To those saying they should release it online immediately, they probably can’t do that because of how complicated contracts are in Hollywood in terms of who gets what types of royalties from different media and when things can be released in what formats, who will get distribution rights, etc. There are probably agreements not to distribute it in some formats until certain times to allow they other media (whether theater or dvd or whatever a certain maount of time to get their revenue).
I mean, they can definitely release it online, but they probably need to do a shit ton of contract work first.
It depends on the movie, but the successful ones make back multiples of their production budgets from theatrical runs alone. Gone Girl cost almost the same as this stupid thing – $45 million – and as of the third week of November had made $157 million domestically and over $300 million worldwide from its theatrical runs. Interstellar cost $165 million to make, and as of the third week of November had already turned a profit on domestic theatrical runs alone and brought in $450 million worldwide. For these movies and many others, the video aftermarket is just gravy.
Doubt that threats alone are responsible for their change of tune compared to a few weeks ago. Their IT guys probably just now figured out the full extent of the leak and pointed out to the execs that the hackers are still holding on to some really juicy stuff.
I will take that bet. Seriously, I would like to make a friendly bet with you that the Interview movie will be seen.
Can we discuss terms of a bet in this thread? My bet is that:
The Interview starring Rogen and Franco will:
be released theatrically in the next year.
be released on home video, digital streaming, or some other “watch it at home” medium in the next year.
hit to the internet via a DVD/Blu-ray quality bootleg.
Is that too broad for you? Let me know terms of a friendly bet and what you think is fair and I’ll happily respond. No money or anything, just something fun.
Yeah, I saw that, too and yes – I can absolutely see “the industry” as making the straight dollar-and-cents decision that *anyone *taking a stand to make a “point of principle” would create a risk of reduction in overall ticket sales OR a Sony-style attack on one or more other studios (which is much more likely than any on-the-ground attack on a theater). Thus Paramount nixes the idea of running “Team America” instead. It becomes “no, we don’t want ANYTHING on the screens that weekend whose message is Fuck You North Korea, we’ve taken a big enough hit already”.
Seems Western audiences are going to have to revert for a while to imaginary nations and movements as the “enemies” in intrigue thrillers.
As referred to in earlier posts, American audiences got kind of used to this sort of stuff (references to real-life enemies) via prior lampoons of Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Q/Kh/Gaddafi, Kim Jong Il and the such in the last couple of decades but it didn’t use to be that way. Sure, during WW2 audiences in the USA enjoyed grotesque caricatures of Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo/Hirohito shown every month in comic book covers and moviehouse cartoons getting kicked in the face or bayonetted in the ass by every A-to-D-list action hero, and by their girlfriends, teen sidekicks and their girlfriends, and pets. But after that, I’m not sure if there was that much popular film/tv/comic material during the Cold War that would *specifically *call out Khruschev, Mao, Ho or Castro by name and show him being brought down.
I hadn’t planned to see this movie, as has been already said, it sounds like a piece of drek. But now I would be interested in watching it, just because I can’t.
Maybe people like me are going to be what Sony looks to, to try and somehow make money off of this film.
Oh calm down. Sony is still perfectly free to express themselves however they wish. There is no government keeping them from making their movies.
I guarantee that if there were some sort of terrorist event at a showing of this movie on Christmas day you would be the FIRST person to post a link to several articles about it and say “What was Sony thinking?!” with lots of wringing about “And on Christmas day!” with not one peep about how Sony were real champions of free speech, but maybe some words about how they are greedy capitalists and also Japanese.
I don’t think the Hays code would’ve let you call out a Ho. More seriously, the Twilight Zone episode with the exceedingly-Castro-like paranoid revolutionary-turning-dictator pointedly mentioned Castro so you knew he wasn’t Castro. :rolleyes:
You posted this in reply to the info about Steve Carrell’s movie being canceled, so I just want to point out that it’s not an “intrigue thriller” with an “enemy” but actually a true story about an American man that lived in NK for a year. I was quite interested in seeing it.
I agree a movie theater release would be reckless. There’s no way to ensure the public’s safety at that many locations.
The sensible thing to do is for Sony to setup a dozen web sites and let people download it. That eliminates the threat of an incident against the public. And still makes a stand against Internet extortion.
This isn’t my original idea. Its discussed in the CNN article I linked earlier.
I can only imagine what would happen if The Message (aka Mohammad, Messenger of God) were to be released today. IIRC, other than some protests at the Oscars trying to tell the Academy not to give it any awards (made by people unclear on the concepts that (a) it wasn’t even nominated for any Oscars, and (b) some protestors did the same thing at the following year’s Oscars, unaware that it wasn’t even eligible that year).
As for not releasing it in theaters, I did hear one valid reason; somebody was afraid that if it was released in a multiplex, then a lot of innocent people watching other films - including a lot of children - would be affected as well.
I heard that the main objection was that Kim Jong-Un dies in the movie. Maybe if they made a “North Korean Cut” where they try to kill him, but “he is too benevolent of a leader to be killed” and turns the tables on the would-be assassins, then end with a North Korean chilkdren’s choir singing his praises (yes, I was thinking of an episode of The Simpsons when I wrote that), then there wouldn’t be a problem?
On the sites at which the movie is available, Sony could ask for donations, as is done at Crowdrise and similar sites (oriented toward funding causes).
Of course the NK hacking crews would launch denial-of-service attacks at any sites involved, so there would have to be a lot of them.
Corporations are in business to make money. Nothing else matters. That’s not my personal belief, but I keep being told that by people who defend corporations and reading it here in many threads.
Corporations, therefore, are also cowards. They do not offend. They will back off whenever any bad publicity might affect them. That is a reality, and examples abound. What is the downside for Sony or the theaters? Are you Internet tough guys going to boycott them in the future by not going to them to watch movies you otherwise would? That’s a joke. You know you’re going to do no such thing. Nor would you do a thing if anyone got hurt because of your bluff and bluster.
Ironically, governments have courage. Governments stand up to threats. Freedom of expression is protected by governments, not corporations. There can never be a corporate libertopia. It’s only sad that it takes something like this to open peoples’ eyes to what should have been obvious from the first moment.
Freedom of expression is protected by the government from only the government…yet, there are examples where the government is happy to squash expression. Just try leading a prayer in a public school. Governments do not have any more courage than corporations. The government will be more than happy to violate your rights if you allow them.
More seriously, the Twilight Zone episode with the exceedingly-Castro-like paranoid revolutionary-turning-dictator pointedly mentioned Castro so you knew he wasn’t Castro. :rolleyes: