There is a difference between a short film produced by an unimportant religious zealot claiming the script to be the gospel truth while using actors that say had zero knowledge of their characters they were hired to represent. There is deceit and then there is deceit. Nonetheless, I am recalling from memory but feel free to research.
You are referring to that poorly made youtube video. There is also the mohammed drawings, and that's more what I was thinking about. That was legitimate art, and there was no deceit involved there.
You are referring to that poorly made youtube video. There is also the mohammed drawings, and that's more what I was thinking about. That was legitimate art, and there was no deceit involved there.
I haven't seen the drawings, no different than The Interview, but I will criticize radical Islamists for insisting that Muhammad is always depicted as faceless. It's not lost on me that it's a marketing tactic to convert to Islam more people of all races and all various facial attractions. Muhammad was not faceless before the beating that killed him. They are censuring their own prophet, basically.
As for being mocked, no one should be immune to that. Artistic integrity is best left decided by the masses.
I don't believe we disagree on any of the above, just pointing it out.
I haven't seen the drawings, no different than The Interview, but I will criticize radical Islamists for insisting that Muhammad is always depicted as faceless. It's not lost on me that it's a marketing tactic to convert to Islam more people of all races and all various facial attractions. Muhammad was not faceless before the beating that killed him. They are censuring their own prophet, basically.
As for being mocked, no one should be immune to that. Artistic integrity is best left decided by the masses.
I don't believe we disagree on any of the above, just pointing it out.
I have seen them, but many Americans have not, because a lot of the cowardly media here was terrified to show them. I even drew my own and uploaded them to the internet.
I do agree with you that nobody and no thing should ever be immune from being mocked, so it seems that we are in full agreement.
The amount of morons on here is sad....
FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
had that man threatened to kill YOU the government wouldn't have gave a f***.
You're wrong. It's much worse than you think. Just google "stalking" and "bomb threats" and "Facebook" and you will see hundreds of people arrested for both fake and real threats.
There's also the Oliver Stone movie "W". It was a very unflattering view of a then sitting President, George W. Bush, based on a few facts and a whole lot of rumor and insinuation. Doubtful he approved of it and the movie there's little doubt it affected whatever remaining legislative or international influence he might have had in the last months of his presidency. Certainly helped to damage the image of America in addition to that of Mr. Bush IMHO.
You might want to read some Molly Ivins, a reporter and writer who chronicled George's post college and political career in Texas. Lots of facts, delivered with a first class wit. The film "W" was over the top, but not necessarily inaccurate, as per Oliver's previous political films.
I recommend "Shrub" as a first read of Molly Ivins.
Here's an article that she did for Mother Jones as well.
And I have no idea what the MPAA has to do with movie distribution. I thought that they only dealt with issues of content. You do know that distribution is completely separate from content and production?
(You added some edits with links; I have not viewed them, since I have no context for what I am supposed to be looking at and why).
1) My point was that movies and television are inherently different in how they are disfigured.
2) I thought I made it crystal clear that South Park, as you put it, "made them do it," was incorrect. If you read the given information you'll see it very clearly states that South Park didn't edit or pull anything.
Your post is quite confusing. I am finding it difficult to parse it. But I'll try.
I did not say that South Park made South Park do (or not do) anything. You originally said that Comedy Central made South Park do it. I responded to that by simply noting that's no different from Sony saying that corporate-owned theaters made them pull it (i.e., they had no choice in the matter).
I thought my point was crystal clear.
As to your Point #1, I am unable to deconstruct it.
Your post is quite confusing. I am finding it difficult to parse it. But I'll try.
I did not say that South Park made South Park do (or not do) anything. You originally said that Comedy Central made South Park do it. I responded to that by simply noting that's no different from Sony saying that corporate-owned theaters made them pull it (i.e., they had no choice in the matter).
I thought my point was crystal clear.
As to your Point #1, I am unable to deconstruct it.
TV and theatrical releases are handled very different.
South Park submits their work to CC who added the edits.
Sony originally pulled a the Intervire after the major theaters backed out, which would have reduced theater screens and therefore attendance down to numbers threat weren't worth the trouble until they changed their distribution method th week of.
In no scenario would the theaters be able to censor Sony's film the way CC did to a South Park episode.
Good for Apple for refusing to make this movie available! I have zero desire to watch it. I don't give a crap if the rental were .99 cents!
The whole way that the situation around the movie was handled was pathetic, and this movie will not get any of my money, not even a few pennies.
I hope that this movie doesn't make back its production costs.
We weren't at all interested in it, until the Sony hacking news brought it to our attention.
Now we are definitely going to view it, in a local movie house.
We hear it's a good comedy, which we all need to cover up news on that stupid childish Kim. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The low production cost will likely be returned several times over.
We weren't at all interested in it, until the Sony hacking news brought it to our attention.
