Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?

from the perhaps-not.. dept

Last month, we wrote about Zombieland director Rhett Reese, complaining on Twitter that the fact that his movie was a top unauthorized download would make it that much more unlikely that there would ever be a sequel. Others picked up that claim and ran with it, as if this was proof that piracy was harming the movie business. The whole thing seemed curious to us, since the movie has been quite successful at the box office, and has made a ton of money. Given that, who cares how much it's pirated. If it can make a bunch of money, of course it's ripe for a sequel.

And, guess what? Despite all the doom and gloom about how Sony would never make a sequel, Variety is reporting (you guessed it!) that Sony is about to ink a sequel for Zombieland, which will be done in 3D. Shocking. Even though the movie was pirated so much, the studio still wants to make a sequel? Could it be that there really are some people who recognize that how much a movie is pirated doesn't really matter if the movie can still make a ton of cash?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    thublihnk (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 8:15am

    Sweet. Zombieland sequel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:04am

    Well...

    "Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?"

    Well, they thought that it had. Truly, they thought that after all the metaphorical bullets blasted into the Zombieland franchise by piracy, they thought it was dead. But apparently it takes something else to kill this sequel, because despite it's deathrows it got back up off the ground and continued to stumble and moan its way to us. Does that make the sequel undead? Is Umbrella Corp. involved in the reanimation of this movie? Have I beaten this one little analogy-pun to death yet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Danny, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:16am

      Re: Well...

      The problem is none of metaphorical bullets were metaphorical headshots so the sequel just kept coming. This sequel must powered by a serious virus of plague in order to take such punishment and keep moving.

      I guess the pirates need better weapons. Or maybe the people on Spike Tv's Deadlist Warrior need to do a Pirate vs. Zombie episode.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re: Well...

        I give it one or two more seasons before they DO start using mythical creatures on that show. I can't wait for Roman Centurion versus Chupacabra.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Danny, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Nah its all Cloud vs. Link (and don't bother cheering for Cloud. Link would own him).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            "Nah its all Cloud vs. Link (and don't bother cheering for Cloud. Link would own him)."

            Yeah, but then Sephiroth comes and rapes link, while Squall whimpers in the corner about his Sis....

            Okay, I've outnerded myself here....

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        slander (profile), Dec 6th, 2009 @ 2:10am

        Re: Re: Well...

        "I guess the pirates need better weapons. Or maybe the people on Spike Tv's Deadlist Warrior need to do a Pirate vs. Zombie episode."

        Throw in a few ninjas and laser-bearing sharks, and I do believe they'll have a winner on their hands...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lonestar, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:47am

      Re: Well...

      Piracy forgot rule number 4: Double Tap

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      alex, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:51am

      Re: Well...

      Zombieland Rule #2: Double Tap.

      Apparently they didn't do that to this movie.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:56am

      Re: Well...

      "Have I beaten this one little analogy-pun to death yet?"

      Not yet, it just got back up and hobbled off saying something about pirate brains and depth perception.

      (OK, now it's dead)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:59am

        Re: Re: Well...

        "Not yet, it just got back up and hobbled off saying something about pirate brains and depth perception."

        Did my anaology pun get infected by the Zombieland Sequel Virus, or ZSV, because I put them in such close proximity? Does that also open me to risk of becoming exposed to ZSV, creating undead sequels of myself?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 10:18am

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          It's possible. You and the presently not-undead puns must be put into quarantine under heavy guard for 24 hours.

          (Oh god, Virus? Douse that mean that this is another "infected" movie?)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:59am

      Re: Well...

      despite it's deathrows

      Death row: where prisoners sentenced to execution are kept
      Death throes: jerking and spasming in the process of death
      Death throws: killing with a thrown object such as a knife
      Death roes: The ovaries of dead fish
      Death hos: zombie prostitutes?
      Heathrow: London's international airport

      OK I'm really stretching now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    in3rtia (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:14am

    Double tap?

