tell your friends that it's good. It use to be that films were left in the theaters for longer, and that movies succeed if audience returned on a regular basis. Some of the biggest smashes in recent history have worked that way. Sixth Sense, Titanic, Saving Private Ryan- both are example of movies that didn't open too big, but when they got into their next weeks, the grosses stayed stable, and did so over a long period of time. These two movies show the power of the audience to determine what kind of films can get made. It also shows that what an audience will like is not necessarily the same old crap that they frontload on us. Graphic war-picture. Supernatural thriller with no effects. big budget chick-flick. So, for once, let us wait! Because if we wait, we can't be rushed into a bad choice. And if you wait, and pay, you can give them a true picture of what you want, and you yourself will be able to pay for another ticket for the stuff that entertained you, and by doing that you will able to send a message to these folks who only read the grosses- THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
Some thoughts.. by Sith42	Jun 9th, 2003 09:18:57 AM
Here's two comparisons that might put things into perspective for you all... 1) If I could steal your wallet and get away with it, I absolutely would. But, I know it's wrong and if I got busted, I wouldn't bitch. That's what I get..for stealing.... For those who think it's ok cause you buy some tickets/dvds on some films and let the bad stuff fail.. 2) I've had peanuts before. I have even bought them out of the bulk bin in the supermarket. I sometimes eat them out of the bulk bin in the supermarket. I will likely even buy them again. So, yesterday, when I filled my pockets full of peanuts, it was perfectly okay... The main point is, the whole p2p scene is anarchy at the moment, and if you're going to engage in it, announcing it publically is the absolute stupidest thing you can do.
Shame on you Mori. by TheMoly	Jun 9th, 2003 09:19:22 AM
Dear God! What melodrama! I keep waiting for Mori to fall to his/her knees and weep like a woman. We're the problem? Wrong. What we do is exploit loopholes in society, something that has happened since time immemorial. The problem is that the industry cannot keep the product safe. The fact that these prints find their way onto the net so quick is a stunning indictment of the movie industry itself. If they cannot keep the product safe why should we think "oh no, this will be bad for the movie industry?" Look, Mori, you seem to be a confused guy/gal. Imagine this scene... You're walking past a cash machine and suddenly a one hundred dollar bill flops out of it. What do you do? You pick it up and put it in your pocket. No thought. It's automatic. You see a free one hundred dollar bill and you take it. It's the banks fault for having a faulty cash machine, right? Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, we can all live in your utopian kif heaven where there are no "baddies", we watch Mortal Kombat movies all day and everyone helps one another. Or we can travel back to reality. And isn't there a review of an unfinished film on this website today? Didn't this very website review a bootleg Attack of the Clones? Mate, when you go on one of your high horsed crusades make sure you haven't left you zipper down. Who do you think you are? Do you think you are some sort of moral bastion fighting against the hordes of mindless Internet savages? We are the people who keep the website alive. You are the people, who among others have stoked the appetite for the
thankyou..i now realise the folly of my ways by audio vandal	Jun 9th, 2003 09:19:42 AM
..i smoked before i was legal age, and i drank, and i had sex, and i watched porn..and now i just realised i did the worst of all..i downloaded a movie before it came out on the cinema !!! Oh please forgive me !! Seriously, theres no way i feel sorry for big studios , if they wanna throw millions away making movies its not my problem, and if this material becomes available in the public domain, and i wanna check it out..who gives a fuck ? Same way ill read the script reviews on this site, which im sure are obtained legally...and im sure we can all find some depraved crazy shit on the net..in fact im sure that the internet police have a lot more to worry about than the hulk movie coming online..if i wanna spoil the movie for myself i will..if i dont..ill turn off my pc !
Incidentally, by slayage	Jun 9th, 2003 09:21:57 AM
I did NOT download this film, mostly because I have no interest in seeing it at all, or in watching movies on my computer screen. Your implying that everyone who does is "insane," however, makes me want to download the bloody thing now. I have no respect for you. Now hurry up and finish that movie so we can download it already.
Give me a break by stever1	Jun 9th, 2003 09:22:22 AM
The vast majority of people downloading this are internet geeks. The vast majority of these geeks are gonna buy tickets for the first showing, they're gonna buy tickets to see it again on the weekend (if it rocks), they're gonna buy the DVD the first day it hits Wal-Mart, and they're gonna buy the super-special Christmas release with the added 15 seconds of Eric Bana looking anguished that was cut for artistic reasons. No one is losing money because of this. My grandma won't go to the theater to see this anyway. Next you're gonna tell me that I shouldn't be sneaking candy and soda into the theater because I'm depriving a theater owner of his due...
Easy for you to say Mori, you get sneak peaks at all the movies. by joeblowe	Jun 9th, 2003 09:27:53 AM
There is nothing wrong with wanting to see the movie early. Especially an unfinished product, because chances are huge that everyone that downloads it will still go see it in theatres. As much as I'd like free passes to every major movie months before they come out, like you get, rips are my only chance for a sneak peek. I still go see the movies I enjoy in theatres, and the ones I don't enjoy don't deserve my cash anyway. It's like going into a movie, hating it, and demanding a refund... Which is allowable at nearly all movie theatres. That's exactly what I do with bad movies, I just cut out the theatre and paying for it in the first place. The good movies, I do pay for.
hey, redeye 2000... by simon72	Jun 9th, 2003 09:31:29 AM
So the fact that a studio doesn't go to the huge expense of ensuring that every geek in every country on the planet can see a movie at the exact same second "forces" you to watch a pirate copy of a work print? You poor baby. You are being obliged, against your will, to engage in a criminal activity so that you can watch a cartoon about fish now rather than in a few months time? Get a fucking grip. And as for Dmann: "We have to realize, us nerdy ass movie geeks are kings right now". Dream on, loser.
So it's okay to review stolen scripts (Superman) but not bootleg by the G-man	Jun 9th, 2003 09:31:34 AM
Mori, I was one of the people who defended you when you were getting blasted by WB for leaking the stolen Superman script (and, unless you were given it by Jon Peters I would say it was stolen). And now you do this? I'm sorry, but half the "scoops" on this site have come from either purloined scripts, bootleg videos or wildfeed tv shows. How is this different? Because Avi Arad is calling the shots here now?
amazing by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 09:34:43 AM
Ok, so I didn't work on the Hulk, but I've worked on movies equally big...and dozens much smaller...and it always staggers me how people think they can just simply 'justify' not paying for something. File sharing IS NOT the equivalent of a mate lending you a CD so you can see if it's good or not. Because there's no 'mate' in it. Let's face it, do you give a SHIT about who you're downloading from??? NO, of course you don't, you're just getting it for free when you should be paying the artists (and yes, although the studio might make millions, those millions are going to get ploughed back into making more films, and end up in the pockets of thousands of people who have to make a living making this stuff for you.....)...if it hasn't been released where you are yet...well, fuck you, you can wait. Say if a certain food or drink product 'hadn't been released yet'...that WOULDN'T give you the right to go to another country (effectively what you're doing, digitally speaking, when you use a file sharing service) and steal it. Just to try it...yeah right...try telling that to the judge in court, see whether he lets you off the theft charge....and laying claim to some kind of moral justification for your crimes is just...so stupid. Pea-brained. The Renaissance happened without copyright huh???? I WOULD LIKE TO FUCKING KNOW HOW THE BLOODY HELL THE ROOF OF THE SISTINE CHAPEL COULD HAVE BEEN COPIED!!!! It happened without copyright because the technology to fuck the artists over didn't exist, and artists were SUBSIDISED by wealthy patrons in those days. They weren't worried about admission charges....they made a living that was guaranteed. They could feed their kids. AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO FUCKING FINISH THEIR WORK BEFORE IT WAS JUDGED! At least, if you're going to try to fuck us out of what little money one can make in this business, please let us finish so we can actually have something we're proud of out there, whether you like it you don't. HOW MUCH IS THAT TO ASK? All the arguments for file-sharing above...are so fucking specious and unintelligent, it's unbelievable...if you've tried to justify it above, you're a worthless piece of thieving shit, and you know it. Period. Don't make it worse by trying to pretend otherwise. The entire filmmaking community thinks you're a fool.....so why open your mouth and prove it????? But my biggest beef is reviewing something before the artists are done with it.
