Apparently leaked emails have a sony exec calling the movie "desperately unfunny and repetitive,", and that they thought it would flop in oversea's markets.
I think they folded to the free market more than they did to so called terrorist threats. The movie has been panned by most critics, has been received bad publicity, not to mention the movie leaked a month before it's release. It's no wonder the theaters decided drop it, on what's most likely one of if not their most profitable days.
Quote:Apparently leaked emails have a sony exec calling the movie "desperately unfunny and repetitive,", and that they thought it would flop in oversea's markets.
I think they folded to the free market more than they did to so called terrorist threats. The movie has been panned by most critics, has been received bad publicity, not to mention the movie leaked a month before it's release. It's no wonder the theaters decided drop it, on what's most likely one of if not their most profitable days.
No. Way. When has a studio ever not released a movie, even if they knew it was going to flop. Even a flop earns millions of dollars. But to not release a movie with these guys in it? These two stars have a good track record of earning money, and I guarantee you that movie, even if it floppped, would have earned $50 million at the box office.
That's just a ridiculous idea that they would not release a movie because they thought it was not good. That's just totally crazy. No movie studio has ever done that. Put it in the theaters, if it flops, release it on DVD, put it on demand, sell it overseas, make money. That's what they do.
I think there's really a lot of dirt in those emails that were hacked which could be very damaging to a lot of important (Hollywood-important, not necessarily important-important) people. That's why Sony just decided to pull the plug.
Plus this whole ordeal gave this movie more pub
Quote:No. Way. When has a studio ever not released a movie, even if they knew it was going to flop. Even a flop earns millions of dollars. But to not release a movie with these guys in it? These two stars have a good track record of earning money, and I guarantee you that movie, even if it floppped, would have earned $50 million at the box office.
That's just a ridiculous idea that they would not release a movie because they thought it was not good. That's just totally crazy. No movie studio has ever done that. Put it in the theaters, if it flops, release it on DVD, put it on demand, sell it overseas, make money. That's what they do.
Exactly, in addition there was tons of internet hype along the lines of "it's probably crap but now I'm gonna go see it just to stick it to NK or whoever did this"
It would have done well and in fact, if they just release it online for a reasonable fee it will still make some cash. This was purely in reaction to the terrorist threats and nothing more seeing as it started with the theaters pulling the movie before Sony pulled it. If it was anything else, we would not have seen that action followed by Paramount pulling Team America from multiple theaters around the nation.
Quote:No. Way. When has a studio ever not released a movie, even if they knew it was going to flop. Even a flop earns millions of dollars. But to not release a movie with these guys in it? These two stars have a good track record of earning money, and I guarantee you that movie, even if it floppped, would have earned $50 million at the box office.
That's just a ridiculous idea that they would not release a movie because they thought it was not good. That's just totally crazy. No movie studio has ever done that. Put it in the theaters, if it flops, release it on DVD, put it on demand, sell it overseas, make money. That's what they do.
That means throwing more money into leasing theaters, advertising, media tours and the works just throwing more gas on the fire. I'm certain this movie won't see a theater, not saying it won't be released some other way but it won't see a theater. Even if we pretend they're solely not releasing it because of terrorist threats, the threat would still be just as real a month or six down the line.
Quote:That means throwing more money into leasing theaters, advertising, media tours and the works just throwing more gas on the fire. I'm certain this movie won't see a theater, not saying it won't be released some other way but it won't see a theater. Even if we pretend they're solely not releasing it because of terrorist threats, the threat would still be just as real a month or six down the line.
I don't understand how you can say this. The threat was made and theaters started pulling out en masse. It's not pretend it's real.
Quote:That means throwing more money into leasing theaters, advertising, media tours and the works just throwing more gas on the fire. I'm certain this movie won't see a theater, not saying it won't be released some other way but it won't see a theater. Even if we pretend they're solely not releasing it because of terrorist threats, the threat would still be just as real a month or six down the line.
Quote:I don't understand how you can say this. The threat was made and theaters started pulling out en masse. It's not pretend it's real.
Quote:
That is the sole reason. Threats were made against theaters and people's safety. That is the only reason.
Quote:That is the sole reason. Threats were made against theaters and people's safety. That is the only reason.
I strongly disagree, I think it was monetary in nature, the threats only served as an out. Especially when like I said agencies were saying there was no credible evidence that a threat was being planned. It was likely about as credible as the hundreds of death threat received while playing a video game.
Quote:I strongly disagree, I think it was monetary in nature, the threats only served as an out. Especially when like I said agencies were saying there was no credible evidence that a threat was being planned. It was likely about as credible as the hundreds of death threat received while playing a video game.
I don't think that's the case at all. Theaters were contractually obligated to show the movie. Sony allowed them to back out of the contract if they wanted to without repercussion. How could it be monetary in nature for Sony to volunteer for the theaters to back out of showing the movie? They get no money the otherwise would have gotten. Same goes for the theaters why not show it? Make less money or no money? Makes no sense.
The only way to link it to money is that the theaters chains chose to not show the movie because if the threats become real it would destroy their brand. At any rate, it's still because of the threat.
Quote:I don't think that's the case at all. Theaters were contractually obligated to show the movie. Sony allowed them to back out of the contract if they wanted to without repercussion. How could it be monetary in nature for Sony to volunteer for the theaters to back out of showing the movie? They get no money the otherwise would have gotten. Same goes for the theaters why not show it? Make less money or no money? Makes no sense.
The only way to link it to money is that the theaters chains chose to not show the movie because if the threats become real it would destroy their brand. At any rate, it's still because of the threat.
The 3 largest chains dropped the film before sony said they weren't going to take action, even Regal was talking about delaying the film a week before the 9/11 threat was made, the theaters don't lose out because they gain a theater to show a movie with better prospects.
The media alone on this would have increased ticket sales, not decreased it.
SONY is now saying they might release the film after all.
Quote:The 3 largest chains dropped the film before sony said they weren't going to take action, even Regal was talking about delaying the film a week before the 9/11 threat was made, the theaters don't lose out because they gain a theater to show a movie with better prospects.
This is not about money. This was about protecting a brand from a potential threat of customers being harmed. That's all.
Quote:This is not about money. This was about protecting a brand from a potential threat of customers being harmed. That's all.
I don't agree but it is what it is.
Quote:North Korea dark today, they're completely offline according to bloomberg, perhaps a little cyber response from the United States?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-22...3864dfee4c
More than likely it's Anonymous. The group has been saying they are going to go after NK.
Quote:More than likely it's Anonymous. The group has been saying they are going to go after NK.
Wow are they THAT good? to take an entire countries internet down?
Quote:Wow are they THAT good? to take an entire countries internet down?
I don't know if that is the case really but it's not like we are talking taking down a true developed county's internet here. NK civilians have nearly no access to internet at all. It's primarily government officials and military. In addition, I read recently there is only one major pipeline into/out of NK. I kind of imagine their internet infrastructure as about the size of whats required to run Sony nationwide. Just kind of my impression of it while reading about the hack and aftermath.
Looks like it will be released after all.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/23/media/sc...?hpt=hp_t1
Quote:<div>Despite threats from hackers, Sony is making the controversial Seth Rogen comedy available at a limited number of theaters on Christmas.
The movie studio's CEO, Michael Lynton, said Tuesday that "we're excited our movie will be in a number of theaters on Christmas Day."
He did not specify an exact number because the plans were still being worked out. But theaters in Georgia, Texas and Virginia said on Twitter that they had agreed to show the film, and more theater announcements are expected later on Tuesday.
</div>
Would not surprise me if the Sunray Cinema is Riverside gets it.