    I think piracy forgot rule #4.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:21am

    Mike, sure, the movie made tons of money. But how much money did they lose due to piracy? Gee, you don't know that do you?

    How much money did they gain because the movie was pirated and people saw that and decided to go to the movie. Gee, you don't know that either.

    I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:28am

      Re:

      Aren't you missing the point a little? Mike didn't provide any numbers. The point was that the director rattled his tiny little saber around whining about how there was no chance for a sequel because of piracy. Now there's a sequel. Ergo, he was wrong. And given that financing in Hollywood doesn't exactly proceed at a breakneck pace, it's likely that he KNEW he was full of shit....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re:

        Mike rarely provides numbers (he learned from the UK music numbers, don't get me started on that again). The reality is that whatever Zombieland made as a movie would have likely been more without rampant piracy of the movie, plenty of people saw it and didn't pay.

        However, the studio involved saw enough income to make it worth doing a sequel, and by moving it to 3D, they are perhaps hoping to both make it better to see it in a theater, and also to potentially have the type of content for "3DHD" TV which is coming down the pipe. A catalog of 3D material would be very good to dominate the early stages of that market if it happens.

        That Zombieland made money in spite of all the piracy is an indicate that the public are still willing to pay for this type of movie, which is good.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The reality is that whatever Zombieland made as a movie would have likely been more without rampant piracy of the movie, plenty of people saw it and didn't pay."

          I like how "reality" is what you think it is.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          However, the studio involved saw enough income to make it worth doing a sequel

          That's the whole point. There was piracy, and profit, and a sequel. All at the same time. Some insist the profit would have been greater without the piracy (probably with no evidence). Others insist that piracy is the only reason many people bought tickets to the movie or bought the DVD (probably with only anecdotal evidence). But it doesn't really matter. The known facts are that there was piracy (I think everyone agrees a great deal) and the movie made money. So those things can happen together, and the movie studios claiming they can't make money because of piracy is BS.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."

      What money? I thought that was the point.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."

      Better that than the studios using their skewed guesses to enforce laws that put people in jail for filming a birthday party as per another article today...

      Anyway, the point is that despite "piracy", the movie has been very successful. Despite having the option to download a copy at home, enough people still went out to see it to make $75 million domestically on a $23.6 million budget (so far, according to boxofficemojo.com). Not bad. Same for other recent successes like Paranormal Activity, Twilight: New Moon, The Blind Side and Precious - all significantly in profit.

      In fact, on that site, the only movies making significantly less than their total production budgets domestically are the 3 most expensive - Planet 51, 2012 and A Christmas Carol - both making lots of money, just not near their massive budgets. To my mind, that proves that excess, waste and quality are the things holding back profits for Hollywood, not "piracy". That's an educated guess for sure, but more productive than "waaaah! piracy!" in an industry that still tries to control aspects of its product that cannot be controlled...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        senshikaze (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:48am

        Re: Re:

        wait, how is 2012 considered "quality"?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Erm... that was my point :)

          2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far. I might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even. It's not considered a good movie generally, and seems to be a bloated, indulgent mess by all accounts.

          Zombieland - considered a good movie, definitely in net profit by all normal standards. Ditto Precious, $32 million on a $10 million budget. Ditto The Blind Side (72% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) - $100 million on a $29 million budget.

          There's a trend here...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 2:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I would love to hear a reasoned argument on this point that doesnt sound like a complete GreedTard(tm) rant about how they could have made EVEN MORE MONEY than the obscene amounts they already did.

            I think YOU make too much money and should be happy with what you have, now give me your wallet!

            To my mind, that proves that excess, waste and quality are the things holding back profits for Hollywood, not "piracy". That's an educated guess for sure...

            An actual "educated guess" might be that you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.

            2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far.

            Incorrect.

            I might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even.

            Incorrect.

            2012 has almost tripled it's production budget so far, and has made more money than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2009 @ 4:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              2012 hasn't made as much as New Moon. New Moon only cost 1/4 what it took to make 2012.

              And both of those works were pirated.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Alan Gerow (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I read it as a reference to a lack of quality.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CVPunk, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."

      There seems to be a whole lot of guessing going on here.

      "Mike, sure, the movie made tons of money. But how much money did they lose due to piracy? Gee, you don't know that do you?"

      They didn't lose any money because of piracy. You are basing this on the assumption that these people would have paid to see the movie in the first place. Ah, more guessing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Danny, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:37pm

      Re:

      It might be guess but the fact is:

      The director whined about piracy wrecking the possibilty of a sequel and then about a week later a sequel is announced.

      Piracy did not stop the makers from opting to do a sequel.

      The makers of the Die Hard movie decided it was good enough for a sequel back in the late 80s before piracy.

      The maker of Zombieland decided it was good enough for a sequel in this day and age when "OMFG teh piraceee wil k|ll us!!!!"

      The moral of story is that while piracy does happen it is NOT doing as much damage to the movie industry as they want us to think.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:29am

    Fine

    "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."

    Fine, you want to play Big Media Shill? Ok then. Shove this down your shorts:

    Wolverine movie - a leaked, incomplete copy released weeks before the movie. Movie made over $200 mil domestically.

    Dark Knight. HEAVILY pirated, multiple versions/copies available. 2nd biggest earning movie

    OF

    ALL

    TIME

    You can bleat all you want like a sheep about "but it could have made more" or whatever, but really, are these movies FAILURES because of "piracy"? Did "piracy" KILL them? KILL the industry? Please...enlighten us. I would love to hear a reasoned argument on this point that doesnt sound like a complete GreedTard(tm) rant about how they could have made EVEN MORE MONEY than the obscene amounts they already did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Reasoned argument, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:11am

      Re: Fine

      Two bad analogies.

      1: Wolverine was unfinished at the time of the leak and

      2: There was considerable hype over the Dark Knight because of Ledgers death

      It was inevitable that both movies would still perform well against piracy given these factors.

      Many others are less fortunate

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    An0n (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:39am

    Another B.S., P.O.S. 3D movie!?

    "Sony is about to ink a sequel for Zombieland, which will be done in 3D. Shocking."

    It was bad enough I had to sit through a crappy, pseudo-thriller with cheesy 3D and glasses that hurt my head (RE: My Bloody Valentine 3D). Now I have to watch more funny rules fly out of the screen? Come on...3D is a fad that needs to just die. Until I can see in 3D without the headache of those glasses (ie, a holographic movie), leave 3D alone. I beg of you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:14pm

      Re: Another B.S., P.O.S. 3D movie!?

      Now I have to watch more funny rules fly out of the screen?

      Nope, you sure don't. It's really, really, easy to not see a movie you don't want to see. Actually easier than seeing it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:46am

    night of the living sequel

    there is just so many zombie jokes and puns for this that I can't think straight.

    So who has the best pun?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 9:56am

    IF YOU DON'T LIKE PIRACY GET OUT OF THE SHIPPING BUSINESS!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sergio, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:05am

    Lost Sales?

    Piracy does not equal lost sales. I personally know MANY people and have read posts by MANY people and have spoken to MANY people who have watched a pirated movie with no intention of ever seeing the movie in theaters. Many times I have spoken to people and myself included who saw a bootleg and liked it so much that they saw it in the theater or bought the DVD and also saw the sequels in theaters when released.

    There may not be good evidence to support either side, but I truly believe that movie piracy helps much more than it harms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:08am

    no, it just means that they are going to scream and cry about the money they lost to piracy rather than understanding that believe it or not, i dont have a home theater with DTS and a 20 foot high screen to watch movies on which is a value to me that i cant get from watching the movie on my laptop...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Benjie, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 11:45am

    bahh

    They should implement a new law. You can't sue for copyright infringement if

    A) You pay off all costs related to the production/R&D and made a 10% profit

    and

    B) The person infringing isn't making money, is not using the copy right for work, and can't reasonably afford afford purchasing the content

    It should be the infringer's responsibility to show proof of income/bills to prove he can't reasonably afford. If the infringer makes less than $300 profit per month after bills/taxes/etc, they would be considered unable to purchase

    Since any decent movie/song/etc worth pirating would pay off R&D easily, this idea would make it so poor college students wouldn't get sued and that guy making $100k a year with money burning a hole in his pocket would get what's coming to him for not actually spending his money. And you don't get these #$%holes with millions in the bank running around suing poor people because they want MORE millions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    cc, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:01pm

    Sequels must be banned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 12:54pm

    is pirating equatable to taxation?

    "Could it be that there really are some people who recognize that how much a movie is pirated doesn't really matter if the movie can still make a ton of cash?"

    That sounds similar to taxing rich people more as they've already made money (and will continue to make money regardless of how much they're taxed). Does that make it right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Sergio, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 1:06pm

      Re: is pirating equatable to taxation?

      It's never right, but it would make sense that they wouldn't care that they were being taxed more if that rich person's income was directly dependent on keeping the government happy with them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 1:05pm

    Actually, unauthorized copying of the movie probably is the only reason there IS a sequel (I don't believe that a movie can be pirated. A boat, yes, movie, no...). If EVERYONE who downloaded a copy of the movie paid to see it, they would have made so much money (according to the studios), that they would have been too busy spending it to make a sequel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Dec 4th, 2009 @ 4:30pm

    um...nope, missed again

    "I think YOU make too much money and should be happy with what you have, now give me your wallet!"

    Wow, talk about missing the point ENTIRELY. I would try again, but I recognize futility when I see it. FAIL.

    "2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far.

    Incorrect."

    No, its correct. Learn how to google. $142 gross domestic so far. 'The film was eventually made with a production budget of $200m – $260m'

    "It might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even.

    Incorrect.

    2012 has almost tripled it's production budget so far, and has made more money than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined."

    Bwahahaha what the hell are YOU smoking? If it made triple its prod budget, it would be the #1 movie of all time. Wow you really are a COMPLETE and UTTER corporate shill, arent you? Your comments are not only idiotic, but are completely outside the bounds of reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2009 @ 4:36pm

      Re: um...nope, missed again

      He's an insider so he knows that the production budget of 2012 was grossly inflated. Standard Hollywood accounting practices. It didn't make any money except all that money that it made.

      Which is blamed on the pirates and not the accountants.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2009 @ 2:42pm

    Bwahahaha what the hell are YOU smoking? If it made triple its prod budget, it would be the #1 movie of all time. Wow you really are a COMPLETE and UTTER corporate shill, arent you? Your comments are not only idiotic, but are completely outside the bounds of reality.

    You and the other idiot are leaving out what is often the biggest market for big, dumb, blockbusters which is foreign.

    Which means if YOU somehow miraculously learned to google you would see that 2012 has indeed made more than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined. Which means it has long since "broke even" and has, in fact, almost tripled it's production budget, which means it will be one the few films that doesn't have to rely on home video and licensing...all of these facts contrary to what the first idiot said and you backed up.

    Therefore, You and the other idiot STILL do not know what you're talking about so please excuse me for making use of your own quote --

    "FAIL".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    the real victims..., Feb 14th, 2010 @ 8:56am

    Your stealing MY f@$%&king money!?

    Mike, you little piss ant, not only are you stealing money from the studios by pirating movies...but from everyone who worked on the film?! All the stuntmen who worked on the film, including myself, will lose a lot of money in residual payments due to piracy. And we depend on that money to feed our families. Yet here you are, you pompous little twerp, spouting off about how your only stealing from rich people so it's ok?! People who pirate movies are thieves...and a cowardly ones at that. You want to steal a mans money at least have the balls to look him in the eye and take it from him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This