Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the when-you-want-it dept.

Movies 137

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Popular director Joss Whedon has taken the film world by surprise by releasing his latest offering, 'In Your Eyes', available for download on the same day it premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival. The new release comes from Whedon's own "micro studio", Bellwether Pictures, and is featured on Vimeo as a $5 rental, (free trailer). Whedon mused, 'It's exciting for us because we get to explore yet another new form of distribution — and we get $5.' Mr. Whedon has a history of pushing the delivery envelope, as with Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, in 2008."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Looking forward to it! (4, Interesting)

Slartibartfast (3395) | about 6 months ago | (#46806933)

Joss Whedon is just such a fun filmmaker, even if he wasn't the director for this particular movie. Look at Buffy, The Avengers, even Cabin in the Woods, which was a thoroughly enjoyable re-imagining of the tired horror flick. And this one just so happens to be partially filmed in my town; I haven't seen the movie yet, but if you see a gas station with tanks right out of the 50's, that ain't no prop, it's for-real. (Though they stopped pumping gas five or six years ago due to the storage tank needing to be fixed up.) Really excited for this one.

Re:Looking forward to it! (1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 6 months ago | (#46807623)

Cool story bro.

Re:Looking forward to it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46809763)

Joss Whedon is just such a fun filmmaker

Yeah, if you're a teenage girl.

Quality? (3, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46807005)

Can anyone comment about the quality of this film? Is this Cinema quality? Direct-to-Video? SciFi channel? YouTube?

While watching SHIELD the other week, they transitioned seamlessly to a Captain America commercial -- and I wondered if I was still watching SHIELD until 5 seconds later, a actual car crash stunt happened, and I knew the budget for the 30-second commercial was higher than the entire episode of SHIELD that I had been watching.

I'll gladly pay $5 to watch a new movie in this "new model" of distribution.

....but I won't pay $5 to watch something that should have been released to YouTube.

Re:Quality? (1, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 6 months ago | (#46807093)

You wouldn't pay $5 to download a car, would you?

Allegedly free games (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46808545)

The entire "freemium" video game revenue model is predicated on the fact that so-called "whales" [slashdot.org] would pay $5 to download a car.

Re:Quality? (1)

xeoron (639412) | about 6 months ago | (#46809541)

Maybe, if I could print it!

Re:Quality? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807277)

"While watching SHIELD the other week"

Why? That's the most horrible addition to the superhero universe since Ben Affleck was allowed to debase Daredevil.

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807349)

Yeah, but Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms!

Re:Quality? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46808087)

I was nearly ready to give up on SHIELD. The episodes had become fairly stock procedural fantasy/CSI.

...but the last 5-6 episodes were pretty great. So they're back on the list of shows I'm looking forward to watching, rather than begrudgingly clearing it from my DVR.

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807603)

and I knew the budget for the 30-second commercial was higher than the entire episode of SHIELD that I had been watching.

Let me guess, you also pick your gaming platform based on "teh polygons".

Re:Quality? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46808053)

The quality of my entertainment is important to me. There's a big difference between things "filmed" on video and things actually captured on film. You can be better immersed in something if you're not constantly having your suspension of disbelief broken by terrible effects.

I just want to know if I should be expecting A-Team style car crashes where suddenly the car has tinted windows and goes over a ramp behind a bush....

Re:Quality? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 6 months ago | (#46808147)

Of course video looks better than film because of the higher frame rate, and anything you watch at home that started on film has been transferred to video anyway, so has the shortcomings of both formats combined. It's silly to pretend that film is better unless you're talking about IMAX seen at the theater.

Re:Quality? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46808881)

Video looks better than film?

WUT?!?

Depth of field and dynamic range, and that's just for starters... ....if you honestly believe that video looks better than film, I don't know what to tell you.

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46809901)

Depth of field occurs in video too and the "dynamic range" in film is a post production effect.

Re:Quality? (1)

ah.clem (147626) | about 6 months ago | (#46808419)

Why not just watch the trailer?

