Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   TheBiblioholic, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:12pm

   
   

   Perhaps they wanted the promotion to look professional rather than crappy pirated hamdheld camcorder in low light quality?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Frenchy Frog, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:38pm

   
   

   Who turns down free publicity?

   Obviously the entertainment industry's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Who in their right mind would want to refuse free publicity? All they needed to do was turn a blind eye and let the promo speak for itself.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Stute, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:39pm

   
   

   Re:

   I've seen that happen a few times, but it could just as easily be lawyers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Chris Maresca, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:41pm

   
   

   Or it's just guerilla marketing

   Music companies often release 'studio recordings' of yet-to-be released albums to music fan sites. This helps build buzz and sales, and is usually followed, some weeks later, with a takedown notice.
   
   Perhaps movie studios are attempting to do the same thing.
   
   Chris.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Sanguine Dream, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:43pm

   
   

   Hook, line, and sinker...

   This is nothing but an attempt at a viral publicity stunt. All they did was release the trailer in a limited capacity on purpose and when the other methods came into effect they cry foul.
   
   The entertainment industry may be immoral and unethical but they are not stupid. It looks to me like someone has finally learned how to use the Streisand Effect to their advantage.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 7:13pm

   
   

   Re: Hook, line, and sinker...

   No, I'm pretty sure they're stupid.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Matt, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 7:23pm

   
   

   incorrect?

   "Perhaps we should just be thankful that Paramount hasn't tried to have the people who filmed the trailer arrested."
   
   umm... according to the article that you linked to, the guy recorded the whole film, not just a trailer".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Bah who needs one, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 7:34pm

   
   

   Why hasn't there been any top-level post by Mike Masnick in a week?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 8:41pm

   
   

   Maybe Paramount doesn't want to be the first motion picture company to say it's ok to post our copy written matterial, even though they know it's helping generation buzz about the movie. On a side note it's going to be another godzilla movie. That or Mr.Stay Puft is getting his own movie.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 10:42pm

    
    

    Re: incorrect?

    no they didn't, RTFA

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 11:37pm

    
    

    Re: Re: incorrect?

    I did RTFA... here's the bold print at the beginning of it
    
    "A man has been arrested under tightened anti-piracy laws in New York after allegedly recording the sci-fi blockbuster Transformers."
    
    It doesn't say he recorded the Trailer for it...it says he recorded the "sci-fi blockbuster Transformers"...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    spydrlink, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 2:21am

    
    

    Trailer Pull

    Honestly, I saw the YouTube version a day before I saw Transformers (so last Thursday). I went to the movie and didn't see the preview for "Cloverfield" at all. Needless to say, when I saw the version on YouTube it looked like it could be a great film and it definitely made me want to go see it when it comes out. But...I wouldn't have known about it unless it was put up on YouTube.
    
    Some point in the future the movie studios will understand the benefit of reaching wider audiences and free publicity. That sounds like a good business model to me...more reach for less cost.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 3:00am

    
    

    I had never heard about Cloverfield before

    you mention it. So i guess the buzz is working....

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 4:58am

    
    

    Cloverfield trailer is now up Apple's Website

    Looks like Paramount may have given in somewhat: The trailer can now be viewed via Quicktime on Apple's Movie Trailer site.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    swany, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 5:30am

    
    

    Trailer

    Can someone tell me why Paramount would want a crappy looking version of their trailer on Youtube? Has anyone considered that they do not want to be represented by a low quality product?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    The infamous Joe, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 5:52am

    
    

    Trailing.

    Can someone tell me why Paramount would want a crappy looking version of their trailer on Youtube? Has anyone considered that they do not want to be represented by a low quality product?
    
    1. I find it hard to believe that if Ladiesman217 puts up a trailer on youtube that is poor quality that anyone will think that means the *movie* is also going to be poor quality.
    
    2. Instead of being asshats, Paramount could have simply uploaded a good quality trailer on youtube-- which would have certainly become more popular than the same trailer in poorer quality-- free hosting of your tailer *plus* you don't look like a control-hungry asshat. Bonus!
    
    3. The more people that see a commercial (which is what a trailer is) the more people who are likely to become interested in the product-- regardless of the picture quality of said commercial. More exposure (especially free exposure) is better than less exposure when it comes to a commercial.
    
    They *still* don't get it, it seems.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 6:03am

    
    

    So I guess this means that these people were also there to record "Transformers" while they were at it. Maybe that's what Paramount is pissed off about.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 6:47am

    
    

    Not that hard to figure out really. Remember Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? People went out of their way to see movies they wouldn't normally see just to get a glimpse at a trailer for a major blockbuster. Paramount (and whoever else) just wants the same thing to happen here, even though at $140 mil+ I don't think Transformers is in need of that kind of push.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 7:00am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: incorrect?

    jeez, moron. "Perhaps we should just be thankful that Paramount hasn't tried to have the people who filmed the trailer arrested."
    
    "people who filmed the trailer" are different people than the guy arrested for camcording the entire film.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    TravisO, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 7:55am

    
    

    Re: incorrect?

    What article did you read? The movie isn't even finished filming yet! The ONLY thing that exists is a trailer.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Gustavo, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 8:10am

    
    

    They must be thinking "Hey, these folks must be going to see Transformers because of the Cloverfield trailer, not the other way around."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Chris Maresca, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 8:52am

    
    

    Re:

    Probably because it's been vacation week here in the US. Not everyone can work 365 days a year....
    
    Chris.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Team Tutorials, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 10:17am

    
    

    It makes perfect sense. If I want to see the trailer I should have to pay $8.50 and sit through 40 minutes of them.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 10:56am

    
    

    trailers are a buffer for candy, snacks, a smoke or just being late...otherwise there annoying :P to pay 10 bucks and being forced to watch another hollywood BS movie commerical save it for the free tv :)
    
    hey people, STOP advertising there movies, they dont want it so dont do it...its there loss realy. let them pay the money for a proper commerical lol....MPAA=retarted.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Mischa, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 7:58pm

    
    

    Re: incorrect?

    You misunderstood. The first link is about someone filming the trailer. The last link is about someone else who was arrested.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Enlightenment, Jul 10th, 2007 @ 10:19pm

    
    

    Thought about how the sole purpose of the lawsuit was to generate publicity? Thought about how I can still find the trailer on YouTube? Though about how the only reason I know about this movie is because of the lawsuit?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    swany, Jul 11th, 2007 @ 8:36am

    
    

    Re: Trailing.

    1. I find it hard to believe that if Ladiesman217 puts up a trailer on youtube that is poor quality that anyone will think that means the *movie* is also going to be poor quality.
    
    It is all about image. If I spent millions on a product like this, I sure as heck do not want a second rate version of my product available for people to see.
    
    2. Instead of being asshats, Paramount could have simply uploaded a good quality trailer on youtube-- which would have certainly become more popular than the same trailer in poorer quality-- free hosting of your tailer *plus* you don't look like a control-hungry asshat. Bonus! They *still* don't get it, it seems.
    
    If they still don't get it, why is the trailer available on the Apple web site? And why are there still multiple trailers still on Youtube?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    PRMan, Sep 6th, 2007 @ 3:15pm

    
    

    Has anyone thought about...

    Has anyone thought about the fact that Apple and Paramount probably have a deal that they are the only ones who are supposed to have the trailer exclusively online, to generate traffic for Apple.com?
    
    Paramount is probably "sending takedown notices for free publicity" because of an exclusive contract with Apple.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment