The Spirited Back Nine ...

Rodan75

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
wdisney9000 said:
Big deal IMO, a few kids had a their picture in an extremely popular social media campaign. If Topps had a contest for kids to be the in the add, parents would have camped out overnight and probly paid admission.
Click to expand...

Eisner being accused of something that was one of the big privacy fears from MM+, while folks here are celebrating him and saying he would never allow MM+.
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
BrerJon said:
Eisner was great in the 80s and early 90s, but then when Frank Wells died, as Scrooge did when his business partner Jacob Marley died, he lost his way and forgot the true meaning of Disney... erm Christmas... whatever.

After being shown the ghosts of the past (Roy), the present (er, Lasseter maybe?) and the future (Iger), he finally changed his ways and let go of the worries of the world that had made him a penny-pinching miser and started to enjoy life again.

Of course, the sequel (A Christmas Carol 2: MyScrooge+) didn't turn out too well for the company, but Eisner himself went on to be a respected and admired historical figure for the good that he did, more than the bad he was in danger of becoming known for.
Click to expand...
Sorry I still see the decrease in the surplus population of Park OCs and 2D animation and the empty spots at Epcot's table and a purple dragon without his proper guide carefully preserved in a mediocre place by the fire.
 
GiveMeTheMusic

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
You keep saying this, but we have not seen a massive walkout from Sony Pictures. That means people decided to take the risk you're claiming they did not take. The threats agains theaters for showing The Interview were AFTER and separate from the threats against employees. And now, there remain theater owners who are willing to face the risk as well as patrons willing to face the risk of a theater attack. You're whole point is predicated on mixing up different events. Have there been any attacks on Sony employees for continuing to work? How about attacks against the theater owners pushing for distribution? There haven't even been threats made against Paramount.
Click to expand...

I don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

I know some folks like to do this - a few of you make it a sport here - where someone makes a point about something in particular that you don't like, and then it is taken out of context of the discussion and attempted to make it about something that never was in an attempt to discredit something you either won't actually address or are incapable of. I do notice it from you quite often, to be honest - whenever you or one or two other folks show up in my alerts as replying to me about just about any topic, it's guaranteed. I'm not sure if you don't follow along, you can't tell the difference between what you project in your mind and what was said, or if it's just your idea of "fun" (likely a combination of all three), but really - what you are saying here has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was discussing (just as every reply you have made to me in this thread).

This was about the initial decision to pull the film, and the information that was available at that time and folks saying "They caved!" and puffing their chests out second guessing them.

I think those folks when faced with the same decision and the same circumstances as they were known at the time the threats were made (which was largely unknown, except that they knew the biggest cyber-heist in history had just taken place by the same people), folks would not be so cavalier about their and their families safety if it was threatened no matter what we know, or think we know, now, or what the chances we can guess if it was a legit threat or not in retrospect.

I never said anything about employees quitting their jobs, or any of the other things you have tried to take this rather simple statement I made into. It was an incorrect assumption folks were making at the time (as I corrected folks making the "They caved!" cries, it was about theaters pulling out) - if they were going to falsely assume they "backed down" - I was turning the mirror on them if they were faced with a similar situation and believed they just "backed down".

Of course, as a developing news story, more information becomes available, and things change - but trying to re-frame statements in the context of information that was not available at the time the statements are made is just ridiculous, particularly since even so - they don't change the original point I made, which is folks like to make big talk on the Internet but if they actually were faced with a similar situation themselves, they wouldn't be so quick to act all big and macho like so folks did here.

That, and the fact that no one has refuted - because I don't think even someone trying to be as intentionally obtuse as you are could even honestly attempt - that if this film was not about NK, but instead, say, about some historical figure from some millennium and a half ago we aren't even supposed to draw a picture of, that incited a similar response, that the film would unquestionably have been deemed unfit to distribute and the entire project would have been considered "culturally insensitive" and condemned widely by many of the same folks championing this film.

So, go on - play your game - I've been exceedingly clear and have explained it several times - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in the future I'll just PM you links to my previous posts if you feel the need to keep asking me to re-clarify what I was talking about, as I'm not going to continuously repeat myself here so you can get whatever satisfaction you get from twisting and turning what is said in an attempt to drag something out and make it into something it never was.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
I don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

I know some folks like to do this - a few of you make it a sport here - where someone makes a point about something in particular that you don't like, and then it is taken out of context of the discussion and attempted to make it about something that never was in an attempt to discredit something you either won't actually address or are incapable of. I do notice it from you quite often, to be honest - whenever you or one or two other folks show up in my alerts as replying to me about just about any topic, it's guaranteed. I'm not sure if you don't follow along, you can't tell the difference between what you project in your mind and what was said, or if it's just your idea of "fun" (likely a combination of all three), but really - what you are saying here has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was discussing (just as every reply you have made to me in this thread).

This was about the initial decision to pull the film, and the information that was available at that time and folks saying "They caved!" and puffing their chests out second guessing them.

I think those folks when faced with the same decision and the same circumstances as they were known at the time the threats were made (which was largely unknown, except that they knew the biggest cyber-heist in history had just taken place by the same people), folks would not be so cavalier about their and their families safety if it was threatened no matter what we know, or think we know, now, or what the chances we can guess if it was a legit threat or not in retrospect.

I never said anything about employees quitting their jobs, or any of the other things you have tried to take this rather simple statement I made into. It was an incorrect assumption folks were making at the time (as I corrected folks making the "They caved!" cries, it was about theaters pulling out) - if they were going to falsely assume they "backed down" - I was turning the mirror on them if they were faced with a similar situation and believed they just "backed down".

Of course, as a developing news story, more information becomes available, and things change - but trying to re-frame statements in the context of information that was not available at the time the statements are made is just ridiculous, particularly since even so - they don't change the original point I made, which is folks like to make big talk on the Internet but if they actually were faced with a similar situation themselves, they wouldn't be so quick to act all big and macho like so folks did here.

That, and the fact that no one has refuted - because I don't think even someone trying to be as intentionally obtuse as you are could even honestly attempt - that if this film was not about NK, but instead, say, about some historical figure from some millennium and a half ago we aren't even supposed to draw a picture of, that incited a similar response, that the film would unquestionably have been deemed unfit to distribute and the entire project would have been considered "culturally insensitive" and condemned widely by many of the same folks championing this film.

So, go on - play your game - I've been exceedingly clear and have explained it several times - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in the future I'll just PM you links to my previous posts if you feel the need to keep asking me to re-clarify what I was talking about, as I'm not going to continuously repeat myself here so you can get whatever satisfaction you get from twisting and turning what is said in an attempt to drag something out and make it into something it never was.
Click to expand...
The threats against the families of employees occurred BEFORE the threats about the film and included its own set of demands. Two different threats were made, the first against employees that did not disavow Sony and the second against theaters showing the film. Don't accuse others of ignoring points and playing games when your point relies on confusing the threats against families with the ones against theaters. The context of threats against families included demands to distance oneself from the Company, action that has not been overtly undertaken on a wide scale.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
The threats against the families of employees occurred BEFORE the threats about the film and included its own set of demands. Two different threats were made, the first against employees that did not disavow Sony and the second against theaters showing the film. Don't accuse others of ignoring points and playing games when your point relies on confusing the threats against families with the ones against theaters. The context of threats against families included demands to distance oneself from the Company, action that has not been overtly undertaken on a wide scale.
Click to expand...

Both email threats were sent before the Dec 17 initial decision to pull the film.

The Dec 17 initial decision to pull the film is what got folks all riled up and saying "Sony Caved" and puffing their chests out.

People posting "Sony Caved" did not realize that the reason for the initial decision to pull the film was because the majority of theater chains pulled out, not because "they caved" to the threats, which I pointed out in my initial posts.

To those folks, who were so quick to assume it was because of the threats, I said, if that were the case, and they were hypothetically in that situation, that they believed that Sony "caved" because of the threats, it would not be so easy to be so cavalier if the threats were directed at them.

Nothing was confused, because I was talking about a hypothetical situation based on their "Sony caved" statements and their erroneous belief that the initial decision was based on the threats.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what you keep repeating about what Sony employees did or did not do.
 
Last edited:
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Here's my take on the whole Sony/Interview issue. Sony wanted to release the movie. The major American theater companies didn't want to risk losing general business (from customers afraid of the threats) around one of their busiest times of the year. They pulled the film from their theaters. Once the major theater companies were out Sony pulled the release. They most likely were hoping the theaters would change their minds and allow the film to be shown. There was probably some level of negotiations and when Sony realized the theater companies were not going to reverse their decision they went ahead with the release to limited theaters and direct to home. I think this was largely a business decision from all parties involved with little actual concern for the terroristic threats. In other words nobody was caving to terrorists they were all just looking for the best way to maximize their own profits.
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
Both email threats were sent before the Dec 17 initial decision to pull the film.

The Dec 17 initial decision to pull the film is what got folks all riled up and saying "Sony Caved" and puffing their chests out.

People posting "Sony Caved" did not realize that the reason for the initial decision to pull the film was because the majority of theater chains pulled out, not because "they caved" to the threats, which I pointed out in my initial posts.

To those folks, who were so quick to assume it was because of the threats, I said, if that were the case, and they were hypothetically in that situation, that they believed that Sony "caved" because of the threats, it would not be so easy to be so cavalier if the threats were directed at them.

Nothing was confused, because I was talking about a hypothetical situation based on their "Sony caved" statements and their erroneous belief that the initial decision was based on the threats.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what you keep repeating about what Sony employees did or did not do.
Click to expand...
Umm...
deadline.com/2014/12/sony-handling-of-the-interview-release-puts-exhibitors-on-warpath-vod-next-shoe-to-drop-1201334532/
We’ve heard from exhibitors that days ago, Sony was back c-hannel imploring them to cancel the film so that the studio wouldn’t have to be seen caving to terrorists. Now, everybody expects this small theater rollout to accompany a VOD rollout, possibly the same day. We are awaiting news on that front. This would destroy the film’s theatrical viability and would further infuriate NATO and major theater owners, who don’t participate in that part of the program. That, and the simple ridiculousness of expecting to change Christmas plans so close to the date, are creating the kind of anger no one should feel in the middle of the holiday season
Click to expand...
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Umm...
Click to expand...
That's good stuff. Kinda works with my theory it's all about money. Sony doesn't want to appear to be caving to terrorists, but they also don't want to completely write-off their investment. They portray it as the theaters that caved and go forward with a limited release (and on demand) which will probably be enough for them to break even or at least limit their loss. Now that the theaters are made to be the bad guys, they turn on Sony and claim it was really Sony who pushed them to cancel the release. Of course at this point it's conveniently too late for the theaters to reverse course and release the movie. Who knows who is telling the truth at this point. Either way it doesn't appear that either side really took the threats seriously.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom