Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies The Internet

Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand 137

Posted by samzenpus from the when-you-want-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand More

Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand

Comments Filter:

  • Looking forward to it! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slartibartfast ( 3395 ) * <kenNO@SPAMjots.org> on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:08PM (#46806933) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Quality? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:18PM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by SJHillman ( 1966756 )

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

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "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.

      • 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.

    • 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 Flam

      • 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.

        • 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...

    • $5 to watch a movie a single time!? Sounds like a huge ripoff. The most expensive cinemas in town cost less than that. The cheap ones cost about a fifth. And I only get to "rent" it, I can't even watch it again later, or with friends, etc.

      I'm sorry, but I'm just sticking to thepiratebay until you fix your business model.

      • It's a 72-hour rental, so you can watch it yourself and then rewatch it with friends a couple days later if you want. An option to own it would be nice, but I imagine that will come later.

        I don't know where you live, but $5 is half the price of a cinema ticket where I live.

  • Louis CK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:21PM (#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.

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

      That is more that blockbuster.

    • 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).

    • Yeah, but anybody would react like that after watching The Road. I only paid a couple of bucks to rent it on bluray and it still put me off of watching movies for a while. If I want that kind of experience again I could sit and poke my self in one eye with a rusty fork repeatedly for two hours until little bits of brain start to fall out.

      ps Not my favourite movie of all time. Definitely not top 5.

  • micro studio (Score:3)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:22PM (#46807055) Homepage

    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. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Slartibartfast ( 3395 ) * <kenNO@SPAMjots.org> on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:38PM (#46807205) Homepage Journal

      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. (Score:5, Funny)

        by lagomorpha2 ( 1376475 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:48PM (#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. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:56PM (#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: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )

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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )
          Renting those things takes a budget that indies (other than long-time industry veterans) tend not to have.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Lumpy ( 12016 )

            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 bac

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bankman ( 136859 )

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

      Well, the single person with a spare bedroom and the camera also features quite prominently on a number of porn video sites.... I hear.

  • 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.

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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Scowler ( 667000 )
        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: (Score:3)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )

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

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Scowler ( 667000 )
            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: (Score:2)

              by neminem ( 561346 )

              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 hi

            • 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

  • Careful! (Score:5, Informative)

    by lennier1 ( 264730 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:32PM (#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.

    • 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...

      • 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).

    • Except for the predictable end it's quite a nice movie.

      Thanks, asshat. Now I know that when I think I can predict the ending, I'm probably right. Just couldn't help yourself, could you.

      • Don't get your panties in a bunch, we're talking about Joss Whedon, not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
        In most of his work you can see the eventual outcome from miles away. It's the ride to get there that makes his work fun.

  • Rent vs own (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bram Stolk ( 24781 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @01:42PM (#46807255) Homepage

    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.

    • 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: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        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.

        • 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: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            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.

    • 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.

  • way to watch my favorite character die.

  • Please justify $5 for one rental (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MetalliQaZ ( 539913 ) on Monday April 21, 2014 @03:17PM (#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

    • 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 thi

      • 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.

        That doesn't make sense. Seeing it from home should be cheaper, since they don't need a huge cinema, lots of personel, cleaning people, rent, etc, etc. They just deal with server costs which a way lower.

        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.

        Cinemas cost less in different parts of the world. Maybe in the US a cinema costs $5, but not everywhere. Heck, even an Imax is around $5 where I live, and Imax is the most expensive one around.

        This movie costs $5 even in places where that's more than twice the daily salary.

    • 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?

      Because people are willing to pay $5 to watch it now. If Whedon's company is smart, the price will go down over time to pick up the folks who won't pay $5 to watch it out of the gate.

      If it goes down to $2 in a year, then to me that's better than 100% RoI in 1 year, so it's a great deal to m

    • Also, the thinking is probably along the line of theaters which charge at least $5 to see something immediately instead of waiting for rental. This is competing with theaters not with rentals -- and he must go up against the stigma of direct to rental movies (which are usually crap.)

      Movies make their money back BEFORE getting to rental. They spend about 1/3 marketing the things so that they make it back with the theaters or if it's a failure, they can make it back during rentals. Not all, but it seems lik

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

  • 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

  • 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.

    • Dr. Horrible sing along is the work of a hack?

      Avengers?

      Firefly?

      You so crazayyyyy

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close