DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[crookeddy]

The post from @crookeddy that I've quoted and responded to above directly contravenes this argument.

Actually most of your quotes do nothing of the sort. For example "there are ways around these kinds of rules" was actually about the company, some time in the future, finding a legal way to release the movie.

One more thing to clarify is that when I said I spent most of my life "here", that means USA. Which is why I don't endorse piracy of anything you can actually buy. I am sure that if I spent my life in Ukraine I'd be one of the people posting about torrenting on here

 

[fireproof78]

Openly advocating or expecting people to break laws related to copyright and trademark as if they somehow have an obligation to do so is entirely at odds with a respect for or at least an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of laws.

Indeed but apparently we are misinterpreting intent here. Supposedly.

But, I agree. Regardless of consequences I am hard pressed to say "Yup, break the rules. Please, for my sake. That would be awesome." Slight tongue in cheek but that's how I feel.

It's kind of like a training I attended as a manager of an organization around employee theft and why it happens. It largely comes down to feeling underpaid and resentful, or that they are entitled to it for the hard work they do. I get a similar sense here that being fans there is an expectation, partially understandable, to see the movie. There is also a resentment, completely understandable, towards the new powers that be of WB, and how they are running things. So, coupling these two things together seems to lead to a conclusion that a leak is perfectly reasonable and rule breaking is allowed because of the above factors. For some it appears that 2+2=4. For me it sounds more like 2+2=10 and here's a long, convoluted formulation to understand it.

Actually most of your quotes do nothing of the sort. For example "there are ways around these kinds of rules" was actually about the company, some time in the future, finding a legal way to release the movie.

And if the company decides to do so more power to them.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

On the consumer side? Of course there is. Here we have in the Batgirl movie a piece of art. That is not a judgement of quality, that is simply acknowledging a work in a medium considered an artform, in this case film.

Above all else, it is a good created to make a profit. Its value as "art" is purely subjective, and no consumer has a right to access or obtain that which is legally owned by another entity unless said entity makes it available for public consumption. That is reality. What you are saying is not.

So, while it may be legally clear-cut, morally it is absolutely debatable

Theft and/or distribution of a company's property does not exist in some "gray zone". If you understand what a moral argument is, then you should understand that no one outside of WB has any right to their property. That will always be the paramount concern because you're dealing with the manufacturer's property, not a production that's fallen into the public domain.

It scored similarly "low" as other movies that have been released to great acclaim, like the It movies, which went on to be very popular and make a lot of money.

Screenings are not boiled down to "like" / "don't like" choices. The participants are tasked with judging numerous aspects of a film or TV pilot, and from those elements a collective judgement is rendered, so despite two films scoring 60%, the details determine everything from re-shoots, replacing performers, highlighting performances that registered well, and yes, projects can be cancelled. To that end, Batgirl's score does not mean it was considered of equal value to Black Adam in terms of performance, a coherent story, and other factors. It is almost a certainty that it had more negatives than positives.

 

[Christopher]

Regardless of consequences I am hard pressed to say "Yup, break the rules. Please, for my sake. That would be awesome."

I refer you to crookeddy's answer in comment 7336, which you already acknowledged as an effective counterargument. So it's disingenuous to go back to this insulting straw-man misrepresentation of what people are arguing for.

Nobody's saying "that would be awesome." It's more like hoping it might provide some slight amelioration for a situation that's already terrible. Yes, leaking would be morally questionable, but I would argue that Zaslav's tax write-off scheme is far more morally questionable and hurts a lot more people than leaking the film would.

 

[fireproof78]

I refer you to crookeddy's answer in comment 7336, which you already acknowledged as an effective counterargument. So it's disingenuous to go back to this insulting straw-man misrepresentation of what people are arguing for.

Humor is a lost concept on the Interweb, even though I noted it was hyperbole and meant as tongue-in-cheek. So, please do not take that particular quote seriously. However...

Nobody's saying "that would be awesome." It's more like hoping it might provide some slight amelioration for a situation that's already terrible. Yes, leaking would be morally questionable, but I would argue that Zaslav's tax write-off scheme is far more morally questionable and hurts a lot more people than leaking the film would.

But, more to your point, that Zaslav's scheme is morally questionable does not ameliorate the moral question of leaking it. As @TREK_GOD_1 notes this is WB's property and leaking it is illegal, and morally questionable. The circumstances suck but adding to the wrongness doesn't strike me as right. Which I am serious about and don't agree with.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Above all else, it is a good created to make a profit. Its value as "art" is purely subjective, and no consumer has a right to access or obtain that which is legally owned by another entity unless said entity makes it available for public consumption. That is reality. What you are saying is not.

A stance as objectistic as it is reductionalistic. Yes, it is a good created to make a profit, but the studio chose not to make a profit. In fact, they chose to make a loss on this, as their tax write-off doesn't come close to covering the costs.

As for property, you are arguing on the basis of American law, not moral. The German constitution (Grundgesetz), for instance, says that "property entails obligation. Its use shall also serve the public good" (Article 14.2). Now, would you argue that the German constitution is immoral?

So, yes, being a work of art absolutely makes a difference, and that goes for any film produced under the assumption that it was meant to be released. The people who worked on the film worked on it for it to be seen. And while legal ownership is obvious, moral ownership, when it comes to a work of art, is not as clear cut.

Theft and/or distribution of a company's property does not exist in some "gray zone". If you understand what a moral argument is, then you should understand that no one outside of WB has any right to their property. That will always be the paramount concern because you're dealing with the manufacturer's property, not a production that's fallen into the public domain.

But who is stealing? Is it even stealing, in a moral sense, when there is no damage to the owner? And how would the consumer be stealing? If I remember correctly, illegal streaming was legally a very gray area just a few years ago, as there wasn't even a copy being made. And that was about films and TV shows that were legally released.

The consumer would not be stealing a leaked film. The consumer would merely watch it. The illegal distribution would be done on the part of the leaker and any platform showing the leaked film.

And I notice that you still ignore my question regarding Snyder leaking material from his version of Justice League WELL before HBO Max came along. Was Snyder stealing there? Did you look at the pictures he posted online? If so, were you stealing, then?

Screenings are not boiled down to "like" / "don't like" choices. The participants are tasked with judging numerous aspects of a film or TV pilot, and from those elements a collective judgement is rendered, so despite two films scoring 60%, the details determine everything from re-shoots, replacing performers, highlighting performances that registered well, and yes, projects can be cancelled. To that end, Batgirl's score does not mean it was considered of equal value to Black Adam in terms of performance, a coherent story, and other factors. It is almost a certainty that it had more negatives than positives.

Which means, the test screenings aren't evidence for the films quality one way or the other. Which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[crookeddy]

I think they are saying that the immoral thing is that a leak would break the law as its currently written (despite not actually harming anyone or anything). So the argument is that breaking any laws/rules is immoral.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

And, let's also not forget, TG1 said:

..and anyone identified as one of the participants in a leak should face the legal consequences for such an act.

It wasn't "WB/D has a right to seek prosecution of participants in a leak", because obviously, if there were leak, WB/D would absolutely have the right not to do anything about it. But instead, TG1 pretty much demanded such legal actions.

 

[crookeddy]

And, let's also not forget, TG1 said:

It wasn't "WB/D has a right to seek prosecution of participants in a leak", because obviously, if there were leak, WB/D would absolutely have the right not to do anything about it. But instead, TG1 pretty much demanded such legal actions.

Yeah, the only conclusion is that this poster is the one who wants there to be consequences, but somehow thinks there is a moral high ground in the stance. Baffling.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Meanwhile, as was predictable and thus has been predicted by pretty much everyone, the Bruce Timm/Matt Reeves Batman animated series has garnered "intense interest" from Apple, Hulu and Netflix.

 

[crookeddy]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...eks-to-save-the-flash-warner-bros-1235206763/

Apparently the movie has the highest DC movies scores in the test screening since Nolan. Interesting, among reports that pretty much all the other movies about to come out got terrible marks, including the cancelled Batgirl. Now, I wonder if these results are for the version after reshoots or before...

