Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 19, 2014 13:59:16 GMT -5
I can't speak for Sony, but what I read has them originally forcing theatre chains to show the film as planned and then dropping release plans as the big chains declined to show the movie.
I think Sony is still thinking about what to do but its not going to be quick as the theatre distribution channel for a big budget film dried up and Comcast refused to be part of a video on demand channel for them. Will they let it die, go to DVD, or reshoot part of the movie so its not North Korea? IDK.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:36:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 14:08:50 GMT -5
I can't speak for Sony, but what I read has them originally forcing theatre chains to show the film as planned and then dropping release plans as the big chains declined to show the movie.
I think Sony is still thinking about what to do but its not going to be quick as the theatre distribution channel for a big budget film dried up and Comcast refused to be part of a video on demand channel for them. Will they let it die, go to DVD, or reshoot part of the movie so its not North Korea? IDK. Agreed, they are in quite a bind with this with so much sunk cost already.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 20, 2014 15:21:47 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2014 15:33:46 GMT -5
candidly, i am almost as offended by the motion picture rating association, but that is another subject.......
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 20, 2014 22:49:57 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 21, 2014 10:19:19 GMT -5
Last night my husband said "I never thought I would see the day that Republican politicians and commentators would defend a Seth Rogan movie. The world just doesn't feel right."
LOL
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 21, 2014 12:07:36 GMT -5
this is a really stupid analogy. Salmon Rusdie is a much better one.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 21, 2014 12:26:31 GMT -5
I don't think either example is useful. Rushdie got his books published, he wasn't refused by publishers and had the need to self publish to get the word out.
I saw a few minutes of CNN yesterday when they had a Sony exec on. He made the very valid point that they do not own distribution channels so they can't force anyone to show the movie. If Rush is really steaming about this he could just use some of his money to buy some theatres or some small cable provider and get Sony to let him distribute the movie.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 21, 2014 12:30:07 GMT -5
Last night my husband said "I never thought I would see the day that Republican politicians and commentators would defend a Seth Rogan movie. The world just doesn't feel right." LOL Not only are they talking about it but they are spending their angst on Sony and apparently none on the Theatre chains who chose not to show it. Maybe FOX can pay for distribution rights and show it on TV.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2014 12:54:50 GMT -5
Just another gentle reminder that the Sony execs thought the movie was crap and was going to tank. I really don't think it took a lot to convince them to pull it. Mr. Limbaugh's contrast between the political reaction to the "Benghazi video" and the reaction to Mr. Rogen's movie being pulled is amusing but misses the mark. If the White House was consistent with their free speech rhetoric, they'd be demanding Mr. Rogen be tarred and feathered for inciting North Korean jihad.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 21, 2014 13:18:22 GMT -5
Just another gentle reminder that the Sony execs thought the movie was crap and was going to tank. I really don't think it took a lot to convince them to pull it. Mr. Limbaugh's contrast between the political reaction to the "Benghazi video" and the reaction to Mr. Rogen's movie being pulled is amusing but misses the mark. If the White House was consistent with their free speech rhetoric, they'd be demanding Mr. Rogen be tarred and feathered for inciting North Korean jihad. Its $42 million sunk cost. I think they want to get some of that back, but I guess you don't. Some movies don't make their production cost back until the foreign release money comes in.
One of the big theatre chains that refused to show the movie was a 1600 theatre chain in Canada. FWIW.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 21, 2014 13:18:37 GMT -5
I don't think either example is useful. Rushdie got his books published, he wasn't refused by publishers and had the need to self publish to get the word out.
I saw a few minutes of CNN yesterday when they had a Sony exec on. He made the very valid point that they do not own distribution channels so they can't force anyone to show the movie. If Rush is really steaming about this he could just use some of his money to buy some theatres or some small cable provider and get Sony to let him distribute the movie. the reason i think Rushdie works is that his books were pulled from bookstores, much like this film is being pulled from theatres.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 21, 2014 13:21:36 GMT -5
I don't think either example is useful. Rushdie got his books published, he wasn't refused by publishers and had the need to self publish to get the word out.
