This is topic Sony Hack Hits Home in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002860
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-10-2014, 05:08 PM:
Almost 99% of my work now involves various studio preview, press
& Academy screenings, as well as some 'invitation only' events for
film-makers & their guests.
For many of these events, I have to bill the studio/distributor directly.
I suppose by now, you've all read or heard about the big hacker attack
at SONY Pictures a week or so ago.
So, the other day I got an e-mail from SONY informing me that I will
have to re-submit all my invoices for the last several jobs I did for
them in November, and that there would most likely be "a bit of a delay"
in getting my paychecks cuz their accounting system "is still a mess."
Thank You, North Korea!
-->In case you have no idea what I'm talking about go here:
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-10-2014, 05:25 PM:
It wasn't the North Koreans.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-10-2014, 05:34 PM:
Yeah, North Korea is a lame scapegoat for crappy security.
Sony has a history of not giving a flying f*ck about IT systems security. They should be banned from using computers ever again: From now on it's back to typewriters, large filing cabinets and homing pigeons.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-10-2014, 05:43 PM:
North Korea makes a convenient target of blame as they did protest the release of The Interview and then the hacking occurs shortly after, from what I hear...
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-10-2014, 07:08 PM:
To me it almost seems like an attempt of viral marketing for The Interview. I have no evidence of this, of course. And I don't know why they'd try to market a comedy about North Korea that way. But I think they are trying to make the most of a bad situation by saying the hackers are demanding them to not release or delay The Interview.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-11-2014, 03:55 AM:
Well yeah, I initially thought along the same lines. Rather coincidental and maybe just another marketing trick.
But, if you look at what actually leaked out of there, I doubt any company on earth would do this on purpose.
Amongst a lot of personal records of actual and former employees (including higher management functions) and some high profile movie stars amongst them, a lot of confidential internal communications, passwords, private encryption keys, some high quality DVD/Blu Ray screeners of recent titles (the most popular amongst them being Fury) were also leaked into the wild.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-11-2014, 04:39 AM:
I read that Japan is pretty pissed at Angelina Jolie also....
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-11-2014, 11:23 AM:
I was skeptical about North Korea, too. I mean, if they really have the capability to have been responsible for this, that would be inconsistent with the reports that it is a pretty primitive place.
Jim: I share your pain about studio invoicing. Because our place is a 501(c)(3), we have to invoice private rental clients for projectionist services separately from the venue rental (a non-profit can rent out its building and infrastructure without having to pay tax on the revenue, but not the services of its employees, so the two have to be kept separate in the accounting process) and it's my job to do the projectionist invoices. The big studios are the worst to deal with, by a long chalk. One (for political reasons I don't feel comfortable saying which one on a public website) requires every payee to register on their online accounting system, upload a ton of paperwork - invoice, W-9, etc. - in PDF form to exact specifications (which that system will reject if not followed to the letter), and then wait 45 days to be paid. Things have got to the stage that one of my co-workers now refuses to work private rental screenings for this studio. The others aren't as bad, but they still tie you up in red tape.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-11-2014, 12:21 PM:
North Korea might be a very backward place for the average North Korean, but don't underestimate the considerable amount of resources and commitment they can put into such things. For what it's worth, they could also have hired a bunch of "hackers" from somewhere else.
Also, don't overestimate the complexity of the security systems of the average corporation. A simple Administrator password to a Windows domain of such a corporation will give you full access to about anything on many such networks.
Still, before you start blaming someone, first come up with some credible evidence and don't just pick an easy and obvious target as a lame excuse for your own failure to secure your systems appropriately. Because, in 95% cases of all security breaches it just boils down to incompetence from the side of the affected parties. You can easily blame the "other" party: It's THEY who hacked us, but maybe it's time to wake up. If you're a high profile, billion dollar company, you're always a potential target for those kind of things.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Because our place is a 501(c)(3), we have to invoice private rental clients for projectionist services separately from the venue rental (a non-profit can rent out its building and infrastructure without having to pay tax on the revenue, but not the services of its employees, so the two have to be kept separate in the accounting process) and it's my job to do the projectionist invoices.
There's probably a ton of stuff I'm overlooking here and I don't have all the details obviously. But this problem would essentially also arise here. If this would manifest on a regularly basis, I would have the non-profit organization incorporate a new (for profit) company which will then, in turn hire the projectionists on an hourly basis (essentially, it will just request services from the non-profit) and will then invoice the studios for their services. This way, there should be no need to do all the extra paperwork.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-11-2014, 12:59 PM:
Quoting excerpts from Leo's last post:
quote:
"Jim: I share your pain about studio invoicing...... . The big studios
are the worst to deal with, by a long chalk. One requires every payee
to register on their online accounting system, upload a ton of paperwork
- invoice, W-9, etc. - in PDF form to exact specifications
(which that system will reject if not followed to the letter),
Leo really has a good understanding of the situation.
You wouldn't believe the piles of paperwork and hoops of minutia I had to
jump through when first registering with each of the studios & distributors.
My favorite was one organization which required me to download, print
and fill out a form which then had to be hand-signed, using only BLUE
ink, and then sent back to them via US postal snail-mail.
I looked all over my house & couldn't find a friggin' blue ink pen.
All I had were black. I went to my neighbor across the hall, and
we dug through several kitchen & desk drawers, and she didn't
have a blue pen either. I wound up having to walk several blocks,
in the rain, to my local Walgreens to buy a blue pen. - - - and of
course I couldn't buy just one, I had to buy a pack of 8 or so.
. . and then I had to look all over my house for an envelope & a stamp.
Gimmieafrigginbreak!
Now that I'm 'registered' with everyone, it usually takes about 30-45
days for them to process my invoices, but that's pretty normal for
any buisness/billing cycle.
(Although a couple of distributors often pay me within 10-20 days.)
As for the Sony hack- I really don't givacrap who's responsible, I just
want my money! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-11-2014, 01:34 PM:
quote: Jim Cassedy
a form which then had to be hand-signed, using only BLUE
ink, and then sent back to them via US postal snail-mail.
I looked all over my house & couldn't find a friggin' blue ink pen. All I had were black.
My mom was a banker and to this day it drives her crazy that blue pens are so rare. She always insisted that documents be signed in blue ink so it was easy to tell a copy from an original. (This was before color copiers became so common of course.)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-11-2014, 05:44 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sony has a history of not giving a flying f*ck about IT systems security. They should be banned from using computers ever again: From now on it's back to typewriters, large filing cabinets and homing pigeons.
You said something earlier about not blaming someone without first coming up with credible evidence, not picking on an easy target, etc. How do you know the entire fault resides solely with Sony?
I'm not trying to defend Sony by any means, but the company did spend more than a billion dollars on systems upgrades after the Playstation Network hack. There's no doubt other victims of massive security breaches, such as Target and Home Depot, have spent a fuck-ton of money on computing systems and still got cracked anyway.
It's fairly likely some level of end user negligence or even maleficence took place within Sony's operations to make this hack possible.
However, the software engineers and other people who make decisions in how computer software and hardware sold to companies like Sony are also suspect. Both White Hat and Black Hat crackers have been breaking into computing systems and devices controlled by computers on an almost routine basis even despite diligence on the part of users to keep their devices secure.
The situation with computing security seems to be getting worse and worse. I think two things need to be done. First, the computing industry needs to provide a lot more incentive to White Hats to find security bugs before Black Hats do. Second, some way has to be found to bring computing criminals to justice. The first proposal is very do-able. But the second is probably impossible considering many of the Black Hats are in non-extradition treaty countries like Russia and China.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-11-2014, 06:00 PM:
The FCC logs at radio stations were supposedly to be typed or written with black ink. (because of old copier limitations.) I used red ink in my typewriters and blue ink. After checking all the regulations and finding nothing, I figured that there was no stated law against a small protest.
Later they eliminated any transmitter logging. (Guess I was right?)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-12-2014, 04:37 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
You said something earlier about not blaming someone without first coming up with credible evidence, not picking on an easy target, etc. How do you know the entire fault resides solely with Sony?
I never said the ENTIRE fault resides solely with Sony. Still, if such a thing happens to you, you better be humble and go sit in the corner, ashamed, before you start pointing fingers at evil Kim Yong Un or whoever comes in handy. Because, even if it was *them* who did it, you f*cked up likewise.
The PSN hack actually triggered the replacement of two of my credit cards (one of those never worked because of reasons unknown, yet apparently ended up being stored in their system anyway) and my personal information got probably stolen. They never even dared to inform me about it personally, it was the credit card companies who did so.
If you read the many reports about what actually happened in the case of the PSN hack, it was clear security has always been an afterthought. So, Sony apparently spent a billion dollars on security upgrades. Great, now what? Do we need to feel sorry for them? They could have avoided the whole disaster by spending a fraction of that before the fact. Also, the rootkit incident from 2005, where Sony infected hundreds of thousands of machines with something that essentially was a Trojan via their half-baked DRM is also still not forgotten.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There's no doubt other victims of massive security breaches, such as Target and Home Depot, have spent a fuck-ton of money on computing systems and still got cracked anyway.
Seemingly they either still didn’t spent enough or they spent it wrong. Leaking MILLIONS of credit card accounts without getting noticed before it's too late... Sorry, but your security sucks. No excuses possible.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's fairly likely some level of end user negligence or even maleficence took place within Sony's operations to make this hack possible.
Hacks are often at least partly caused by social engineering tactics or rogue employees. Still, this is no excuse for shitty security, especially at those kind of monster companies. You should know this can and will happen if you don’t take appropriate measures.
quote: Bobby Henderson
However, the software engineers and other people who make decisions in how computer software and hardware sold to companies like Sony are also suspect. Both White Hat and Black Hat crackers have been breaking into computing systems and devices controlled by computers on an almost routine basis even despite diligence on the part of users to keep their devices secure.
Yeah, both NSA and the Chinese government have been suspected of implementing backdoors in commonly used IT gear. In the end they might have caused more harm than any good with this kind of questionable behavior.
But honestly, if you look at the stuff out there, this hack was most probably far less sophisticated as other high profile hacks. It's most likely just the contents of one of their internal file servers. So, this has all the makings of just lame security and a failure of internal policies, not some secret North Korean uber-hacker-ninja-squad.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The situation with computing security seems to be getting worse and worse. I think two things need to be done. First, the computing industry needs to provide a lot more incentive to White Hats to find security bugs before Black Hats do. Second, some way has to be found to bring computing criminals to justice. The first proposal is very do-able. But the second is probably impossible considering many of the Black Hats are in non-extradition treaty countries like Russia and China.
Well, third, and probably most importantly: We need to drastically change our approach to this thing called "IT".
We blindingly continue with hooking everything together, from tablets, smartphones to refrigerators. All this, using half-assed, often unproven technology, which often randomly fails. We keep pushing ever more of our personal data into some kind of "cloud", often without even knowing or caring about the potential implications.
Vendors need to do their part too obviously, but it's primarily the fault of many of those companies out there, who just don’t take their IT and communication systems serious and are simply not putting in sufficient amount of efforts to secure them properly. IT systems security doesn’t come cheap and essentially doesn't add anything to the bottom line, so why care?
So, I think people should be mad if their personal information lands on the street, almost always due to incompetency and corner cutting at those corporations who caused the leaks. In this particular case, it wasn't so much the personal information of the lowly worker-class bee that became public knowledge, it squarely exploded in Sony's face. A simple sorry and some free credits won’t fix anything this time, they've been caught with their pants down.
Still, I'm simply unable to feel even remotely sorry for them, the only ones who I feel sorry for is those who are affected by it, like Jim for example.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2014, 10:50 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We blindingly continue with hooking everything together, from tablets, smartphones to refrigerators. All this, using half-assed, often unproven technology, which often randomly fails.
The problem is that sounds like it's far more the fault of the people who made the actual damned products rather than the end users buying the products. They're the ones who engineered the hardware and software. They're the ones who didn't write the code well enough to plug any vulnerabilities.
Software companies are getting pretty damned cheap and greedy these days. They're outsourcing a lot of code work to Lord only knows where to save on labor costs and improve the company's stock price. And they're cobbling in lots of open source code too, some of which is also highly suspect. When you're writing software for free as a form of charity work just how diligent are you going to be in making sure the final "gold code" is secure? Despite all that cost savings work the software company is still going to charge as much as it can get away with for that end product.
It's not an end user's fault or IT guy's fault if some horrible zero day exploit is found in Microsoft Windows, Sun Java or whatever. That's on the heads of the people who created the software. End users and IT guys can only take action after the vulnerability is discovered.
That doesn't absolve end users from their own responsibility. I'll be the first to blame an end user for deliberately or ignorantly doing risky things with a computer. But the fact remains that a bunch of things are out of our control. Even the notion of buying a Mac or iOS device is no longer a guarantee of safety, as seen by some news-making hacks lately (like the Chinese government hacking iOS devices used by protesters in Hong Kong).
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-12-2014, 06:05 PM:
In this day and age, anyone who thinks or treats communications on the internet and especially emails on a company server as if it is "secure" is just delusional. There is no such thing as a private email on the internet. You say nasty stuff about your A list clients, actors, directors, whomever, and think it won't ever be discovered, then you get what you deserve. But really, big deal someone says an actress is a brat. Is this a surprise? Anyone really think divas AREN'T brats?
The REAL issue is that 5 Sony films, drek as they may be, were hacked. Any studio that puts multi-million dollar product on server CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET deserves what they get. Given how paranoid the studios seem to be about piracy, the fact that they allow production content to be floating around on hack-able servers is a joke. And you don't need to spend millions on security for production content, you just need to keep it on a closed system. Disconnect it from the internet, period. Sure it will mean the big wigs many not have the convenience of being able to do screenings in their home theatres and they may have to actually go to the studio to see dailies, but in one single disconnect, you slaughter ALL of the hacking possibilities. Keep your film file servers disconnected from the internet; inconvenient, yes, but complicated security, no. NOTHING can be hacked if it's off line.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-12-2014, 06:58 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
Any studio that puts multi-million dollar product on server CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET deserves what they get
100% in agreement with Frank, except maybe I'd add the word "unencrypted" product.
Getting back to the original reason for starting this post, this blurb
is currently the first item at the top of the page (above the headline!)
on DRUDGE:
Since Sony has already told me they've 'lost' the paperwork for all
the screenings I did for them in November, this represents quite a sum
of money when you consider that I get several hundred dollars per show.
I'm not looking for sympathy- - I'm not going to starve. I've got money
in the bank and I'm 'booked solid' with film festival & projection work
almost right till the end of the year. It's just that "I earned it. . . I want it".
(and I think that's not an unreasonable whine. . )
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-12-2014, 07:31 PM:
This hack is turning into disastrous news for Sony. The Angelina Jolie snarking is ultimately just a bit of a giggle, but it's now being reported that medical records of Sony employees have also been leaked.
I'm guessing that suppliers' invoices might also be among the leaked files. I hope Jim's didn't have his SSN on them. A co-worker suggested to me some time ago that I get an EIN and put that on the W-9 I send out with private rental invoices, in order to avoid having to give my SSN out, as an identity theft precaution. After this story, I'm glad I did.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-14-2014, 06:58 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
That doesn't absolve end users from their own responsibility. I'll be the first to blame an end user for deliberately or ignorantly doing risky things with a computer. But the fact remains that a bunch of things are out of our control. Even the notion of buying a Mac or iOS device is no longer a guarantee of safety, as seen by some news-making hacks lately (like the Chinese government hacking iOS devices used by protesters in Hong Kong).
If you look at end-users and small businesses, I couldn't agree more. Those vendors (ironically, Sony amongst them) really need to step up their efforts to release products that just work and are safe to use in every aspect. This whole concept of churning out products, before they're actually finished needs to stop and people should actually just quit buying this junk.
Look at the whole chain from the lowest hardware layer to the end user software, you'll see just a pile up of unfinished, rushed out products, barely working together. Robustness, which used to be an important cornerstone of all IT related products out there, is nowhere to be found.
Still, if you're SPE or any other megacorp, or megadivision of a megacorp and you have budgets of billions, you should be amongst those who know this. Your IT guys, which should earn a good salary, are paid to know this. You should know that, for example, hooking up your smart phones to your internal network, to allow everybody to access everything from everywhere, will open up your network for potential abuse. You know that for almost every shitty product out there, whether or not they’re made by Dell, HP, Microsoft or Apple, there will be countless zero-day exploits around.
Knowing this, and knowing the sensitivity of the information you're dealing with, you might just choose not to hook it all together. Because, there are plenty of solutions out there, which will make it almost impossible for any hacker to get away with whole file servers worth of data. The problem is, they WILL cost serious money, they will, if nothing goes awry like it did now, not earn you one buck extra. And yeah, you will also have to deal with those self-important-persons, who'll urge the IT guy to get their e-mail running on whatever shiny device they'll bring in.
quote: Leo Enticknap
This hack is turning into disastrous news for Sony. The Angelina Jolie snarking is ultimately just a bit of a giggle, but it's now being reported that medical records of Sony employees have also been leaked.
I’ve read in some local news today that even the script of the latest Bond movie was supposedly included in the hack.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-14-2014, 12:20 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Still, if you're SPE or any other megacorp, or megadivision of a megacorp and you have budgets of billions...
And especially if you're a megacorp in an industry that is known for being security-sensitive. What irritates me is that the security BS the studios impose on us is a constant impediment to us doing our job properly. KDMs that don't open in time for us to test the movie properly before showtime, the countless hours spent chasing KDMs that don't arrive, film prints that arrive with stupid padlocks on the case, are all irritants that we are forced to put up with in the name of protecting their IP. But yet they themselves operate such poor internal security that it was possible for the North Koreans (and/or people operating on their behalf) to empty their entire servers - including every single email written on their lot for the last ten years, for frig's sake!
IT security should always be proportional to the actual threat. I have TrueCrypted the data volume on my laptop, because it does contain data about some other people that they have a right to expect will not be leaked. The chance of it being stolen, while not great, is significantly higher than zero, and entering in a password every time I boot it up is not too much to ask to protect that data. But I don't change that password daily, or never connect it to the Internet, or take the kind of enhanced precautions I would take if I believed that enemies who knew what they are doing were actively trying to take that data from me.
If the studios didn't believe that enemies who know what they are doing are trying to steal their digital assets, why was DCP encryption ever part of the standard? Why were CSS and the other consumer media protection systems ever invented? Why do I have to sign a NDA when I project a studio preview before its release? Yet Sony feels the need to do all of this, but not to keep its own back end infrastructure secure?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-16-2014, 11:31 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
But I think they are trying to make the most of a bad situation by saying the hackers are demanding them to not release or delay The Interview.
I have a feeling that SONY Corporate Japan is going to pull the plug on the movie at the last minute. I think they just need the FBI to confirm the hackers are from/linked to North Korea. SONY makes a hell of lot electronics and other things and having this movie incident ruin their reputation is not worth it IMO.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2014, 12:00 PM:
We got a letter through NATO from the Department of Homeland Security warning that even theaters playing the movie (exhibition chain companies) might be at some sort of risk. Apparently some other threats have been identified. The letter says: quote:
These threats are directed at a specified company but anyone associated with the production, distribution, and promotion of an upcoming movie release could possibly become the target of cyber-attacks.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have a feeling that SONY Corporate Japan is going to pull the plug on the movie at the last minute.
They'd be foolish to do that. It's not as if the bad guys are going to say "Oh hey, thanks for pulling the movie, we'll leave you alone now." Nope, they might as well just go ahead with it. Maybe cut back on the advertising a little.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-16-2014, 12:41 PM:
It isn't a wise idea to give in to extortion, even if giving in to it is the easiest solution. What happens when North Korea (or whoever) objects to the next movie coming down the line?
I suspect that the IT security folks are between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Good security creates a certain amount of inconvenience for the users. This applies both online and off -- it's more inconvenient to unlock and open the door on a bank vault than to open the door on the broom closet beside it.
What do you do when the user who is being inconvenienced is higher on the food chain than you are? When the Vice-President of Mumbo Jumbo tells the Security Minion that he wants to be able to do task X with his shiny new cell phone, the right answer is probably "No", but the only available answer is "I'll set that up for you immediately, sir!"
When something like this hack happens later on, then it's obviously the Security Minon's fault, and he should be demoted or fired immediately.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-16-2014, 12:55 PM:
You never know how those Hollywood execs think and operate, but pulling the plug on this movie would be stupid from almost any perspective. Sony is already threatening to sue the world, the moon, the sun and everything else orbiting within 100 light years around Planet Sony. Their PR office apparently being totally oblivious to the Streisand effect.
Also, I have serious doubts all this fuzz is really about the movie. You'll always have some crazy folks that jump the bandwagon on such occasions.
Apparently, the hackers are just trying extort Sony for some serious money or they'll release the next bunch of "juicy bits". If those are the real hackers and not just another bunch of idiots jumping the same bandwagon, then the prime motivation seems to be just plain old money...
quote:
What do you do when the user who is being inconvenienced is higher on the food chain than you are? When the Vice-President of Mumbo Jumbo tells the Security Minion that he wants to be able to do task X with his shiny new cell phone, the right answer is probably "No", but the only available answer is "I'll set that up for you immediately, sir!"
This is also what differentiates good from bad management. If CxO of Mumbo Jumbo did his own job well and hired a competent CTO, who in turn hired a bunch of competent security minions and IT umpa lumpas, CxO should know when to listen to his minions and when to accept *NO* for an answer.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-16-2014, 01:10 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You never know how those Hollywood execs think and operate
We do now! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2014, 01:48 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Still, if you're SPE or any other megacorp, or megadivision of a megacorp and you have budgets of billions, you should be amongst those who know this. Your IT guys, which should earn a good salary, are paid to know this.
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
So many of these publicly traded corporations are only about making profit and more of it every quarter. Bean counters, board members or whoever in a share holders meeting will push to undermine all sorts of vital things, outsourcing it to the cheapest bidder regardless of any security issues just to make the books look better. I wouldn't be surprised if the well paid IT guys are really a skeleton staff of under-qualified people working 80 hours per week and making shit money.
The really ignorant thing is how companies, such as Sony, put movie theaters through the ringer in terms of security but aren't anywhere near as militant about it in house with their own employees and sub-contractors.
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's not as if the bad guys are going to say "Oh hey, thanks for pulling the movie, we'll leave you alone now." Nope, they might as well just go ahead with it. Maybe cut back on the advertising a little.
The hack couldn't have been a better publicity gift to The Interview. There's probably a lot of people who will go to see it just out of curiosity when they wouldn't have bothered seeing the movie if the Sony hack never had happened. Of the reviews that have been published the results are pretty mixed (it has a 50% score at Rotten Tomatoes).
I wasn't the slightest bit interested in seeing The Interview and would probably still rather watch Team America World Police again if I'm in the mood to see North Korea and American culture get lampooned.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2014, 03:32 PM:
Here is another communique we got from NATO just now. This is from the Hollywood Reporter.
quote:
Sony Hackers Release Latest Batch of Data Tied to "Christmas Gift"
by THR Staff 12/16/2014 9:47am PDT
The Sony hackers have released the latest batch of data from a cyberattack on the studio, according to an email sent to reporters.
"We have already promised a Christmas gift to you. This is the beginning of the gift," the group, which calls itself Guardians of Peace, wrote in the email.
The statement also reads: "We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places “The Interview” be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to. Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made. The world will be full of fear. Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.) Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment. All the world will denounce the SONY."
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2014, 05:36 PM:
Some of the language in the threats is so over the top it almost seems like a form of satire -kind of like a publicity stunt.
With the FBI now getting involved the situation seems very real. But wouldn't it be kind of mind blowing if the whole thing turned out to be a subversive marketing ploy?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2014, 06:48 PM:
I think if it turns out to be a publicity stunt, people at Sony will have A LOT OF 'SPLAINING to do. (I really doubt this is publicity though....not with all these peoples' salaries and medical records being exposed.)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-16-2014, 06:57 PM:
I agree, this is far beyond a publicity stunt. I've never checked the information that was already out there, but apparently much of it's readily available on several file sharing services. From what you can read in the news, this data is already very detailed. Besides the fact that apparently (former) Sony employees are already being harassed by several low life figures out there using the contact info that has leaked, consider the amount of efforts you would need to put into this to fabricate it in such ways, to make it look legit under the scrutiny of the whole Internet and the world press.
Also, we've got a first-hand account right here, where someone isn't getting paid, because their systems are unavailable.
No, this is just a plain and ordinary FUBAR situation for Sony.
quote:
We do now!
Good one, but it will take psychologist years and years to decipher it all. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
The irony is: Indeed, I'm not too sure about it...
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of the language in the threats is so over the top it almost seems like a form of satire -kind of like a publicity stunt.
Those threats could also just be the result of some attention whores jumping the bandwagon in the aftermath.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-16-2014, 08:59 PM:
And Carmike weenies out:
Carmike Drops The Interview
quote:
Sony Fallout: Carmike Cinemas Won’t Screen ‘The Interview’
DECEMBER 16, 2014 | 06:52PM PT
Dave McNary
Film Reporter
@Variety_DMcNary
Carmike Cinemas has bailed out on showing Sony’s comedy “The Interview.”
The theater chain is the first to take up Sony’s offer to distributors to pull “The Interview” if they want to.
Multiplex owners were caught by surprise Tuesday after hackers evoked the memory of 9/11 while threatening theaters that play the comedy about an attempted assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
The Carmike chain has 2,623 screens domestically.
FILED UNDER: CarmikeSony hackThe Interview
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2014, 09:23 PM:
Considering that Sony is allowing exhibitors to make their own decision, I think if I had a multiplex I would cancel the film, not because of being afraid of violence, but because worried people would likely stay away from my OTHER movies.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2014, 10:44 PM:
I guess with Carmike backing out of its bookings Sony could run an NC-17 cut if they had one on hand (Carmike refuses to book any NC-17 rated content).
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-17-2014, 01:12 AM:
quote:
And Carmike weenies out:
All the other chains will follow along very soon including Cineplex in Canada. Smart move IMO as these chains will lose a lot of money if they were to be hacked like SONY.
Cineplex has 4 million customers signed up to their Scene rewards programs, is it really worth getting hacked?
The offer from SONY to allow theatres to not play the film is smart move. Let the authorities figure it all out, its not worth violence at the cinema, and its not worth any cyber attack against Regal, Carmike, Cineplex etc.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-17-2014, 03:11 AM:
quote: Martin McCaffery
And Carmike weenies out
Honestly, I think it's a smart move. Besides the possibility there is a credible threat, it opens up the possibility of copy-cats and vigilantes. It creates a situation where people might be inclined to bring their own weapons and act if they see something "suspicious". This could result in any number of possibilities.
Not to mention there is the possibility this could keep people away from other movies. In the interest of public safety, I think it's best to just not show the movie.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-17-2014, 03:16 AM:
Giving in to "terrorist demands" will create some *very* dangerous precedents.
Yeah, you can ask yourself the question: Wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry. But once you start giving in this way, people know how to hurt you.
Given how this world works nowadays, you'll become a victim of a whole legion of lunatics following suit rather soon.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-17-2014, 09:18 AM:
Cowards. Are they going to do this everytime some outfit issues a threat? You just motivated this group to do more stuff once they get a power trip out of this.
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-17-2014, 09:24 AM:
Businesses have traditionally had a much lower risk-appetite than governments when it comes to these sorts of things. I remember just after 9/11 there were 'unspecified threats' against malls in general relating to Halloween trick-or-treating. GGP canceled trick-or-treating at all its malls that year, including the one where I worked in Eau Claire, Wisconsin - population 70,000. Definitely a major terrorist target. They didn't reinstitute trick-or-treating until just a few years ago.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 11:29 AM:
Bow Tie Cinemas and Arclight Cinemas have now joined the list of chains that won't be showing "The Interview."
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Smart move IMO as these chains will lose a lot of money if they were to be hacked like SONY.
They're not worried about being hacked. They're worried about people staying away from their other movies, is all.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-17-2014, 11:51 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
They're not worried about being hacked. They're worried about people staying away from their other movies, is all.
Why don't you think they are worried about being hacked? The damage that could caused by hacking Regal would be huge. I agree the other movies as well but hacking of the company must be of concern.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 11:55 AM:
Well I guess I shouldn't have said they're not worried about being hacked.....after all, EVERYBODY is worried about being hacked.
I'm just saying I don't think that's why these chains are cancelling the movie, or at least it's not the biggest reason.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-17-2014, 12:16 PM:
I wonder if Chinese Multi Cinema (AMC) will drop it under pressure from their new owners.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2014, 12:20 PM:
The best thing Sony could do is get out of them movie bidness. The projector bidness and the camera bidness. Just go back to making transistor radios again. The trinitron is all done alright!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-17-2014, 01:12 PM:
I'm just Mr. Armchair PR agent here, but the best thing Sony could do in my opinion is to give the movie away for free. Whatever they spent on this is just peanuts compared to what this whole episode will cost them in the end anyway.
Put the whole damn thing on YouTube, give the DCP away for free to the theaters and give it to broadcasters in return for some advertising slots.
Not only are you pointing your middle finger squarely at the hackers, you're also making a big statement that you're not supporting impediment of free speech and right of expression by a bunch of morons. You will also not succumb to some lowly form of extortion. While you're at it, you might also get some credibility back in the eyes of the rest of the world, because I have the hunch it will do more good to your image than hiring some bad ass lawyers and threatening to sue everybody who only touches your once internal secrets with a ten mile pole.
Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 12-17-2014, 01:36 PM:
I hope Cinemark drops it along with Carmike. That'd probably allow us to pick up the film here in town. We'd love to play it up despite not usually booking this kind of movie as a big fuck you to the "terrorists" out there.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 01:38 PM:
That's a great idea except the notion of giving away something for free would probably make any studio executive vomit all over his expensive shoes and/or possibly become suicidal.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-17-2014, 02:50 PM:
The big guys are starting to quaver. Regal, AMC, Cinemark, possibly Carmike. ArcLight cancelled too.
quote:
Top theater chains cancel 'The Interview' showings
By JAKE COYLE , Associated Press
Dec. 17, 2014 3:28 PM ET
NEW YORK (AP) — The top theater chains in North America have dropped "The Interview" after hackers threatened terrorist attacks at theaters showing the comedy, effectively squashing the Christmas Day release of the film.
Regal Cinemas, AMC and Cinemark have each pulled the movie. In a statement, Regal said it was delaying any showings of "The Interview" because of "the ambiguous nature of any real or perceived security threats."
Hackers calling themselves Guardians of Peace on Tuesday threatened moviegoers with violence reminiscent of the terrorist attacks of September 11th.
Sony did not immediately comment on the news Wednesday. On Tuesday, the studio told exhibitors that the company understood if exhibitors pulled the film in light of the threats.
The country's fourth largest chain, Carmike, pulled its scheduled showing of the film Tuesday.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-17-2014, 02:53 PM:
Cineplex in Canada will follow any moment.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2014, 02:59 PM:
Terry why are you such a coward? You think it would be wise to not show this movie? Well maybe on the standpoint that this movie sucks and wouldn't do much business it might be wise. But because of some unidentified threat? I don't think so. Maybe you let others push you around and have their way with you but I sure don't. Every time you cave in to demands like this, it makes the attackers stronger. It gives them more credibility. And most importantly it gives them reason to do it again and again because they know people like you will give in to their demands out of fear normally displayed by small animals. Carmike is run by a bunch of pussies as well. Who new it would be so easy to get Carmike to give in to their demands? All the more reason to go after them again... because they WILL give in.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-17-2014, 03:03 PM:
Joe, I'm shaking my head at you ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 03:06 PM:
I do have a feeling that the big chains are just "cutting their losses" so to speak. If the terrorists had demanded that chains not show the next Star Wars for example, the result would be a huge "fuck you, terrorists."
But in this case, it's an R-rated raunch fest being released on Christmas day that probably would have done good but not great business for about 3 days and then dropped like a rock after that. Having it associated with this terror crap would possibly keep a lot of people away from the other movies, so they're just playing it safe. I don't think they're worried about terror so much.
Maybe the chains ought to just delay showing the movie for a couple of weeks.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2014, 03:06 PM:
quote: Terry
Joe, I'm shaking my head at you
That's the trembling from fear of the attackers, I'm sure.
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 12-17-2014, 03:40 PM:
I can only imagine for the theaters that DO play The Interview will have martial security on every screen. The lights would turn up every 5 minutes in each screen so security can spot a terrorist, or maybe run the movies with the lights on all the way through to be safe. It would pretty much be like City 17.
I was actually at the new Regal in Dulles Town Center this morning, and there still is a bright poster for The Interview being displayed next to the lobby entrance. I didn't take a picture of it, but if it's still there if I go back, I most definitely would bring my phone to take a picture of it.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 12-17-2014, 03:49 PM:
Terry, are they? ARE THEY?! Tell us more!
I gotta say, I'm pretty surprised at all this.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-17-2014, 03:49 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Why don't you think they are worried about being hacked? The damage that could caused by hacking Regal would be huge. I agree the other movies as well but hacking of the company must be of concern.
I'm sure the potential for a cyber attack is a concern, but it's a constant concern. While having computer systems hacked by would certainly be harmful, most theatre management software can operate in a standalone mode without an internet connection. This may create issues when it comes to redeeming internet tickets or transmitting reports, but it should be an issue which prevents the cash from coming across the counter.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-17-2014, 04:09 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Giving in to "terrorist demands" will create some *very* dangerous precedents.
Nothing new here. Anyone remember "Mohammad Messenger of God" (1977)?
(From Wikipedia) In a film review, The New York Times reported that "when the film was scheduled to premier in the United States another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington, D.C. chapter of the B'nai B'rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film's opening was cancelled. The standoff was resolved" after the deaths of a journalist and policeman, but "the film's American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy."
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-17-2014, 04:12 PM:
I think Mike is spot on with his last post.
I also wouldn't discount Terry's theory that the chains are also worried about retaliatory hacking. If I were a theatre exec, I'd be more worried about hacking related to this than more traditional acts of terrorism. The damage that could be done to a theater chain by a hacker attack similar to what happened to Sony would potentially be immense. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the major chains IT systems were just as vulnerable - if not more so - than Sony's. Besides more mundane stuff, such as embarrassing emails, employee social security numbers and potentially customer information - like credit card numbers - could be compromised.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-17-2014, 04:15 PM:
Sony has cancelled the December 25 release of The Interview quote:
Sony’s full statement:
“In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release. We respect and understand our partners’ decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers.
Sony Pictures has been the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. Those who attacked us stole our intellectual property, private emails, and sensitive and proprietary material, and sought to destroy our spirit and our morale – all apparently to thwart the release of a movie they did not like. We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome.”
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2014, 04:31 PM:
I agree with Joe on this. While I understand the logic of dumping The Interview so it doesn't scare customers away from other movies, still the act of literally caving to hacker/terrorist demands is only going to encourage more of that bullshit.
I wouldn't be surprised to see other "hacktivist" groups, criminal organizations and black hat vandals using this event as inspiration for more attacks against the movie industry and movie theater industry. They'll do it for the money, the fame or the "lulz." The hacker group behind this current scheme is surely laughing their asses off about it.
Another thing that is going to encourage more of this bullshit: the almost complete inability of the criminal justice system to find, convict and punish the perpetrators.
Theoretically speaking, if the hacker(s) were actually caught and prosecuted on American soil it would be scary to figure the dollar amount dumped on them in terms of a civil lawsuit judgment. It would easily go into the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 04:57 PM:
So now the studios are undoubtedly going over their upcoming schedules to see if they've got anything else that will "offend" anybody. [sigh]
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2014, 05:40 PM:
Michael Bay movies offend me. Take heed, studios and theaters or I will H4CK U.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2014, 05:46 PM:
Obviously Sony is going to bear a great deal of consequences from this outcome.
There's all the money spent on the production, marketing and distribution for The Interview. That's all gone unless Sony can release the movie at a later date in theaters or try to release it on home video and VOD.
Sony could end up losing more in civil judgments from people whose personal data was compromised and exposed in the hack. They're also going to have to completely overhaul their computing systems and policies in how data is handled.
I'm hoping the blow-back from this spreads to major computer vendors. It's all but guaranteed companies like Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc. are at least partially responsible for this hack based on all the damned security holes present in their software and hardware.
The blow-back also needs to extend to our government and criminal justice system. I'm still not convinced they take any of this hacking crap seriously. Even if a hacker is caught he may not actually do any prison time.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-17-2014, 05:56 PM:
I can't believe that we've turned into such a bunch of weenies that
we would actually let a dictator dictate commerce in this country.
C'mon - - The DPNK can barely pull of a successful missle launch.
A little bit of 'free speech' in America died today with the decision
to pull this movie. On the other hand, it's nice to know capitalism
is alive and well, as "The Interview" posters are already being listed
on E-Bay for outrageous prices now that they're considered 'collectable'.
(From what I hear about the movie, Sony might make more money selling
off the posters than they would have made on ticket revenue anyway)
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-17-2014, 06:14 PM:
I am embarrassed by what a bunch of cowards we have become as a country.The terrorists have won.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2014, 06:27 PM:
Yep.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-17-2014, 06:31 PM:
I am sorry to say this on a site frequented by theater personnel. But if the rationale is not to lose scared customers, then I have no choice but to reduce the number of movies I go to the theater as a counter protest, especially this month. And I will call Regal to let them know that. Not that they care. But who knows.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-17-2014, 07:44 PM:
Great, now yet another bunch of idiots control what we will and will not see at the local theater?
Maybe those "hackers" will still "release" the movie for them as a "Christmas gift" .
If they would, it would make Sony and all those chains who bailed out on it even more stupid.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2014, 07:58 PM:
Well any terrorist worth his salt would still carry out his "plan" even if the movie has been pulled.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I will call Regal to let them know that. Not that they care.
Why beat up on Regal? They didn't pull the movie, Sony did. Just reduce the number of Sony movies you attend. (Keep in mind, they have the new Bond movie coming up, or are you going to end your protest by then?)
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 12-17-2014, 08:57 PM:
Regal pulled before Sony did. One could argue Sony may not have pulled it had one of the big 3 not pulled out.
Sounds like they aren't releasing it at ALL now:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/sony-has-no-further-release-plans-for-the-interview-1201382167/
quote:
Dave McNary
Film Reporter
@Variety_DMcNary
Sony Pictures Entertainment has chosen to stand down for “The Interview,” deciding against releasing the Seth Rogen-James Franco comedy in any form — including VOD or DVD, as U.S. officials reportedly link Sony’s massive cyber attack to North Korea.
“Sony Pictures has no further release plans for the film,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
The studio issued the statement a few hours after pulling the planned Christmas Day release of “The Interview” in the U.S. in response to the hackers who threatened a 9/11-style attack against U.S. theaters and moviegoers if the comedy were released.
By late Wednesday afternoon, the studio had removed any mention of “The Interview” from its official web site.
The move could open the door for Sony to sell the rights to a rival distributor — though Hollywood is still reeling from Tuesday’s invocation of a possible terrorist attack on exhibitors if they screened “The Interview.”
Prior to the decision to pull the controversial movie, a Sony Pictures insider had told Variety that the studio was weighing releasing the film on premium video-on-demand. Such a move would have allowed the studio to recoup some of the film’s $42 million budget and tens of millions in promotion and advertising expenditures.
Sony’s nightmare began on Nov. 24 when the “Guardians of Peace” hackers disabled the studio’s computer system and began disclosing internal documents, email messages, film budgets, executive salaries and the social security numbers of thousands of employees.
“The world will be full of fear,” the group’s Tuesday message said. “Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)”
In response, most of the country’s largest theater chains — including AMC, Regal, Cinemark, Carmike and Southern Theatres — announced they would either delay showing the picture or would drop it altogether.
“The Interview” centers on an assassination attempt on North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
On Wednesday, several published reports said that federal authorities had determined that hackers working on behalf of the North Korean government were behind the hack attack. CNN’s Evan Perez said that an announcement is expected on Thursday that would “assign attribution” to the country.
