I went to see 28 DAYS LATER yesterday. I got there at 4:35, I guess...and when I came in, there was something playing...I had no idea what it was. All I do know is that there was no one else in there, and the lights were all out. It couldn't have been the movie, I told myself, so I was barely even paying attention to what was going on.
After that thing ended, the lights came up, and I thought to myself- that was the ending! I went to the concession stand and told them, and they said there's an alternate ending added onto the end. This is the first time this has been done (I think.) I went back in and watched the movie...really good movie. I kept thinking to myself that it had an odd look to it...and it should, since I just read that besides the final scene, all of the movie was shot on digital cameras and not film. It sort of looked cheapish, but mostly looked more raw and real. Interesting story about an infection that wipes out London and maybe the rest of the world, and a few survivors trying to fight off the infected, who want to kill you! and make it to safety. I'll write a review sometime...
They played this ridiculous 'commercial' before the movie...had some guy who works as a set painter, talking about how film is wonderful and how magical it is...and how he's worked on all these big budget films painting sets and stuff. I thought it was going to be some thing about how great film is...and that's that, but, he started to talk about piracy and how it won't hurt the big guys in the business who make millions, but it WILL hurt the small guys like him who do sets and stuff. That was RIDICULOUS. Some movies get downloaded online (which has to be what they're referring to, since piracy outside of the download aspect isn't that big in the U.S.), so the set painters are gonna be out of a job? Come on! That's as ridiculous as the government telling us that buying some weed (which I do not condone!) helps fund terrorism. Yeah, and like I said, buying Kraft Foods products pays to kill smokers (since Kraft is owned by Altria, formerly known as Philip Morris.) Anyhow, I just had to laugh and wonder how they have the balls to try to get us to think that some poor set painter is going to be homeless because I download some crappy quality movie online.
I've been playing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six on playstation lately...I'm up to mission 11. Somewhat interesting, but it's all the same, and it's not very complicated. Shoot some terrorists, save someone...shoot some more terrorists, walk around in circles FOREVER on some missions trying to find what you're supposed to find, and on and on...
Well, I'm off to watch Dr. Katz...not to mention I need to watch the rest of THEY so I can take it back to the rental place.
Posted by Josh at August 27, 2003 07:12 AM | TrackBackSo, the movie 28 days is pretty good, huh? I make check it out on video. I have not had a chance to go to the movies in a while. Unless you're going to invite me to go with you next time.
When big companies start to lose money its always the little guy that pays the price, you know that. The more people illegally download movies, the less likely they are to pay to see them in the theatres. Who do you think pays for the drops in ticket sales? The people that work in the theatres and those that work on the movie sets. Granted, its not like billions of people are doing this, but there are a few hundred thousand that are. Obviously you are one of them, since you think what the poor man said was ridiculous. Wait...you think everything is ridiculous. Someone that wants to get into film should be more aware....don't you think?
Posted by: Crazy at August 27, 2003 07:53 AMit doesnt hurt the set painter. 'piracy' in the US isnt costing the studios a thing...and no, i dont download movies, since they take ten yrs! im guessing that people that do download movies actually go out and buy the dvd a lot of the times too. the quality of movies you download is terrible.
trust me tho...no set painter is losing jobs because of this. films are STILL being made and theyre still paying the set painters and guys like him the same amount of money they always have. as long as films are made, set painters will have lots of work. no amount of 'piracy' will bring an end to hollywood. so, no- the little guys arent losing money. why would they? you think the studios are paying them less now than they were before? theyre all union guys, so no way thats happening...
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 27, 2003 12:16 PM" 'piracy' in the US isnt costing the studios a thing..."
Oh sure, go against just about every independant financial study based on piracy in the US.
Of course the studios lose money. If artists can't pay for studio time, who makes up the money to the studios? The government? lol...
No no, you're right....everyone is happy, no problems.
Heck, I think I will go to the grocery store, fill up my cart, and leave. The grocery store is not losing money right?
"im guessing that people that do download movies actually go out and buy the dvd a lot of the times too. the quality of movies you download is terrible."
I can honestly say yes, I download movies all the time, and I acknoledge the fact that people are losing money from it, and to tell you the truth, I don;t really care. As for quality, I usually download movies in DivX format. It almost rivals DVD quality and makes the movies small enough to fit on a standard blank CD> I have almost 30 downloaded movies now.
"no set painter is losing jobs because of this. films are STILL being made and theyre still paying the set painters and guys like him the same amount of money they always have. as long as films are made, set painters will have lots of work."
I have to agree with Josh there. As long as movies are made, there will always be work for the set painters. It's the big guys who actually make the money when the film is released that take the hits...
Chances are, the set painters have already been paied prior to the release of the movie, so they are paied before the big boys start to feel the strain from piracy.
"you think the studios are paying them less now than they were before? theyre all union guys, so no way thats happening..."
I can honestly say I don't know weather or not they are paying them less, but I can say for certainty that they are not all union guys. Most of them I know are freelance companies. A friend of mine's father worked on the sets for the movie Screamers and he has his own independant set company.
im talking about movies. the big studios arent losing money because there are somemovies being downloaded on the net. paramount, universal, warner bros,dimension, etc- theyre not going bankrupt because of 'piracy.' copyright lawyers dont even all agree that it IS piracy...many of them say that the piracy laws forbid selling a copy for profit, which no one is doing online with the P2P networks.
trust me...the big hollywood studios arent going out of business because of this, and theyll still be bringing in billions of dollars every year.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 29, 2003 12:49 PM"the big studios arent losing money because there are somemovies being downloaded on the net."
I love the movie Training Day. I downloaded it off of Kazaa. It's quality rivals that of a DVD. Had I not been able to download it with such good quality, I would have bought it. Had I bought it, Universal or whoever would have made money. But I didn't, so they lost that money.
My case is not isolated, so yes, despite what you may think, they do lose money.
None of them have ever filed for bankruptsy protection. Neither have ever claimed to be going bankrupt from it, but the fact remains, they are losing money.
"copyright lawyers dont even all agree that it IS piracy...many of them say that the piracy laws forbid selling a copy for profit, which no one is doing online with the P2P networks."
You're talking from a defence lawyers point of view. There are two fighting sides to the argument in terms of the law, but that still doesn't mean they are not losing money, just because of what defence lawyers say.
And for the record, most of those defence lawyers have it a little twisted. What the actual law in those instances states is, you are allowed to make copies of movies ONLY if you own the original copy, and the copies you made cannot be distributed and only used for a back-up.
But take this instance for example. You claim piracy is ok on p2p networks, but think of this. A guy downloads a movie, high quality, and sells it on the streets.
Example: A friend of mine had a DVD quality copy of The Matris: Reloaded 5 days before it was released in the theater.
He bought it off a boot legger who sold it to hundreds of people already.
Perfect example.
See what I'm getting at yet?
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 30, 2003 09:10 PMlosing no money doesnt actually mean theyre not losing one dollar. it means, in the scheme of things, it is not hurting them at all.
as for lawyers. im talking copyright lawyers in general, which doesnt mean defense or prosecuting attys. the legalities are definitely cloudy. if you HAVE the movie on vhs or dvd, is it legal to download it online, which is, basically the same thing as making a backup (which you cant even do with dvd players, unless you hook it up right)...the dvd itself, the copy protection, im sure many would agree violates fair use law. same thing for new cds that make it impossible to make a digital copy of. or, nearly impossible, i should say.
i never said downloading movies all you want or music or whatever it is youre downloading wasnt wrong per se...but, its not hurting the companies that produce the films and music, etc.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 30, 2003 10:40 PM"but, its not hurting the companies that produce the films and music, etc."
Well, they say it is, you say it isn't.
THey have high paied financial analysts behind them.
They have studies and research into it.
What do you have?
Can you provide any statistics that it doesn't hurt them financially, or are you once again talking out of your right winged back side? ;)
my right winged back side? ok?
theyre not losing enough money for it to hurt them. no one said they werent losing a penny. they lose a penny when someone decides not to go to a movie because of a report in the paper that exposes one of the stars as a liar, a fraud, something else bad- like george clooney. i usually dont watch his movies, because of his loony politics. thats just one example...there are many many reasons they lose money- but they neve lose enough for it to even matter. tiny amounts when it comes to billions they still make and always will make.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 12:52 AM"theyre not losing enough money for it to hurt them."
Is that your opinion, or do you have any actual statistics to back up that claim?
THey certainly do.
Here's a tip from here on out. When you debate with myself or Lowdown, be sure you have all your "FACTS" straight. Be sure to be able to back them all up with web site statistics or historical facts, otherwise meself or Lowdown (or anyone else looking for rational debate for that matter) won't take you seriously...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 1, 2003 11:06 AMno. actually, if you want some stats, im sure you could plenty online. the loss due to internet 'piracy' is indeed NOT a big enough loss to make even a dent on the big studios profit margin. thats not opinion, its fact. if you bring in billions and lose a few million here and there, it doesnt do much to harm your overall business. its like saying that bill gates is bankrupt now because he's lost tens of billions in the past decade (he has), hes still as rich as he was. and overall, the numerous hits he has taken (like any business worth billions) hasn't done much to hurt him.
im not 100% sure how much money any studio loses...as im sure very few people are aware of those numbers. but, i can say with certainty that 'piracy' on a p2p network is not hurting the overall business of any studio...theyre not having to hire pauly shore for all their films, because they cant afford to pay anyone else, theyre not sending out fewer reels to the theaters, because they just cant print enough to meet demand...etc. its just not happening. theyre going on with business as usual, taking a few minor hits along the way for a million different reasons.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 11:29 AMwell isnt mp3 different from a wav file, so sharing mp3 files should be ok then, cuz cd quality songs are usually wav files. you know 1411kbs or w/e. Plus someone needs to make a ip address mask program so they cant screw us on just tracking our ip address, I know theres someone out there that can do it, anywayz, they pullin all of this because its a easy way of getting free money. Yes they lost some but not alot. When all ends, there are going to be alot of rich bisnuesses, and 66 million striving ppl, dont they ever figure that? and plus at the same time they are hammerin us for this, we have the war to pay for,, I thought usa was spose to try to stay as a team, not sue everyone cuz one glitch, thats all peace ~*Ryan*~
Posted by: Ryan at September 12, 2003 10:09 AMLuke, you are an idiot...get a grip. Why would USA have "under Vishnu" in their constitution? Are you aware that many, if not all, of our laws and governmental structures are based off of biblical references? Even the Supreme Court was derived from the Judge system of ancient Israel. Have you ever heard of the Sanhedrin? They were an ancient equivalent of our Supreme Court. What about the three branches of government? Humanities scholars will clearly point out that this is a symbolic reference to the trinity of God. Not to mention countless laws that are derived from the law of God as given to the Israelites in the Torah. Do your research before you spout off your liberal pseudo-history.
Posted by: Matt at March 24, 2004 11:56 PMGreetings Luke,
You missing one detail, speaking the words "under God" is voluntary. You stated in the response above “you were required” Please obtain the facts before you spout off. Thanks.
if we don't trust in a thing we consider as the invention of a religious sect 80 years after jesus death - none christian writing existed for 1 century - so we have the right not to say a stupid thing like fanatic islamists!
In gods I don't trust cause they were imaginated by people...
My feeling and what should be any state where politicals and religions are separated!
Posted by: dionysos at October 19, 2004 05:07 PMWellbutrin cheap source.
Posted by: Wellbutrin at November 5, 2004 12:44 PMHi - I was looking for some information on weight loss. Do you know a good site to visit?
Thanks for your help
Martin Brown