Re:Quality? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46809143)

Short answer? I'm at work, and we block nearly every video streaming site.

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46809821)

Better graphics allows for better environments and immersion. You can keep your blocky Nintendo cartoon crap.

+2.... Flamebait? (1)

MikeTheGreat (34142) | about 6 months ago | (#46808421)

As of right now (12:23pm PST, 4/21/2014) the parent post is showing +2.... Flamebait.

I've been here a while but never seen a negative word attached to a positive score (it's always been +3 Informative, or +4 Insightful, or +2 Funny, or whatever). I don't think that my personal 'score adjusters' would give anything enough points to boost a -1 or 0 up to a +2.

I'm assuming it got mod'd up with a couple different modifiers (one insightful, one interesting, etc), then mod'd down with only Flamebait (and so Flamebait is the most common modifier), but I'm curious (1) if anyone else is seeing this and (2) does anyone have a better explanation about the score/modifier?

Re:+2.... Flamebait? (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about 6 months ago | (#46808801)

As I understand it, Overrated/Underrated give no specific label. So someone who starts at 0, with one Troll mod and 6 Underrated mods, would appear as +5 Troll.

Re:+2.... Flamebait? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46808843)

Correct.

The post is currently 50% flamebait, 50% underrated, and presumably it picks up another flamebait and/or underrated here and there to keep it in the +2 Flamebait range.

I still have no idea what the overall quality of the $5 movie is though...

Sounds like warmed over "The Chrysalids" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807039)

But will *everybody* have an quick wit and annoying snappy comebacks?

Louis CK (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 6 months ago | (#46807045)

Louis CK did pretty good with his pay what you want experiment and his own production. If could get a download that plays on any video player tha say day or even month after it came out of the movies I'd be all over it. The last time I went to the movies was to see The Road after spending nearly $50 between me and my son on tickets and popcorn I said fuck it this is enough and haven't been back. At $5 per movie Id' be buying prrtty much any good movies that comes out. Hell even for the price of the ticket $10+ tax each person I'd could buy 4 movies and enjoy them at home.

Re:Louis CK (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 6 months ago | (#46807209)

I'd be buying it as well for $5. Renting it, on the other hand... no.

That is more that blockbuster.

Louis CK (1)

Pat Morin (3026319) | about 6 months ago | (#46807747)

This. Louis CK did this the right way. Pay $5 and get sent a link to a clean video file that you can download up to five times and watch on any device that supports it (or transcode to any other format you want). I'd like to watch this movie, but the old xbmc box connected to my TV probably won't do a good job playing back an HD Vimeo stream (as some others have already reported).

Re:Louis CK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808025)

While the Louis CK link wasn't permanent (each link was one time use only), they sent me a new one without any fuzz when i asked for a new on e because my DSL modem crapped out during the download.

micro studio (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46807055)

There is no difference between a micro studio and a Giganto Studio. I have the exact same tools in my spare bedroom "micro studio" that they have at MGM. and if I really wanted to shoot with a $190,000 arriflex I can rent it, just like they do.

This is the wonderful thing. a single person with a spare bedroom is equal footing competition to a $100,000,000,000 studio.

Well... no. (3, Insightful)

Slartibartfast (3395) | about 6 months ago | (#46807205)

The *EQUIPMENT* has come huge lengths. You do, however, lack the writers, acting talent, stage hands, etc., etc., etc. If you give me eggs and cheese, I give you cheesy eggs. A French chef gives you a souffle. Having the ingredients is only the first step.

Re:Well... no. (5, Funny)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 6 months ago | (#46807333)

You do, however, lack the writers, acting talent

Lacking those doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of big studios either.

Re:Well... no. (3, Interesting)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46807423)

Acting and lighting are what usually really give the no-budget indies away these days, not the FX. The acting, in particular, in most of these homemade movies is fucking godawful. Some things you just have to spend real money on. You can pirate a copy of After Effects, but you can't pirate a real actor.

Re:Well... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807943)

Even your pirated copy of After Effects doesn't get you that far unless you have a team of artists spending 6 months working on it. Additionally, while you may have the same software, and essentially the same hardware, the big studios have a lot more of it. Rendering a single scene from a big budget movie on your home rig could easily take months if not years.

Re:Well... no. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46807753)

Those can be rented as well, just like they do.

Re:Well... no. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46808601)

Renting those things takes a budget that indies (other than long-time industry veterans) tend not to have.

Re:Well... no. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46809313)

Kickstarter's Hall of Fame movie projects all indies that did not have the money that studios have....

1. "Blue Like Jazz" by Steve Taylor
A feature film based on Donald Miller's New York Times bestselling memoir, directed by Steve Taylor and starring Marshall Allman.
Pledged: $345,992
4,495 backers

2. Minecraft: The Story of Mojang by 2 Player Productions
A feature-length documentary on the first year of Mojang, the studio built upon the runaway success of indie computer game Minecraft.
Pledged: $210,297
3,631 backers

3. Neil Gaiman's The Price by Christopher Salmon
A uniquely stylized CG animated film based on the short story "The Price" by award-winning author Neil Gaiman.
Pledged: $161,774
2,001 backers

4. MY REINCARNATION by Jennifer Fox
Be the CATALYST. Spread MY REINCARNATION, an epic documentary about spirituality, family and destiny...
Pledged: $150,456
518 backers

5. Urbanized: A Documentary Film by Gary Hustwit
Help finish the new design documentary from the director of "Helvetica" and "Objectified".
Pledged: $118,505
1,814 backers

6. I Am I - Feature Film by Jocelyn Towne
A woman meets her mentally ill father who abandoned her as a child. He is convinced that she is his wife and tries to win her back.
Pledged: $111,965
902 backers

7. "Finding Vivian Maier" - a feature length documentary film by Toneloof
This film unravels the discovery of 100,000 negatives from a mysterious photographer that shocked the world of photography.
Pledged: $105,042
1,495 backers

Sounds like that is not a problem, and only a fool wants a big name hollywood actor, better actors are out there to be had for less. Just look at game of thrones for a perfect example that "nobodies" are fantastic actors.

Re:micro studio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808623)

To be fair, Marvel's new studio that was used to film the Avengers was also a micro studio just a few movies ago (Iron Man).

Look up http://eztv.it/ep/53417/marvel-studios-assembling-a-universe-x264-hdtv-mvgroup/

Can I pay not to have to watch it? (-1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46807071)

Yeah, Firefly was pretty good. But his other work is mediocre at best. And he also has this weird fetish for 100-lb. waifs beating up hordes of 250-lb. guys that drives me crazy. I always suspected that Firefly was more Tim Minear's series than Whedon's (100-lb. ass-kicking waif aside).

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (5, Funny)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 6 months ago | (#46807089)

And he also has this weird fetish for 100-lb. waifs beating up hordes of 250-lb. guys that drives me crazy.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (4, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46807153)

Not so bad if that's your fetish. But it just drives me nuts. I prefer my heroines to be at least somewhat grounded in reality. Personally, I always thought the best sci-fi heroine was Ellen Ripley. She had real strength of heart. There was no need to write her as some kind of superman ninja who could alter the laws of physics to beat down everyone and everything around her.

Writing your heroine as a guy with tits isn't "empowering." It's just fucking lazy.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46807191)

I should add that, ironically, the last Alien movie was scripted by Joss Whedon. Anyone care to guess what they turned Ellen Ripley into in that installment?

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 6 months ago | (#46807367)

To be fair, Joss was not happy with the final product either, feeling it greatly differed from his script.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807405)

Anyone care to guess what they turned Ellen Ripley into in that installment?

I wasn't aware that 'viable human/alien hybrid clone 48-year-old woman' is the same thing as '100-lb. waif.'

For added irony:

Writing your heroine as a guy with tits isn't "empowering." It's just fucking lazy.

The entire cast of the first movie was written so that any and all roles could be cast as male or female. The 'empowering female lead' bit of it was because the authors didn't make the whole story about the existence of her ovaries. Oddly though, Alien 4 was all about giving human ovaries to a hive species...

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 6 months ago | (#46807989)

When it come to a fist fight, or feat of strength, there are few female actors that can be convincing. "Mother Russia" in Kick Ass 2? Totally convincing, but also the exception.

Now the whole "butt-kicking waif" thing works just fine if you make her a robot. That Terminator TV show, or the whole Ghost in the Shell franchise? I'm fine with that.

But I'm just not buying your typical Hollywood female lead in an action role featuring fisticuffs or throwing heavy stuff about. The thing about good fantasy stories is you explain the stuff that doesn't match reality. Not doing so is, in fact, just fucking lazy.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 6 months ago | (#46807999)

The rest of the movie may not have been very good, but it did give us the basketball scene where Sigourney Weaver actually made that shot [youtube.com] .

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808415)

Actually, she made the shot, but the version they show in the film isn't the time she made it.

Apparently, she'd been practicing beforehand in anticipation of the scene and when they got to that part, they said they'd just CGI it. But she said that she wanted to try it once just to prove she could do it. So they decided to give it a single take and when she tried to make the shot, it went right in. The entire cast was understandably shocked at this and had genuine reactions, but Ron Perlman went a step further and ran directly up to the camera with a "Can you believe that just happened!" and they had to throw the shot away.

It's an extra on the DVD though.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46807657)

I know '100' pound women who can kick the ass of 250 pound men. Closer to 120, then 100 but still.

SO lets see:
Buffy: Super human powers is the entire premise
Dollhouse: Brain altered to the mindset and abilities of killing machine.
Firefly: Altered brain.
Serenity. Blech.

So in context those are all plausible, plus they are all psychopaths.
None of those character are masculine, as all.

Maybe equating violence and being fat to masculinity is the issue?

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807799)

You're a pathetic troll.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808631)

Stop talking to yourself in public.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46808823)

Yeah, I know Whedon always creates some thin excuse in an attempt to give this ridiculousness the veneer of plausibility. But even his excuses are pretty weak. I doubt there is anything you can "do to the brain" of someone who's 5'1" and 100 lbs. to give them the punching and kicking strength of Ivan Drago mixed with Superman. It's just takes me out of the story.

I can suspend my disbelief for some stuff, but when something is ostensibly set in the real world, I expect to it be somewhat believable. It's like the scene in Die Hard 3, when Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson fall off a bridge and drop about 50-ft. onto a solid metal barge deck--without injury. That was the moment I realized that the Die Hard franchise had finally gone too far. It crossed the line from EXTREMELY unlikely to flat-out fucking impossible.

It also doesn't help that the beautiful ass-kicking waif is a recurring Whedon character in almost everything he does, leading to the disturbing conclusion that this is some sort of weird fetish thing for him. Or maybe he's just too lazy to write real strong females, and falls back on the easy out of just taking the standard bimbo and giving her superpowers.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808841)

I rather think you're proving the OPs point. Those archetypes are all about a young woman exhibiting unnatural strength and martial prowess. It does seem a bit like a 'fetish', seeing as it pretty much appears in all his work..

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (2)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 6 months ago | (#46807263)

Firefly was good. Angel and Buffy early seasons were good as well (although I do agree that Angel was at it's best with Tim Minear at the helm.)

Dollhouse was terrible. It was terrible for many reasons but the biggest was because it had so much potential to be more than it was. The TV show Marvel is pretty bad as well.

Cabin in the Woods was clever marketing. It's great to make the type of movie that if someone doesn't like it, you can just say that they didn't get it. I liked it but not the end (and yes, I understood the point of the ending and all the wonderful metaphors involved.)

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

sribe (304414) | about 6 months ago | (#46807425)

The TV show Marvel is pretty bad as well.

...oh god, so boring, so cliche, so stilted, so awful I can hardly believe he's involved...