Now we are definitely going to view it, in a local movie house.
We hear it's a good comedy, which we all need to cover up news on that stupid childish Kim. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The low production cost will likely be returned several times over.
Depends what you mean by "low production cost".
About $75 million for the film, including marketing.
Variety has an exclusive rundown on just how much failing to releaseThe Interviewwill cost Sony, and it's a hefty $75 million. Now keep in mind, that figure is mostly made up of the $44 million budget that The Interview rang up during production. However, the more surprising part of the equation is the estimated $30 million Sony and Columbia put out to market the film.
How many people around the world will be receiving an Apple product on Christmas? What would happen if those people had difficulties accessing iTunes or other Apple servers, after unwrapping their new Apple product?
Whether releasing this movie on iTunes caused excessive bandwidth demands, denial of service attacks or anything else that might impair access to Apple's servers, it would be stupid of Apple to risk the rest of their business. Whether you think Apple should release this movie through iTunes or not, a Christmas Day or Christmas Eve release is just not a good idea solely because of the timing.
So what you are saying is that you do not think that Apple's systems are as robust as those from Google and Microsoft?
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
From your link:
Newmarket paid one million dollars for the U.S. distribution rights.[6] The total production budget for the film is estimated to have been two million dollars.[1] Two of the largest U.S. cinema chains, Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark, refused to screen the film; a Cinemark spokesman told UK newspaper The Guardian: “The assassination of a sitting president is problematic subject matter”.[7] In addition, major U.S. broadcasters CNN and National Public Radio refused to broadcast advertisements for the film.[8]The film was screened in the U.S. for 14 days, showing at 143 theatres at its widest release.[1][2] Worldwide, it grossed $869,352.[2] The Japanese motion picture ethics committee, the Eirin, prevented Death of a Presidentfrom being shown in most cinemas in 2007, saying that the film's Japanese title ("Bush Ansatsu", translated as "Bush Assassinated") is inappropriate.[9] The film was scheduled to begin showing in Japanese cinemas on 6 October 2007.
The government didn't prevent its release. Not sure what you meant otherwise.
The U.S. government hasn't prevented the release of The Interview either. There's no reason for the U.S. government being brought up as a source of censorship at all.
So what you are saying is that you do not think that Apple's systems are as robust as those from Google and Microsoft?
I'm not the "you" you're addressing but I have no doubt that Google's internet services are more robust than Apple's. That's Google's bread and butter, so this should be surprising to anyone. They have many years' experience delivering services to massive audiences under crushing loads. Apple's not in their class yet, but then I don't know who is--except backbone companies.
And it's not cowardess to decline to take on a low-payoff, high-risk challenge. It's prudence.
Comments
There is a difference between a short film produced by an unimportant religious zealot claiming the script to be the gospel truth while using actors that say had zero knowledge of their characters they were hired to represent. There is deceit and then there is deceit. Nonetheless, I am recalling from memory but feel free to research.
You are referring to that poorly made youtube video. There is also the mohammed drawings, and that's more what I was thinking about. That was legitimate art, and there was no deceit involved there.
As for being mocked, no one should be immune to that. Artistic integrity is best left decided by the masses.
I don't believe we disagree on any of the above, just pointing it out.
I can't imagine how quickly I'd get banned if I spouted anti-jewish comments in every thread.
This statement keeps resonating in my head...
I haven't seen the drawings, no different than The Interview, but I will criticize radical Islamists for insisting that Muhammad is always depicted as faceless. It's not lost on me that it's a marketing tactic to convert to Islam more people of all races and all various facial attractions. Muhammad was not faceless before the beating that killed him. They are censuring their own prophet, basically.
As for being mocked, no one should be immune to that. Artistic integrity is best left decided by the masses.
I don't believe we disagree on any of the above, just pointing it out.
I have seen them, but many Americans have not, because a lot of the cowardly media here was terrified to show them. I even drew my own and uploaded them to the internet.
I do agree with you that nobody and no thing should ever be immune from being mocked, so it seems that we are in full agreement.
You're wrong. It's much worse than you think. Just google "stalking" and "bomb threats" and "Facebook" and you will see hundreds of people arrested for both fake and real threats.
There's also the Oliver Stone movie "W". It was a very unflattering view of a then sitting President, George W. Bush, based on a few facts and a whole lot of rumor and insinuation. Doubtful he approved of it and the movie there's little doubt it affected whatever remaining legislative or international influence he might have had in the last months of his presidency. Certainly helped to damage the image of America in addition to that of Mr. Bush IMHO.
You might want to read some Molly Ivins, a reporter and writer who chronicled George's post college and political career in Texas. Lots of facts, delivered with a first class wit. The film "W" was over the top, but not necessarily inaccurate, as per Oliver's previous political films.
I recommend "Shrub" as a first read of Molly Ivins.
Here's an article that she did for Mother Jones as well.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/11/uncompassionate-conservative
You must have missed reading or listening to the news these past couple of weeks about the five major theater chains -- who control the vast amount of distribution in the US -- refusing to screen the move, which apparently led to Sony's decision: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-cancels-release-of-the-interview-us-blames-pyongyang-for-hack-1418844906?tesla=y
And I have no idea what the MPAA has to do with movie distribution. I thought that they only dealt with issues of content. You do know that distribution is completely separate from content and production?
(You added some edits with links; I have not viewed them, since I have no context for what I am supposed to be looking at and why).
1) My point was that movies and television are inherently different in how they are disfigured.
2) I thought I made it crystal clear that South Park, as you put it, "made them do it," was incorrect. If you read the given information you'll see it very clearly states that South Park didn't edit or pull anything.
Your post is quite confusing. I am finding it difficult to parse it. But I'll try.
I did not say that South Park made South Park do (or not do) anything. You originally said that Comedy Central made South Park do it. I responded to that by simply noting that's no different from Sony saying that corporate-owned theaters made them pull it (i.e., they had no choice in the matter).
I thought my point was crystal clear.
As to your Point #1, I am unable to deconstruct it.
TV and theatrical releases are handled very different.
South Park submits their work to CC who added the edits.
Sony originally pulled a the Intervire after the major theaters backed out, which would have reduced theater screens and therefore attendance down to numbers threat weren't worth the trouble until they changed their distribution method th week of.
In no scenario would the theaters be able to censor Sony's film the way CC did to a South Park episode.
Good for Apple for refusing to make this movie available! I have zero desire to watch it. I don't give a crap if the rental were .99 cents!
The whole way that the situation around the movie was handled was pathetic, and this movie will not get any of my money, not even a few pennies.
I hope that this movie doesn't make back its production costs.
We weren't at all interested in it, until the Sony hacking news brought it to our attention.
Now we are definitely going to view it, in a local movie house.
We hear it's a good comedy, which we all need to cover up news on that stupid childish Kim.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The low production cost will likely be returned several times over.
We weren't at all interested in it, until the Sony hacking news brought it to our attention.
Now we are definitely going to view it, in a local movie house.
We hear it's a good comedy, which we all need to cover up news on that stupid childish Kim.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The low production cost will likely be returned several times over.
Depends what you mean by "low production cost".
About $75 million for the film, including marketing.
Variety has an exclusive rundown on just how much failing to release The Interviewwill cost Sony, and it's a hefty $75 million. Now keep in mind, that figure is mostly made up of the $44 million budget that The Interview rang up during production. However, the more surprising part of the equation is the estimated $30 million Sony and Columbia put out to market the film.
Reported for what? Even if I have misunderstood you, and I'm pretty damn sure I haven't, misunderstanding isn't an offence. Or am I "harassing" you?
Laughable, and delusional.
Laughable, and delusional.
Reported for being from the UK.
Actually... considering the conversation... I thought it was ironic that you were being reported.
Sums up every post you’ve ever made, really.
How many people around the world will be receiving an Apple product on Christmas? What would happen if those people had difficulties accessing iTunes or other Apple servers, after unwrapping their new Apple product?
Whether releasing this movie on iTunes caused excessive bandwidth demands, denial of service attacks or anything else that might impair access to Apple's servers, it would be stupid of Apple to risk the rest of their business. Whether you think Apple should release this movie through iTunes or not, a Christmas Day or Christmas Eve release is just not a good idea solely because of the timing.
So what you are saying is that you do not think that Apple's systems are as robust as those from Google and Microsoft?
YES.
BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
From your link:
Newmarket paid one million dollars for the U.S. distribution rights.[6] The total production budget for the film is estimated to have been two million dollars.[1] Two of the largest U.S. cinema chains, Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark, refused to screen the film; a Cinemark spokesman told UK newspaper The Guardian: “The assassination of a sitting president is problematic subject matter”.[7] In addition, major U.S. broadcasters CNN and National Public Radio refused to broadcast advertisements for the film.[8] The film was screened in the U.S. for 14 days, showing at 143 theatres at its widest release.[1][2] Worldwide, it grossed $869,352.[2] The Japanese motion picture ethics committee, the Eirin, prevented Death of a Presidentfrom being shown in most cinemas in 2007, saying that the film's Japanese title ("Bush Ansatsu", translated as "Bush Assassinated") is inappropriate.[9] The film was scheduled to begin showing in Japanese cinemas on 6 October 2007.
The government didn't prevent its release. Not sure what you meant otherwise.
The government didn't prevent its release.
That’d be why I said that.
Don't worry. An apology is forthcoming. From DED.
And it's not cowardess to decline to take on a low-payoff, high-risk challenge. It's prudence.
Merry Christmas everyone.