The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on December 18, 2014, 03:13:47 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/business/sony-the-interview-threats.html
Cowards. Looks like the bad guys win.
-
They're not releasing a film because of terrorist threats. A movie theatre is a contained area which is difficultto escape, great place for a massacre. Should we not take terrorist threats seriously? I mean, they're canceling a shitty movie not stealing our freedom
-
I'm not convinced this isn't just a marketing ploy.
-
I support the cancelation. We need less shitty films littering our media landscape.
-
I support the cancelation. We need less shitty films littering our media landscape.
How do you know it's shitty if you've never even seen it?
-
Anytime Seth Rogen isn't seen is a victory for humanity.
-
They're not releasing a film because of terrorist threats. A movie theatre is a contained area which is difficultto escape, great place for a massacre. Should we not take terrorist threats seriously? I mean, they're canceling a shitty movie not stealing our freedom
Of course terrorist threats should be taken seriously. They need to be investigated, and the perpetrators need to be found and brought to justice. What we shouldn't do is capitulate to them.
-
I support the cancelation. We need less shitty films littering our media landscape.
How do you know it's shitty if you've never even seen it?
Because it is.
-
Yes because that can be done in a week's time
-
Stop replying to Vauxy's shitposts.
Yes because that can be done in a week's time
I don't know what that has to do with anything. I'm not criticizing the government for not having already caught the culprits; I'm criticizing Sony and the movie theaters for giving in to their demands and publicly handing them a victory.
-
... You just said terrorist threats should be taken seriously and investigated... You cannot investigate a terrorist threat in a week, your only option, if taking the threat seriously, is to pull the film or embrace the slim possibility of getting people blown up on Christmas
-
The US government is saying that North Korea was behind the attacks and terrorist threats. It's not very surprising, but it's interesting/terrifying from an international perspective. North Korea sorta just declared war. I guess that's not new either, but... the US doesn't have a history of reacting well to government-sponsored terrorism. I'm interested to see how it'll play out. I hope no one dies over it.
-
The US government was probably funding The Interview, now that I'm thinking about it. It was mental terrorism not only on the pleasant inhabitants of North Korea and their leader.. but also against the people of the United States. It is basically a big subliminal message to poison the average US citizen's mind into believing that North Korea is a puny joke country, thereby making them more complacent when the US nukes the hell out of N. Korea and steals their land.
North Korea was completely justified in their call to war. We should be thanking them.
-
Wait... this movie is about killing a current, living leader of a nation?
WTF? Who thought this was a good idea?
-
Oh, come on. Do you actually think they withdrew the film for fear of threats? They've been handed an absolutely delicious marketing opportunity for a relatively tiny cost of paying compensation to cinemas for not releasing it.
Everybody is now talking about a film which, let's be honest, was unlikely to catch massive attention on its own artistic merit.
When they eventually decide to be 'brave' and release it in 6 months' time, people will flock to it to see what the fuss was about.
Marketeers using the Streissand Effect for their own profit.
-
When they eventually decide to be 'brave' and release it in 6 months' time, people will flock to it to see what the fuss was about.
Six months is too long. I give them until February.
-
Wait... this movie is about killing a current, living leader of a nation?
WTF? Who thought this was a good idea?
Wasn't that the partially the plot to Team America: World Police?
-
Wait... this movie is about killing a current, living leader of a nation?
WTF? Who thought this was a good idea?
Wasn't that the partially the plot to Team America: World Police?
It was. But that was back in 2004 before anyone gave a shit. It is similar to how South Park showed Muhammad back in 2001 and no one gave a shit, but it became a big deal in 2010 when they were going to do it again (or for a 3rd time).
-
Obama has weighed in:
http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/12/19/fbi-confirms-north-korea-responsible-for-sonyinterview-cyber-attack
“Yes, I think they made a mistake,” he said, according to Variety. “We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship in the United States.”
FBI confirms N. Korea was behind the threats. The lie continues.
-
And here it is.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/12/23/the-interview-will-get-a-limited-theatrical-release-after-all
It's coming out after all. ::)
-
I'm not convinced this isn't just a marketing ploy.
-
I'm not convinced this isn't just a marketing ploy.
You were wrong about February at least.
-
I think canceling wasn't a good marketing ploy, I think it'll scare many dum Americans away, they'll fear being attacked
-
I think canceling wasn't a good marketing ploy, I think it'll scare many dum Americans away, they'll fear being attacked
If we go to de meovies, the popcorn machine will eat us!
-
I think canceling wasn't a good marketing ploy, I think it'll scare many dum Americans away, they'll fear being attacked
It's all about recognition. Box office sales are good, but so are DVD/Bluray sales. If someone's afraid for their life going to the theater that person will probably pick it up retail.
Or they will pirate it.
-
A movie this mainstream getting such a tiny release is still a pretty terrible return on Sony's investment. If any of you think that this is vindication for the "It's all a marketing scheme!" theory, I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
-
A movie this mainstream getting such a tiny release is still a pretty terrible return on Sony's investment. If any of you think that this is vindication for the "It's all a marketing scheme!" theory, I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
Don't do that.
-
I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
Well, now that we have official Saddam reassurance, we can put that one to rest.
-
I still think it looks like a shit movie and will not be seeing it.
-
A movie this mainstream getting such a tiny release is still a pretty terrible return on Sony's investment. If any of you think that this is vindication for the "It's all a marketing scheme!" theory, I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
Because artificially limiting who gets to see it in theaters won't increase the amount of people buying the movie on DVD. Clearly only the great Saddam's marketing opinion matters.
Most movies don't even break even on theater releases. DVD release is when the big bucks are made.
-
I still think it looks like a shit movie and will not be seeing it.
-
Well, now that we have official Saddam reassurance, we can put that one to rest.
Quite.
Because artificially limiting who gets to see it in theaters won't increase the amount of people buying the movie on DVD. Clearly only the great Saddam's marketing opinion matters.
Most movies don't even break even on theater releases. DVD release is when the big bucks are made.
This isn't just wrong, it's ridiculous. Yes, DVD sales have sometimes turned box office bombs into financial successes, but the idea that any studio would be willing to bet on that happening to the agree that they deliberately sabotage their own box office prospects - and the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they could quite possibly make - is absurd.
-
This isn't just wrong, it's ridiculous. Yes, DVD sales have sometimes turned box office bombs into financial successes, but the idea that any studio would be willing to bet on that happening to the agree that they deliberately sabotage their own box office prospects - and the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they could quite possibly make - is absurd.
An argument that the idea of a marketing ploy is ridiculous still falls flat on its face. The idea that the movie release is limited by North Korea is entirely more ridiculous than a marketing ploy. This is the same country that threatens to nuke America at least once a year and also threatens South Korea with "unspecified consequences" because their Christmas tree is psychological warfare (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/24/north-korea-south-korea-christmas/1788827/). If we're going to choose theories based on how ridiculous they are, then the idea that this is just a marketing game by Sony is infinitely more likely than North Korea forcing them to not release it in theaters.
-
This isn't just wrong, it's ridiculous. Yes, DVD sales have sometimes turned box office bombs into financial successes, but the idea that any studio would be willing to bet on that happening to the agree that they deliberately sabotage their own box office prospects - and the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they could quite possibly make - is absurd.
An argument that the idea of a marketing ploy is ridiculous still falls flat on its face. The idea that the movie release is limited by North Korea is entirely more ridiculous than a marketing ploy. This is the same country that threatens to nuke America at least once a year and also threatens South Korea with "unspecified consequences" because their Christmas tree is psychological warfare (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/24/north-korea-south-korea-christmas/1788827/). If we're going to choose theories based on how ridiculous they are, then the idea that this is just a marketing game by Sony is infinitely more likely than North Korea forcing them to not release it in theaters.
But it doesn't have to be the government specifically. Could just be a loyalist with a computer and several incriminating e-mails.
-
But it doesn't have to be the government specifically. Could just be a loyalist with a computer and several incriminating e-mails.
If that were true, then why release the movie at all? Why would a hacker with incriminating information say "you can only release this movie in very small amounts or else!"? That doesn't make any sense, either.
-
But it doesn't have to be the government specifically. Could just be a loyalist with a computer and several incriminating e-mails.
If that were true, then why release the movie at all? Why would a hacker with incriminating information say "you can only release this movie in very small amounts or else!"? That doesn't make any sense, either.
Considering we're only getting one side of the story (the public side) there isn't much that will make sense, I think.
-
The Interview is now available for purchase on Google Play Store, ITunes, and other online stores.
Now we just wait for the sales figures.
-
So here's a theory:
There was a credible hack threat. They said they would stop release. Once they upgraded their security or somehow stopped the hacking from occurring, they then re-released it.
Or it's a giant publicity stunt.
-
A movie this mainstream getting such a tiny release is still a pretty terrible return on Sony's investment. If any of you think that this is vindication for the "It's all a marketing scheme!" theory, I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30620926
VERY, VERY WRONG
-
15 million dollars is nothing for a movie. They spent about 50 million on it
-
15 million dollars is nothing for a movie. They spent about 50 million on it
That's 15 million in four days, for a movie that hasn't gotten a widespread theatrical release yet.
-
15 million dollars is nothing for a movie. They spent about 50 million on it
I don't understand how you can take a statement like this:
Controversial Sony film The Interview has become the number one online movie ever released by the studio just four days after its release on 24 December.
