[Blanko]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Tau]

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

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Saddam Hussein]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[markjo]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Saddam Hussein]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Saddam Hussein]

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

[Ghost of V]

What difference does it make? They're making mad cash either way.

[Rushy]

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.

[rooster]

I was hoping they'd do horribly because I'm tired of bad Seth Rogan movies.

[Rushy]

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.

[rooster]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Particle Person]

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.

[rooster]

Thanks for the recap, sweety pie, RushRush. I had already forgotten what I said.

[Rushy]

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.