I saw a few minutes of CNN yesterday when they had a Sony exec on. He made the very valid point that they do not own distribution channels so they can't force anyone to show the movie. If Rush is really steaming about this he could just use some of his money to buy some theatres or some small cable provider and get Sony to let him distribute the movie. the reason i think Rushdie works is that his books were pulled from bookstores, much like this film is being pulled from theatres. But it wasn't pulled. It has not been shown. Even the premiere was canceled. There are rumors one can download bits of it from the Internet, but it is also expected those copies will contain malware.
You have to show it the theatre before you can actually pull it. If you refuse delivery, its really not a pull, is it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 21, 2014 13:32:01 GMT -5
the reason i think Rushdie works is that his books were pulled from bookstores, much like this film is being pulled from theatres. But it wasn't pulled. It has not been shown. Even the premiere was canceled. There are rumors one can download bits of it from the Internet, but it is also expected those copies will contain malware.
You have to show it the theatre before you can actually pull it. If you refuse delivery, its really not a pull, is it?
tomayto, tomahto.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 21, 2014 13:58:41 GMT -5
Just another gentle reminder that the Sony execs thought the movie was crap and was going to tank. I really don't think it took a lot to convince them to pull it. Mr. Limbaugh's contrast between the political reaction to the "Benghazi video" and the reaction to Mr. Rogen's movie being pulled is amusing but misses the mark. If the White House was consistent with their free speech rhetoric, they'd be demanding Mr. Rogen be tarred and feathered for inciting North Korean jihad. Its $42 million sunk cost. I think they want to get some of that back, but I guess you don't. Some movies don't make their production cost back until the foreign release money comes in.
One of the big theatre chains that refused to show the movie was a 1600 theatre chain in Canada. FWIW.
Another James Franco/Seth Rogen movie, 2013's This Is The End, grossed $126,041,322 world-wide ($101,470,202 in North America). A silly movie that made millions. Cost to make the movie: $32 million.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 21, 2014 16:48:41 GMT -5
I liked it- not the kind of movie I go to the theater to see though.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2014 20:21:48 GMT -5
Just another gentle reminder that the Sony execs thought the movie was crap and was going to tank. I really don't think it took a lot to convince them to pull it. Mr. Limbaugh's contrast between the political reaction to the "Benghazi video" and the reaction to Mr. Rogen's movie being pulled is amusing but misses the mark. If the White House was consistent with their free speech rhetoric, they'd be demanding Mr. Rogen be tarred and feathered for inciting North Korean jihad. Its $42 million sunk cost. I think they want to get some of that back, but I guess you don't. Some movies don't make their production cost back until the foreign release money comes in.
One of the big theatre chains that refused to show the movie was a 1600 theatre chain in Canada. FWIW.
You've also got to consider retaliation/blackmail costs, reputation costs, and opportunity costs. Blackmail/retaliation costs: Whatever else the hackers pulled out of Sony's databases could be leaked to damage the company. Intellectual property, more damning e-mails, spoilers for future projects, employee information, all of which Sony would pay handsomely to prevent from leaking. There's also the potential for public backlash against what some might consider to be a bigoted or inflammatory movie. Cyberterrorism is another consideration. All North Korea has to do is say, "Look, pull this movie if you don't want your retail servers to go down on Christmas and boxing week." You're talking about billions in revenue (not to mention angry, frustrated customers) hanging in the balance. Reputation costs: If the movie truly is a "desperately unfunny", offensive joke, Sony's name is forever attached to it. If it's so bad that movie theaters are pulling it, at least acceding to the North Korean demands means it doesn't get to stagnate like a puddle of slime in viewers' minds as the stinker movie you made. Opportunity costs: Consumers that aren't watching "The Interview" are watching other movies, some of them probably made by Sony or its affiliates. Every dollar not spent on watching "The Interview" isn't necessarily a dollar lost. A lot of those dollars are simply going to be redistributed over other movies. I think Sony execs knew exactly what they were doing when they pulled the movie. They know their business. They know the risks and rewards for all of the options, and they chose the option that was least harmful to their bottom line considering all the factors I just mentioned. In a capitalist system, that's precisely what they're expected to do. They're not going to take a bullet for free speech.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 21, 2014 20:57:49 GMT -5
OK so it is a decision by a capitalist global corporation- yet it is Obama's fault
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 21, 2014 21:15:57 GMT -5
Its $42 million sunk cost. I think they want to get some of that back, but I guess you don't. Some movies don't make their production cost back until the foreign release money comes in.
