ratskywatsky’s Comments

• Apr 30th, 2013 @ 8:29am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: "appears to be a single (completely anonymous, of course)"

  on Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions
  Sorry but facts do matter. Cinedigm is NOT a " studio" big or small. The standard definition of a studio is company that MAKES films and thus invests significant money in them. Cinedigm is a distributor that has virtually no track record either now or in its previous incarnation as New Video in theatrical film distribution. Arthur Newman is NOT a major film. It is a piece of crap that was almost surely sold to Cinedigm for next to nothing as they were willing do distribute it. Some unnamed studio exec allegedly criticizes them for this and this is a story? No serious exec would care what Cinedigm does with the film. The eagerness here to use even a story built around an anonymous quote and false details to attack studios shows how often there is little interest here in facts when studios are involved. I am not a big fan of studios on many issues but this is a non story. Sorry that I am "missing" the real story when there is no story.
• Apr 30th, 2013 @ 8:29am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: "appears to be a single (completely anonymous, of course)"

  on Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions
  Sorry but facts do matter. Cinedigm is NOT a " studio" big or small. The standard definition of a studio is company that MAKES films and thus invests significant money in them. Cinedigm is a distributor that has virtually no track record either now or in its previous incarnation as New Video in theatrical film distribution. Arthur Newman is NOT a major film. It is a piece of crap that was almost surely sold to Cinedigm for next to nothing as they were willing do distribute it. Some unnamed studio exec allegedly criticizes them for this and this is a story? No serious exec would care what Cinedigm does with the film. The eagerness here to use even a story built around an anonymous quote and false details to attack studios shows how often there is little interest here in facts when studios are involved. I am not a big fan of studios on many issues but this is a non story. Sorry that I am "missing" the real story when there is no story.
• Apr 29th, 2013 @ 3:10pm

  Re: Re: "appears to be a single (completely anonymous, of course)"

  on Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions
  I have no idea why an unnamed exec would comment but Cinedigm has released exactly 4 films under its current name and per my above quote the "Major film " in question ( Arthur Neman) had the worst opening I can recall for a film opening on over 100 screens ( nearly 250 in this case) it grossed an average of $455 per which means about 60 people per theater went to see for the entire weekend. I can assure you no actual exec at a major studio would give a rats ass if they released the entire film on BitTorrent. I just get annoyed when people who know nothing about film distribution make absurd statements such as claiming Cindedigm is "Major Studio" ( on a side note they are NOT A STUDIO at all, they are a distributor as are most companies outside of Hollywood). They do NOT make movies they acquire them after someone else has paid to have them made or that is a major film release but don't let facts get in the way of a good story. This is about the last film I would use as an example of BitTorrrent being good for a films sales.
• Apr 29th, 2013 @ 1:56pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions
  I don't want to get into the piracy issue as I disagree with nearly everyone here ( worked in indie film for 20 years)but it is absurd to call Cinedigm a major studio and even less so this film a major movie. They have dealt mostly specialized in documentaries ( they were New Video for many years) and have VERY little experience with theatrical release. The film in question opened this weekend to one of the worst box offices for a film on over 100 screens in recent memory (average $435) I am not blaming the box office on BitTorrent , the film had bad reviews but it is hardly any kind of proof that BitTorrent helps sales. Obviously the DVD & streaming sales remain to be seen but I would not hold my breath.