The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[Dejana]

Sony emails reveal Jennifer Lawrence paid less than male American Hustle co-stars, at least in terms of back-end compensation. Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper and Jeremy Renner were all at 9 percent while Amy Adams and Jennifer got 7 percent (JLaw negotiated up from 5 percent). Pascal's response concedes "there is truth here". Glass ceilings and casual racism: three cheers for Liberal Hollywood!

 

Here's a round-up from last night of 10 new developments, some responses to old developments, but Clooney wants to take on Rupert Murdoch, the studios want to take on Google and the new James Bond movie is still facing massive rewrites.

 

Also, Aaron Sorkin is "broke", maybe sleeping with an author and one proposed budget for the Jobs movie had Sorkin making more than any actor cast, twice as much as Fassbinder playing Jobs. Because the Jobs movie flamed out, Pascal wanted Sorkin to finish a script for Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt (from the same author of The Blind Side and Moneyball books), while Sorkin preferred Molly's Game, about a real-life Hollywood poker ring. Sorkin argued that Flash Boys would take too much research and also that the protagonist was Asian-Canadian and "there aren't any Asian movie stars". Pascal worried that since Molly's Game has some unflattering accounts of Tobey Maguire's poker antics, making it could upset Tobey's father-in-law Ronald Meyer, chairman of NBC Universal.

[Ankai]

Pascal wanted Sorkin to finish a script for Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt (from the same author of The Blind Side and Moneyball books), while Sorkin preferred Molly's Game, about a real-life Hollywood poker ring. Sorkin argued that Flash Boys would take too much research and also that the protagonist was Asian-Canadian and "there aren't any Asian movie stars".

 

Why would that matter? He could just make most of the protagonists White and tweak whatever narrative obstacles that there may be in order to make it fit. That has worked so well before, it is happening RIGHT NOW, and I see little chance of it changing much soon. Why would this be different?

[Ambrosefolly]

If I am going to say that it is wrong that starlets' iCloud accounts were hacked and their photos posted elsewhere, then I think that line of thinking should extend to the Sony email hacker scandal. Now I wouldn't send negative emails to anyone, especially within a corporate setting where the company owns the emails, but I am not going to say they had it coming.

 

And if Jennifer Lawrence is being paid less than her male co stars, especially at this point, than it is up to JLaw to demand more money. 

[Dejana]

Why would that matter? He could just make most of the protagonists White and tweak whatever narrative obstacles that there may be in order to make it fit. That has worked so well before, it is happening RIGHT NOW, and I see little chance of it changing much soon. Why would this be different?

 

Sorkin didn't want to work on the movie at all; he wanted to adapt a different book written by a woman he's possibly dating (according to Pascal). IMO, that "there aren't any Asian movie stars" (because Jesse Eisenberg was a huge movie star when he was cast in The Social Network) is just an excuse he threw out in the hopes that the studio would agree and shelve the project.

 

 

And if Jennifer Lawrence is being paid less than her male co stars, especially at this point, than it is up to JLaw to demand more money. 

 

She had. Her lawyers went to Sony and they agreed to give her a higher profit percentage, but that amount was still lower than what the men in American Hustle were getting. Perhaps she and Amy Adams should have gone back again and tried to get Sony to explain how in the world they could justify giving them fewer points for that film than Jeremy Renner. And no one at Sony would've called them demanding, ungrateful, greedy, replaceable or...minimally talented spoiled brats, I'm sure. Hollywood has a long history of giving a fair shake to women in front of and behind the camera, after all.

 

The media not reporting on the contents of the Sony Hack down to privacy concerns, well, I'm sure a lot of people in Hollywood would love that, a massive mulligan for all the questionable attitudes and poor judgment on a variety of fronts and shoddy business practices on display. Jennifer Lawrence has been dragged into both hacks; I wonder if she would share the opinion that the leaks of her business dealings and nude photos she sent to her boyfriend are exactly the same thing.

[AshleyN]

I can understand people questioning the ethics regarding the information coming from the Sony hack*, because honestly I keep going back and forth on it myself. But I'm not really comfortable with the argument that it's no different than the leaked nudes. For starters, these are business emails, not private emails, and most of the information released is directly related to Sony's business, which I think makes it different. Also, while the hack itself is obviously not okay, there is legitimate news value in some of the information that's come from it, and I'm not sure a news outlet would be doing their job correctly if they didn't report on, say, hard evidence of gender discrimination in the industry or casual racism between two of the most powerful people in Hollywood. The nudes on the other hand, had no news value (unless a person was somehow unaware that women have boobs), was a sex crime, and was a blatantly misogynistic attack targeting women for being women.

 

To me, a more accurate comparison (though still not perfect given the nature of how this particular information was obtained) would be to information leaked through Hollywood "insiders"**, which people rarely seem to take issue with.

 

*Well, the emails at least - the leaked social security numbers, and other information along that line is a whole different story.

 

**The actual leaks, not the stuff the studios/actors/whoever want out there but don't want people to know came from them

Edited December 15, 2014 by AshleyN

[Rick Kitchen]

ew

 

Sony Plans ‘Men in Black’ – ‘Jump Street’ Crossover

[AimingforYoko]

Sony Plans ‘Men in Black’ – ‘Jump Street’ Crossover

I love the quote from Jonah Hill, "Jump Street merging with MiB, I think that's clean and rad and powerful."

Gotta love Hollywood.

[xaxat]

Sony Pictures Demands That News Agencies Delete ‘Stolen’ Data

 

 

 

Mr. (David) Boies, for his part, had severe words for news organizations that continued to mine Sony’s data. “If you don’t comply with this request,” he wrote, Sony “will have no choice but to hold you responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by you.”

Kurt Opsahl, deputy general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, voiced doubt that the media could be forced to avoid such material, even if it was illegally obtained by a third party, given court precedent. “It is unfortunate that Sony got hacked, and lost control over its internal information,” Mr. Opsahl said in an email. “But the solution is not to muzzle the press.”

[DollEyes]

 

Sony plans "Men in Black' - "Jump Street' Crossover

 

  Ugh! I'd like to think Sony was joking, but knowing Hollywood, they aren't, unfortunately.

[Bruinsfan]

Pascal worried that since Molly's Game has some unflattering accounts of Tobey Maguire's poker antics, making it could upset Tobey's father-in-law Ronald Meyer, chairman of NBC Universal.

Well, that clears up the confusion I had about how Tobey Maguire keeps getting cast in big Hollywood movies.

[Kel Varnsen]

And if Jennifer Lawrence is being paid less than her male co stars, especially at this point, than it is up to JLaw to demand more money. 

That's sort of what I am thinking. I mean isn't that what you have an agent for?  If your agent got you only 7% and Christian Bale's managed to get him 9% then his did a better job and you should find out why yours couldn't get you that much money.  I don't expect the movie studios just to randomly give the stars more money out of the goodness of their hearts. If they had there way everyone would get 0% of the back end revenue.

[JBC344]

My interpretation of the article was that their was a glass ceiling for Amy Adams and Jennifer.  Not that they have bad agents but that the women, particularly Jennifer are "bigger" stars according to box office and there shouldn't have been an opportunity for the men to eclipse them salary wise.

 

Also David O Russell's movies aren't big budget movies, so the negotiation process is different. 

 

Men making more money than women isn't newsworthy.  To me the article was pointing out that Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper made more money than Jennifer specifically despite the fact that she is a bigger box office draw.

[AshleyN]

Men making more money than women isn't newsworthy.  To me the article was pointing out that Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper made more money than Jennifer specifically despite the fact that she is a bigger box office draw.

To me the most damning part of it wasn't Bale or Cooper, who you could argue are big names in their own right and had bigger roles than Lawrence, but Renner. Or perhaps more specifically, the fact that the three most prominent men were all put on the same level, while Adams (the female lead) and Lawrence (the biggest draw, as evidenced by how much of the marketing was centered around her) were on a lower one.

Edited December 15, 2014 by AshleyN

[JBC344]

To me the most damning part of it wasn't Bale or Cooper, who you could argue are big names in their own right and had bigger roles than Lawrence, but Renner. Or perhaps more specifically, the fact that the three most prominent men were all put on the same level, while Adams (the female lead) and Lawrence (the biggest draw, as evidenced by how much of the marketing was centered around her) were on a lower one.

I forgot about Renner there.  Really good point about the bigger roles helping them with the pay difference, but your absolutely right. I guess Renner benefitted from The Avengers and Mission Impossible, even though he isn't  as linked to that success like Jennifer's is to her movies, but regardless I'm still getting the age old "sexism" from this story. 

 

Aaron Sorkin's comments on Michael Fassbender continue to really bug me for some reason.  What an idiot.  He really thinks people don't know who Michael Fassbender is?  This is what happens when you give writers too much power.  I like Aaron but he really needs to stick to writing and let the studio determine casting. 

 

I find the Sony leaks much more psychologically fascinating than the "nude pic" scandal that happened, which I couldn't of been less interested in, either reading about it or looking at any of the pics.  There is a debate about company property and how confidential that should be, but I'm fascinated by the personal traits, relationships that are being affected by this information.  Very rarely do we get to hear what people really think of us "behind closed doors".  When confronted with that information you have to decide how you are going to deal with it.

 

For example do Leonardo Dicaprio and Will Smith flex their power and make trouble for those who insulted them and their children? Does Angelina Jolie swear off working with Scott Rudin?  Does Kevin Hart now have a strained relationship with the very studio he is locked into for the next couple of years?

 

Alternatively, you have the George Clooney e-mail that was released this morning which just goes to show how much he loves and respects his job.  That e-mail was very vulnerable and about as real as your going to get from one of the biggest movie stars in the world.  Does George get annoyed that it was released but will no doubt benefit from the positive response? 

 

Really interesting and something that will have repercussions throughout different facets of the industry.

[absnow54]

Sony Plans ‘Men in Black’ – ‘Jump Street’ Crossover

I love the quote from Jonah Hill, "Jump Street merging with MiB, I think that's clean and rad and powerful."

Gotta love Hollywood.

I laughed at the idea of this for a good while, but the crazy thing is, the Jump Street team could totally make this work.

[proserpina65]

Sony emails reveal Jennifer Lawrence paid less than male American Hustle co-stars, at least in terms of back-end compensation. Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper and Jeremy Renner were all at 9 percent while Amy Adams and Jennifer got 7 percent (JLaw negotiated up from 5 percent).

 

Having seen American Hustle, I can honestly say that Jennifer Lawrence did not deserve to be paid as much as Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper because her role was smaller than their roles.  Amy Adams' salary, on the other hand, should've been equal to theirs, and Jeremy Renner should've been paid less than Lawrence.  (This is based entirely on the size of their respective roles and is not intended as a commentary on particular performances.  Jeremy Renner, imo, gave the best performance of the whole lot,)

[Cobalt Stargazer]

To me the most damning part of it wasn't Bale or Cooper, who you could argue are big names in their own right and had bigger roles than Lawrence, but Renner. Or perhaps more specifically, the fact that the three most prominent men were all put on the same level, while Adams (the female lead) and Lawrence (the biggest draw, as evidenced by how much of the marketing was centered around her) were on a lower one.

 

To be fair to Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker was his movie, and both he and Bigelow deserved those Oscars, IMO. I haven't seen American Hustle yet, but if Renner's performance there was anything like the one from The Hurt Locker, he deserved every dime he got.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

[JBC344]

To be fair to Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker was his movie, and both he and Bigelow deserved those Oscars, IMO. I haven't seen American Hustle yet, but if Renner's performance there was anything like the one from The Hurt Locker, he deserved every dime he got.

I think you mean Jeremy's Oscar nomination?  No one is questioning Jeremy's talent, the point some of us were making is how could he possibly make more money than Jennifer when both were "Supporting" actors in the movie. You can make the point that Bradley and Christian were leads so that is why they made more.  Also Jennifer has a much bigger box office that is directly related to her than Jeremy does. 

[ruby24]

I don't know how much box office is directly related to Lawrence- I assume you're talking about Hunger Games, right? You don't think those movies would have made all that money with anyone in the role? Because I do. I think Twilight, Harry Potter and Hunger Games franchises are all about those properties and I honestly believe whoever starred in any of them would have become famous pretty easily.

 

When it comes to a big franchise's success being attributed directly to the actor I think the two names that are indisputable are probably Johnny Depp in Pirates and Robert Downey Jr. with Iron Man, who both created those characters kind of out of thin air (Iron Man's not out of thin air, but RDJ essentially fused his own personality with Tony Stark and no one was expecting that surprise). Other than that, I don't see Jennifer Lawrence as the same kind of thing.

[JBC344]

I don't know how much box office is directly related to Lawrence- I assume you're talking about Hunger Games, right? You don't think those movies would have made all that money with anyone in the role? Because I do. I think Twilight, Harry Potter and Hunger Games franchises are all about those properties and I honestly believe whoever starred in any of them would have become famous pretty easily.

 

When it comes to a big franchise's success being attributed directly to the actor I think the two names that are indisputable are probably Johnny Depp in Pirates and Robert Downey Jr. with Iron Man, who both created those characters kind of out of thin air (Iron Man's not out of thin air, but RDJ essentially fused his own personality with Tony Stark and no one was expecting that surprise). Other than that, I don't see Jennifer Lawrence as the same kind of thing.

Yes, I agree with you.  I was speaking more with public perception.  Jennifer's involvement with The Hunger Games and X-Men is on a much bigger scale than Jeremy's relation to "The Avengers" and "Mission Impossible".  All of those movies would of done well regardless of who was cast but my point is when you reference the Hunger Games the connection is immediately to Jennifer Lawrence, and the reboots of the X-Men movies are being centered around her.  When you reference Avengers or Mission, Jeremy is further down the list.

 

Anyway I feel we are getting away from the point.  The question when we came down to it is why Jeremy Renner who isn't as big a star as Jennifer being paid less when both are in "Supporting" roles in the movie.  And Jennifer's role is bigger.  It has nothing to do with Jeremy's or Jennifer's talent.  The point was how alive sexism still is in Hollywood, even for a woman who is at the top of her game.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think you mean Jeremy's Oscar nomination?  No one is questioning Jeremy's talent, the point some of us were making is how could he possibly make more money than Jennifer when both were "Supporting" actors in the movie. You can make the point that Bradley and Christian were leads so that is why they made more.  Also Jennifer has a much bigger box office that is directly related to her than Jeremy does. 

 

I stand corrected. I thought Jeremy won that year, but I didn't have my glasses on when I checked IMDB and missed that it said he was only nominated. Lawrence has won for The Silver Linings Playbook, which some people don't think she deserved, and I guess that's neither here nor there. As it relates to box office numbers, yes, The Hunger Games was a huge success, and I imagine that the second half of Mockingjay will continue that trend when it comes to ticket sales. However, I'm not entirely sure that proceeds from a science fiction franchise translate into someone from it automatically getting more money. American Hustle is purported to be a "serious" film, and while Lawrence is very popular right now, she doesn't have nearly as much pre-existing cred as someone like Amy Adams. I wouldn't expect, say, Daniel Radcliffe to get the same amount of money as Bale or Cooper either, and the Harry Potter franchise is probably even more successful than Hunger Games, at least money-wise.

[JBC344]

 

I stand corrected. I thought Jeremy won that year, but I didn't have my glasses on when I checked IMDB and missed that it said he was only nominated. Lawrence has won for The Silver Linings Playbook, which some people don't think she deserved, and I guess that's neither here nor there. As it relates to box office numbers, yes, The Hunger Games was a huge success, and I imagine that the second half of Mockingjay will continue that trend when it comes to ticket sales. However, I'm not entirely sure that proceeds from a science fiction franchise translate into someone from it automatically getting more money. American Hustle is purported to be a "serious" film, and while Lawrence is very popular right now, she doesn't have nearly as much pre-existing cred as someone like Amy Adams. I wouldn't expect, say, Daniel Radcliffe to get the same amount of money as Bale or Cooper either, and the Harry Potter franchise is probably even more successful than Hunger Games, at least money-wise.

It isn't a matter of Jennifer starred in one successful franchise so now she should be the highest paid.  Box office is one factor in an actors price, but it is a big one in addition to their history and popularity.  Jeremy is older than Jennifer and has made a handful more movies but you could make the case that both became "famous" around the same time.  Both have two Oscar nominations, with Jennifer actually winning one.  Jennifer is the much "bigger star" at the moment and has a meteoric rise to her career that is very different to Jeremy's career.

 

If you put all the factors on paper and removed the names you wouldn't conclude that Jeremy was the higher paid of the two.