One of the big theatre chains that refused to show the movie was a 1600 theatre chain in Canada. FWIW.
You've also got to consider retaliation/blackmail costs, reputation costs, and opportunity costs. Blackmail/retaliation costs: Whatever else the hackers pulled out of Sony's databases could be leaked to damage the company. Intellectual property, more damning e-mails, spoilers for future projects, employee information, all of which Sony would pay handsomely to prevent from leaking. There's also the potential for public backlash against what some might consider to be a bigoted or inflammatory movie. Cyberterrorism is another consideration. All North Korea has to do is say, "Look, pull this movie if you don't want your retail servers to go down on Christmas and boxing week." You're talking about billions in revenue (not to mention angry, frustrated customers) hanging in the balance. Reputation costs: If the movie truly is a "desperately unfunny", offensive joke, Sony's name is forever attached to it. If it's so bad that movie theaters are pulling it, at least acceding to the North Korean demands means it doesn't get to stagnate like a puddle of slime in viewers' minds as the stinker movie you made. Opportunity costs: Consumers that aren't watching "The Interview" are watching other movies, some of them probably made by Sony or its affiliates. Every dollar not spent on watching "The Interview" isn't necessarily a dollar lost. A lot of those dollars are simply going to be redistributed over other movies. I think Sony execs knew exactly what they were doing when they pulled the movie. They know their business. They know the risks and rewards for all of the options, and they chose the option that was least harmful to their bottom line considering all the factors I just mentioned. In a capitalist system, that's precisely what they're expected to do. They're not going to take a bullet for free speech. I agree its a complex issue. It was definitely a risk/reward decision for the big Theatre chains and Sony.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2014 23:25:46 GMT -5
OK so it is a decision by a capitalist global corporation- yet it is Obama's fault The only thing I've seen anyone blame Pres. Obama for in this thread is his inconsistency. Notwithstanding the lies about the "Benghazi video" being the cause of the attack on the embassy, a sore point with Pres. Obama's critics is that he seemingly threw free speech under the bus by condemning the video as an intolerable insult to Islam. It takes real hubris to then about face and condemn Sony for pulling a video mocking North Korea. His support of free speech flip flopping with the political winds is his fault. The debacle with this video is not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 22, 2014 1:16:48 GMT -5
OK so it is a decision by a capitalist global corporation- yet it is Obama's fault The only thing I've seen anyone blame Pres. Obama for in this thread is his inconsistency. Notwithstanding the lies about the "Benghazi video" being the cause of the attack on the embassy, a sore point with Pres. Obama's critics is that he seemingly threw free speech under the bus by condemning the video as an intolerable insult to Islam. It takes real hubris to then about face and condemn Sony for pulling a video mocking North Korea. His support of free speech flip flopping with the political winds is his fault. The debacle with this video is not. i don't believe he ever said that. Clinton did.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 22, 2014 9:15:46 GMT -5
Last night my husband said "I never thought I would see the day that Republican politicians and commentators would defend a Seth Rogan movie. The world just doesn't feel right." LOL Not only are they talking about it but they are spending their angst on Sony and apparently none on the Theatre chains who chose not to show it. Maybe FOX can pay for distribution rights and show it on TV.