And follow it up with "Meh, it's nothing extraordinary". We've already established that it is quite extraordinary, stating otherwise with no argumentation is just poor form.
Also, $15 million in 4 days and before it even premiered internationally seems like a good prognosis for profit.
-
15 million dollars is nothing for a movie. They spent about 50 million on it
That's 15 million in four days, for a movie that hasn't gotten a widespread theatrical release yet.
Oh, if it's getting a widespread theatrical release I agree. But I'd imagine most of the people planning on watching it online already have. I just can't see it making 50 million online given current stats
-
Oh, if it's getting a widespread theatrical release I agree. But I'd imagine most of the people planning on watching it online already have.
If by "people" you mean "Americans", you might have half a case there. Otherwise, you might want to wait until it's been released internationally.
-
A movie this mainstream getting such a tiny release is still a pretty terrible return on Sony's investment. If any of you think that this is vindication for the "It's all a marketing scheme!" theory, I assure you that you're very, very wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30620926
VERY, VERY WRONG
What does that have to do with it? I was talking about the tiny theatrical release. This is something quite different.
-
What does that have to do with it? I was talking about the tiny theatrical release. This is something quite different.
If they're making mad cash money bucks, who cares how they're making them? The marketing stunt clearly worked.
-
Also, $15 million in 4 days and before it even premiered internationally seems like a good prognosis for profit.
Are you suggesting that YouTube doesn't count as an international release?
-
Also, $15 million in 4 days and before it even premiered internationally seems like a good prognosis for profit.
Are you suggesting that YouTube doesn't count as an international release?
Considering that downloads were locked to the US to satisfy contract agreements with major stakeholders, no.
-
What does that have to do with it? I was talking about the tiny theatrical release. This is something quite different.
If they're making mad cash money bucks, who cares how they're making them? The marketing stunt clearly worked.
The method of release is relevant because Blanko is calling my claim that a limited theatrical release would not turn the film into a financial success wrong, apparently based on the fact that the online release is a success. I never made any grand overall claim that anything Sony ever tried to do to make money off the film was doomed to failure.
-
Are you suggesting that YouTube doesn't count as an international release?
Certainly. My parents, for one, would love to watch the movie, but they're going to wait for late January. The same applies to most non-English speakers. The population of Europe, for one, is twice that of the USA. You evil selfish imperialists, you.
The method of release is relevant because Blanko is calling my claim that a limited theatrical release would not turn the film into a financial success wrong
Well, yes, it is wrong. They did it, and now they're making mad cash because of it. The limited release turned it into a financial success.
-
Well, yes, it is wrong. They did it, and now they're making mad cash because of it. The limited release turned it into a financial success.
No, they're making mad cash because they released in online, not because of the theatrical release:
http://news.yahoo.com/interview-takes-1-million-limited-release-210559162.html
-
What difference does it make? They're making mad cash either way.
-
Saddam is just mad because he genuinely believes Kim is a god and thought that the mighty North Korean Empire had finally crushed the pathetic western media once and for all.
-
I was hoping they'd do horribly because I'm tired of bad Seth Rogan movies.
-
I was hoping they'd do horribly because I'm tired of bad Seth Rogan movies.
How do you know if it is bad? You haven't seen it.
-
I was hoping they'd do horribly because I'm tired of bad Seth Rogan movies.
How do you know if it is bad? You haven't seen it.
Trailers typically show the best parts of a movie. The trailer was awful.
-
Trailers typically show the best parts of a movie. The trailer was awful.
How do you know if it is bad? You haven't seen it.
-
Trailers typically show the best parts of a movie. The trailer was awful.
How do you know if it is bad? You haven't seen it.
Trailers typically show the best parts of a movie. The trailer was awful.
-
Thanks for the recap, sweety pie, RushRush. I had already forgotten what I said.
-
So, we can leave with the conclusion that the answer to "How do you know it's awful?" is "I don't"? Because I asked again, just to make sure whether or not that was the case.
-
So, we can leave with the conclusion that the answer to "How do you know it's awful?" is "I don't"? Because I asked again, just to make sure whether or not that was the case.
You're right. How silly of me to think that the trailer would reflect the movie at all. This is why I need you around to keep me grounded. ♥
-
It's almost as if Rushy has never seen a Seth Rogan movie before. :o
-
What difference does it make? They're making mad cash either way.
Irrelevant. The point is that I was right and Blanko and pizaaplanet were wrong. Very, very wrong.
-
Irrelevant. The point is that I was right and Blanko and pizaaplanet were wrong. Very, very wrong.
You made a claim about them getting a terrible return of investment. We now know that the return on investment is not only not terrible, but its prognoses are extraordinary.
-
You made a claim about them getting a terrible return of investment.
Yes, on the limited theatrical release that was under discussion, hence my use of the word "tiny." That would have made no sense if I was talking about the online release. In fact, I don't think news of the online release had been anything more than a rumor at that point. The fact that the online release seems to be a success doesn't change the fact that the theatrical release was not. You're going to have to accept that, at least in this case, you were out-pedanted. Insert witty "deal with it" gif here.
-
That would have made no sense if I was talking about the online release.
You're right - you made absolutely no sense, which is why you got called out on it.
-
So you're taking it for granted that I meant something I didn't actually say? Is that how desperate you are to win this argument? Anyway, here's another take on what happened:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/north_korea_s_propaganda_victory_from_the_sony_hack_pyongyang_could_not.html
The plot thickens?
(edited to clarify my point about how the opposing argument makes no sense)
-
Maybe Saddam should RUSH TO CVS to buy some smart pills.
-
The curious case of Saddam wanting North Korea to actually be capable of doing anything right.
-
Trailers are a horrible measure to go on. Man of Steel had an amazing trailer but turned out to be meh at best.
-
Trailers are a horrible measure to go on. Man of Steel had an amazing trailer but turned out to be meh at best.
Trailers can be misleading but because they tend to show the best bits, you'll usually be disappointed rather than surprised.
-
Speaking of trailers, I just decided to find bad trailers to great films. Found this(Star Wars):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gvqpFbRKtQ
-
What's wrong with that trailer? It seems kinda cheesy, but you have to take into account the time period and genre of the movie.
Now I want to watch Star Wars.
-
What's wrong with that trailer? It seems kinda cheesy, but you have to take into account the time period and genre of the movie.
Now I want to watch Star Wars.
The tone seemed weird to me. Maybe it's just the time period. Then again, the whole "this could be happening now" bit doesn't make sense with the opening credits.
-
Then again, the whole "this could be happening now" bit doesn't make sense with the opening credits.
But I thought Star Wars was based loosely on true events?
-
I watched the movie. It had a few laughs, but overall it was pretty bad.
-
I watched the movie. It had a few laughs, but overall it was pretty bad.
Just about every Franco/Rogen movie ever.
-
Basically. The funniest part was a cameo from Eminem at the start where he casually admitted to be gay. For some reason, there were people who actually thought that was for real:
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/emineminterview.asp
-
Maybe the North Koreans should have just shot Seth Rogan in a terrorist attack. That would have been better for everyone.
-
That would have been better for everyone.
I doubt Seth Rogan would appreciate being killed by North Korea.
-
That would have been better for everyone.
I doubt Seth Rogan would appreciate being killed by North Korea.
No one gives a fuck about what Seth Rogan appreciates. >:(
-
It's Rogen. Not Rogan.
-
It's Rogen. Not Rogan.
Holy fucking shit, Saddam.
-
It's Rogen. Not Rogan.
No one gives a fuck how he spells his name either! >o<
-
That would have been better for everyone.
I doubt Seth Rogan would appreciate being killed by North Korea.
No one gives a fuck about what Seth Rogan appreciates. >:(
I doubt Seth Rogen doesn't give a fuck about what Seth Rogen appreciates.
It's Rogen. Not Rogan.
No one gives a fuck how he spells his name either! >o<
I also doubt Seth Rogen doesn't give a fuck about how Seth Rogen's name is spelled.
-
Basically. The funniest part was a cameo from Eminem at the start where he casually admitted to be gay.
That was great
I have to say, James Franco's facial expressions were pretty great, too.
-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/interview-lost-sony-30-million-764366
The National Association of Theater Owners is hardly an impartial source, granted, but not even Sony is particularly ambitious about the movie's financial prospects:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sonys-interview-freedom-edition-20150114-story.html
The studio expects to break even on film, which cost $44 million to make. That's due to strong home video sales and the fact that the studio was able to save millions on marketing the movie when the wide-release plans were scuttled, according to a person familiar with the matter.
I would say that I told you so...but I didn't tell you so. I never claimed that an online release wouldn't be successful, only that the limited theatrical release wouldn't be. Yes, I'm still irritated about that argument, particularly by the way that pizaaplanet stubbornly refused to admit he was wrong after I clearly pointed out how the context and timing of what I said would have rendered his interpretation of my post completely nonsensical. It's true that the "very, very wrong" part was phrased poorly - one might even say arrogantly - but facts are facts. You don't get to win every argument you ever have on the Internet.
With that being said, this news does in fact surprise me. Hopefully, the lack of success was due to negative word-of-mouth rather than audiences just not being interested in watching movies online. I'd hate for the industry to conclude from this that online distribution as a concept is doomed to failure and that we should just stick with movie theaters until the end of time.
-
Hopefully the industry will conclude that Seth Rogen films are doomed to failure and that we shouldn't have any more of those.