amazing by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 09:36:14 AM
Ok, so I didn't work on the Hulk, but I've worked on movies equally big...and dozens much smaller...and it always staggers me how people think they can just simply 'justify' not paying for something. File sharing IS NOT the equivalent of a mate lending you a CD so you can see if it's good or not. Because there's no 'mate' in it. Let's face it, do you give a SHIT about who you're downloading from??? NO, of course you don't, you're just getting it for free when you should be paying the artists (and yes, although the studio might make millions, those millions are going to get ploughed back into making more films, and end up in the pockets of thousands of people who have to make a living making this stuff for you.....)...if it hasn't been released where you are yet...well, fuck you, you can wait. Say if a certain food or drink product 'hadn't been released yet'...that WOULDN'T give you the right to go to another country (effectively what you're doing, digitally speaking, when you use a file sharing service) and steal it. Just to try it...yeah right...try telling that to the judge in court, see whether he lets you off the theft charge....and laying claim to some kind of moral justification for your crimes is just...so stupid. Pea-brained. The Renaissance happened without copyright huh???? I WOULD LIKE TO FUCKING KNOW HOW THE BLOODY HELL THE ROOF OF THE SISTINE CHAPEL COULD HAVE BEEN COPIED!!!! It happened without copyright because the technology to fuck the artists over didn't exist, and artists were SUBSIDISED by wealthy patrons in those days. They weren't worried about admission charges....they made a living that was guaranteed. They could feed their kids. AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO FUCKING FINISH THEIR WORK BEFORE IT WAS JUDGED! At least, if you're going to try to fuck us out of what little money one can make in this business, please let us finish so we can actually have something we're proud of out there, whether you like it you don't. HOW MUCH IS THAT TO ASK? All the arguments for file-sharing above...are so fucking specious and unintelligent, it's unbelievable...if you've tried to justify it above, you're a worthless piece of thieving shit, and you know it. Period. Don't make it worse by trying to pretend otherwise. The entire filmmaking community thinks you're a fool.....so why open your mouth and prove it?????
Kettle-pot-black... by Zionere	Jun 9th, 2003 09:41:56 AM
I've never had the urge to post anything on Talkback, but I sure do now. I've always respected this website and its reviews, previews, etc. even when I did not agree with the opinions of the writers. But to go on a rant like this when AICN was all too proud to post a review of "Attack of the Clones" a good three months before it was released... SHAME ON YOU, MORIARTY! Get off your high horse, or put your money where your mouth is at and admit that AICN was guilty of the exact same things you so denounce. How do you justify that? Or will you do the obvious thing and not address this issue at all? To quote Ken Takakura:"Put it up or shut it up!"
ah crap... by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 09:42:42 AM
double clicked. Sorry. Happens when you're angry.
One of those rare times where both parties are Right by Fearsme	Jun 9th, 2003 09:49:19 AM
Truth be told, Mori is right. Everyone pirating these movies is contributing to the eroding sense of ownership in modern media. At the same time, this site is a key factor into why those standards have eroded. Look at all the responses you got about the Hulk Workprint. Obviously, all these people thought it was perfectly cool to send you a review of this early film. The problem is Mori is that there are no rules anymore, and the rules that are established are established AFTER an incident like this happens. Using an extreme analogy here, its like when Princess Di was killed. Everyone knew Papparazzi were a plague, but it wasnt until people thought they might have contributed to someone's death that people really got pissed. You drew a line in the sand. Do yourself a favor, do a follow up article on the very guidelines youd like people who contribute to this site to follow. Might help in the long run.
One of those rare times where both parties are Right by Fearsme	Jun 9th, 2003 09:53:18 AM
Truth be told, Mori is right. Everyone pirating these movies is contributing to the eroding sense of ownership in modern media. At the same time, this site is a key factor into why those standards have eroded. Look at all the responses you got about the Hulk Workprint. Obviously, all these people thought it was perfectly cool to send you a review of this early film. The problem is Mori is that there are no rules anymore, and the rules that are established are established AFTER an incident like this happens. Using an extreme analogy here, its like when Princess Di was killed. Everyone knew Papparazzi were a plague, but it wasnt until people thought they might have contributed to someone's death that people really got pissed. You drew a line in the sand. Do yourself a favor, do a follow up article on the very guidelines youd like people who contribute to this site to follow. Might help in the long run.
Dear Moriarity, screw you and the moral high horse you rode in o by ikidunot	Jun 9th, 2003 09:53:49 AM
Who exactly are you to judge the actions of others when the operator of you very own website openly confesses to watching bootlegs? (SWII:AOTC comes to mind). Now it is common knowledge that such bootlegs are illegal and do not represent the artistic integrity of the final product, visually, acoustically or stylistically, but that in no way makes you the moral arbiter on what other individuals should be acting out as it is not your responsibility to undermine the actions of those who commit similar actions to those committed by moderators of the site which claims to be ethically irreproachable and legally untenable. Oh and I don't anyone who's writing a script for a film such as Mortal Kombat 3 can claim to be creating anything that will be pirated/bootlegged off a cinema as I think if there's any justice in this world, that's a straight-to-video.
The ever-present issue of piracy is an important issue, but it's by CoolDan989	Jun 9th, 2003 09:54:57 AM
Like Moriarty said before, a lot of us are law-abiding citizens, and the ulterior motive of the people that reviewed The Hulk via this Hulk download was to write reviews to encourage everyone to go see the movie in theaters, and I doubt many people who wrote in to Moriarty encouraged people to download the movie for themselves. There aren't a lot of Hulk reviews out there, and a lot of people feel like they should be providing these reviews if they have the ability to do so. And if seeing a movie in advance is illegal, what's the point of test screenings? Why are they legal? Isn't THAT cutting into box office profits, too? And while it's true that leaked movies can reduce box office profits that studios take in, it's not the biggest tragedy. Because movie studios have screwed us in the past and showed their greedy, primitive ways. I mean, take what's going on Hollywood today! Movie studios are competing over movie release dates like lions over a hunk of meat! Movie studios are remaking movies that should be left the hell alone! Movie studios are double-dipping, even triple-dipping DVDs just to shamelessly promote movies, get more money and rip off loyal consumers in the process! Movie studios are refusing to release some of the best movies out there on DVD! Movie studios are shamelessly pumping out awards publicity! THESE are the so-called victims of piracy? I think it would be more accurate to say these are the victims of greed. Of corruption. Of competition. Of ignorance. And in the days of today, the box office is still smoking hot with one hit after another, and somehow it's just not enough for the movie studios anymore. I agree that piracy is a problem, but it's not an urgent, catastrophic, shameful problem. In the battle between the entertainment industry and piracy, there are no winners, and there are no losers. Each side is equally guilty as charged, in their own respective ways.
Well fucking said by spookymulder	Jun 9th, 2003 10:03:30 AM
Funny how you already have people hating on you, calling you a two face and what not. I have to say that I agree with you whole heartedly. Don't take no guff from these fuckin' swine. The same kind of pussy ass, wet rag bitches that are giving you shit are the exact same people that Ben Affleck's (or B. Lo, if you prefer) character in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" was referring to. Get a life and own up, you buncha dicks. It's too bad most of you can't hold your wads long enough to see it in theaters before switching over from your porn downloading to download an unfinished copy of an event pic, just so you can send in a review to a fan website! If you need to be heard so bad, talk to your guidance counselors or your shrink. Just the thought of this being the first thing I read this morning is pissing me the fuck off. Flame me if you want but just know I'll be fucking your mothers in the meantime!
that's not the point....THAT'S NOT THE GODDAMN POINT! by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 10:07:18 AM
OK, REALITY check...some of you seem to think the issue here is whether M. should be so damning of something he perhaps indulges in himself....forget the script review of AOTC. Forget all that. Sure, the guy's on a dubious moral high horse...but there's other people who'd have PERFECT justification to hop onto that horse with him and you couldn't point the finger at.....like Ang Lee for example. Or anybody who's seen their work pirated. STOP clouding the issue by pointing fingers and realise that if you've seen this film, you're a jerkwad loser. Forget Moriarty. Fuck him. If he wants to do it, that's his choice. It doesn't actually make him WRONG to criticize what's going on, just hypocritical. That's NOTHING to do with what's at issue here. I guarantee that of the above posters, NONE of you have had your work mass-pirated. When it does, IF it does (and most of the naysayers sound pretty unintelligent, so I'm not up for it being too likely)... you'll know how it feels. It's gutting beyond words. And, it's never happened to a project I've worked on when it's been still a work-in-progress. Test screenings etc...that's OK. The filmmakers have decided that they want to test the water and see if they can improve on what they've got. Review that by all means...if you invite the public to a screening, that's fair game, even though the studios will try to stop it...and a lot of the time, the bootlegs that get reviewed on this site are...most likely intentional. The lengths that the studios go to protect this stuff are extraordinary - anyone who gets a print of the film has 'property of XXXXXXXX, DO NOT COPY - print for XXX (your initials)' emblazoned over their picture...and copies without that are rare, dangerous things...
M fears that the blame will fall on AICN by mcarbone	Jun 9th, 2003 10:12:58 AM
Moriarty, you probably wouldn't have written this piece had all of the reviews of the Hulk bootleg been positive. What I think scares you is that the reviews were so negative that, as with B&R, AICN might be blamed for the box office failure I'm pretty sure Hulk will be at this point. I don't think it will be a big financial loss - it'll probably make a profit w/ world box office and DVD sales - but I'm pretty sure that it won't be a summer box office smash a la X-men or Spiderman. Why? For one, the ad campaign has been abysmal (even Ang Lee has said that he hasn't been a fan of it). Second, Hulk might be too 'smart' for mainstream audiences, being more of a character study than an action-packed comic book film. But don't worry, Moriarty, all of this will happen regardless of the internet piracy of the working print. The studio can chew out AICN all they want, but they are to blame for the poor marketing.
Hulk by el tipo suave	Jun 9th, 2003 10:13:10 AM
Workprint or not, it's the same story overall, nothing is going to change that part. Maybe the special effects. So the bottom line is the story is going to be the same and that's what matters. What ever unfinished work was seen was just a few minutes long and that alone is not going to affect the story. The story itself is complete period!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm.... by kintar0	Jun 9th, 2003 10:13:52 AM
Well, I DO remember Harry putting up his own "review" of AOTC from a "work print" some guy showed him in a hotel room. Why was that okay and random people reviewing Hulk from a downloaded workprint not okay? Another thing: when was the last time Harry or any of the reviewers on this site PAID regular admission for a film they reviewed? I could be wrong, but don't all of you see films for free all the time? If so, you've become the MEDIA and surpassed the "fanyboy" status. I would DEFINITELY watch this downloaded version of the Hulk. And I will still PAY to the Hulk maybe three, four times in the theatre. Just like Matrix Reloaded. I've seen it five times in the theatre. AND I downloaded it. AND I will buy it on DVD. So, how exactly am I hurting the film industry?
Moriarty's Weapons of Mass Destruction by darthferris	Jun 9th, 2003 10:14:06 AM
How odd that with ticket sales at record highs, films earning 90 million their first weekend, and DVD sales at untold levels, that Moriarty has taken up the films industry's battle cry of "piracy is killing us." First of all, you know why I bought I bootleg copy of "Battle Royale"? Because I don't run a website that charges $2000 a day for advertising, and so I can't afford a multi-region DVD player, plus I don't live in a city that shows cool foreign flicks around the corner at the multiplex. You run a site whose entire basis is unauthorized information and reviews of films; whoever brought up the AOTC review was dead on. Not all of us get invited to expense paid premieres in Aspen, or get to see free "media only" screenings weeks before a film comes out. Maybe that's a privlege you may now take for granted because you work for Ain't It Cool, but most of us don't get to rub shoulders with Robert Rodriguez whenever he comes to town. If I have the chance to see a movie before it comes out, maybe I'll download it, but I'll still go see it in a theatre. Tell you what, run a poll right now: who downloaded "The Matrix: Reloaded" and didn't go see it in the theatre? No doubt, you'll have one or two people, but most people want to go see it on a huge THX-certified screen with an awesome sound system. I saw "Rules of Attraction" in the theatre, but then downloaded it because it wasn't out on DVD yet and I wanted to see it again. You trying to tell me that even though I bought the book, paid $7.50 to see it in a theatre, I don't have the right to view a crappy lo-res copy? I'm going to say that anyone who is going to pay $5 for a shitty VCD copy on the street isn't going to spend $10 on going to see it in the theatre anyways. Until you can download a DVD-quality copy with surround sound and everyone has a 48' flat screen TV with $10,000 speakers, film downloads are going to have minimal impact on the film industry. But since we're talking about Keanu, let me play Devil's Advocate for a second here: fuck $10 admission. Fuck $7.00 popcorn. Fuck $3.25 for a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. They have enough money. Fuck movie studios who release films outside the U.S. on a rolling basis, so some kid in Uganda has to wait 7 months to see the Hulk. I'd download it too. For those of you who think this is like the MP3 debate, forget that: artists get an average of 6 cents per dollar for every album sold. Any screwing they gets from downloaded music is relatively minor compared to the one the industry has been giving artists for the past 75 years. I'll download a song by Madonna because she does have enough money; I'll buy the 2 skinnee j's album because they fucking work hard, they rock, and they deserve my money. Oh, and don't try and tell me that you uber-geeks have never watched a bootleg video copy of a film. Keep it real.
Where does this site get off? by ZO	Jun 9th, 2003 10:20:26 AM
You made ur name on doing this for years and now you get on a moral high horse? u think any of us read these shit reviews anyway? u think it will make us not see because some jerk saw a download?
He's Got a point..... by Bugaboo	Jun 9th, 2003 10:25:33 AM
But um......didn't Harry review an illegaly obtained copy of Episode II last year?
About this supposed "Article" Moriarty just wrote by Hawley Martins	Jun 9th, 2003 10:26:19 AM
It may not be a copywrite violation, but writing "Mortal Kombat 3" is DEFINITELY a MORAL violation.
When AICN reviewed the stolen workprint of Episode II it was COM by rev_skarekroe	Jun 9th, 2003 10:32:00 AM
Because, you see, it wasn't downloaded, which means... Um... What I mean to say is yeah, it was STOLEN, but since it was stolen from... No, wait... What it is... Uh... I gotta go! sk
There are several points being raised here by earthworm	Jun 9th, 2003 10:32:10 AM
1. Mori's rant is fucking hypocritical. As others have pointed out, Superman and AOTC scripts, as well as the AOTC itself, all bootlegged. Practise what you preach, just cos you now portray yourself as one of "them" doesn't mean you should forget who your audience here is. Seriously, would you have turned this down 5 years ago? I don't fucking think so. 2. Piracy is, to all intents and purposes, unjustifiable. It's copyright violation. Simple. But I do dispute how much it actually will hurt the BO take, certainly in the West, and certainly from P2P alone. OK, once the VCD's make their way to Eastern Europe and the Far East, it will hurt that market, but US and Western Europe? No-way. P2Pers are geeks who'll see the film no matter what, unless its shit, in which case it'll bomb anyway (or not as the case may be.) 3. It's not like the studios don't know this sort of thing happens, so increase the security. Ration the DVD's and watermark them. OK, you shouldn't have to, but get real. Don't just bleat about it, do something. If you have to change the way films are marketed, then do so. Release them at the same time, hold advance screenings in the week before hand. As many of these DVD's and screenings are held for the suits anyway, I'm sure you wouldn't get too many complaints from them
The real point here by Captain Dobie	Jun 9th, 2003 10:36:25 AM
Am I the only one seeing the big picture here???? It's not the fanboy geek sat in his little room downloading and watching it on his $3000 PC here that is the problem (as has been pointed out, the vast majority of these will still see it at the cinema irrespective of whether they enjoy it or not), it's the thousands of pirated DVD's that will be appearing over the next week or so that will be sold to gullible non-geeks as the real thing who will then watch it, hate it and tell all their non-geek friends how shit it is resulting in a massive chain of negative word of mouth....this is where the Box Office could and probably will suffer. I work with and know several dicks who regularly buy this shit and I can guarantee that by next week they'll be telling me all about the really crap Hulk movie they saw at the weekend. Twats.
All you "industry" people... by darthferris	Jun 9th, 2003 10:43:34 AM
...hands up, if this has ever happened to you: "Sorry, Joe, we can't pay you for the gaffing work you did on Pearl Harbor 2. Some kid in Oklahoma downloaded the film, and, well, there goes our profit margin. Oh, can you give this $25 million dollar check to Mr. Bay on the way out?" Bullshit. Show me one, ONE example of how downloading has yet to hurt a release. ONE.
Gimme A Break, Break me off a Piece of that Shit Shat Bar! I'll by SinisterGuido	Jun 9th, 2003 10:47:03 AM
For years now, Hollywood has been offering us damaged goods. Their product has almost always been questionable at best. The industry Moriarty loves is a fat greasy grocer with gold rings and silk shirts stretched over his huge laughing tits. This guy is the stink on your balls. He doesn
Well..... by ANGELS-EGG	Jun 9th, 2003 10:48:34 AM
Ive seen hulk and as I said in my review its STORY is what will have many fans of the comic will hate.But generally its a good film and although it had incomplete fx wise (its rumoured to be 3 months old) its plot is there and that is its weakness the peformances are there and it is dry. Truth be told is that harry and mori probably hate the fact people have seen it before them.The whole site is based on seeing advanced stuff by any means (AOTC to name one) I do not own a copy or condone owning a copy BUT I have watched it with a friend at his workplace. And after seeing it I will still go and see it in the theatre to see the finished result.....But I know what to expect.
Moriarty I agree with you 100% but isn't reading and reviewing s by Tarl_Cabot	Jun 9th, 2003 11:06:30 AM
I believe AICN pretty torpedoed Superman after your scripts review(the one with Luther as a Kryptonian). Isn't that reviewing something the general public isn't meant to see? Isn't Harry's review of AOTC guilty of the same thing? Sure it was positive(way too generous) but he gave away details months in advance. Why would Harry, a diehard SW Geek, want to see AOTC in a hotel room on a small TV with weak sound? I gave him shit for it in the TB's...Oh well. I agree the INET can be a platform for people who are hostile to the creative process.I think GL is really looking forward to finnishing his SW trilogy for that reason. Anyway, Good article Mori...Good luck with your script.
I shouldn't HAVE to find you an example by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 11:08:33 AM
SHOW me one example where a kid shoplifting a chocolate bar hurt the salary of the chief executive of Hershey's. Can't, can you? Nope. Does that make it a legal thing to do? Does that make it right? Only if you've got shit for brains. Movie sales are NOT at an all time high. NOWHERE NEAR. If you think the studios are raking it in...think again. A 90 million opening weekend doesn't cover the costs on a big movie like the Hulk. Then, it's got to be a major summer release = big competition = won't be at the top spot for long = big drop in second week takings = it's a risky investment. VERY risky. It's big business. Big numbers get talked about. At the end of the day, however, it's as fallible as Enron. Something so simple as TV nearly killed movies off...and people then said 'how will it harm movies, they're two different mediums'...well, it hurt movies bad. If you didn't know that...well, you've got a serious gap in your history. Movie sales were at their highest just before TV took off in the fifties. Ticket sales ran to about 4 billion. Now they're running to about 1.5 billion a year. Movies, however, cost more to make today. How does piracy affect box office.... Well, that's the thing...we won't know until, like TV, it could be too late. But you can guarantee, the instant a perfect way of copying and distributing a pirate movie around the world at high quality comes about (and it can't be technologically far off...say 20 years? Maybe 30. By then, the major studios just won't bother making films any more as they won't know if they can recoup their money. Shitty investment. Don't come crying when your local multiplex closes down. And don't think it can't happen. Millions of stockbrokers didn't think ENRON was going to happen...but it did.
I rip music but not movies by Lost Skeleton	Jun 9th, 2003 11:08:38 AM
Why? Because the quality to is bad. Why would I want to see an unfinished product on a crappy monitor with substandard sound. Part of the reason why I go see movies, especially eye-candy films like the Hulk, is for the sound and finished effects. That is the same reason why I buy legitmate DVD's and not the crap Tyrone (no racist labels, I'm Black) is selling in the back of the barbershop is because I want to experience the film- not just see it. Hell, I don't even look at films on cable anymore. Yes, I admit that I file share some of the crappy music out there. (I hate the music industry for the crap they put out plus I am not going to contribute my hard earned $'s to rappers so they can buy a new Bently or waste it on crappy "ice".) However, if the artist is good and well respected...I will buy their album. To each it's own. I will not judge anyone. I will just say that I love movies too much to watch them unfinished without digital sound and a kick ass widescreen.
Whaaa!! by The_Great_Skeeve	Jun 9th, 2003 11:10:09 AM
Every movie I have downloaded with the exception of one has the picture and sound quality of a 9 inch television with bad reception. I downloaded LOTR's and STILL went to see it in the theater TWICE and bought both DVD's even though I had the Oscar screener DVD copy (the only one that had a quality picture) HOW the HELL is this costing the studios money? First, the percentage of people who have fast enough connections to download the huge files is extrememly small compared to the overall "movie-going" population. Second, the percentage of those who would even do it is even smaller. Third, the percentage of those that would actually take the time to download the movie who aren't probably super geeks who are going to go see it anyway is very small. It may cost them about 1000 ticket sales in the US. Big Freaking deal. Go cry somewhere else.
Yeah well.. by Atropos	Jun 9th, 2003 11:12:08 AM
'Kay, as far as I can see, the problem here isn't that people downloading movies and watching them on their computer (or in my case, burning them onto DVD and watching them on my home-cinema system) is hurting box-office. It's about hurting a movies box office by REVIEWING AN UNFINISHED COPY. This is where the idiocy lies, like the games magazines who'll review the unfinished beta-copy of a game in order to get a scoop. When you do this, especially with an effects-heavy movie like the Hulk, you're a moron. Also, piracy doesn't hurt box-office; what it WILL hurt is video- and DVD rentals. I haven't rented a DVD for nearly a year. I've downloaded instead, but to be fair, the ones I liked I've gone out and bought. But this will become a huge problem, THE huge problem. Not box-office returns. 'Nother thing: downloading doesn't actually violate copyright in large parts of the world, only spreading the copies to others is illegal. 'Course, it's still immoral, but like it has been pointed out, until the media conglomerates realise they can no longer dictate when and where the public is going to consume their products, and adapt, it's going to keep happening. The only way to stop people like me, who'd never watch a work-print or even a screener, but will happily download the dvd-rip of, say, "the Ring", is to start getting serious about using the internet as a means of distribution, and switching to global release-dates. Yes, I realise the studios are quite fond of being able to stagger the release of a film in order to maximise marketing and thus revenue. Well boo-fucking-hoo. The world's changed, move with it or lose it - like the music industry did (though the new iPod downloading system seems to have got it right, finally).
My Two Cents by TheJake	Jun 9th, 2003 11:19:52 AM
I had a thought... The average Joe busts his ass at a shitty job to earn his meager paycheck. He goes to the movies to blow off some steam at the end of the work week. He plops down 10 bucks for a ticket, 5 bucks for a drink and 5 bucks for a popcorn. He sits down and watches 2 hours of what some executive has determined to be "entertainment" and wishes he would've stayed home. I wonder, where is the refund for this SHIT they try to sell us? When will these movie studios stop WASTING millions of dollars on bullshit? The financiers of these (rated PG-13: so I can buy a couple of new houses) abominations have alot less to lose than the average movie goer. If they lose money because their crap is bootlegged - boo hoo. If it's on the internet and it gets good reviews, bootlegs are OK. If it gets bad reviews, its a horrible crime? I don't get it. Moriarty's rant sounds alot like an alibi...
Spelling... by Felix Culpa	Jun 9th, 2003 11:23:33 AM
If I see another person spell definitely as "definately", or ridiculous as "rediculous", or awful as "aweful" I'm going to go nuts. I love when people rant on this or any other message board and attempt to be intelligent and witty, yet they cannot spell. Read a book! Read something other than instant messages and internet chat. You only worsen your shoddy command of the English language by living on the screen. Any time I read something by one of these "reviewers" and I see they have fifth grade spelling skills, I stop. They have lost all credibility. I salute those of you talkbackers who are witty and can also spell. Moriarty, you are a good speller.
You can't argue with that, well, you can but you won't win by 007-11	Jun 9th, 2003 11:28:16 AM
I feel kind of dirty, I downloaded "Femme Fatale" rather than rent it. It was one of those crap taped in the theater versions. I thought it was a hell of a lot better than people were giving it credit for, especailly where Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is concerned. I rented it twcie to make up for that, and i've never looked back. We must all exercise some self-control for God sakes.
PIRACY Is OVER RATED by Rcamacho2278	Jun 9th, 2003 11:33:32 AM
I havent seen the hulk workprint cuz my girlfriend wants to see it in theatres but I did see 2 fast 2 furious on my pc. I must say that im happy I did not make a friday night for that movie, and waste 30+ bucks to feed the people who made that movie. Piracy doesnt hurt a movie, a bad movie hurts a movie. Lord of the rings was pirated, but everyone saw that movie anyway, Matrix was pirated, that made money too. its up to the individuals to decide if they wanna see the movie the way they can, its not stealing. With stuff that goes on in this world, with all the WORSE things people can do and the hipocrisy that goes on, is a kid seeing the hulk 2 weeks early really that bad? hes only cheating himself if he likes the film, but the movie is STILL gonna hit their target audience anyway. People will still be going to see this movie if they want, Whats really the issue on THIS website is the LACK of good reviews to movies. Harrys Review of 2 fast 2 furious was another example of how ridiculous these reviews have become. a Waste of time to read, Another problem with these sites and proof of more hipocrisy is releasing reviews of movies with SPOILERS. The matrix reloaded was trashed before Anybody saw it, so in a sense you hipocrites could be blamed for ruining the money matrix could have made by people who read your review .
EVILNITElite misses the point, as do most of those cretins by Rikturscale	Jun 9th, 2003 11:48:26 AM
For a label to make 20 mill on one artist, they lose 5 on 10 others. Internet swapping will only guarentee that NO one will see a profit. Let's see those cancelled checks to the artists. You didn't send ANY. Because you lie, you want what you get for free. The Renaissance happened without big money, you are totally clueless. Who were those Lords and Ladies who sponsered the artists but big money who made all of their money off of others? What about the artists who did not have a sponsor? they died PENNIELESS! They starved. Just like all of the artists who are counting on your $20.
Oh Christ by TheStrawDog	Jun 9th, 2003 11:53:01 AM
Get off your fucking high-horse, man. I don't see how Harry reviewing a workprint of Attack of the Clones is OK, but this is unacceptable? So it's ok for Harry to review films that have yet to be released, but not the general public? Riiiight. I mean, isn't the critiquing of films in progress one of the main components to the AICN mission? Isn't one of the purposes of the website to show those these horrendous studios that they CANT just choke us down with half-assed, "geek" targted films? And another thing, I hope this DOES put an end to geek cinema, or as I often call it, gamer-cinema. I hate to fucking alert you people but it is the geeks (or more accurately, geek-pandering) that have been responsible for such shit as the prequels, Daredevil, X-Men (mediocre at BEST), etc etc. These studio execs are fucking you over, taking properties/characters that you've loved for years and desecrating them for mass consumption. "Geek-ifying" films is the true fucking danger (Yoda with a lightsaber? highly conscious "geek" move). For now Im starting to understand that "geeks" don't really love film (a medium of ART), but just manipulative trash as long as it's "totally kick-ass." And what's MORE immoral: pirating FILMS made by BILLIONAIRES and MILLIONAIRES or mp3's, made mainly by musicians who make, if they're lucky, as much as the average waiter (for an eye-opening read, check out famed-producer/musician Steve Albini's essay on major label villainy entitled "The Problem With Music").
Anybody remember Real Cancun by roboslut	Jun 9th, 2003 11:53:24 AM
Moriarity is a joke now. This is a guy that goes on a full paid studio junket to CANCUN, rights a story praising a piece of crap turd of a film it is, then watches it bomb at the theaters. Now he criticizes people for doing something this site has been doing for years - stealing scripts, watching workprints, etc. Give me a break.
Maybe its me old age but... by Gesus	Jun 9th, 2003 11:56:51 AM
...I just don't ever understand the attraction of downloading some half-assed pirate copy of a movie. Where is the logic in having crappy goods? You don't go into a shop to buy a new pairs of jeans and the only ones they have on the racks are fading, piss stained, shit caked old ones to try on. Fuck man, let the film makers finish their work, let them get it out on in theatres and go and see it. Go see a movie like how you use to, with no advance copies, scripts or spoilers. Go in, let the magic (or shit if its Gullet Proof Spunk) wash over you, walk out and then go online and sing its praises or kick its malformed throat in. Don't sit in your cruddy rooms or hi-tech uber pads and download an unfinished copy of, hell even finished copy of a movie, learn a bit of restraint, a touch of patience and relearn the expierence of knowing what it feels like to wait and why that it is a good thing. I'm glad that I know how to show restraint, I like a good review or a tidbit of info but I don't want the whole shebang blown by someone else's like or dislike of a movie and I don't want people ruining something for me, even before its actually available to view in my local multiplex. As I said maybe's its my age (30 in 5 days) but I remember being buzzed on seeing Empire Strikes Back and being floored when I was 7 when Han took the fall, Vader dropped his bombshell and Luke went to lefty, it hit so hard as the internet didn't exist to spoil and sully this moment. As back then it was easier to avoid, our "get info fast and first culture" and spoil it for those not in the know. People are free to do what they like and if they want to download the Hulk or see a preview of AOTC then that's their call but sometimes it would be much butter if we chilled out, sat on hands a little longer and let the excitement of the actual release date float your boat and not some downloads that do injustice to the art of film making.
Moriarty is just upset that the CGI is a joke and people are cal by chillzatl	Jun 9th, 2003 11:57:45 AM
If it weren't for the horribly cartoonish CGI this looks like it could be a fucking awesome movie. But the CGI is soo damned bad, how is anyone supposed to stop seeing this cartoonish character long enough to care about the guy who does the real acting?
At last! Someone else gets it... by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 12:00:03 PM
Hoo-fucking-ray. Nice one Rikturscale. Look at the end credits of a movie folks...they usually run about, oh, eight minutes. That's a SHITLOAD of people. Now, how many of them made 10mil of the movie...right, that'd be none. And don't you dare, anybody, hold up the example of the honest, upstanding citizen who works his butt off for minimum wage and then doesn't enjoy a movie he's spent 20 dollars on. Stop thinking Hollywood is screwing you. a) you don't qualify as honest upstanding citizens if you download unfinished workprints of movies. b) whether he chooses to go and see a movie or not is his choice. Free will. If he doesn't like it...well, that's not to say everybody doesn't like it. Opinion is no justification for crime. The perceived quality of a movie has no bearing upon the morality or legality of stealing it. And congratulations to the person who griped about spelling. Nice to see the poster after it paid a whole lot of attention. eg. 'Cuz' It takes, what, two seconds to type 'because'. Why not do it? Because you can't be fucked. Just like you can't be fucked to give a toss about the people who work fucking hard in the movie industry for no more money than you earn stacking supermarket shelves. You'll just steal their work, as it's worthless to you.
Hypocrite! by Karnov	Jun 9th, 2003 12:03:53 PM
Eh Harry, are you not the same guy that gushed over a work print of Episode 1 that somebody in Lucasfilm backdoored for you? Whine much just because you were scooped?
a different beast... by nuprin	Jun 9th, 2003 12:05:16 PM
..was AOTC! Happy George was screaming to get screwed in the poop-shoot when he released that piece of would-be cinema Phantom Menace. Either way, there are truths in both sides of this argument. One thing's for sure, the problem is going to get worse before it gets better. Hell, even I've downloaded movies before...but that was mostly porn (nooch!).
Oh, and TheStrawDog by rumbloid	Jun 9th, 2003 12:06:20 PM
"And what's MORE immoral: pirating FILMS made by BILLIONAIRES and MILLIONAIRES" You're so full of fucking shit it's not true. 98% of people who work in the movie industry probably earn no more than your average teacher. It's no different to the music industry, a few notable folks in the limelight with shitloads, tons of talent in the shadows behind them working their butts off to make something worthwhile that will entertain people. Have you never seen the credits of a movie? Add them up, and then work out that the average payout, excluding huge name actors, on a movie is something like 10 million. Between something like 1000 people. (the credits never list everybody by any means) Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Surprised no one's metioned it yet... by WeedyMcSmokey	Jun 9th, 2003 12:10:46 PM
... With the latest ruling handed down by Colin Powell's kid regarding media ownership, I'm surprised there isn't more of a reaction that would be pro-download. I agree with the poster that pointed out that modern copyright law seems to exist to benefit everyone but the artist who is rarely given the option of owning their own work. Frankly, it seems that every party is being taken care of except the consumer - we are not protected, So with $14 films here in the Great White North, $20 CDs, bankrupt artists and completely morally and ethically bankrupt media conglomorates, you'll forgive me if I just can't give a shit. Most of the time I would choose to not consume any of the tired crap that is excreted by middle-of-the-road PG-13 producing crap-houses anyway - companies have a right to make profits - but when the overall impact is uber-wealthy and powerful oligopolies, poor art and an abused consumer, then I question what moral high-ground anyone possesses..
