Comments on: Hating BitTorrent (or How To Spoil Three Years of Anticipation)

By: Stuart Turton

Stuart Turton — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:41:44 +0000

I agree with Mr Bayon for the first time ever. Downloading a dodgy copy of a film is an entirely different experience to downloading an album. I can understand downloading music, and the argument that if you like it, you then go and buy it. You’re not losing anything by doing so. But a movie really is an entirely different experience at the cinema – especially if the sound and picture quality of your copy is bad. And most movies simply aren’t meant to be watched more than once, unlike albums which you’ll probably listen to twenty or thirty times over.

I’m not actually a movie fan and didn’t enjoy the Dark Knight that much, but I appreciated the cinema “experience”, which as Dave says is a social thing. It’s good to leave the cinema, go the pub and argue with your mates about what you’ve just seen. If you’ve already done that by the time you get to the cinema, you’re cutting out a very large part of the fun.

Right, agreeing with Dave makes me feel dirty all over. I’m off to shower this complicity off.

By: David Bayon

David Bayon — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:55:43 +0000

Peter, surely going to the cinema without knowing exactly what you’re going to think of the film is half the appeal. I go every week, sometiimes it’s a corker (I was amazed to find myself enjoying Wanted), other times it’s a lame duck (Hancock springs to mind). But in both cases it gave plenty to dissect and discuss afterwards in the pub.

The cinema is a social activity, and the aftermath is a huge part of that. Walking back into the sunlight and overhearing people’s wildly differing views on the same two hours of film is precisely why I agree with you that you shouldn’t blindly follow critics.

But ignoring the critics in favour of your own “spoilers” (what does that actually mean? Do you download the whole film and just watch the first five minutes? Skip to the action scenes? The whole thing?) is just as bad in my opinion.

Just enjoy a film for what it is, in the environment it was meant to be seen. Like it or loathe it, at least you can then judge it fairly.

By: Peter Lanado

Peter Lanado — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:35:41 +0000

People who watch “non-licensed” copy material probably end up doing it to see how good or crap a film’s going to be. Just becuase a bunch of self-appointed film critics loves something, or a film’s hyped-up to the rafters; it doesn’t mean you have to be Lemmingdreamus, or Sheppy2000.

And like many others, bored of paying very good money to see a whole heap of Afghan Viagras, that shouldn’t have made it out of the cutting room booth let alone anywhere near a big screen; if it’s a good to fantastic film, you don’t mind having it “spoiled”. You can then take a trip to the cinema and experience it in full sparkling washaround just as it was meant to be, and enjoy the experience even more.

If it’s a load of zoo manure, and I haven’t seen a little preview, then who do I complain to and get my money back when it’s been a very unsatisfactory experience.

And before anyone says, ‘bad person’, I have after watching those little spoilers not only gone to the cinema, but also waited eagerly for the DVD release, to purchase and watch all over again, in all it’s glory without screaming children, someone chatting on the mobile, or unsatisfactory smells wafting all the way along my olfactory nerves.

By: NellieIrrelevant

NellieIrrelevant — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:28:19 +0000

I always wonder why anti-piracy ads miss this point about poor image and sound quality. it’s the only thing that really makes a difference to the viewer experience between genuine and ropey pirate versions. The ads should point out that people who buy dodgy dvds end up watching blurry washed out crap with rubbish sound. Of course that will only have an effect if cinemas ensure their projections standards are far better than what punters can manage at home – which a few I can think of don’t…

By: David Staples

David Staples — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:52:24 +0000

“all in glorious HD”.

I must be going to the wrong cinemas, all I see is a slightly blurry, grainy, washed out pic.

Dark Knights wasn’t that great IMO either.

By: Rowan Parker

Rowan Parker — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:23:45 +0000

You make this sound like its BitTorrent’s fault. They just made a decent piece of software which got abused. But you’re giving it hard light. What about all those Linux distro’s one can download? It shouldn’t be the software you hate, more the people who use it illegally.

By: pcernie

pcernie — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:38:28 +0000

‘bafflingly few people seem capable of holding their bladder for two and a half hours these days’

Yeah, I could slap the people who get up in the middle of a film, it’s f*cking annoying for all concerned! Then they come back and ask the person beside them what happened!

When I went to see TDK there was even a tw@t who kept getting his incredibly bright mobile phone out to check the time and tell his mates!

Sometimes I think there should be an etiquette test before you go into the screening…

By: pcernie

pcernie — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:32:34 +0000

I agree, a copy is watchable if the quality hasn’t dropped too much, but usually there’s absolutely no point.

Regarding TDK, amazing film but there were a few plot holes if my brain remembers correctly (a dense film in content terms). Remaining spoiler-free, on receiving info on a character’s whereabouts, does Gordon actually send anyone there?

I hope someone knows what I mean by that lol, and if you’re gonna reply make it yes or no so as not to ruin the film for others please, thanks!