 

[YLu]

Leaking the Batgirl film is illegal but I’m honestly baffled that anyone would consider it immoral, given the circumstances. Immoral how?

 

[crookeddy]

Leaking the Batgirl film is illegal but I’m honestly baffled that anyone would consider it immoral, given the circumstances. Immoral how?

It's one of the most victimless crimes I can imagine at this point... As someone stated above, not like piracy at all.

 

[Samurai8472]

Ezra Miller met with WB/Discovery leadership over the week

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...Ea9Eb1YelC8TIGDnLE-5QHxoZgLQbSxjFpH7Mt5yavGXQ

They were unfazed by the headlines that they have generated regarding their behavior, but they got spooked by the thought of their film being cancelled.

AKA They don't give a damn about trying to change, their apology was a lot of crock and they only said sorry when their lead in the film was threatened with being cancelled.

 

[JD]

If this goes all the way down the lowest level people, then I can almost guarantee you this will leak. Unless they confiscate everybody's mobile devices before they start it.

Since this post seemed to be part of what set this debate off, I just want to explain myself. I was not trying to encourage anyone to break the law, at this point I just see it as pretty much an inevitability that it will leak, and if it did happen, that would be a likely time for it to happen.

What about leaked screenplays? Kevin Smith's Superman Lives. George Miller's Justice League: Mortal. Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman. Never looked up one of those?

Damn, I didn't realize the Mortal script had lead.

Can we start whining about Scoob being cancelled now? It seems like it was closer to completion than Batgirl.

I'm actually really pissed about that one too. The first movie was a lot of fun, and I was really looking forward to more.

Screenings are not boiled down to "like" / "don't like" choices. The participants are tasked with judging numerous aspects of a film or TV pilot, and from those elements a collective judgement is rendered, so despite two films scoring 60%, the details determine everything from re-shoots, replacing performers, highlighting performances that registered well, and yes, projects can be cancelled. To that end, Batgirl's score does not mean it was considered of equal value to Black Adam in terms of performance, a coherent story, and other factors. It is almost a certainty that it had more negatives than positives.

As someone who has taken part in multiple test screeings, I can tell that, yeah in fact it does come down to like/dislike choices. When the movie is over, you're given a sheet with a list of parts of the movie, and it asked if you like or didn't like them, and why.

So the argument is that breaking any laws/rules is immoral.

Sorry about going off topic here, but this brought up an interesting question for me. For people who do feel that way, do you feel that way even if the rule/law itself is immoral? I don't, if the law is immoral, then morally there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Now, I don't know if actually break the law myself, since I wouldn't want to face the legal consequences, but I would fully support the people who did.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As for property, you are arguing on the basis of American law, not moral. The German constitution (Grundgesetz), for instance, says that "property entails obligation. Its use shall also serve the public good" (Article 14.2). Now, would you argue that the German constitution is immoral?

The German constitution is entirely irrelevant to an American corporation basing its creation and protection of its work within the American laws designed to protect it.

So, yes, being a work of art absolutely makes a difference, and that goes for any film produced under the assumption that it was meant to be released. The people who worked on the film worked on it for it to be seen. And while legal ownership is obvious, moral ownership, when it comes to a work of art, is not as clear cut.

"Meant to be released" does not in any way mean obligation. A film or TV production is first and last--a product. Those who worked on the product provided a service (labor) and in turn, were paid for said service. That relationship was not violated when WB decided to shelve their property, as the desire (from some who worked on Batgirl) for it to be seen is--again--not an obligation on the studio's part. You are performing an Olympian level of mental gymnastics all to get back to a false conclusion that by any means necessary, Batgirl footage should be accessed against the will and legal right of WB.

It does not work that way.

But who is stealing? Is it even stealing, in a moral sense, when there is no damage to the owner?

Again, you are performing an Olympian level of mental gymnastics all to get back to a false conclusion that by any means necessary, Batgirl footage should be accessed against the will and legal right of WB. In other words, fans' desires mean more than any societal / moral / legal acceptance.