“The Interview” has been scheduled for release in foreign markets starting in late January.
FILED UNDER: James FrancoSeth RogenSony hackThe Interview
Posted by Michael Riley (Member # 5693) on 12-17-2014, 09:52 PM:
One thing to keep in mind is that while it's easy to claim freedom of speech and censorship and ridicule the idea of North Korea having the ability to attack the United States, and the end of the day all the strings at Sony are being pulled by people in Japan, who already have a rocky relationship with DPRK.
While it's essentially impossible for NK to attack us based on our current understanding of their military power, some sort of attack in Japan would not be completely out of the realm of possibility. It's likely that it's not even the American execs making the decisions at this point, and in fact I would expect to see a lot of them resign in short order after this whole debacle.
As for the movie itself, it wouldn't shock me if a screener somehow "leaked" onto the internet within the next week or so, and it will probably be quietly released on DVD at some point in the future just to try and recoup some costs.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-18-2014, 01:11 AM:
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-18-2014, 02:59 AM:
The really bad thing is - you don't need the real people behind the hack or this threat to act - just let the ordinary bag of retard free riders get out of their holes to fuck up a show like it happened before.
They just need a trigger event like this.
- Carsten
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-18-2014, 07:30 AM:
Marcel is right. Sony should just give the damn movie away and spit in the face of the pig NK government & their chubby, pinky-sized dick-tator.
The mistake over here, aside from the fact that all of a sudden it is becoming quite apparent that we have an epidemic which is affecting those big, cigar-chewing, corporate executives who we thought were so tuff -- seems the majority of then suffer from cryptorchidism, i.e., either their testicles haven't descended or are MISSING.
Have we all become just a bunch of wusses, talking about the imagined "threat" to theatres -- and that's all it is...imagined -- because there has been all our agencies say there is no credible threat of violence or what we conjure up when the words "terrorist threat" are bandied about. If anything, there might be an extremely slim chance that the hackers may still try to hack a exhibitor chain's servers, but there is no threat of violence.
It is a mistake to give the public the impression that somehow there may be terrorist attacks on theatres if the movie is shown. In the public's mind the word terrorist means geehad-bent suicide bombers and madmen who hack off people's heads. North Korea has no cadre of obsessed, lunatic Al-Qeada equivalents or fanatics who would carry out that kind of violence. They don't have terrorist "cells" hiding here just waiting for the signal to blow themselves up or fly planes into Regal EWalk in Times Square. And that's what is conjured up in the public's mind when the media throws the words "terror attack" around.
We are caving into suggestion rather than fact. They knew what they were doing using 9/11 as a fear button. Fact is, in a country where the people are underfed and endure a ghetto standard of living, there aren't a lot of North Koreans willing to strap bombs to themselves to stop a movie for the motherland.
Hells, give me the effin movie and I'll run it. Or leak it to the internet and have it play in every country around the world....THEN what are they going to do?
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-18-2014, 07:43 AM:
I wonder if all of these big chains signed the Terrorism Waiver on their insurance. In case you don't have to deal with that end of the business, when you get liability and property insurance these days you have to be offered a Terrorism rider. It's a stupid by-product of 9/11 and I'm guessing everyone opts out. I know we do. I think it is quite possible their lawyers are telling them they are not covered if anything happens.
On the other hand, as someone who has received death threats in bomb threats in the good old pre-9/11 days (The Last Temptation of Christ), I say screw them, show the damn movie. And screw Sony for pulling it. During Last Temptation there were lots of chains who publicly refused to show it (cough CARMIKE cough), but there were also plenty of indies who said F*ck Yeah, we're not afraid. Some theatres even got vandalized, but went ahead anyway.
But I guess in the last 28 years, there aren't enough indies to support a 3000 screen release, and the bean counters at the studios aren't in the business of taking a stand on whatever principles they have that don't produce a profit.
Nonetheless, Exhibitors: Never, NEVER give in to threats. You are in the business of showing movies, not not showing them.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2014, 09:22 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
North Korea has no cadre of obsessed, lunatic Al-Qeada equivalents or fanatics who would carry out that kind of violence.
Well, at least they don't have very many outside of their own borders. North Korea's regime does execute thousands of its own people every year. They'll put someone in front of a firing squad just over the mere suspicion the person could be involved in any political wrong-doing against the state.
Still, North Korea doesn't have the kind of cause that will get people strapping on suicide bomb vests, driving truck bombs or seeking to murder anyone drawing a satirical cartoon of a certain religious leader. The worst threat the movie theaters really faced from this was getting their d-cinema networks infiltrated. Honestly, if that could happen it's going to happen regardless of what movie is playing.
I think the North Korean government hired the people responsible for the Sony hack and that those people are operating outside of North Korea -where they have much easier access to advanced technology and a more open Internet. The hackers probably were doing their work in South Korea, Japan or even here in the United States. It's a good bet someone inside at Sony helped in this.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-18-2014, 10:35 AM:
Even before the 9/11 stuff, I'm sure that terrorism and riots were excluded from my insurance coverage. I don't think insurance coverage for that sort of thing is available around here at any price, though I've never actually asked about getting it.
Due to the anonymous nature of this whole malicious hacking thing, anyone could claim to be a representative of the supposed group and make any demands that he chose to make. By and large, the recipient of the demand is unable to distinguish between a "legitimate" terrorist and a kid with nothing but a big mouth and a computer keyboard.
It's now off-limits to make a movie about North Korea:
North Korea-Based Thriller With Gore Verbinski And Steve Carell Canceled
quote:
EXCLUSIVE: The chilling effect of the Sony Pictures hack and terrorist threats against The Interview are reverberating. New Regency has scrapped another project that was to be set in North Korea. The untitled thriller, set up in October, was being developed by director Gore Verbinski as a star vehicle for Foxcatcher star Steve Carell. The paranoid thriller written by Steve Conrad was going to start production in March. Insiders tell me that under the current circumstances, it just makes no sense to move forward. The location won’t be transplanted. Fox declined to distribute it, per a spokesman.
Regency has other movies with Verbinski as part of a multiyear, multipicture deal, and they will focus on them. He moves on to A Cure For Wellness, an elevated horror film written by Revolutionary Road scribe Justin Haythe, and Passengers. There also is a large-scale action comedy scripted by Conrad. The plan was to make three films in quick succession. Now they will make two that way.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-18-2014, 01:13 PM:
Yup. That fat little turd has won. He now gets to dictate what we can and can't do over here. Gee, Kim, what else do you want us to do? Maybe Regal and AMC and Cinemark should put a picture of your face in at least one A-Frame in every theatre...how's that? Would that make you happy? We just want to get along. And maybe every Sony picture can open up with your picture which could then crossfade to the Sony or Columbia logo. How'd that be, you sweet little porker?
Boy, ISIS must be laughing their Isis asses off. They are figuring, hey, just send the American corporate executives an ill-worded threat that sounds like it was written by someone with a 5th grade education saying we will be VERY SORRY if we continue to send our American girls to school. Uh-oh...better keep our girls home. Just to be safe, maybe we should make all our women wear burkas too....I mean, what's the harm in being safe, right?
I swear, this is just too ironic for words; our most cherished and FUNDAMENTAL right and foundation of our way of life, or at least I THOUGHT it was -- Freedom of Speech -- and these spinless idiots just caved and gave it away with the blink of an eye.
Un-fu*ckin-believable.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2014, 02:15 PM:
Paramount Cancels ‘Team America’ Showings, Theaters Say
quote:
Forget those plans by Alamo Drafthouse Cinema and other theaters to run Team America: World Police in place of The Interview. The Austin-based chain says that Paramount has now decided not to offer South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s 2004 satire that focuses on Kim Jong-il, the late father of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Alamo says that the cancellation at its Dallas theater is “due to circumstances beyond our control” and says it will offer refunds to those who have already bought tickets. Cleveland’s Capitol Theater also tweeted that Team America “has been canceled by Paramount Pictures.”
Yesterday Sony pulled The Interview, which depicts an assassination of Kim Jong-un, after hackers threatened theaters that showed the film. Working with Sony since the first days of the massive hack in late November, the FBI has established some degree of connection between North Korea and the data breach. Having said that, while the White House today said the investigation is progressing, the Bureau and the Justice Department has not scheduled an announcement yet on the Democratic People’s Republic’s connection to the hacking of Sony, sources tell Deadline.
I don't think anyone will disagree here...this is taking it WAY too far.
Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 12-18-2014, 03:15 PM:
I think it's safe to say that we're within days of nobody caring about the stupid movie anymore. This is going to turn into a full-scale political nightmare that is probably going to end up at least borderlining some kind of war. At this point, I can't tell how many of these decisions are Sony's or Paramount's, and how many were mandated by the White House. They did just announce that they're taking this very seriously.
On the smaller hand (wait, what?), the future looks awfully dark for Sony. Their last hack attack was arguably the worst of the bunch that have recently happened. This one completely dwarfs it. I have to wonder if Sony stands any real chance of recovering from this.
Now then, how much longer until this whole topic degrades into political blabber?
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-18-2014, 03:20 PM:
Home of the Brave!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2014, 03:40 PM:
quote: News Article Lorem Ipsum
Forget those plans by Alamo Drafthouse Cinema and other theaters to run Team America: World Police in place of The Interview. The Austin-based chain says that Paramount has now decided not to offer South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s 2004 satire that focuses on Kim Jong-il, the late father of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Shh. Be very quiet. Team America: World Police, the "unrated" version with full-on marionette wet and messy watersports is still available to stream on Netflix.
Considering how the movie industry is caving in to fear and political correctness I wonder how long before the clear servers and store shelves of any movies that are deemed offensive to the North Korean government.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-18-2014, 04:51 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The worst threat the movie theaters really faced from this was getting their d-cinema networks infiltrated. Honestly, if that could happen it's going to happen regardless of what movie is playing.
Just another reason to stick with 35mm Were any 35mm prints made of "The Interview"?
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 12-18-2014, 05:27 PM:
kills his own Relatives;so no worries about Movie Goer's ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2014, 07:02 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The worst threat the movie theaters really faced from this was getting their d-cinema networks infiltrated.