 

Here is an example to illustrate my point.  When RDJ made the first Iron Man, he wasn't the highest paid on the set.  Terrence Howard was the highest paid actor in the movie.  Now whether or not you think Terrence is the better actor, is besides the point.  At that point in time Terrence Howard was a "bigger" star than RDJ. Not because he was more famous, but Terrence was enjoying a great career, and RDJ was trying to forge a comeback after his drug issues. Terrence was the more reliable and "bankable" actor.  Terrence's deal was worked out for the sequels from the first movie deal which would of had the studio paying him more money for the sequels than they were paying RDJ.  Now fast forward, the movie blows up and RDJ has revitalized his career and he can negotiate a raise for the sequels as he should.  The studio gives RDJ what he wants of course.  The problem is they don't want to pay two astronomical salaries, and they can't get rid of RDJ, hence Terrence Howard gets replaced by Don Cheadle for a cheaper cost.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5cvxNu-DEc

 

Now you would never think at this point in time that Terrence was better paid than RDJ for Iron Man, but at the time the deal was made it makes total sense.

Edited December 15, 2014 by JBC344

[AshleyN]

I don't know how much box office is directly related to Lawrence- I assume you're talking about Hunger Games, right? You don't think those movies would have made all that money with anyone in the role? Because I do. I think Twilight, Harry Potter and Hunger Games franchises are all about those properties and I honestly believe whoever starred in any of them would have become famous pretty easily.

Genuine question here, because I admit I don't follow the YA market that closely, but was the Hunger Games book series as big a deal as Harry Potter and Twilight before the movies came out? Because I don't recall it seeping into the general pop culture consciousness the way that those two series did, but that could just be because I was a little older and thus further removed from the target audience by that point.

 

Anyways, it's obviously hard to tell when it comes to franchises, and properties with already established fanbases, but personally, while I don't doubt that The Hunger Games would have been a big success regardless of who was in the role, I don't think it's impossible that Lawrence's universally raved performance at the centre of the franchise has had an impact on just how huge it's become. I remember there being stories last year about how Catching Fire was the first film with a sole female lead to win the yearly box office crown in something like forty years. That's a big deal, and I think sets it apart from being just any other franchise role. I also think the fact that her performance has been so well received makes it more likely that people who see her in those films will follow her elsewhere, thereby increasing her drawing power.

 

But it's not just franchise success that you can use to argue in her favour, but the combination of critical and commercial success which is virtually unprecedented for an actor her age and makes it hard to argue that she's not one of the very biggest movie stars in the world. And I think that's the reason people are latching on to this story in particular - it's a symptom of a much bigger problem. Because if even she has to fight to be treated equally to her male colleagues, how much harder is it for other women in the industry?

Edited December 16, 2014 by AshleyN

[ribboninthesky1]

Are contracts finalized when an actor is cast? Or is it up for renegotiation at any point? I'm wondering when American Hustle was filmed. The emails were from 2013, but that's not necessarily when the movie was shot, yes?

 

The Hunger Games was released in 2012, so is it possible that American Hustle was shot (or in production) before the success of The Hunger Games franchise was realized?  I'm not disputing sexism in Hollywood, but I'm not convinced that the American Hustle contracts are the most accurate example of that, particularly as it relates to Jennifer Lawrence.  Maybe if the comparison was being made between Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner, who are around the same age, have Oscar noms  and been working for years, I could see it.  And if I'm being honest - 7 vs 9 percent of a movie that wasn't exactly a blockbuster seems kind of a quibble over a molehill.  American Hustle made around $150 million to date, so that's a difference of $10 million vs $13 million.  In the world of Hollywood, that doesn't seem all that significant to me, especially since Jennifer's Hunger Games salary presumably covers that difference many more times.  To me, the pay disparity of the anonymous Sony employees mentioned in the Daily Beast article is a much stronger example of sexism. 

[Dejana]

Are contracts finalized when an actor is cast? Or is it up for renegotiation at any point? I'm wondering when American Hustle was filmed. The emails were from 2013, but that's not necessarily when the movie was shot, yes?

 

The Hunger Games was released in 2012, so is it possible that American Hustle was shot (or in production) before the success of The Hunger Games franchise was realized? 

 

Jennifer Lawrence's casting in American Hustle was announced February 2013 and principal filming began March 8, 2013.

 

Well, that clears up the confusion I had about how Tobey Maguire keeps getting cast in big Hollywood movies.

 

Being Leonardo DiCaprio's longtime BFF probably didn't hurt when The Great Gatsby was being cast, either.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Dejana

[JBC344]

American Hustle was made after Hunger Games and after Jennifer won her Oscar.  

[Kel Varnsen]

My interpretation of the article was that their was a glass ceiling for Amy Adams and Jennifer.  Not that they have bad agents but that the women, particularly Jennifer are "bigger" stars according to box office and there shouldn't have been an opportunity for the men to eclipse them salary wise.

 

Also David O Russell's movies aren't big budget movies, so the negotiation process is different. 

 

Men making more money than women isn't newsworthy.  To me the article was pointing out that Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper made more money than Jennifer specifically despite the fact that she is a bigger box office draw.

But I would have to assume that these negotiations happen individually. And I would doubt that those numbers the actors received were the first offers made by the studios. If Bale and Cooper and Renner got more money I would have to assume it was how things were negotiated. The studio is under no obligation to give Jennifer Lawrence the same amount just out of the goodness of her heart (just because other actors negotiated for more), their only obligation is to their shareholders. If she wants more money it is up to her and her people to get it, and if she is not happy with what the studio is offering it is her choice to walk.

[OakGoblinFly]

To me the most damning part of it wasn't Bale or Cooper, who you could argue are big names in their own right and had bigger roles than Lawrence, but Renner. Or perhaps more specifically, the fact that the three most prominent men were all put on the same level, while Adams (the female lead) and Lawrence (the biggest draw, as evidenced by how much of the marketing was centered around her) were on a lower one.

 

 

But was that true when the deal was negotiated?  Lawrence might be a bigger draw now (and I think that's debatable) but was she considered "bankable" then?

[JBC344]

American Hustle was after The first Hunger Games and X-Men, I would say she was more "bankable" than Jeremy.  Anyway, I'll agree to drop it.  It seems like there might be better examples.  Thanks for the great conversation.

[absnow54]

Weren't they negotiating American Hustle during the 2013 (or the 2012 season that aired mostly in 2013) award season? When Jennifer Lawrence was winning every major acting award for Silver Linings Playbook? I'm pretty sure this was the height of Lawrence-mania. I think that's why she was able to negotiate from 5-7%, but really, she had a small part in the movie. I'm pretty sure she shot all of her scenes in a couple of days. What I think is ridiculous is that Amy Adams didn't make the same amount as Bradley Cooper. I think they're on similar footing in the industry and were both prominent leads in the film. I hope Adams got paid more upfront and therefore took a smaller backend.

 

7% vs 9% means they were getting paid about 78% of what the three male leads were getting, which is a familiar statistic of the perceived wadge gap. From a principle standpoint, that's not cool, but from a "boo hoo, woe is me" standpoint, $10million is still more money than I'll ever probably see in my life.

Edited December 16, 2014 by absnow54

[ChelseaNH]

From the original post:

at least in terms of back-end compensation

 

Have we filled in the total compensation package details?  Some people will trade more front-end money for back-end participation, depending on how they think the film will perform (or how much they're prepared to trust studio accounting or if they have back taxes to pay off or ...).  American Hustle is more of a prestige film than a tent-pole blockbuster.

[Kel Varnsen]

Have we filled in the total compensation package details?  Some people will trade more front-end money for back-end participation, depending on how they think the film will perform (or how much they're prepared to trust studio accounting or if they have back taxes to pay off or ...).  American Hustle is more of a prestige film than a tent-pole blockbuster.

What kind of blows my mind is that the 5 actors in that movie took home 41 percent of all the revenue made off of that movie (assuming these are percentage of gross revenue, since I don't think anyone at that level is a big enough a sucker to take a percentage of the profits). When you figure that the theaters take a cut (especially in a prestige movie like that that would expect to stick around in theatres for awhile, rather than have a huge opening weekend, and the fact that the studio has to pay for promotion, it doesn't leave a lot of money for for the studio. 

[galax-arena]

Sony hackers are threatening a 9/11-style attack on theaters that show The Interview.

 

I can't really take this seriously. People are assuming that North Korean hackers (and therefore the NK government) are behind this. Even if they are, the chances that North Korea would manage to pull off a successful terror attack in the US are low. They can't even pull off a major attack on South Korea, their next-door neighbor; they're not going to be able to plot and execute an attack across an entire ocean in such short order. But perhaps I've become used to North Korean sabre-rattling.

 

That's assuming that the NK government is involved. Honestly, the language sounds like a native English speaker trying really hard to come across as ESL. If you check out a lot of North Korean propaganda, you'll notice that their grammar/syntax is actually fairly good, it's just that their diction is awkward as hell.

 

This feels like someone who watched Red Dawn one too many times and has decided to exploit people's unreasonable fears of a North Korean attack on US soil. Someone really WANTS us to think it's North Korea. 

 

ETA: Of course, the threats should still be investigated, because better safe than sorry. I'd hate to be the person who dismissed the threats only to have it come back and bite me in the ass. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by galax-arena

[Joe]

Okay, so the rumour is that Paramount want Star Trek 3 to be more like Guardians of the Galaxy. Yes, I love space opera. Yes, I love both universes. No, I don't think they fit well together. It's like saying I like custard and I like pizza. But putting custard on your pizza is likely to end up as a horrible mess.

 

Although, the new Trek movies, I can just about see it. They're more about crazy space adventure than the old Trek ever was. Still, I'd rather see a Trek that felt like Trek. Or, a radical thought, a new independent space opera with its own unique tone.

[Dejana]

Carmike theater chain won't show The Interview

Edited December 17, 2014 by Dejana

[ChelseaNH]

Still, I'd rather see a Trek that felt like Trek.

 

This.  I enjoyed the first movie, but other than some character moments, it felt like a generic action movie set in space.  (I skipped the second movie entirely.)  If you're going to reboot a series, you really need to understand what is unique and signature to that series.

[galax-arena]

As a result of the hacker threats, The Interview has been dropped from all the major theater chains (AMC, Regal, and Cinemark) in the US. Crazy. 

[JBC344]

Wow, this is really going to hit Sony hard.

[Amethyst]

At this point, it would be Sony's best bet to put the movie online (maybe through something like Amazon?) or available to watch on VOD.  Whether the threat is real or not, I don't blame theaters for not risking the lives of their patrons.

 

EDIT: MSNBC just announced Sony is pulling the film's release on Christmas Day.  

Edited December 17, 2014 by Amethyst

[Spartan Girl]

So the terrorists win.  Again.

 

I am so furious about this.  I'd be furious even if I hadn't planned to see the movie, but this is just maddening.  Especially in the light of what happened in Pakistan.  I guess I can understand the decision but after reading this article, it's just frustrating.  We should be allowed to see whatever movies we want.

[galax-arena]

As someone who is sick and tired of seeing North Korea treated as a punchline in Western media, because I think it perpetuates ignorance of the all-too-real human rights atrocities in the country, I would have preferred a much better way of stopping the movie than threats of violence (because come on). Like not making the movie in the first place... there are so many interesting North Korean movies we could make, and Hollywood decides to do The Interview??? But, um, I can do without the terror threats, kthx. 

 

If this really is some random hacker(s) trying to frame North Korea, they are in for a world of hurt if they're caught lol. 

Edited December 17, 2014 by galax-arena

[Rick Kitchen]

CNN just announced that the US government has verified that the hacking was done by North Korea, I don't know what evidence they have.

[Ronin Jackson]

This is unfortunate because it's going to encourage anyone who feels it's their right to suppress expression of others to mimic the hacker's path to successfully thwarting the release of the film.  And I say this not having seen the film, and having no judgement over whether it is worth all the brouhaha.  It probably isn't, frankly... I mean I've seen Pineapple Express and This is the End and what not... they are enjoyable enough comedies but I wouldn't get the impression that Rogen and Goldberg have got something more weighty in mind than using North Korea's evils as a convenient punchline.  I wouldn't be surprised if they bit off way more than they can chew here, but still, I hate that the hack and the threats have been successful in getting what they want.  It's a very bad precedent that is being set.

[NumberCruncher]

Wow, Sony and the theater chains completely wimped out. I had no plans whatsoever to see The Interview (mainly because I can't stand Seth Rogen) so I have no dog in the fight, but not releasing the movie because of generic threats seems beyond ridiculous to me since the likelihood that North Korea could pull off coordinated attacks on thousands of theaters in U.S. is pretty damn tiny.

[cleo]

Yeah, I'm really surprised and upset by the decision to pull the film. What kind of message does that send to these fear mongerers?

I live in Canada, so it will be released here. I'm going to see it likely xmas day

ETA just cancelled in Toronto. I don't support the decision at all. I'm at more risk of being hit by a car downtown during rush hour.

I understand not wanting to minimize the real tragedies that have occurred in the past or could occur in future. I'm just not sure living in fear and censorship is the answer.

Edited December 18, 2014 by cleo

[Lady Calypso]

I guess I can kind of see why theatres pulled out of The Interview. Even if the threat isn't followed through with, there's still the chance of one nutjob going out and 'joining in' on the threats made toward the film. Granted that can happen with any film, but if one person is crazy enough to pull a gun in a movie theatre, and unfortunately with the recent movie theatre shooting it is 100% possible, I get why they'd minimize the risk of it happening at all. Sony was screwed the moment the threat was made. The best thing to ensure safety and not have people yelling/suing them for NOT pulling out the moment the threat was made if it did happen is to do what they have done. It sucks, but I can see why it's their only choice at the moment. I don't think the threat would have been carried through but if it had, there would have been a much bigger uproar at Sony's doorstep. 

But I had no plans to see the film anyway because it looks stupid, possibly offensive and as much as I think Seth and James are probably ok people in real life, I hate their movies with a passion (exception of Franco with a seldom rare film here and there). 

[Mindymoo]

What I don't understand is why they had to make it North Korea. Why couldn't they have had a fictional country as an obvious stand-in for North Korea, the way that Charlie Chaplin did with "The Great Dictator"? Everyone knew that Adenoid Hynkel was Adolf Hitler and that Tomainia was Germany, and the movie was made when the US wasn't involved yet in the war. So why couldn't they have taken a page from Chaplin's book? It would have been self-censoring, but it also wouldn't be causing the major issue they're having right now. I don't agree with the decision to pull the movie in all formats at all, but I am astounded at the lack of foresight the creators and producers have. Anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge of world affairs knows that the higher ups in North Korea aren't exactly known for their senses of humor.

[Dejana]

What I don't understand is why they had to make it North Korea. Why couldn't they have had a fictional country as an obvious stand-in for North Korea, the way that Charlie Chaplin did with "The Great Dictator"? Everyone knew that Adenoid Hynkel was Adolf Hitler and that Tomainia was Germany, and the movie was made when the US wasn't involved yet in the war. So why couldn't they have taken a page from Chaplin's book? It would have been self-censoring, but it also wouldn't be causing the major issue they're having right now. I don't agree with the decision to pull the movie in all formats at all, but I am astounded at the lack of foresight the creators and producers have. Anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge of world affairs knows that the higher ups in North Korea aren't exactly known for their senses of humor.

 

I guess they figured Team America: World Police didn't cause this sort of drama, so what's the worst that could happen? Of course, that involved puppets, and maybe Kim Jong Il wasn't as web savvy. I don't expect Rogen and Franco to have a broader perspective, but that's where you figure the executives would intercede. Of course, with the (alleged) stamp of approval from the State Department (link contains movie spoiler) Sony probably thought they were in the clear on the movie causing an international incident.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Dejana

[galax-arena]

CNN just announced that the US government has verified that the hacking was done by North Korea, I don't know what evidence they have.

Does this mean we should start referring to Korean barbecue as "freedom barbecue" now? 

 

 

I guess I can kind of see why theatres pulled out of The Interview. Even if the threat isn't followed through with, there's still the chance of one nutjob going out and 'joining in' on the threats made toward the film. Granted that can happen with any film, but if one person is crazy enough to pull a gun in a movie theatre, and unfortunately with the recent movie theatre shooting it is 100% possible, I get why they'd minimize the risk of it happening at all.

Exactly. Chances are the threats are completely, utterly groundless, but can you imagine what would happen if the worst-case scenario were to happen and someone shot up the theater or planted a bomb? There would be a complete shitstorm and hell would rain down on Sony's head for ignoring a very public warning. Hindsight would have been 20/20 and we'd all be wailing, "Why did Sony take the chance? Better safe than sorry!" And so on. Sony would be utterly fucked. 

 

If an attack were to happen, North Korea wouldn't be behind it because I don't believe they're capable of that, but there'd be nothing stopping some deranged individual from deciding to join in on the fun. That's the real fear IMO. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by galax-arena

[ancslove]

Theaters canceling The Interview makes some sense, since it will also save their other movies from losing money due to people (who want to see other movies) avoiding the theater out of fear.  [God, that was a clumsy sentence!]

 

In that respect, I kind of wonder if Sony decided to cancel Interview's release, because they knew it would be a loss anyway. If theaters aren't going to show it anyway, why take the humiliating loss?  By canceling it themselves, Sony saves face.  But it does set a really bad precedent.