That is what you are arguing.

The consumer would not be stealing a leaked film. The consumer would merely watch it. The illegal distribution would be done on the part of the leaker and any platform showing the leaked film.

Do you read what you're posting? Receiving stolen property is just that; the law does not focus only the means or vehicle used to obtain it. It cares that you obtained it. The recipients on the street had no right to it whatsoever.

And I notice that you still ignore my question regarding Snyder leaking material from his version of Justice League WELL before HBO Max came along. Was Snyder stealing there? Did you look at the pictures he posted online? If so, were you stealing, then?

Again, try as you might, I am not the subject. I did not see footage or images possessed by Snyder, but through a multitude of interviews and other close sources, I became well aware of the BTS issues in the wake of Whedon's disaster, and how Snyder wanted to finish his true JL. That sparked my support of the "Release the Snyder Cut" movement, so no, I am not part of the criminal chain you are so relentlessly supporting regarding WB employees and fans who have no issue with receiving stolen property in the form of the shelved Batgirl.

Which means, the test screenings aren't evidence for the films quality one way or the other. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Screenings are experience with the film, as opposed to you constantly dreaming up scenarios where Batgirl somehow was the opposite of the reactions to it / decisions by WB to shelve it. You are not basing your scenarios on fact.

As someone who has taken part in multiple test screeings, I can tell that, yeah in fact it does come down to like/dislike choices. When the movie is over, you're given a sheet with a list of parts of the movie, and it asked if you like or didn't like them, and why.

I've attended screenings as well, hence my statement on how its not so simple a decision--they want specifics--it is the way they gauge and/or fine tune the work. There's little to be gained by "yes" and "no".

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Humor is a lost concept on the Interweb, even though I noted it was hyperbole and meant as tongue-in-cheek. So, please do not take that particular quote seriously. However...


But, more to your point, that Zaslav's scheme is morally questionable does not ameliorate the moral question of leaking it. As @TREK_GOD_1 notes this is WB's property and leaking it is illegal, and morally questionable. The circumstances suck but adding to the wrongness doesn't strike me as right. Which I am serious about and don't agree with.

In some bizarre upending of law and morality, they are arguing that WB / Zaslav's decisions should give employees a "right" to illegally distribute a company's property and entitled "fans" a "right" to receive it. That said, if they ever faced legal consequences for receiving stolen property, they would cry out to the four corners of the world that they do deserve" their legal troubles.

 

[crookeddy]

In some bizarre upending of law and morality, they are arguing that WB / Zaslav's decisions should give employees a "right" to illegally distribute a company's property and entitled "fans" a "right" to receive it. That said, if they ever faced legal consequences for receiving stolen property, they would cry out to the four corners of the world that they do deserve" their legal troubles.

Ok we'll all agree with you once you explain why you support Snyder who openly revolted against the studio on social media, stole hard drives, and leaked set images completely violating his NDA.

Actually we don't need your explanation, we already know. You like his movies and don't WANT to be against him. Hypocrite. Sad.

 

[fireproof78]

In some bizarre upending of law and morality, they are arguing that WB / Zaslav's decisions should give employees a "right" to illegally distribute a company's property and entitled "fans" a "right" to receive it. That said, if they ever faced legal consequences for receiving stolen property, they would cry out to the four corners of the world that they do deserve" their legal troubles.

It comes down to how you view a film. Is it property of the company who funded it or property of the audience? How one views this will determine the moral view.

For me, the property owner has discretion over their property, to be used as they see fit. I, as a consumer, have no right to their property.

 

[crookeddy]

It comes down to how you view a film. Is it property of the company who funded it or property of the audience? How one views this will determine the moral view.

For me, the property owner has discretion over their property, to be used as they see fit. I, as a consumer, have no right to their property.

The thing is wb really don't care if this gets out. They just need to take some minimal security precautions to make sure the government doesn't think they leaked the movie for a profit. Nobody loses anything if it gets leaked. Unless of course the problem was the movie's quality after all.