Its actually a very real possibility.
Sony has VPN access to ALL of the locations where their equipment is in operation (Regal, AMC, etc) so it would be foolish to assume that the hackers don't already have access direct into any building with Sony projectors.
And of course it only takes a small oops in a theater firewall for them to then gain access to the ticketing network and customer's credit card numbers that were used to purchase tickets, etc. Remember most theaters have their POS systems directly tied into their TMS to import schedules. There's your link! (Not all links like that would be vulnerable. It just depends on how good the theater's IT guy really is and if the hackers are better.)
It's also entirely possible that the hackers could (or could have already) put in a "time bomb" on the equipment to "self-destruct" all at once across the country, completely neutralizing ANY movie from being played (at Sony equipment locations).
Now before anyone calls bullshit on those statements, remember that Sony has all of their equipment's root passwords well documented in their files. Also remember all of the remote logins to each and every theater is also documented in the Sony files. Judging by how many files the hackers obviously have, OF COURSE the hackers have full access into the projection equipment located in any theater sporting Sony projectors.
The Sony NOC doesn't just have a master firewall with hardware VPNs either. They use individual VPN logins to each location. Every theater would need to change their credentials and any theater that hasn't done that yet is potentially asking for it (assuming it isn't too late already).
The problem is, anyone with Sony projectors is most probably on a Sony VPN and Sony wants access to their equipment for VPF logging purposes. The only REASONABLE thing Sony can do in light of all this is to let the theaters alter their logins but NOT tell them the credentials yet (unless they have a failure and need them to remote in). In a month or whenever this has all calmed down, then they can give them the credentials.
Unfortunately the hackers have had plenty of time to setup a backdoor into all of the Sony TMS systems, so technically the internet would need to be disconnected at Sony sites (or the Sony TMS powered off) to ensure the hackers were locked out.
To make matters worse, an "oops" at one of the NOCs could further give them access to non-Sony locations as well. It just depends on how far the hackers want to take it, but finding security holes isn't all that difficult for a good hacker (which we must assume these guys are pretty good). The more theaters on a NOC, the better chance of an oops. In this specific scenario it's safe to say the Strong and Christie NOCs would be the easiest and first to hit since Strong is tied in with the Sony guys and Christie monitors Regal and AMC. That's an awful lot of possibilities for a simple oversight to have happened somewhere along the line in programming the firewall.
In a nutshell at any given moment the hackers could quite easily knock out the majority of US theater's projection systems with little effort. Happy Holidays indeed.
If I was Sony I would've already taken the ONE step they have against these guys, and that is to threaten them back. Before you start shaking your head as you read that, SUPPOSEDLY these guys don't want the movie The Interview to be seen. So on that assumption that means selling it to Netflix is a bad idea, as that would just bring about further wrath. Posting it for free on youtube for the world, again bad idea because that is exactly what they don't want to happen. The only way to STOP them from going further is to GUARANTEE them that the world will see the movie IF even one more batch of files is released or if any further attack happens in any form.
So immediately ship out a hard drive of The Interview to every single theater in America. It doesn't matter if they were allocated to play it or not, ship it! Tell the theaters to hold onto the drive, not to return it. Then wait. If another attack of some sort happens, let EVERY theater in the country play it FOR FREE for one day, then let the theater collect 100% of the box office take starting with day 2 for as long as they want to play it. Meanwhile post it on youtube and every other possible way to get it on the internet. Throw it as a free PPV on cable, etc, etc, etc. Heck, release the darn thing on network tv too! It's the only card they have to play.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2014, 10:45 PM:
So... why are they still advertising this movie on TV?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2014, 10:54 PM:
I like the idea of threatening the hackers with releasing The Interview "into the wild" so to speak. It probably should happen anyway. But it won't since Hollywood is red-lighting any movie involving North Korea as subject matter and cancelling Team America: World Police screenings.
One thing I hope comes from this: very high exposure on the issue of computer foolishness on the part of many grown adults, more than a few of whom are in executive positions of power in many companies.
A credible theory in how Sony got hacked: shockingly stupid practices on the part of some of Sony's personnel. The passwords on many of their e-mail accounts and other logins were very easy to crack. Of the ones that weren't so easy: some people would just tell each other the passwords in plain text within e-mails!
It's probably scary to think just how many people out there simply can't be bothered with following good standards of practice in computing security. It's not all that hard. But some of it does require the computer user to be fairly adept at basic computing fundamentals -like knowing how to navigate the files and folders on his computer's hard disc. It's amazing how few people honestly know how to do that. It doesn't matter if it's Windows File Explorer on a PC or the Finder on a Mac. Not all that many people honestly know how to use those tools. Folders? What the hell are those things? I just save everything to the desktop or in My Documents! Then they have to know how to install software. Even fewer are competent and confident at doing that. I have to pressure some of my own coworkers on keeping various applications up to date. It is a very common tendency for computer users to deliberately ignore update notices. It's one thing to be careful about installing something like a new patch for Windows, but it's another thing to ignore the issue altogether out of laziness.
End user laziness is probably at the core of just how Sony got hacked. It may have little to do with unqualified IT guys or engineering flaws in computer hardware or software.
quote: Joe Redifer
So... why are they still advertising this movie on TV?
TV stations making good on all those media buys? It was probably all programmed into the servers months ago anyway. I wonder why that stuff wasn't hacked.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-18-2014, 10:55 PM:
Have not read the entire thread... But...
Sony was probably strongly encouraged by "authorities" to pull the release. And the major chains had already bailed. From a liability standpoint, what else could Sony or exhibitors do? Some whack job looking to get into the news would have caused an "incident" at a theater showing this and there you go.
Nobody wants to touch this movie right now. Itunes? Netflix? Amazon? Hulu? "Uh appreciate the offer but we'd rather not be targeted by the same hackers,. Thanks for asking though!".
All the butt-hurt "talent" reaming out Sony over their creative expression being suppressed are idiots.
And which Sony numb-nuts exec green-lighted a "comedy" about assassinating the actual leader of an actual country run by possibly-nuclear-armed lunatics? Would they have green-lighted a comedy about assassinating BHO?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2014, 11:11 PM:
The "talent" might be idiots for how they're dressing down Sony. But make no mistake, with the movie industry capitulating, giving the hackers or terrorists or vandals (or whatever anyone wants to call them) their way, it's only going to encourage a whole hell of a lot more of these kinds of hacks and threats.
It might turn the act of buying a movie ticket at Fandango or wherever into an adventure. You'll have a ticket, but won't know if the show has been cancelled by hackers until you get there.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2014, 11:27 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It was probably all programmed into the servers months ago anyway.
Political ads can be pulled at a moment's notice and they often are. Why can't Sony do the same?
quote: David Stambaugh
Nobody wants to touch this movie right now. Itunes? Netflix? Amazon? Hulu? "Uh appreciate the offer but we'd rather not be targeted by the same hackers,. Thanks for asking though!".
That's the problem. Living in fear. Now they'll always be afraid of getting targeted. So much so that it'll affect the way we live and work. The terrorists have won. I really hate living in a nation of pussies (and litigious ones, at that).
quote: David Stambaugh
And which Sony numb-nuts exec green-lighted a "comedy" about assassinating the actual leader of an actual country run by possibly-nuclear-armed lunatics?
Why shouldn't they? Obviously they thought the movie had potential. Sure, it probably sucks. But I'd rather make the choice to not see it rather than be told I CANNOT see it. Freedom of expression should not be infringed. Sounds like you're afraid of poking a bully who talks too much. Sounds like you're afraid, period. This is the problem with this country. Too many people afraid of everything. Do you wanna have other outdated countries dictating what we can and cannot create?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2014, 11:43 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Political ads can be pulled at a moment's notice and they often are. Why can't Sony do the same?
I think the problem is with the TV networks and individual TV stations airing the ads. Sony may want all ads pulled immediately, but some outfits aren't as fast as others when it comes to complying with those orders.
There's a good chance some stations are playing out as many of the ad buys as possible before removing the commercials from the servers. Less money to refund to Sony. Considering this is the holiday season, perhaps some TV stations have "traffic" people who have already gone on Christmas vacation. Of course that could be a stretch since I remember having to work on Christmas day at a TV station. I don't remember seeing the lady in charge of traffic working that day though. Hmm.
One thing is certain, local TV stations are moving in slow motion when it comes to covering this story. Our local ABC affiliate aired a news story at 5:00pm earlier today saying Alamo Drafthouse was going to play Team America: World Police in replacement of The Interview. The problem is the station didn't get word that Paramount cancelled those bookings earlier. It made me wonder if the TV station was regurgitating its news from the daily newspaper (printing yesterday's news today on dead trees).
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-18-2014, 11:48 PM:
quote: Michael Riley
While it's essentially impossible for NK to attack us based on our current understanding of their military power...
Thats a very 19th century view, thinking that an attack requires a good old fashioned military assult on the USA. The USA could be brought to its knees, economically and functionally, by a cyber attack, without a shot being fired. The USA is, of course, not unique in this respect, most modern economies could be subject to the same fate.
Cyber warfare has moved from being the stuff of science fiction, into science fact. Stuxnet illustrated that a sufficiently motivated and creative team can build malware that can cross air gaps, and inflict physical damage. Stuxnet is now a good few years ago, and the creatives behind leading edge malware have not been on holiday in the interim. There are now a number of countries that are very active in the cyber warefare space, both friendlies and unfriendlies, and they are all well resourced.
If one fancies some light reading then the Cylance report on what they have called "Operation Cleaver" makes an interesting read. This is information in the public domain, publicly available, and one can safely assume that this knowledge is several years behind the state of the art.
This risks here are more than a poor security posture (shared by almost all commercvial companies) and a shit firewall configuration. Even organisations that take security seriously are discovering they have been hit, and generally, companies have no idea that it has happened. Smaller companies simply don't have the resources to even make a half decent fist of security.
Its a brave new world. We're still waing for the first 21st century equivalent of the A bomb to bve dropped.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2014, 11:49 PM:
The whole thing driving all of this is "fear of the unknown." Nobody knows just HOW MUCH Sony stuff got taken. The only thing I've seen is "terabytes worth" of stuff. So nobody knows how far this is going to go or when it's going to stop.
This is why people are so jittery. It's because they don't know who / what they're up against.
If somebody robs your house, you can look around and see what's been taken and make plans to put your life back together. But if somebody steals the KEYS to your house, that's a whole lot scarier because you have no way of knowing when or if they're going to come back and what they'll take. And, it does no good to change the locks because they can just create new keys for those locks and they can keep hitting you again and again.
So upon reflection, to me it doesn't exactly look like a scared-nation thing. It's more a matter of these "people in power" being made uneasy and just wanting it to stop already.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-19-2014, 12:08 AM:
I'm not the least bit afraid of NK or of seeing this probable-turd of a movie in a theater just out of curiosity. But then NK doesn't have their army of apparently very talented cyber hackers going after me personally.
This event is a wakeup call re cyber-terrorism. Yes they've apparently won this round and humiliated Sony, with exhibitors being caught in the ripple effect.
How many internet backbone lines can there be linked to NK anyway? Can't we just cut them off?
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-19-2014, 12:12 AM:
The other thing I forgot to mention is that Sony won't be making this up as they go along; they will have what I'll call "a degree of advice" from certain three letter agencies, who know far more than Sony will ever be told. Sony executives will by now be a bit fed up hearing "I cant tell you why, but you just have to trust us".
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-19-2014, 12:27 AM:
Absolutely correct. Sony is no longer calling the shots. They're being coached on what to say and do while our own formidable experts figure out exactly what happened and how to prevent it in the future. Sony probably has no options right now except to shut up.
I read they got over 100 terabytes of data. That has to be pretty much everything Sony has that isn't archival. Wouldn't someone in Sony IT notice a pattern of unusually heavy outgoing traffic? Apparently not.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-19-2014, 01:33 AM:
quote: David Stambaugh
Wouldn't someone in Sony IT notice a pattern of unusually heavy outgoing traffic? Apparently not.
Depenmds on their "normal" traffic patterns, and how long the filching was spread over. They might have been slurping at the trough for many months.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-19-2014, 07:36 AM:
Anyone know of Sony sent out press screeners, and if so, how much they are worth now?
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-19-2014, 08:57 AM:
quote: Martin McCaffery
Anyone know of Sony sent out press screeners
I saw several clips from the movie on the internet, it had the typical
"property of" text burned in at the bottom as press screeners usually do.
I'm scheduled to preview another SONY film tonight. They still owe me a
crapload of money for work I did going back thru November that they
lost all my invoices for. They still can't tell me how long it might take
for me to get paid.
I'd be in favor of hiring some hackers to destroy the North Korean
movie industry. (Oh, wait a minute - - - - - never mind. . . . )
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2014, 10:06 AM:
I guess there's also the possibility that "they" didn't just get Sony.....maybe "they" got WalMart too, for example, and they're just waiting until this furor dies down before unleashing the next one.
I've been thinking for a long time that the next world war will be a cyber-war, not a military one. This could be the start of it, who knows?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2014, 12:24 PM:
Very often when hackers discover (or create) a vulnerability that gives them access into a network they tend to strike ASAP before the end user discovers the problem -or the backdoor gets inadvertently shut by some kind of software patch. I don't think they're going to sit tight for an extended period of time once they have an opportunity to strike.
Cyber warfare is something that can be waged in a very fast, very immediate fashion. Our courts and criminal justice system are woefully ill-prepared to deal with the fast pace of it. In the time it takes to get a search warrant a hacker could annihilate a major company's network and be long gone before any police arrive -if they can even find the right computer room in the right country that is.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-19-2014, 12:30 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess there's also the possibility that "they" didn't just get Sony.....maybe "they" got WalMart too, for example, and they're just waiting until this furor dies down before unleashing the next one.
I've been thinking for a long time that the next world war will be a cyber-war, not a military one. This could be the start of it, who knows?
I think this is a tough one, it very well could be the start of the next World War, however North Korea really does not stand much of a chance if there was any military campaign against the country. It would be over pretty quick.
I also have a feeling that the US will discover that North Korea has the capability to cyber attack telecommunications, subways or other large facilities. If any of these are vulnerable, I think a military response against North Korea's telecommunications and command and control will happen some time in the next few weeks. Eventually at some point in time, the US will have to confront North Korea, especially if they have United States interests already targeted.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2014, 12:51 PM:
This is starting to sound downright Simon Barsinister-ish.
Source: Hackers send new message to Sony
By Brian Stelter @brianstelter December 19, 2014: 11:11 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Link
The hackers behind a devastating cyberattack at Sony Pictures have sent a new message to executives at the company, crediting them for a "very wise" decision to cancel the Christmas day release of "The Interview," a source close to the company told CNN.
The email message was received by Sony's top executives on Thursday night and was obtained by CNN.
The source said that the company believes the email was from the hackers because it followed a pattern of previous messages, sent to a list of particular executives and formatted in a particular way.
A Sony spokesman declined to comment.
The hacker message is effectively a victory lap, telling the studio, "Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for instance, DVD or piracy."
The message also says, "And we want everything related to the movie, including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website hosting them immediately."
It warns the studio executives that "we still have your private and sensitive data" and claims that they will "ensure the security of your data unless you make additional trouble."
The email was titled "Message from GOP." The anonymous hackers have called themselves "Guardians of Peace."
Sony is still reeling from the late November cyberattack that crippled its computer systems, and now it is under severe scrutiny for canceling the Christmas release of "The Interview," Seth Rogen and James Franco's comedy about an attempted assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
U.S. officials now believe North Korea instigated the hack, lending credence to the Sony executives who privately started calling it a "terrorist act" weeks ago.
Since the cancellation on Wednesday, the same executives have been wondering whether the leaks of private emails and corporate documents would now stop.
Thursday night's message implied that the leaks will stop.
In a statement on Wednesday when the film's release was scrapped, the company said "we stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome."
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-19-2014, 03:16 PM:
Well at least some people do have balls:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/author-paulo-coelho/1538304.html
---
In a Twitter post, the internationally acclaimed author offered Sony Pictures US$100,000 to buy the movie that is believed to have sparked the cyber-theft of confidential information from the company.
SINGAPORE: It appears that internationally acclaimed author Paulo Coelho is willing to pay for the right to "say no to terrorist threats".
On Thursday (Dec 18), he tweeted an offer to buy the rights to The Interview, a comedy about a fictional plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. The film, which stars James Franco and Seth Rogen, is believed to have sparked a cyber-attack which saw hackers gain access to Sony's confidential documents and unreleased movies. Reports have speculated that North Korea is behind the hack.
Sony Pictures announced on Wednesday that it decided to cancel the movie's release after American theatre chains said they would not screen the movie, due to threats of attacks from self-proclaimed cyber-terrorists. "We respect and understand our partners' decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theatre-goers," the studio said in a statement.
In his tweet, Mr Coelho said he would post the movie for free on his blog if he could buy the rights for US$100,000.
---
- Carsten
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2014, 04:15 PM:
Well this makes a lot of sense, I have to say. It's always good to step back and consider the big picture before going off half-cocked.
Link
Dear Twitter: Sony and Theater Owners Aren’t to Blame
December 18, 2014 | 05:02PM PT
Andrew Wallenstein
It’s been a rough month for Sony Pictures Entertainment, to say the least.
First came the calamitous hack, then came damaging leaks, which were amplified by massive media coverage and, finally, the withdrawal of “The Interview” from theaters (and any other kind of release).
All of this was unavoidable. But what came next wasn’t.
News of the pullout was greeted by a flurry of derisive tweets from high-profile talent who ripped the decision for many different reasons. Comedy stars should know a thing or two about bad timing, but it came across as insensitive given that the studio — as well as the exhibitors — were trying to do the right thing.
Take your pick of the nitpicking (some excerpted below): An act of cowardice. A victory for censorship and a loss for freedom of speech. A bad setting of precedent that invited other terrorists to do same.
They’re entitled to their opinions, but they’re being short-sighted. Given that the scope of this cyber-attack is uncharted territory not just for Sony but for the entire country, proceeding with caution was the right call.
Think what you want about Sony did, but is there anyone who really believes the studio didn’t have honorable intentions? Sony was faced with a no-win situation: Keeping the movie in theaters risked a tragic incident that, even if chances were minimal, would have been an economic disaster for the entire movie business had the hackers made good on their threat.
Yanking the film, one could argue, was actually the more selfless move that contained the damage to Sony, which can kiss its marketing spend goodbye at a time when it actually stood to gain from all the publicity surrounding the controversy. Studios with competing films at the box office may want to send a thank-you note.
But rather than drone on any longer on this subject, let’s take it on a tweet-by-tweet basis.
. @JuddApatow I agree wholeheartedly. An un-American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent.
— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) December 17, 2014
“Cowardice” is an offensive criticism, Jimmy, considering Sony and the exhibitors were just being prudent given the threat risk. Had they put “The Interview” in theaters, they could have faced an even harsher criticism: that they were being reckless given the known threat.
#TheInterview Is that all it takes – an anonymous threat and the numbers 911 – to throw free expression under the bus? #PussyNation
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) December 17, 2014
Sorry, Bill, but this wasn’t a random teenager calling in a bomb threat at his local high school to get out of a math test. It’s a dangerous nation-state that already proved its capability to pull off a sophisticated cyber-attack, which made the potential for a violent outbreak worth taking seriously.
Sad day for creative expression. #feareatsthesoul
— Steve Carell (@SteveCarell) December 17, 2014
I feel you, Steve, fear is never a good thing. But it can be a sensible reaction in the face of a very unpredictable threat. There seems to be a lot of wounded pride out there because North Korea scored a victory, but this war is far from over, and there should be hope and optimism that justice will prevail in the long run.
Canceling "The Interview" seems like a pretty horrible precedent to set.
— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) December 17, 2014
I see your point, Zach, but is there really a line forming behind North Korea now of rogues who have such pressing grievances with movies in Hollywood’s development pipeline that they’re ready to attack us over it? Don’t bet on it– this is a unique situation. Safety should take precedence…over fears of setting a precedent.
