Monday Morning Poll: Can Piracy Really Ruin a Movie?

by Erik Davis Jun 18th 2007 // 2:33PM

Filed under: Documentary, Horror, Celebrities and Controversy, Box Office, Fandom, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels, Monday Morning Poll

It's coming a little late today, but on the west coast it's technically still morning. Over the past week, I've been reading tons of articles on movie piracy -- but more specifically, how copies of both Hostel: Part II and Sicko have already leaked online. With regards to the Hostel sequel, director Eli Roth has already gone on record saying that those early leaks greatly contributed to his film failing at the box office. Since it's a smaller film, a few thousand downloads could very well hurt the pic's overall gross ... or so he says. We'll have to wait a couple weeks to see if Michael Moore's latest documentary suffers the same fate; Sicko isn't scheduled to hit theaters until June 29. But if both films wind up doing poorly when it's all said and done, is piracy really to blame?

For example, take a film like Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Here's a movie that's primarily geared toward a generation that's very knowledgeable when it comes to finding movies online for free. A very quick search lead me to a crystal clear version of the film online (and, trust me, I'm an idiot when it comes to this kind of stuff), yet it still opened this week at number one with roughly $57 million. Is it just a question of certain films being piracy proof? Or did Hostel: Part II fail for different reasons? And what if Sicko opens to great numbers -- will that mean Hostel II failed because of piracy and because it didn't feature a big fat guy talking about health care? Is it just me, or is movie piracy now becoming the go-to reason for a film's failure? If that were the case, then wouldn't more films this summer be suffering from piracy? Although I haven't downloaded any (because I absolutely refuse to do so), I've noticed almost all of the big films available for free online. And yet none of them seem to be playing the piracy card as much as Eli Roth has. Why? Because they're all making lots of money.

So, I ask you: Is piracy really to blame for the failure of a film like Hostel: Part II? And, in your opinion, is it really having that much of an impact to warrant us constantly talking about it?

15 Comments

Tags: cinematical, eli roth, film, michael moore, monday morning poll, movie piracy, MoviePiracy, movies, sicko

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

6-18-2007 @ 2:44PM

Bishop said...

I think it was the original Hostel that sunk 2. I went in looking for a good horror-torture-something good movie, but I felt like I saw a porn with nothing great about it in the torture category. Which is the reason I don't plan on ever seeing 2 and probably why a lot of people don't plan on seeing 2. I think if anything sunk it's box office take, then it was Roth himself for shipping out horrible movies.

6-18-2007 @ 3:38PM

Hirad said...

My thinking is that some movies have to be watched in the cinema. I don't live in the U.S and the night before i went to see the new spider man my friends were watching it on dvd (the dvd had menus and everything) i took a quick look at it and i thought it was stupid, but still being an aspiring director/editor i had to go see it anyway , and i have to say as stupid as the plot and movie was it was a movie that had to be experienced in the cinema, its the same for the new pirates film (again before i went to see it everyone was watching clean versions of it in the local game net). and i think this is something that audiences do recognize, the average movie goer wants a unique experience from going to the cinema and movies like hostel give the same or even a better experience when their watched with friends in a dark room in your house. There are no explosions and action centerpieces to be taken in. Thats not to say that they shouldn't be shown in the cinema, but for a movie to be shown and appreciated in the cinema it needs to have a special "something" the thing that makes movies from star wars and even my big fat Greek wedding box office success, they bring the audience together, and when movies that don't do this have illegal copies running around, as much Hollywood execs think audiences are stupid, people are going to want to get the best value for their money.

6-18-2007 @ 3:27PM

Ace said...

I think Eli is bitching because a workprint was stolen. Blame the production or publisher.

The Fantastic 4 video you are able to find is a in theater camcorder total crap I don't know how you can even think the quality is the same.

The difference is in the quality as some that watched both sicko and Hostle 2.

How could i be blamed (sense I went and saw Hostel 2) should they place the blame as the crappy studios that are leaking the info

or maybe its more like Eli and Moore are not really liked in Hollywood and someone wants to make sure its released early to hurt them.

There maybe a problem but point the finger at someone who is to blame. If someone is giving away free money that they stole from a bank I'm not going to say know besides it much better than net flicks

6-18-2007 @ 3:31PM

Ryan said...

Well, it does both. It creates a wider gap though between the flops and the really successful movies. In some ways it isn't any worse than a critical review. How many really bad movies have we seen released that didn't have a critic's screening? If a movie is really good, the personal home screening won't make much of a difference because the pirate may or may not have gone to the theater, but if he/she liked it, they will tell their friends. The poor review will have quite the opposite effect and withholding a critic's screening won't help sloppy filmmaking. Good movies should benefit and bad movies will tank even harder... the same is true in the other entertainment markets as well.

6-18-2007 @ 3:34PM

Ryan said...

Not to make broad-based conclusions based on anecdotal evidence or anything, but I don't think I saw a single commercial - television, print, or digital - for Hostel 2 this whole cycle.

6-18-2007 @ 3:58PM

bgdc said...

Roth is a whiner. That simple.

6-18-2007 @ 4:12PM

robert said...

could be the fact that passing off scenes of the most disgusting torture you can think of tacked together as a horror film is just getting old.

it's not the least bit entertaining, scary or suspenseful... it's just an endurance test for your gag reflex.

6-18-2007 @ 4:31PM

ben said...

i like it when people write 'whiner'. it looks like 'wiener'.

i like hot dogs. thats it..

6-18-2007 @ 6:33PM

rtms said...

It has become the excuse all for failing movies these days. Forget quality story or scenes, every movie you make is suppose to be a hit and when it's not-blame pirates!

First I think it was a dumb move to pit H2 against the blockbuster season. Really did the studio really think this movie had a chance at making any money? It should have been released in Oct, which may have made it more money at least.

As for Sicko- I firmly believe Moore deliberately had it leaked, not only to get opinion on the film, but to raise some publicity for it, since he's convinced the gov't is after him for making it.Paranoia can do a person good sometimes,lol.

6-18-2007 @ 5:51PM

olantern said...

Hostel Part 2 was never supported by Lionsgate. Rumors were swirling last summer and the film almost didn't get financed. The initial release date of April was pushed and Grindhouse slid into the spot. If you look at the tracking on the film, piracy benefited the numbers...Eli's plea to the public, begging them to go see the final film...what a joke! More people saw it in theatres due to the comparison issue and supposed "diehards" of the genre, completely disillusioned by Roth's talentless films went in support. He is personally killing the genre and making executives fearful for no reason whatsoever. Horror films will continue to be the most profitable form of entertainment in Hollywood. Execs just need to hire talented individuals to execute their properties.

6-19-2007 @ 2:19AM

Ace said...

Eli no talent HACK

6-18-2007 @ 8:55PM

zencat said...

Eli Roth needs to wake up to the fact that the majority of human beings just don't share his galloping torture fetish.

6-18-2007 @ 10:23PM

liya said...

I do think that it was weak of Eli Roth to blame piracy, but I don't think that piracy was the only reason.

The timing of the release probably had a lot to do with it. For the last few years, anyway, the beginning of the summer is when the family-friendly blockbusters come out, and the end is when the pre-Halloween horror movies come out so that they can be on DVD by October 31. (I could be totally wrong about this, I'm just speculating).

There were so many other choices when Hostel II came out that people in their target demographic would probably rather spend their money on.

6-19-2007 @ 4:38AM

Ian said...

The performance of HOSTEL PART II is consistent with how R-rated horror has been doing lately. I don't think piracy had anything to do with it.

6-19-2007 @ 10:09AM

lainix said...

If i had watched F4 on a download i still would have gone to see it at the theater , because it was a good movie, and i still would have told people to go see it, because it would it was worth the 7 dollar ticket. the only way piracy hurt hostel 2 is people were able to see how bad it was before they dropped any cash. word of mouth would have killed the movie even if it hadn't leaked...