my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Why are they sneaking Ratatouille? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Why are they sneaking Ratatouille? John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-22-2007 08:01 AM                     I wonder why this is? Surely PIXAR's name is enough to satisfy the quality of the film. It's a bad idea. The cam-corders will be going nuts.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 06-22-2007 09:05 AM                    I was wondering that too. Best I can figure is that the name is scaring people away from it. It seemed that was the case with "Cars" too, at least for us. It started off slowly, then appeared to pick up a few weeks later.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-22-2007 09:12 AM                     I cannot fault PIXAR so far...so one would assume they know what they're doing, but in my opinion sneaking this is just a bad idea. The pirates must be wetting themselves.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-22-2007 09:50 AM                     I thought Pixar already did their sneak preview of Ratatouille last weekend. The sneak preview was also a very limited thing. No theaters near where I live played it. Perhaps some theaters in the Dallas area may have ran the sneak preview; I don't know. If Disney and Pixar are running another sneak preview this coming weekend, the same booking situation must still be in place.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-22-2007 10:27 AM                     What title is it sneaking with? They use to do that to boost the older feature's grosses for the night.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 06-22-2007 11:19 AM                    We ran the sneak of it last weekend. It took the place of Pirates. However, it was not a stay and see and Ratatouille had it's own movie number to track receits. Not running the sneak this weekend.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-22-2007 01:34 PM                     I've seen other sneak previews run and not be tied with other releases. I watched Chicago in a sneak preview at our local Carmike theater in THX-DTS. Then the print moved down the street to play in the glory of mono and crappy projection at the rival Cache 8 theater.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-22-2007 02:02 PM                        I have a feeling this is really going to be a word-of-mouth movie. (If people like it, that is.) - Strange title that most people won't be able to pronounce - It's a rat movie - The main character wants, not to save the world, but to be a chef Not exactly the stuff that drives huge opening week numbers. I can see why they're doing the sneaks. As for the camcording pirates...maybe they'll have the dudes with the infrared vision out in force?  |  IP: Logged Thomas Pitt Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: May 2007 posted 06-22-2007 03:19 PM                     Or perhaps they could install a large array of IR lamps behind the screen, and blink them in a random sequence. That would play havoc with the camcorder recording, resulting in 'blotchy' or 'bleached' pictures on the tape - while still being invisible to people watching. I'd probably go and see Ratatouille whenever it comes out, be it at a preview screening or on general release. Pirates 3 didn't have any preview screenings in this country, but I went and saw it the day it came out So far, it's not even showing on the 'coming soon' list on the Vue website though...  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-22-2007 03:23 PM                        None of this matters; there's already a crappy pirated version floating around online.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 06-22-2007 04:25 PM                     quote: Thomas Pitt Or perhaps they could install a large array of IR lamps behind the screen, and blink them in a random sequence. That would play havoc with the camcorder recording, resulting in 'blotchy' or 'bleached' pictures on the tape - while still being invisible to people watching. 1) What makes you think that'll stop the people from selling the pirated copy? 2) What makes you think that'll stop others from buying it? If someone uses a camcorder and someone else does this, what'll happen is either the pirates will watch it, not care, and sell it anyway or not watch it then sell it anyway. And the people buying the pirated copy won't know it looks like shit until they've already been had.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 06-22-2007 04:36 PM                     I think the sneak was for 2 reasons.......... 1) The strange title and subject matter (realistic rat as chef)of Ratatouille. They wanted some people to see it to get word of mouth out there about how good it is. 2) To help the POTC: At World's End gross and make sure it gets over $300 Million with no problem which is very important. I have a feeling #2 was a bigger part of the decision to do it. As for the IR thing and camcording. If this was done, wouldn't the bootleggers just figure out how to put an IR filter in front of the lens?  |  IP: Logged Christopher Meredith Expert Film Handler Posts: 126 From: Jackson, MS, USA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 06-22-2007 04:55 PM                        LOL @ people seriously worried about "pirates"  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 06-22-2007 05:04 PM                     The $300 million mark for "Pirates" is important to Disney for reasons other than ego and a press release. As they say............follow the money!  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 06-22-2007 11:57 PM                    quote: Lyle Romer 2) To help the POTC: At World's End gross and make sure it gets over $300 Million with no problem which is very important. The monies made from the sneak of Ratatouille where reported as Ratatouille not as pirates grosses. It had it's own movie ID number for gross reporting. It was not a stay and see, it was a fill and spill.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.