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

EvolutionInAction (2623513) | about 6 months ago | (#46807879)

Firefly was good, Serenity was good, Avengers was good. Doctor Horrible wasn't just good, it was wonderful. Dollhouse, as you said had great potential that was wasted.

Cabin in the woods wasn't just marketing. I had heard the name, but knew nothing about it when I watched it. It was awesome. I loved how it twisted all the horror tropes and built something funny and yet still horrifying out of it. It isn't to everybody's taste, and that's okay. But I really don't think it is particularly pretentious or marketing based.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46809175)

If by wonderful, you mean a steaming pile of shit that a dog ate, pooped out, ate again and threw up, then I agree.

Doctor Horrible was three steps beyond the worst shit ever seen leaking out of the septic tank.

Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | about 6 months ago | (#46808619)

Were the metaphors in question, not enough(read none) multi-megaton nuclear weapons were not emplaced to target the eldritch horrors as a last ditch defense in case the entire elaborate system of sacrifices came crashing down? Cause that was all I really got from the ending.

I hate Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807111)

I hate it. Not in a hipster "I hate it because everyone else likes it" kind of way. I just hate it. It's awful.

As if thats something special? (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46807119)

If his film is released at Tribeca you can assume its only good in the eyes of people in the industry that love to slobber all over each other about how awesome they are even though its complete crap.

Its been released the same day because all 6 people that are going to watch it already have so he's praying his name will get some sales outside of that because of his history.

Re:As if thats something special? (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46807279)

Most likely it's because he shopped it around and couldn't find a distributor. That's usually not a good sign.

Re:As if thats something special? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 6 months ago | (#46807459)

This. Possibly an indie distributor would have picked it up, but Whedon's demands for the marketing or whatever were too much to deal with.

Re:As if thats something special? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46807581)

Or, he has enough money so he can experiment with different distribution models.

Re:As if thats something special? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 6 months ago | (#46807785)

Typically an artist wants to get as many eyeballs on their creation as possible, no? You are suggesting Whedon would deliberately sabotage his audience numbers (and potential revenue) just to do some parlor trick? If that were the case, why would he even bother with Tribeca? Furthermore... Vimeo??

Re:As if thats something special? (1)

neminem (561346) | about 6 months ago | (#46808981)

I wouldn't be surprised if Whedon would do exactly that. It's not like he needs money at this point, so why not try something new? Especially since after Doctor Horrible, he specifically said that is exactly what he was going to do next time? After being totally screwed by Fox on several occasions, it's not surprising that he would want the thing wherein he exerts basically complete control over the creation and distribution of stuff, and I don't really blame him.

That said, he really does need to work on his marketing strategy a bit. I'm a giant Whedon fanboy, and I hadn't heard a peep about this project until today. Why is that?

If it is true that you can only get it via Vimeo, though, that'd be pretty dumb. I do recall the available options for Doctor Horrible were kinda dumb at first, too, leading me to torrent it until I could buy it reasonably. If it is really just Vimeo (can't check at work), it does seem likely that I would do something similar this time as well (give him 5 dollars, then go find a torrent.)

Re:As if thats something special? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46809223)

why not? rage against the machine i believe it was put up a CD and told people pay as much or as little as you want, and they actually made more then they expected. Its not gonna work for an unknown but joss is fairly well known even to non geeks now due to his appearances on big bang theory

Wil Wheaton (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807131)

Is he related to Wil Wheaton?

Errrr... wat?! (1)

Slartibartfast (3395) | about 6 months ago | (#46807181)

Subject pretty much sums it up.

Careful! (4, Informative)

lennier1 (264730) | about 6 months ago | (#46807135)

The movie was worth the five bucks to watch it on Vimeo, but their Flash-based player (no quick way to switch to an HTML5 version) resulted in such a choppy playback that the constant pauses and buffer attempts added another half hour to the whole thing.

Since it's a 95 minute movie we're talking about a quarter of the time being spent on just waiting for the fucking site to do its job again.
Before anyone asks: The 100MBit connection has never been a problem before and the necessary software was up to date as well.

Hope you'll have more luck. Except for the predictable end it's quite a nice movie.

Re:Careful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807483)

Before anyone asks: The 100MBit connection has never been a problem before

My network connection didn't used to suck, until it did.

Your blanket statement villanizing their software (and then making your network out to be a saint) without performing a proper investigation is a little silly. How do you know the problem wasn't related to the link between your computer and their servers? What experiments did you perform to come to the conclusion that it was their front-end playback software?

A media player does not typically induce increased bandwidth use. Were you connected over wifi? Were others using your wifi at the same time? Were others using your local network at the same time?

Re:Careful! (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 6 months ago | (#46807723)

Unless you actually know what was going on, shove your assumptions where the sun don't shine.

This was the first bad HD streaming experience in years and the connection has performed without problems throughout the long easter weekend as well (over here that was an extended weekend from Friday to Monday). HD streams by other sites didn't cause any problems either, the problem was reproducible across tabs and browsers and using the web developer tools you could practically watch the stream arrive too late, piece by piece and with not nearly enough overlap to provide seamless playback.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

Re:Careful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807873)

Unless you actually know what was going on, shove your assumptions where the sun don't shine.

Why can't we just be civil around here?

This was the first bad HD streaming experience in years . . . HD streams by other sites didn't cause any problems . . . using the web developer tools you could practically watch the stream arrive too late, piece by piece and with not nearly enough overlap to provide seamless playback.

Ah, indeed, that's what I was inquiring about. :-) So the problem was that the connection was not big enough for the stream they were providing, and they only appear to support two bitrates, which is not particularly user-friendly. (Especially considering that many other sites automatically switch streams based on the downstream available.)

Thanks for helping to clear that up, it's what I was trying to figure out. :-)

Re:Careful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807805)

Cut the guy some slack: "I was watching this movie over a good connection and had lag problems and investigated other delivery options to no avail" is a legitimate complaint without providing significantly more troubleshooting evidence. He didn't write a paper on it, log a bug report, or write a piece of investigative journalism, he claimed he had problems watching it, and, with reasonable confidence, could blame the distributor.

Re:Careful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807843)

Try downloading with the Firefox extension Download Helper [mozilla.org]

Re:Careful! (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 6 months ago | (#46807915)

Won't work in this case, but thanks for the good intention.

Unlike regular Vimeo, where it's easy to work around the basic methods, the VOD site loads parts of the video in 40 MB or so pieces, tries to stitch them together again and in my case it failed miserably at doing so (despite a proven and more than sufficient downlink),

Re:Careful! (1)

gregstumph (442817) | about 6 months ago | (#46808365)

I used to get lousy performance from Vimeo (and a few other sites, but mainly Vimeo), until I fiddled with the MTU size on my DSL router. After changing it (from 1500 to 1492, but YMMV) all the problems with Vimeo cleared up. Since you mentioned having a 100MBit connection I imagine you aren't using DSL, but I thought I'd mention my experience for what it's worth...

Re:Careful! (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 6 months ago | (#46808441)

Your summary still might help some others.

It's a cable modem and regular Vimeo works just fine. It's only the VOD stuff that shows this off behavior (because it loads the video in 40 MB pieces to circumvent most download tools and fails to stitch them back into seamless output).

Re:Careful! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46809001)

If you have to fiddle with your router to make it work well, then Vimeo sucks.

except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807237)

....dr. horrible's sing-along was fucking terrible mind-numbing garbage. I do not want more work like that.

Rent vs own (3, Insightful)

Bram Stolk (24781) | about 6 months ago | (#46807255)

I do not like renting, I prefer to own.
Just put it up on AppleTV so it conveniently becomes part of my iTunes lib.
Also I don't have patience for sloppy flash based players.

Re:Rent vs own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807819)

You think you own your iTunes library? How cute.

Re:Rent vs own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808191)

iTunes Music is certainly DRM free, movies probably. Don't generalize and troll harder.

Re:Rent vs own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808825)

Audiobooks are still DRM'd up the ass, and you're delusional if you think Hollywood lets anyone get away with no DRM. Also, you have to be careful with the music - you have the OPTION to buy DRM free music at an inflated price - it's not default like Amazon.

So 90% (music, audiobooks, video, apps, books) of the content types coming from the source you're defending (that's half of music, because of above) as being able to "own" ... you don't actually own.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Re:Rent vs own (1)

neminem (561346) | about 6 months ago | (#46808893)

Yes it is (now)... I just bought some music literally yesterday from iTunes, for 99 cents, same price as it's always been. I didn't have to toggle anything, and as soon as it'd finished downloading, where once upon a time I would have to burn it to a virtual cd then rip it back, now I could just immediately convert it to mp3.

I have no idea the status of movies or books, as I don't ever buy those off iTunes, and it's possible not every artist is the same? The dozen or so artists I've bought music from via itunes in the past couple years, though, have all been DRM-free for the expected price...

Re:Rent vs own (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 months ago | (#46807821)

How many times do you watch each movie? Generally they're $15 and up to own when new, versus $5 to rent, which will be included as a netflix in a year anyway. Sure, I can understand if they kids always watch Lion King every weekend, then owning is a bargain.

Re:Rent vs own (1)

lgw (121541) | about 6 months ago | (#46808083)

My cost per rental on Netflix is far, far below $5. $5 is a fair price to own a direct-to-video movie, but is vastly overpriced for a rental.

Re:Rent vs own (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 months ago | (#46808563)

That's rental when not new. New rentals from amazon and others right after release to DVD, as well as pay-per-view, tend to be $4.99.

Re:Rent vs own (1)

lgw (121541) | about 6 months ago | (#46808953)

My Netflix DVD comes in the mail same as always, and IIRC Redbox charges the same as always. PPV before release to DVD is different, but that's a premium for stuff with successful theatrical release.

Re:Rent vs own (1)

Maltheus (248271) | about 6 months ago | (#46808251)

Normally, I'd agree. But I just skipped the New Captain America movie, even though I wanted to see it, because I simply couldn't put up with the theater experience anymore. I'll wait for the BluRay.

I have no problem paying $5 to watch it 10 feet from a 133" screen at home (first-run), over having to drive down to the theater, a half-hour early, to get a decent seat, sit through endless previews, listen to everyone chatter on and continuously shove food into their mouths, for $10.

It's an even easier (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46807553)

way to watch my favorite character die.

YeS! fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46807899)

sanc7ions, and [goat.cx]

Hmmm ... Jennifer Grey (1)

NoSalt (801989) | about 6 months ago | (#46808031)

Coulson's wife.

WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808139)

The summary mentions a download, but only fleetingly, and then it just talks about vimeo (a proprietary streaming service, last time I visited them). And if I follow the link to vimeo, indeed: all I see is vimeo offering some kind of rental streaming thing.

Do you realize this is the difference between night and day, between steak and shit? Between something that maybe works but you won't know for sure until after you've paid your money, and something that is normal like our other experiences, that people can be pretty confident about?

Louie C.K. has led the way, but you have to understand that a pro-revenue approach is still really rare, and while I trust him now, I don't have any faint idea about whether or not Whedon is actually trying to run a serious business yet. Most Hollywooders are still (indirectly, through DRM) advocating piracy, last I saw. (And I sure as hell, haven't heard of Firefly or Buffy files being for sale yet.)

Announcements like this need to be very explicit about the type of file they're selling. I wanna see words like "Matroska" or "MP4" and probably the codec mentioned too (not that the codec matters a whole lot to me, but if the seller doesn't know the codec, then I know they aren't for real). Not luddite bullshit like "stream" or "flash" or ".Net and we haven't tested it with Mono yet" or other nonsense like that. That vimeo was mentioned, they ought to know is a big red flag telling people to keep their money in their wallets, and if they're actually selling then they need to make sure people know it.

How hard is it, for someone on staff to just think for 30 seconds about what things look like, from a prospective customer's point of view?

As far as I can tell, and I even took some time to click around a little bit (though maybe I missed something) this download announcement is somewhere in that dark gray spectrum of "someone doesn't know what they're talking about" to "joke" to "fraud." I'll try to attribute this to stupidity, but whenever we're talking about Hollywood, historical "post-judice" urges everyone to assume the worst: that they are attempting theft through dishonesty, and $5 gets you nearly nothing.

Whedon, fire someone over this, at a minimum. Your NAME is one this. Do you think Louie C. K. wouldn't fire someone over a disaster like this? Names are important, especially right now.

Re:WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? (1)

jsdcnet (724314) | about 6 months ago | (#46808771)

If names are that important, perhaps you'd care to spell Louis C.K.'s properly.

Re:WTF!?! *IS* it a download, or not? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#46809049)

He's only Louis when he's being introduced or billed in credits.

His friends call him "Louie," he calls himself "Louie" -- or so I'm lead to believe from all of his interviews and radio appearances.

It'd be no different than saying Bob De Niro or Sam Jackson.

What's next, complaining he didn't say call him Louis Szekely? Cit him some slack.

Please justify $5 for one rental (3, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 6 months ago | (#46808285)

Dear Mr. Whedon,

Please justify the $5 cost to rent your film. I can rent your latest superhero blockbuster over the weekend for $2 from Redbox. I can own Louis CK's latest show forever for $5. Why is your content so much more expensive?

Thanks,
a fan

Re:Please justify $5 for one rental (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 6 months ago | (#46808785)

Dear fan,

I am sure that you can find many other entertainment content options that also cost significantly more than $5, especially among those available on the first day of theatrical release. Many of them also require you to get off your ass and go somewhere, rather than letting you enjoy your entertainment experience in bed, at home, on your tablet.

So, yeah. $5. It costs that much because we think it's worth that much, and because we think that enough people will agree with that assessment to make this business financially viable. In a very real and tangible way "what people will pay" is very much "what something is worth", at least for dollars-and-cents pricing decisions.

Sincerely,

Joss Whedon

P.S.: I'm funnier than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

Re:Please justify $5 for one rental (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46809685)

You also get your shows cancelled a lot more than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

Re:Please justify $5 for one rental (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808849)

Because your latest superhero blockbuster already made m/billions of dollars from $15 theaters tickets? and LCK's show is probably weeks / months old?

Re:Please justify $5 for one rental (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808907)

I can buy an older computer at a yard sale for less than a recent computer too. You may say that the new movie isn't necessarily better than old ones, but people already saw the old ones if they wanted to, so that's irrelevant. People are impatient and they get to pay for it. Nothing to do with this movie in particular. Wait a few years and probably this movie will be at a lower price point, if you can still get it.

Re:Please justify $5 for one rental (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46808941)

Prices don't have to be justified. Think it's too much? Don't rent it. Was that so hard?

FAKE! (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about 6 months ago | (#46808635)

This is false advertisement. You cannot purchase this as there is no place to download this ...

Summary lacks important details (1)

neminem (561346) | about 6 months ago | (#46809475)

Like, say, what kind of movie it is. I had to google to find out anything about the movie itself, rather than just its distribution strategy - apparently it's a "supernatural romance" about two people, not currently in a relationship with each other, who realize that they can communicate psychically with each other over any distance.

That, coupled with the Whedon name, does seem interesting enough to give it a shot. It is pretty lame of him to only release it via a streaming-only site, but you know what? I'm sure there'll be a way around that. I have no problem tossing him 5 bucks anyway, and then immediately turning around and figuring out a way to get the results onto my hard drive one way or another. I can't imagine Whedon would mind, either; he's a pretty cool guy. :p

I can solve the mystery for you (0)

Silvrmane (773720) | about 6 months ago | (#46810021)

Wheddon is an over-rated, talentless hack. Nothing he does really succeeds because of this simple fact. With the single exception of Cabin in the Woods, the bulk of his output is unwatchable, unenjoyable dreck. I suspect, for this reason, that Cabin in the Woods was an idea stolen from someone else.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?