Will 'Wolverine' benefit from (Bit)Torrent of publicity?
Charting number of times Wolverine was illegally downloaded on file-sharing sites.
(Credit: BigChampagne)Outfitted with a skeleton forged from a super alloy, the comic book hero Wolverine is supposed to be indestructible.
After a raw version of the movie "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" leaked to the Web last month, 20th Century Fox is hoping the action pic, which debuts Friday, is nearly as durable.
Hollywood has been in a near frenzy since April 1, when someone--who has yet to be identified--leaked a copy of "Wolverine" to the Web. The fear was that the unauthorized copy would hurt ticket sales. "Wolverine" cost more than $100 million to make.
Some people won't bother to spend money at the theater when they can watch it for free online, goes one argument. Since it hit the Internet, the pirated copy has been downloaded more than 4.1 million times, according to BigChampagne, which does market research that focuses on file-sharing networks.
Another of Hollywood's concerns is that people who download work prints of movies, as was the case with "Wolverine," are seeing incomplete versions. The studios say they're worried some people will be turned off by the unfinished works and that they'll spread word that the movie is a stinker. So far, none of that appears to have happened.
Fandango, the online movie-ticketing services, is reporting hundreds of sold out shows across the country (not all of them sold through Fandango). The Los Angeles Times wrote Friday the film appears headed "toward a solid but not spectacular opening around $85 million."
(Credit:
20th Century Fox)
It's still too early to tell how "Wolverine" will fare in the long run, but the film's early success could be seen as evidence of a claim many in the torrent community make: that a film appearance on the Web can actually help create anticipation around a movie. Certainly, no one so far has attempted to blame an Internet leak for a film that bombed.
"Torrents won't have one iota of impact on the financial results of the film," said Justin Bunnell, founder of TorrentSpy, a formerly popular BitTorrent search engine that shut down after being sued by the film industry. "The torrenting only increased awareness of the film."
Who can argue that the controversy surrounding the leak didn't generate scores of headlines about Wolverine?
"The news cycle was strong (as a result of the leak)," said Eric Garland, BigChampagne's CEO. "This is a big tent-pole movie that would have received a lot of publicity anyway, but it saw a lot of extra headlines and the word-of-mouth wasn't bad. I don't think this movie was badly hurt by this leak."
Bunnell argues that previous films or TV shows that were shared illegally online, such as the "The Hulk" or "Sicko" succeeded or failed in theaters based on their quality.
"The Hulk" (the version starring Eric Bana) leaked to the Web in 2003, shortly before the theatrical release. After a respectable opening weekend, sales went into a nosedive and the movie is considered a financial disappointment. But the film also suffered from critical reviews, so its dismal performance can't be blamed on the leak. (Critics are mixed about "Wolverine.") "Sicko," director Michael Moore's documentary on the health care industry, appeared on the Web a week before being screened in theaters and fared well, relative to other documentaries, at the box office.
"It can be catastrophic to any media company if advanced word is poor," Garland said. "Ultimately, a bad product will always lose out. What's changed is that you always used to get a chance to get that first wave of paying customers through the door. You lose that group if word gets out that the movie isn't any good."
What it comes down to is that most people prefer watching a film on a huge theater screen than watching on a PC or TV, says Bunnell.
"Watching in a theater is a very empowering experience," Bunnell said. "You're watching with your friends, eating popcorn, seeing all the action up close. Even full screen on a computer can't produce that... I think the theater is a great experience and much more fun than watching alone on a computer screen."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Torrent%20of%20publicity?%20%7C%20Digital%20Media%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10231922-93.html){kind=small}
I think it really depends on a lot of variables, including how much money was spent on advertising. For a movie with a low advertising budget, getting leaked could be the best thing ever. It's free advertising.
Too many variables to say one way or the other. It depends on each movie.
Or maybe after the last year of very good comic adaptations, ignore The Spririt, this is just terrible in comparison.
I agree with you with the first part.
And the greedy people over at hollywood have the mentality that "Oh, this movie SUCKS...but at least noone will know on opening night, so we'll have a great turnout anyways!"
That's why they're so set on finding people who create cams of new movies to upload online...it's not because the AMAZING quality of the camrecorded version (note the sarcasm) will satisfy the viewer, and keep him from ever watching it on the big screen, but because that viewing experience lets him decide whether it's worth his hard-earned $10!
Ugh. It's disgusting.
Okay, that theory is make-believe.
Be that as it may, even before the pirates blasted this movie, I knew it would suck. X-Men 3 was very very bad. It was clear that some exec in a suit became involved, which should never happen. X-Men 3 should be lampooned by MST3K or the spin-off of it Cinema Titanic. Why else would Fox continue a story that had already been tied off, albeit in a very poor manner? Money. And when a movie is made just to make money, it always turns out bad. Movies should be made so that people will want to see them. By knowing the reason why the movie was made, I knew it would be a terrible movie. Therefore, I never ever planned on seeing the movie to begin with. The piracy just gave me an excuse to tell others why I would not see it with them.
why is he a shut in?
I (along with my family) much, much prefer to watch movies at home on the 52" with surround in our house instead of in a dirty theatre surrounded by loudmouth kids and young people who do NOT know how to behave in public and constantly talking, fighting and texting all around us.
Sometimes I feel like i'm in a zoo when at the local ciniplex and it's not worth it anymore
we have hot dogs, popcorn and pop here in the house
Along with big comfy chairs and sofas and a fireplace and mom and dad can have a beer or glass of wine if we want.
Shut ins ?
no.
Someone that has no life and prefers to have no life other than "me, myself, and I" at home.
By all means if you don't like your local 'ciniplex' you can always travel to another one or go at another time. Its not like you're going to find that typical situation at ever theater or at all times throughout the day. If you plan to go from friday-sunday then don't go at a usual time (7-12 p.m.) when you'll find that certain setting.
Whoever says that seeing something on the big screen isn't worth it when you can download is just kidding themselves.
Plus its not always a good thing to watch a movie if the quality of video or sound is as horrible as most of the "camera-recorded" material found online.
<I downloaded the leaked version (which showed the pre-GCI fixed up version of the movie), and I am ASTOUNDED AND USED LARGE LETTERS TO ANNOUNCE IT that you can see the wire harnesses. I though Hugh Jackson really did have a lifechanging surgery with comic book metal and could truly fly like that.
But at the movies, it was like it all became real, but noticable where GCI was utilized to create the scene.>
Movie ticket: 7.50 (student)
Drink & Candy Bar: $8.00 (no joke, med. pepsi and a 8 piece kit-kat bar)
Unless we were to have parents who would buy a ticket FOR us, we'd usually wait for the DVD to come out, and rent it...or even better, borrow it from our campus library. FOR FREE.
Unless we were to have parents who would buy a ticket FOR us, we'd usually wait for the DVD to come out, and rent it...or even better, borrow it from our campus library. FOR FREE."
Well if you don't want to PAY for something WHY should you have access to it in the first place. Why should I have to pay and you don't just because you're broke? This whole notion of "If I don't have the money to pay for something I should still get it for free" is insane. Sorry if you're broke you don't see it AT ALL. It's really that simple. I shouldn't have to subsidize your entertainment. No such thing as a FREE LUNCH buddy. Your FREE movie is costing someone.
Life is a game bro, nothing is fair. Your just made cause your playing fair and loosing and he found a way around it.
Grow up, life sucks. ;(
Gimmie a break. Its money. Don't let it rule your life.
So the MPAA companies have less of a chance to fleece suckers?
The horror!
So we're pushing $40.00 for a movie that, if it sucks, you can't get your money back. Movies are the only place in the world you can't get your money back if you think the product was terrible.
To see if p2p really does hurt them or not...
I was planning to see the move. I did not realize the movie was out so I probably would have missed it. After seeing this story I thought, "I think I will see the movie". After reading the reviews on this page I think I will skip it.
Before the RealNetworks/RIAA garbage I probably would have watched the movie anyway. With the movie industry acting like the south end of a north bound horse, I feel guilty every time I spend a dollar on a movie or music. MPAA/RIAA, your actions are what cost you money.
Ok 4 million downloads. how many actual people saw those illegal downloads. are those people just watching it by themselves or are the sharing with friends? Also you're not downloading it unless your interested in the movie. Now that's not to say everyone that downloaded Wolverine would have gone to the theater. But it's safe to say probably at least 10 million people saw the leaked movie. It's safe to say at least 20% would have gone to the movie but now won't because they've seen it( for FREE ). That's 2 million minimum. At $8 a ticket that's $16 million in LOST sales.
3mill less than that IMO is pretty good.
People that want the "theater experience" will still go. For everyone else the best situation for the studios is the release the movies in theaters, DVD, PPV, and online download all on the same day. People are a lot less likely to pirate a movie off a torrent if they can just get it on PPV for $5.
- by amd0505 May 2, 2009 2:34 PM PDT
- Id rather watch any movie with my 60" Kuro Elite with a beautiful surround sound and a pause button. I work hard for my money and movie studios dont care what they put out(very rare to see a good movie these days). So if thats how they feel then I dont care to go see their movie for $12. Movie studios are just greedy people who dont care a thing about you until something like this happens.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)