The Spirited Back Nine ...

Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
SJN1279 said:
It is a business. If a movie chain thinks that a dopey Seth Rogen movie is going to keep moviegoers away due to terror fears during the always busy Xmas week, you better believe that chain is going dump the movie. It is purely a financial decision.
Click to expand...
I love how these two things always pop up to defend any decision made by a business as if it somehow makes everything okay.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
DisDan said:
Well, Sony is a business first and foremost. Pulling the movie from the theaters was out of their control as the individual Theater companies forced their hand by succumbing to the fear of terror attacks based on the threats which were made. Sony will more than likely still release this movie at some point, either in the theaters or direct to DVD/BR and streaming. What does Sony gain from forcing the issue with showing the movie? If in fact terror attacks do happen as a result of them forcing the issue with the movie that is probably worse than not releasing the movie for the time being.
Click to expand...
Attacks from agents of North Korea against civilian citizens of a country with which they are at war within that country could easily turn out poorly for the North Koreans.

DisDan said:
Except Sony had no choice since Theater companies decided they would not show the movie.
Click to expand...
Sony gave those companies the option to break their established deals.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
That's 100% irrelevant.

This is a 1st amendment issue and Americans all have the right to choose whether or not they want to see the movie. Sony and effectively our country has given up the 1st amendment for fear of retaliation from a country led by a murderer. Sony should have released this movie for free online. It would have eliminated the safety concern while showing kim jong un that he can't dictate our freedoms.
Click to expand...
Under the 1st amendment do they not also have the right to not show it if it isn't in their best interest to do so. Since it has no relevance as a threat to national security information and isn't publicly funded, I don't think we have a right to see anything that the owner doesn't want us to see. You can site the 1st amendment all you want, you will still never see my home movies.:) Rights are a two way street. That reminds me... I want to see "Song of the South" uncut, my 1st amendment rights dictate that I can chose to see it or chose not to see it. But that is only if it is released to be seen. Without a court order you cannot demand that it be released and that won't happen.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
I love how theses two things always pop up to defend any decision made by a business as if it somehow makes everything okay.
Click to expand...
Well, it kinda does. A business or the people that run them have rights too. Our individual rights do not necessarily supersede the rights of others, especially when no harm will come if they don't and a lot of harm could come if they do.

There is a line drawn about what is worth fighting for and what isn't. When they cross that line there will be reaction. This just isn't worth getting a knot in our bloomers over.
 
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Double Team 2:

Dennis Rodman, who's been the perfect double agent all along with his NBA physique and celebrity status, and Jean-Claude Van Damme are sent to assassinate Kim Jong-Un, but encounter Rogen and Franco attempting to achieve the same mission. Rogen and Franco's antics hilariously interfere and nearly jeopardize the mission.
Original: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119013/
 
Last edited:
DisDan

DisDan

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Attacks from agents of North Korea against civilian citizens of a country with which they are at war within that country could easily turn out poorly for the North Koreans.


Sony gave those companies the option to break their established deals.
Click to expand...

Well they didn't give them the option, more like the Theaters threatened to pull the movie and Sony came out publicly and said they would not oppose the move. What more could Sony really do? Forcing the theaters to show the movie would probably not have been wise.

Subsequently, since most Theaters followed suit then Sony pulled the plug.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
DisDan said:
Well they didn't give them the option, more like the Theaters threatened to pull the movie and Sony came out publicly and said they would not oppose the move. What more could Sony really do? Forcing the theaters to show the movie would probably not have been wise.

Subsequently, since most Theaters followed suit then Sony pulled the plug.
Click to expand...
How about letting theaters that were still going to show the movie show the movie?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
DisDan said:
Well they didn't give them the option, more like the Theaters threatened to pull the movie and Sony came out publicly and said they would not oppose the move. What more could Sony really do? Forcing the theaters to show the movie would probably not have been wise.

Subsequently, since most Theaters followed suit then Sony pulled the plug.
Click to expand...
Threats were not new and Sony had a contract. Sony could have let theaters still show it or release the film online. Similarly Paramount could have had some courage as well. Will the episodes of 30 Rock with Kim Jong Il be pulled next?
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
Can you imagine the opening weekend if they go ahead with the release in the spring. Let things die off and then bring it out, should have good opening numbers. They only need to do $60M to get their money and marketing costs back. With all this publicity they could do that without doing any more marketing.
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
DisDan said:
Well they didn't give them the option, more like the Theaters threatened to pull the movie and Sony came out publicly and said they would not oppose the move. What more could Sony really do? Forcing the theaters to show the movie would probably not have been wise.

Subsequently, since most Theaters followed suit then Sony pulled the plug.
Click to expand...

Sony could've immediately turned around and released it as video on demand or a similar option.

So what's next? People threaten to media organizations because they don't like a story there news is doing? Or go after a themepark company because they don't like an attraction? Where does this end?

It's fear and foolishness, plain and simple. We've given into the monster that lives underneath the bed.
 
BrerJon

BrerJon

Well-Known Member
DisDan said:
r3gr21nn2ttnktyc7rkj.jpg


This is exactly how it all went down.
Click to expand...

"And I want it all in Comic Sans, that's the best font!"
 
I

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
PhotoDave219 said:
Sony could've immediately turned around and released it as video on demand or a similar option.

So what's next? People threaten to media organizations because they don't like a story there news is doing? Or go after a themepark company because they don't like an attraction? Where does this end?

It's fear and foolishness, plain and simple. We've given into the monster that lives underneath the bed.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Only thing is, this monster's half the world away.

Yeah, it only takes one loser to wreak havoc, but that threat exists every single day, everywhere you go.

In the end, according to the hacks, Sony (and especially the producers of the movie) were wanting to distance themselves from the thing for months anyway. It's supposed to be horrendous. Looks funny, but word is it's really, really awful. Sony was just hoping to get some of their money back. Hopefully Netflix will pick it up.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom