Rheet Reese laments that Zombieland is currently the most pirated movie on BitTorrent, and says that it may ruin chances for a sequel.
A few days ago I mentioned how the writer and director of Ink praised piracy, and BitTorrent in particular, for generating “unprecedented exposure” for the movie, pushing it to #16 on IMDb’s movie meter and to the 20th most popular movie in the world.
“Knowing there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it, we’ve embraced the piracy and are just happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure,” they wrote in an email to fans and friends.
On the other side of the coin is Zombieland co-writer Rheet Reese who apparently believes that piracy is a bad thing, and that rather than create a buzz it costs Hollywood precious dollars that could prevent a sequel of the zombie-movie thriller.
“Zombieland currently the most pirated movie on bit torrent,” he Twittered a few days ago. “Over one million downloads and counting.”
He perhaps cited TF’s running weekly chart of the most pirated movies on BitTorrent.
“Beyond depressing,” he adds. “This greatly affects the likelihood of a Zombieland 2.”
It’s melodramatic for sure and ignores the reality that ALL MOVIES are pirated at some point, yet usually has no tangible effect on box office ticket sales.
Take, for example, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A workprint of the action movie leaked to BitTorrent about 1 month prior to its scheduled theater release date. It’s made $440 million to date (including US DVD sales). Does anybody think there won’t be a sequel? Hardly.
The same was true of The Dark Knight. Despite being the most pirated movie of last year it has earned well over $1.2 billion USD in worldwide ticket and US DVD sales. A third installment of that franchise is already under way.
To drive home the fact that the movie industry isn’t hurting for profits are their very own reports of record profits dating as far back as 2005.
Something tells me the movie industry will be just fine and a sequel to Zombieland will be made, especially when you consider it cost a paltry $23.6 million USD to make and has already earned $82.4 million USD worldwide.
I think Reese may be suffering from that one illegal download equals one lost ticket sale nonsense.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- What Leak? “Wolverine” Rakes in $87 Million
- Good movies make people want to see the big screen
- Pirated Film Director: “Exposure Unquestionably a Positive Thing”
- “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” Workprint Leaked to BitTorrent
- The Simspons: ‘Please Don’t Download This Movie Illegally’
Loading ...
"OMG! My movie was pirated and will greatly affect the chances of me recycling my movie for the 50 sequels I plan on producing for a fast buck!"
Oh, man!! No "Zombieland 2"?! Say it ain't so!
What a self-important nitwit princess this guy is. Like anybody who names himself "Rhett" would ever seriously consider getting a decent job NOT writing derivative drivel about the meaningless ephemera of the nanosecond.
No, if there's any reason "Rhett" isn't going to bless us all with second load of sludge like this magnum opus "Zombieland,' it's because he's too occupied having a couch strapped to his smoked-up carcass where he can keep watching all those quality four-hour DVD porn extravaganzas that provide him with his most succinct insight into the human psyche.
What a d-bag.
The " Hollywood isnt hurting for profits" argument is a silly one. Sure, they are not hurting but its probable that the investors in the movie would of had more money in their pocket if the movie was not pirated. Thats the nature of pirate movies. Some get sold to people who would have other-wise bought a copy from Wal-Mart.
Its great to share stuff over the internet and it also may help to sell some copies by creating a word of mouth "BUZZ" so who really knows how it all evens out. Some people will only see negative, some will only see how it benifits them and then some realists ( ahem! LIKE MYSELF ) are able to take the whole concept apart and look at the BIG PICTURE! ).
One should NEVER say, "well they made enough money so it doesn't matter if it got sold as a pirate copy". That shows ignorance and douche baggery. Investors deserve to make as much money off their product as the market will allow but I am NOT convinced that internet "sharing" makes the studios lose more money than they would have made otherwise. That is the KEY point!
theres a bid difference between commercial and noncommercial (P2P) piracy…
They only have copyright protection because at some point in time society decided it would give up those rights and allow creators to acquire the right to certain intellectual property. Since that time the laws have mutated to the point where society no longer supports the laws, so while I would agree that investors deserve to make profit, I don't agree that it should be controlled only by the market. The market is artificial, and needs to balance profits with benefits to culture. If the laws improve the market force but damage culture in the process than it shouldn't automatically be implemented. This is what the copyright debate is all about, is it reasonable to protect intellectual property to the extent being demanded, and the simple answer is no.
who cares that movie sucked anyway….kinda high and mighty of them to be lamenting on the fact that they can't grace the public with a sequel to that mediocre movie….
"The market is artificial, and needs to balance profits with benefits to culture. If the laws improve the market force but damage culture in the process than it shouldn't automatically be implemented."
If you start using the movies influence society and culture in a meaningful way argument then you open the door for many movies to be outlawed because of negative effects on society as well, which is silly. For that argument to even hold water you have to believe that watching movies is also a God Given right. Movies in general are a HUGE waste of time ( so is rap music for that matter ) and people could be doing a lot of things better in life than sitting on their butts watching "Dude Wheres My Car?" so if stoners are gonna waste societies time by sitting around doing nothing, watching BS, then the people who worked hard making that crap should get paid for actually working for a living to entertain the masses.
The law should protect the working man in every way possible when it comes to some people taking money away from the ones who provide us with entertainment. Like SoulXTC said, there is a HUGE difference between commercial and noncommercial piracy. Many forms of entertainment can probably profit MORE from P2P exposure while others can be hurt from it but all the people who burn the movies they download and sell them at work should have to either share their profits with the copyright owners or pay society by being arrested and fined $$$.
Culture in all forms is a social construct, movies included. What you are saying is no different than saying Shakespear isn't responsible for influencing modern literature. When laws become so restrictive that it hampers the development, as well as the ability to enjoy our culture than the law has gone too far. That is the point I was making. In was only in relation to you advancing the belief of market forces, which I feel I have to contest cause market forces for intellectual property are artificial. So its not the only consideration.
But I do agree, that for a certain period of time people should be allowed to profit from their work, and if other profit they should have to pay. But I think even the degree to which the law covers those aspects is grossly overdone. But I agree with what you said for the most part, just disagree when it comes to specifics of the argument.
You are never specific in how you think copyright limits culture. Copyright encourages originality which makes culture better.
Well first off you can read this article
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20091117/NEWS01/11...
Clearly copyright is limiting the ability for certain artist to make a living due to the threats, and impossible cost of tracking what the artist are performing. Instead of paying 3 licenses all these venues have instead shut down.
Another way it limits culture is the fact that musical composition is not a limitless medium. Only certain key combination sounds pleasant, and even some of those sound similar enough to be considered infringing. If you consider all the music produced over the last hundred years, how much of the scope of music has been copyrighted? There is a professor at my University that is studying that concept, and he thinks that music has either reached its limit of permutations, or is about to reach it. His research is to find new ways of composing music to create a new genre. Tried finding the article, but I can't seem to find it on my schools website.
Furthermore, copyright creates centralized control. Before mandatory fees for radio play, artist could defer their fees to encourage radio play. When the big 4 first lobbied for the law, it was going to be that artist could opt in or out of the program. When they realized this would lead to their artist not getting any airplay, they set forth to make it mandatory and won. Now all you hear on the radio is big 4 music, where as without the copyright laws you would have a more vast array of music played.
There are others, but as I doubt you will take the time to absorb my argument I'll just leave it at that.
“Copyright encourages originality which makes culture better.”
Copyright discourages originality, due to the fact that originality comes from distinguishing from what exists, which is what copyright inhibits.
Originality has nothing to do with making a culture better, but somehow you think otherwise.
He is suffering from I am a douche bag disease… I am never watching his movies now.. Suck on that Rheet Reese… They should name a chocolate bar after you..