The FCC would never allow it. Obviously I haven't seen the movie - but I can't imagine it is appropriate for network television. What evidence is there that any movie studio has ever viewed a completed film and decided to not release it because it wasn't high quality? There is a pretty long list of movies that suck that should have never been released, but they hyped it up, released it, made a few bucks on the first weekend and then quietly let it die. They don't just throw $60 million dollars into the garbage bin.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 22, 2014 9:26:49 GMT -5
Not only are they talking about it but they are spending their angst on Sony and apparently none on the Theatre chains who chose not to show it. Maybe FOX can pay for distribution rights and show it on TV.
The FCC would never allow it. Obviously I haven't seen the movie - but I can't imagine it is appropriate for network television. What evidence is there that any movie studio has ever viewed a completed film and decided to not release it because it wasn't high quality? There is a pretty long list of movies that suck that should have never been released, but they hyped it up, released it, made a few bucks on the first weekend and then quietly let it die. They don't just throw $60 million dollars into the garbage bin. Its possible you are right, it could not be on network TV. Given South Park is on Comedy Central and all the stuff on HBO, perhaps it could be viewed on those channels.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 22, 2014 9:40:47 GMT -5
Movie studios, for various reasons, sometimes skip a theatrical release and send a movie to direct-to-video to try to recoup some of the production costs. Reasons include "a low budget, lack of support from a TV network, negative reviews, its controversial nature, or a simple lack of general public interest." Direct-to-video
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 22, 2014 9:43:36 GMT -5
"This is the End" - their movie from a couple of summers ago would not even have been able to go through most of the cable channels. This one might not be quite so ballsy as that one was. Maybe HBO (I don't know the rules there), but they are owned by Time Warner, not Fox. Fox owns FXX - but even on the racy shows they show - I have never heard the f** word, which would likely be a problem. Given what else shows like Always Sunny, Archer and The League do and say, I doubt it is artistic license that makes them all say "What the sh*t" instead of "What the f*ck."
That is besides the point anyway. Politicians griping at Sony isn't going to make Fox (surprisingly not owned by the republican party) take that kind of security risk.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 22, 2014 9:46:52 GMT -5
Movie studios, for various reasons, sometimes skip a theatrical release and send a movie to direct-to-video to try to recoup some of the production costs. Reasons include "a low budget, lack of support from a TV network, negative reviews, its controversial nature, or a simple lack of general public interest." Direct-to-video They are having trouble with that strategy too. They would still have to get another major company involved. If they try and do "On-Demand" the cable companies would have to get involved. If they want to sell DVDs, they would have to Wal-Mart involved. If they want to stream it, they would have to get Amazon involved. We have yet to hear about a single other company that is rallying around Sony to help them get the movie out into the public. Everyone is just sitting back saying "Whimps" but not doing anything to help.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 22, 2014 9:52:03 GMT -5
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 22, 2014 9:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 22, 2014 10:00:01 GMT -5
Movie studios, for various reasons, sometimes skip a theatrical release and send a movie to direct-to-video to try to recoup some of the production costs. Reasons include "a low budget, lack of support from a TV network, negative reviews, its controversial nature, or a simple lack of general public interest." Direct-to-video They are having trouble with that strategy too. They would still have to get another major company involved. If they try and do "On-Demand" the cable companies would have to get involved. If they want to sell DVDs, they would have to Wal-Mart involved. If they want to stream it, they would have to get Amazon involved. We have yet to hear about a single other company that is rallying around Sony to help them get the movie out into the public. Everyone is just sitting back saying "Whimps" but not doing anything to help. Agreed. I have read there are some small theatres willing to show it, but I wonder what risk Sony would take financially if something did happen. At this point, releasing it to small theatres in 2015 might be the best option. If it goes OK, widen it up to wider release.
I think some of the bigger theatre chains are worried both about the bricks and mortar and being hacked themselves. Theatres with one or two screens aren't going to have exciting emails to release to worldwide readers.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 22, 2014 10:12:44 GMT -5
Have none of these people ever learned the rules of lying? They keep saying things that totally contradict what they said the day before. Do they think we won't notice?
|
|