This site posts illegal information pracically on a DAILY BASIS. by Barximus	Jun 9th, 2003 12:13:20 PM
What's the difference in a couple of hard legs obtaining a pirated copy of a film and Harry and others making a living off people feeding them information about film projects even after they've signed a non-disclosure agreement with a studio? The next time some inside guy with Lucas or WETA emails Harry or Moriarty with a juicy bit of info that's not supposed to leave the office, will Harry and Mori take the moral high ground and not put it on their money-making website? I find this all very hypocritical.
I really can't believe this... by Macplus	Jun 9th, 2003 12:16:09 PM
I agree with certain others who have already posted. It is so hypocritical to preach the evils of piracy and then work on a site that gets a large portion of its information from illegally obtained sources (scripts, preview copies, etc.) But, of course, we can't expect Moriarity to dirty his pristine fingers by agreeing to this. He would then have to give up his prestigious "sources". Yes, pirating movies is illegal. I'm not even going to try to justify it. It is done, though, and it is going to be really hard to stop it. One last note. I want to see Moriarity put up an official response to all users' comments. I want to see how he justifies how he gets his information. We definetly need to protest until he does.
There is no such thing as a free ride by devilvet	Jun 9th, 2003 12:21:49 PM
I think that so many people feel entitled to free music, free movies, free digital stuff on the net becuase...it is simply possible. Becuase, they don't make enough money to consume every thing they want. They seem to not believe that there is a possiblity that one day we all i.e. users of the internet will end up paying for there appetites. Didn't the music industry succeed in getting a certain percentage of all sales on blank cassette tapes because it was deemed that their primary purpose was copying? Soon we may have to pay huge fines just to use the internet becuase it is deemed to be simply a tool for theft. Or we could have regulations on who and what gets to even be put on the internet (legally that is). Soon mp3 technology may be like bongs (i mean water pipes). Stealing the music is not a responsible way to usurp the big business. The ultimate result will be big business succeeding in make adversaries of the artists and the audience.
WHAT A BLOODY HYPOCRITE - REVIEWING EARLY SCREEPLAY DRAFTS AND W by Flipao	Jun 9th, 2003 12:22:30 PM
I've never EVER seen a film ilegally. I pay 13 quid a month for a cinema pass and I visit this site because I enjoy the fact that a bunch of people can put Big Studios one their knees. And now the very same people who watch stolen copies and review early drafts, and spoils the film for thousands of readers come out blaming us for something they've been doing for years. You are a hypocrite. Shame on you.
Ok "Uncle Mori" Answer This One Fucking Question by Cannonball	Jun 9th, 2003 12:27:19 PM
DO YOU CONDONE HARRY'S FAT "THIEVING" ASS FOR REVIEWING A STOLEN COPY OF AOTC THAT HE WATCHED IN A FUCKING HOTEL ROOM? An unfinished print, might I add. Now I'm trying to remember what he did after viewing that stolen property...hold on...oh yeah...HE FUCKING REVIEWED THE SHIT OUT OF IT ON THIS VERY FUCKING WEBSITE. Whether or not the review was positive is irrelevant. DO YOU CONDONE THIS?
i mean by devilvet	Jun 9th, 2003 12:30:06 PM
artists become the audience's adversary. Madonna's little mp3 "What the hell do you think your doing?" To somebody hacking her site becuase she dared to not want her stuff copied. i know Madonna (boo fucking hoo). But that mentality will continue will spread. These guys who say they want to pay the artist with out a middle man. What bull. If they had an independent artist they really liked who published his/her own cds...but they could download the music mp3 for nothing...then they would just let the artist starve for being too stupid to let their shit out for free.
There does need to be a response from big M and Harry... by nuprin	Jun 9th, 2003 12:32:28 PM
I love this site (not necessarily for the opinions of the people who run it, but because of the juicy details and the fact that REAL fans come here). But there are many who throw tomatoes at it...and yet they are here everyday!! Moriarity, the talk backs demanding a response are right. You should justify ACIN's own business practices now that you've put the heat on piracy (not sure if that was the way to handle it...you couild've just said "idiots! your reviews are shit because you haven't seen the final print yet!" and left it at that). Both sides of this argument have valid points, but for the sake of the site, tell us why you and Harry do the things you do, and why that is better than what has happened to this HULK print.
Hulk's CGI looks terrible in the commericals!!!!!!!!!! by Silver Shamrock	Jun 9th, 2003 12:38:55 PM
I don't need a workprint to know it looks like crap. And Moriarity is a hypocrite. How many reviewers on this site agreeded to see advanced screenings of movies and promised not to post reviews on the Internet? Don't spin it. The whole point of this site is cutting edge scoops you can't get anywhere else. Do us a favor and keep up the scoops and stop with the "Gambling in the casino? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!" and convient moralizing. Pull-lease.
'Pot,' 'Kettle' anyone? by Yammertool	Jun 9th, 2003 12:39:37 PM
I'm sure this post will be deleted just like other similar ones were over the past week, but this whole situation reeks of hypocrisy. Seems like some chickens are finally coming home to roost though. Moviehole.net and several other sites are running stories about AICN's involvement with the fake 'Angel' script. Here's a press release sent out by the writer's publicist: Writer may sue Harry Knowles over 'Angel script' controversy Charlotte, NC (June 9) – A script penned by screenwriter Richard O’Sullivan has caused controversy after it was mistakenly reported on the Internet that it was the script for the season opener of the WB television show “Angel.
Shame on us, Mori? by staley	Jun 9th, 2003 12:45:57 PM
I thought you guys were on our side. Oh well, thanks for clearing that up.
This is the WORLD'S MOST HYPOCRITICAL post ever!!!!! Gee, didn' by Ted Striker	Jun 9th, 2003 12:46:07 PM
Come on, this whole site is based on spoilers and people's opinions who see the movie early. WAKE UP. I like you Moriarity, but come on... This rant of your's is being posted on the same web site that reviewed Star Wars: Episode II four months in advance after stealing and watching a WORK PRINT! Does anyone else NOT see the hypocrisy in this? Do you, Moriarity, and Harry if you're reading this, not realize this is what your site is ALL ABOUT? Reviewing movies EARLY and then leaking word about it AGAINST the studios wishes?? Jesus Christ, what a stupid reaction from a highly intelligent person -- Moriarity, you're the best thing about this site, but what a DUMB post. File Trading sites like Kazaa can be wonderful - they arguably INCREASE the amount of business for movie studios -- yes, ESPECIALLY the movie industry. Why? Because unlike music, the quality of movies SUCK traded on Kazaa -- people who can't wait to watch the movie WILL EVENTUALLY see this in the theatre, and more than likely buy the DVD and show all their friends. Just because you're now working on a movie project and you've joined the Dark Side, and you get alot of email over the weekend and forgot how to use the DELETE key and move on with your HYPOCRITICAL life, don't go posting stupid shit like this anymore to prove how upstanding you and this site are! Are you telling me, Moriarity, that YOU have NEVER downloaded an MP3? Come on! So don't give me this high and mighty speech about protecting money-grubbing companies with MONOPOLIES that have been in COLLUSION for YEARS, keeping prices ARTIFICIALLY high and BILKING consumers for all they've got. Ya know, the more I think about this post, the more angry I get. So, you're disappointed in Fan-Dom? THIS SITE IS ALL ABOUT FAN-DOM!! IT PAYS YOUR FUCKING SALARY. Poor, poor Moriarity and the rest of the AICN staff, you ALL lead a rough life living your dreams in the movies. Does anyone have a tissue? God, I think I'll start reading DarkHorizons much more frequently now.
Never downloaded a movie before... by Stokowski	Jun 9th, 2003 12:50:43 PM
BUT I WOULD IF I A HAD A FASTER INTERNET CONNECTION AND A BETTER COMPUTER(not a circa '97 one). Pushing aside my honesty, I for one applaud good old Moriarty for making such an ass of himself again. Nice to see the mention of your scriptwriting adventures too, for it certainly was the cherry on top of the shit-pie that this article is. Just stop your preaching crap and deliver some actual COOL NEWS for a change bub.
you bunch of miserable pussies! by Slab SquatThrust	Jun 9th, 2003 12:54:10 PM
wwwwaaaaaaaa---I live at home with my mom and don't have a job and can't afford a multi-region dvd player and don't get into press screenings and don't have any industry contacts---wwwwaaaaaaaa! Grow up you fucking tits! Maybe the reason Harry and Mori get to do things and see things you don't is because they worked their asses off (well, figurativly anyway) for years with this site and making contacts and actually doing any damn thing with their lives instead of sitting around endlessly bitching about every fucking thing they didn't have! Bunch of fucking titty-babies on this site! Fuck. And by the way, the difference between file sharing and the bootleg AOTC is that Harry didn't post that bootleg on the net to be seen by thousands of people. And he didn't go looking for it to see in advance, people brought it to him. Oh yeah, and it is HIS FUCKING JOB to review movies!
you bunch of miserable pussies! by Slab SquatThrust	Jun 9th, 2003 12:54:12 PM
wwwwaaaaaaaa---I live at home with my mom and don't have a job and can't afford a multi-region dvd player and don't get into press screenings and don't have any industry contacts---wwwwaaaaaaaa! Grow up you fucking tits! Maybe the reason Harry and Mori get to do things and see things you don't is because they worked their asses off (well, figurativly anyway) for years with this site and making contacts and actually doing any damn thing with their lives instead of sitting around endlessly bitching about every fucking thing they didn't have! Bunch of fucking titty-babies on this site! Fuck. And by the way, the difference between file sharing and the bootleg AOTC is that Harry didn't post that bootleg on the net to be seen by thousands of people. And he didn't go looking for it to see in advance, people brought it to him. Oh yeah, and it is HIS FUCKING JOB to review movies!
Its all about that final click of the button by Frying Bologna?	Jun 9th, 2003 12:57:34 PM
Its a strange place to bring it up, but Mori's point is correct about stealing someone's else shizzle. Click that button and you have to answer to your morals (see 90% of the above postings for the stories we tell ourselves to justify our choice). But it is still stealing. No way to deny that. There is no need to blame the studios/middle-men/distributor s etc. This is a deal between you and the artist who is creating the art. Download, and you might as well slap them in the face. That, I would guess, is their anger. Everyone else involved is choked over the $$, no doubt, but there is little that is mightier than the dollar/Euro/whatever, so there are a bunch of suits (and other studio employees) taking this whole downloading thing personal as well. Hypocrisy? Huge, because it seems to me that 'Aint It Cool' deals in obscure, hard-to-find knowledge and details; Website motto "If you ain't the first, you might as well be last." Therefore, AIC is painted guilty by association... you court those who want to trade in the new/cool/hip information (why do you think you were sent all those reviews, Mori?). But remember, you should always dance with those what brought ya!
is it copyright violation? by rabidbadger	Jun 9th, 2003 01:01:10 PM
is it copyright violation? No, it is only a violation of copyright if money is made by somebody from someone elses intellectual property. The people who sell the vcds and make money off of them are in violation because they are making money on a copyrighted item without permission. The person that took the print is the only one that could be a thief. They took what was not theirs to take. They are the only thief. All they wankers that downloaded it are guilty of posession of stolen property. It is the same thing as buying a hot TV or watch. I think that if they wish to do it more power to them. In live you have to do what you think is right. Just be ready to take what you get.
No matter how you justify it this is STEALING!!! You are thieves by Jeff Batt	Jun 9th, 2003 01:10:42 PM
If you don't want Arnie and Willis to make $20 million a film, don't see their movies. They make that kind of money because no one wants to see Joe Smith as the Terminator. If you go into the grocery store and walk out with some eggs, isn't that stealing? I do believe there is some apparant hypocrisy on this site though. Reviewing a script isn't the same as an unfinished movie but I do remember Ep II and One Hour Photo being reviewed. They weren't going out of their way to hurt a movie, though. There is just no way around it though. If you download music or a movie without paying for it, you are stealing. And like one person brought up, these summer movies need to make hundreds of millions of dollars to make a profit. This includes opening weekend and DVD sales. If the movie is STOLEN ahead of time, this will affect how much it makes. You'll then be stuck with movies like The English Patient or The Hours which don't cost much to make but at least make profits. By the way, Harry technically didn't break any law because he didn't steal the print he saw nor did he keep it. He also went out of the way in his review to point out the FX weren't completed and took that into account.
All Right Moriarty- Stick it to the man! by Godardwhowhatnow	Jun 9th, 2003 01:16:30 PM
Way to go, man. It's about time somebody stood up for the struggling, oftentimes underfinanced genre we call "geek films." Too many of these films fly under the radar. I managed to snag tickets to X2: X-Men United a few weeks ago (I live in LA- I pity those in suburbia who didn't get a chance to catch this little arthouse gem), and I'll tell you, it was worth the wait. And did anyone even SEE Spiderman when it came out? I mean, I remember seeing a few copies lying around the back shelves of Alphaville Video(my local indie rental store), but I heard nothing about it when it came out. You all need to stop RAPING the genre by pirating, or we will SURELY see an end to geek films. Or, not.
The film industry is not losing money because of internet piracy by Jojo Babar	Jun 9th, 2003 01:18:47 PM
It is a lie, and I'll tell you why. First of all, I should tell you, I'm an aspiring filmmaker, and I'm hoping to go into production of my 1st feature-length film next summer. So I have a vested interest in protection of copyrights. The film industry claims it loses 3 to 3.5$ billion a year to piracy. Wrong! Why? Because the bulk of internet pirates/downloaders can be put into two categories. First category, contains those who download a film, then go see it at the theatre, and/or buy the DVD. The second category is made of people who wouldn't pay to see that movie anyway, regardless of its availability on the web, because they can't afford it (it is a known fact that most of the movies are pirated on college campuses), or they just don't care enough about movies to spend their hard-earned money into this. That's it! Oh, sure, there a few people out there who might think:"I've downloaded it, there is no reason for me to pay for it now!", but do you know what percentage of the entire population they actually represent? The industry thinks: people download 600 000 movies a day, that comes to about 3$ billion a year. That is not the right way to calculate this. You have to remember that when someone downloads a film, he does not actually steal a physical copy from the studio, in which they had to invest money to physically create. He just takes an image of that film, that's all. This is exactly the same thing as if an architect wanted to sue someone who made a popsicle sticks replica of a skyscraper he designed. Personally, I won't care if people download my future movies, and that's because my main goal, what I want the most, is for people to see my films, and to enjoy them. It's not about making millions, although I will certainly be glad to be able to, and internet piracy is not going to stop that. That's the studio's job! And that is why copyright law was created, to protect artist and creators from being ripped of by mega-corporations, because if there were no such laws, believe you me, the corporations would steal everything they can, and you know that's true! Even with those laws in place, they find ways to do it! Look at the music industry, which gives the artists 5 to 10 cents for every dollar they make on the backs of these people's creativity. And speaking of the music industry, do you know why they sell less and less cds every year? No, it's not because of internet. Who buys the most music? The teenagers. When we were kids (for me, that was the 80's), what did we buy with our allowance? Records! And that's basically it! We didn't really buy anything else, did we? But today, the number of products available (and marketed) to teens has so dramatically increased, they have to make choices about how to spend their money. Take for exemple DVDs. In the 80's, and early 90's, people didn't buy movies. You could not walk in a store and buy a film. I remember people used to say all the time:"Why would you buy a movie, cause once you've seen it, there's not point in seeing it again." But in the late 90's, the home video market boomed, and the emergence of DVDs as taken it to a whole new level. Or take video games. We had them back then, but it wasn't anything like it is today. Today, kids have to fork over 80$ (80 Dollars, for fuck's sake!!) for a video game. That's the price of 4 CDs! That, plus the ridiculously high-priced clothes, and the beepers and the cell phones and the roller-blades and the this and the that...kids have to split their money between all of these things. So if course, they're gonna buy less music, especially since they can get it for free over the internet intead of forking over 20 bucks to buy an album filled with mostly boring tunes! I think it's time the film and music industry wake up, stop being such greedy bastards, and understand that they're not gonna beat this thing, they can only join it. So kudos to Itunes for doing just that, with great success, I might add, and please, for fuck's sake, make it available to the other 95% of the population who owns a real computer!!
So many good points...brain...hurt... by Shabbadoo	Jun 9th, 2003 01:33:42 PM
Reading Moriarty's rant really made me feel guilty over the bootleg of Modern Times (such an appropriate film) I downloaded a few days ago...but then I read the talkbacks, and the guilt sort of washed away. I'm not quite of the mental capacity to jump into the middle of this debate or crusade or whatever the hell we're calling it, but I will say this: Moriarty made some damn strong points, but the talkbackers so far have made some even stronger ones in my eyes (most likely due to the fact that Moriarty's outnumbered here). I'll just make two simple statements in both party's favors; artisticly, bootlegging IS wrong and I don't think there is any denying that. Filmmakers and studios have certain intentions for their movies and where they should be seen and enjoyed, and until they start pumping out DVDs, the privacy of your own home is not one of those places. I highly doubt Ang Lee was in the middle of a great shoot when he thought to himself "Damn, I can't wait for people to start watching this thing for free before it gets released in the theaters". I can't imagine that being any filmmakers dream. On the other hand, though, I don't think it's right of Moriarty to rip on this guy that used his real name to review a bootleg when HARRY KNOWLES did the same thing last year with an even higher profile film than The Hulk. I don't know. I'm not downloading the goddamn thing one way or another. I'm an idealist and the only way to see a new or upcoming release for the first is on a big fuckin' screen with a bunch of people I don't know.
Why Harry wasn't breaking the law with AOTC by MiserableRainGod	Jun 9th, 2003 01:38:40 PM
Harry is INNOCENT! I had to think about this for a while, because I originally said to myself, "Harry was wrong to do that...this whole website breaks the law!" But as I was writing my post I realized it doesn't. Moriarty has every right to preach to us (I presume), because AICN DOESN'T (normally) break copyright law. A few weeks ago, Harry Potter 5 was stolen. Then, it got left in a field. Then, some guy found it and gave it to a reporter. Then, the reporter read it, reviewed it, and returned it to the publisher. The reporter and the guy who found it aren't guilty of any crimes, are they? No - only the people who stole it. If there is a copyright on something, then whoever holds the it is supposed to get $$$ every time that thing is reproduced (ie, they have the RIGHT to control the COPIES of that thing - COPYRIGHT.). Evertime it's on TV or radio, every time it gets stamped on disk...wherever and whenever it's reproduced. If you copy something without permission and without giving the copyright holder their $$$, you are breaking copyright law. When you download a movie, some P2P user's computer is making a copy and sending it to you. That copy is NOT paid for. You broke the law. Justify it all you want, you are NOT doing society a favor. BUT, if someone sends Harry a script, and he doesn't copy it, then he hasn't violated that law. The guy who stole it, yeah, HE did something illegal, but not Harry. Ditto for AOTC - Harry didn't COPY it, he just watched it. Was it a legal copy? Doesn't matter. The reporter read Harry Potter 5, and that wasn't a legal copy. That's why this site hasn't been closed down. After all, we all know who Harry Knowles is. We know he lives in Austin. We've seen his animated tits. We've passed by (over?) his book in the bookstore. He isn't in jail, not for this site, so obviously he has't been breaking the law. People who download the movies themselves, on the other hand, DO break the law. I'm not judging, because I am not without fault, I'm just clarifying it for all of you. And when I commit a crime, I know it's a crime. I don't try to justify it, like some people here.
Yeah, yeah JoJo Babar, you're so virtous. You're not in the movi by Jeff Batt	Jun 9th, 2003 01:41:45 PM
I don't mean to be a dick but you're full of it. And like I said, just because YOU believe Movie Sudios and the Music Industry Execs make too much money DOESN'T give you the right to STEAL from them!!!! Nobody has a constitutional right to FREE entertainment!!!!
porn vs. the film industry by trkane	Jun 9th, 2003 01:43:09 PM
the porn industry makes as much money or more as mainstream movies in the US these days, in terms of yearly gross. its true. and we've all downloaded free porn....well, most of us. anyhow, pirated porn is readily available, and apparently enough people still go out and buy the stuff. and people will go see the hulk as well. its the kind of movie you want to see on a big huge screen, just like porn is much better on dvd than it is on the computer (can't beat that super fast-forwarding to get to the good parts). so lets not get too upset about this until hulk's numbers come in. i guarantee it does just fine, at least as well as daredevil.
pirates by sheba6086	Jun 9th, 2003 01:44:06 PM
There will always be people who want something for nothing. However, people will always go to a theater to see a GOOD movie. For example, I can't imagine anyone seeing LOTR on a computer then NOT going to the theater at their earliest opportunity. On the other hand, if it is a crummy movie unworthy of box office dollars then the studio gets what it deserves for producing crap. It is my hope that the pirates will force the hand of those behind the volcanic eruption of tripe that has been spewing from hollywood for far too long.
Hulking out and Attack of the Clones. by Amano Jyaku	Jun 9th, 2003 01:45:11 PM
1.)Harry reviewed a bootleg of Attack of the Clones before it came out. I didn't read you complaining about that dude. 2.)I didn't even know the HUlk was available for download until you just ADVERTSISED it to the entire INTERNET. Good job dude. And not only that, you also ADVERTISED three download programs to use. Smart man. Real smart. You forgot GROKSTER at grokster.com and MORPHEUS. 3.)I could care less about incomplete special effects. All I want to see is Jennifer Connelly and the DRAMA between the characters. If I want all three, I'll watch BLADE RUNNER. 4.) I never heard of BitTorrent before your article. Thanks. Sincerely yours, Amano ps - outstanding job advertising the HULK on the internet. I estimate you helped increase the downloading of that movie by ten fold. You've got my vote man.
I Come Here to Be Chastised By Moriarty. by KONG33	Jun 9th, 2003 01:48:58 PM
Fuck you.
MISERABLERAINGOD "BUT, if someone sends Harry a script, and he d by Cannonball	Jun 9th, 2003 01:49:12 PM
No, the law that Harry broke goes by the name of "recieving stolen property" which is a federal crime. So take that.
The Hulk reinvents zombie piracy... by Hobbitastic	Jun 9th, 2003 01:50:14 PM
and it's angry as hell.
I'll stop pirating when hollywood stops ruining 90% of it's film by JaphyRyder	Jun 9th, 2003 01:52:09 PM
The subject title sums it up for me. It cost what? like 15 bucks (Canadian, mind you) to see a movie. More often then not with the majority of big budget movies that come out,they are nothing but a vehicle for stars that don't belong in the movie in the first place, 90+ minute glorified commercials, or castrated in the name of "political correctness". If I download a movie and it's good, hell yeah, I'll pony up the cash to see it on a big screen, like it should be seen.
JOJO BABAR you lying FUCKFACE by dommy-gnome	Jun 9th, 2003 01:52:45 PM
You had me going until you said "people with real computers". You un-creative MONKEY BALLS FUCKER! No "screenwriter" is using a fucking pc. get a mac ASSHOLE.
Um...FTF... by dommy-gnome	Jun 9th, 2003 02:04:37 PM
I may agree with some of what you said about Harrys slip in movie-punk-rockness, but you do know he didn't write that article, right?
stop justifying it! If I do it I admit it's wrong, and I know wh by MiserableRainGod	Jun 9th, 2003 02:07:22 PM
You folks gotta stop trying to justify your copyright violations! If you copy something, you are a criminal. No one will come busting down your door, true, but rest assured you are a criminal and you ARE taking away somone else's money (very few people who work on movies make any more $$$ than you do). I read some posts about how copying actually helps the movie industry. "If I download a movie and it was good, I'll go see it in the theatre, because the download quality stunk." That ain't quite right. There's a whole industry, the advertising industry, whose livelihod is getting you into the theatres witout your own, personal test screeing. By downloading movies you hurt that industry, too. There's always a victim. But go ahead, buy into that argument that the economy is helped by your piracy of movies. BUT, in the music industry it's quite different. Most of the time music is copied you DON'T go buy the CD. You can't separate the 2 artforms...so downloading will remain illegal. Copyright isn't about seeing the stuff, it's about copying and distributing the stuff. If the artists want to distribute stuff on their own, they now can, with the internet. However, they most likely won't make any money on it. Artists need financial backers. That's the re

Talkbacks

About That HULK Workprint You All Claim To Be