Dear Sony Hackers: now that u run Hollywood, I'd also like less romantic comedies, fewer Michael Bay movies and no more Transformers.
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) December 17, 2014
No offense taken, Michael. Finally, a tweet on which we can all agree.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-19-2014, 04:46 PM:
The decision actually to pull the release does not reflect well on Sony. Keeping the general release date but letting theaters and chains cancel their bookings without penalty would have been a lot smarter: not giving in to terrorism, but at the same time absolving themselves of responsibility if anything bad happened at a venue which did actually show it.
The fact that they've actually pulled the release says to me that either a bad judgment, or that they perceive a continuing threat which could materialize if they pressed ahead. If the hackers got the home addresses of Sony employees, then that's a potential continuing threat, alright. And with that information, you wouldn't need to be a particularly well-resourced terrorist outfit to cause serious harm to relatively low-level Sony staffers, which would be an even worse PR nightmare for Sony.
Frankly, I'm astonished that Amy Pascal has kept her job as long as this. An IT security breach this serious (and as an earlier poster points out, there was allegedly 100 TB of stuff taken, and unless it was removed from their lot on physical media, it would have taken tens of hours to upload out on even the fastest connection imaginable) is surely something that the board of any competently run business should hold its chief executive directly responsible for, if only to maintain the confidence of their shareholders.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-19-2014, 05:49 PM:
Well maybe those of us near Santa Fe, NM may get to see it on a big screen... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Game of Thrones' George R.R. Martin offers to screen The Interview
Game of Thrones creator George R.R. Martin has offered to screen The Interview at the theatre he owns in Santa Fe following threats from the Guardians of Peace hacker group that led to theatre chains declining to show it.
Sony Pictures cancelled The Interview's theatrical release on the Dec. 25, after major exhibitors including AMC, Regal, and Cineplex opted not to show the movie, which had drawn the ire of the mysterious hacking group that had been leaking Sony documents in the past four weeks. On Tuesday, the group threatened violence against theatres that would screen it.
Martin, however, criticized the decision to shelve the film (which is a satirical comedy about an assassination plot against North Korea's Kim Jong-un) calling it "a stunning display of corporate cowardice."
"I mean, really? REALLY??" Martin wrote on his personal blog this week. "These gigantic corporations, most of which could buy North Korea with pocket change, are declining to show a film because Kim Jong-un objects to being mocked?"
The author, who is the mastermind behind the A Song of Ice and Fire epic fantasy series that inspired HBO's hugely popular Game of Thrones show, invited star Seth Rogen to his Jean Cocteau Cinema in his hometown of Sante Fe to screen the film.
"It astonishes me that a major Hollywood film could be killed before release by threats from a foreign power and anonymous hackers," Martin wrote.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-19-2014, 09:24 PM:
So, tonight I'm doing a special (private) screening of another SONY film not scheduled
to come out until early next year. They had considerable trouble issueing us the KDM
since at this pre-release stage they don't come through the 'normal' channels and
they blamed this on the fact that their internal communications networks are still
"all screwed up"
I didn't get a working key until the very last minute, & it did not come from the usual source.
The publicist is concerned about another screening they are doing on Sunday at another
location since she said there is some 'key issue' with that event too.
. . . and once again, I've been informed that at this point, they can't even give me any
estimate of when they might be able to process my payment.
A third party has offered to pay me and then collect (sue?) SONY, but I told them that at
this point that's not really necessary, as I have a generally 'positive cash flow' so not
getting paid by them isn't really going to affect my lifestyle any at this time.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-19-2014, 10:03 PM:
Watch the death scene while you can before it gets taken down.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-19-2014, 11:05 PM:
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-19-2014, 11:40 PM:
For anyone who's interested in how this hack was done, there are numerous details provided here.
The attackers used a Server Message Block (SMB) Worm Tool which consists of five parts: Listening Implant, Lightweight Backdoor, Proxy Tool, Destructive Hard Drive Tool, and Destructive Target Cleaning Tool.
This set of programs runs only on Microsoft Windows. It uses a brute force approach to propagate through your (Windows) network, sends anything of interest that it finds along the way back to Command and Control servers, and renders the computers on the network unusable after it's been through. The C2 servers are or were apparently located in Thailand, Poland, Italy, Bolivia, Singapore and the United States.
Technically, this looks pretty cool and mighty clever. And it gives me one more reason to recommend that people stay away from using Microsoft Windows to do anything involving real work and productivity. Linux isn't perfect when it comes to security either, but it's a damn sight perfect-er than the Microsoft Windows monoculture found in many companies.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-19-2014, 11:44 PM:
There's an AP article today about the 2012 Aurora massacre as it affect exhibitors now possibly showing The Interview. Basically Cinemark's defense centers on "We had no way of knowing in advance that this tragedy would occur". That defense would not work in the current scenario.
Anyone like George R R Martin thinking of showing the movie (assuming Sony relents, which they won't) might want to talk to your general liability insurer first.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-20-2014, 12:33 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
Watch the death scene while you can before it gets taken down.
Archived! - Kinda.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-20-2014, 12:45 AM:
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-20-2014, 02:58 AM:
Frank - thanks for this.
If I understand the mechanics of this worm correctly, in order for it to have worked, the servers involved must have had administration accounts with easily guessable passwords (i.e. words that are in a dictionary), and no automatic alarm/shutdown if multiple incorrect password attempts are made. That is surely the only way that a brute force, password guessing approach could have had any chance of working.
I would have thought that for servers holding such commercially valuable IP in digital asset form, computer security 101 would dictate that both easily guessable passwords, and a system that allows anyone or anything just to carry on trying passwords until they guess the right one, has been set up in a way that is seriously negligent.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-20-2014, 11:26 AM:
My knowledge of Microsoft Windows is pretty thin; the last version that I actually used was Windows 98, and I didn't use it for long.
I'm no kind of a security expert so what I say here could easily be wrong in the details. If it is, someone else feel free to correct me.
When large companies set up the computers that they put onto employees' desktops, they use a standard master image to do so. Therefore, the local admin hashes will all be the same.
If you can compromise one single desktop computer (not a particularly difficult task -- you only need one out of however-many thousand) you can then extract the admin hashes for that machine and by golly they will be exactly the same on all of the machines that were set up using the master image.
Now that you're in, you can obtain the plain text password of any currently logged in account.
Think about this for a second. Who's logged into an individual workstation other than Mary Smith in Accounting? Background services require account credentials that are stored in the local Windows Registry. Domain admin is the obvious one, but there are lots of other interesting things to be found there. Anything that requires a background push or pull, really. Centrally administered security software, firewall configuration, network printing services... name your poison.
Note that we're still just looking at one single computer here, we haven't even started looking for interesting goodies on the rest of the network that we're now part of.
My impression is that basic SMB is so simple to set up that a dead dog could do it. (Never set it up myself, don't know this first hand.) "Does it work now?" "Yep." The job is now done, nobody thinks of securing it any further than that. And when you're paying someone by the hour to set it up, you don't want him "wasting time" on something that's apparently working when there are another 1298 installs that have to be completed by Friday.
Combine this with the fact that folks were apparently storing master password lists on their computers under obscure names like password.xls, and you're pretty much handing the world over on a plate.
People tend to use the same password or simple variations of the same password on multiple devices, so once you have a list of some current passwords it's easy to create a custom dictionary for whatever the Windows equivalent of John the Ripper is.
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-20-2014, 02:56 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think this is a tough one, it very well could be the start of the next World War, however North Korea really does not stand much of a chance if there was any military campaign against the country. It would be over pretty quick.
The problem is North Korea has its big brother, next door neighbor CHINA hanging close for protection. And China absolutely wouldn't put up with anyone screwing with its kid brother neighbor.
The way to get to North Korea is by getting to China first. Somehow. A good start would be all these dip shit American companies slowly pulling their manufacturing out of there. Create new product line factories in different countries elsewhere and as the old products go obsolete the Chinese factories can be shuttered. When China figures out what's up they might be willing to see its business partnership with the United States being a little more worth while than propping up a criminally despotic state via its own welfare.
Cuba all of a sudden wants to thaw its relations with the United States principally over money. They were getting a lot of aid from Venezuela. Now Venezuela's currency is virtually devalued from the bottom falling out with oil prices. Cuba has nowhere else to go. China is kind of in the same boat. They need us. Badly. Honestly, China needs us more than they need North Korea.
quote: Carsten Kurz
In a Twitter post, the internationally acclaimed author offered Sony Pictures US$100,000 to buy the movie that is believed to have sparked the cyber-theft of confidential information from the company.
Sony might as well not do shit with the movie based on that insulting offer. The Interview, whether it's a good movie or not, is actually worth a hell of a lot more money based on all the people who would want to see just out of sheer curiosity. Paulo Coelho should have coughed up another three digits to make that $100,000 offer more legitimate.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Frankly, I'm astonished that Amy Pascal has kept her job as long as this.
I expect she'll lose her job. However a lot of specific lower level employees, whose negligent computing practices contributed to this nightmare, are guaranteed to be fired.
quote: Frank Cox
The attackers used a Server Message Block (SMB) Worm Tool which consists of five parts: Listening Implant, Lightweight Backdoor, Proxy Tool, Destructive Hard Drive Tool, and Destructive Target Cleaning Tool. This set of programs runs only on Microsoft Windows.
And I thought everyone in Hollywood used only Apple branded computers. They sure make the world look like Macs are the only computers anyone can buy in all the movies and TV shows they make.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Frank Cox
Technically, this looks pretty cool and mighty clever. And it gives me one more reason to recommend that people stay away from using Microsoft Windows to do anything involving real work and productivity.
I'll bash Microsoft and Windows as much as anyone. But let's be real. The most secure computing platform ever imagined will be no match against a negligent end user.
While the software the hackers used may have been Windows-based or at least designed to attack Windows-based computers, it appears very clear that bad decisions on the part of IT people and end users were the key on allowing the hackers to gain access. It sounds like all they needed to do is launch a dictionary based attack. The IT guys didn't set log-in attempt limits. The end users didn't use strong passwords.
As much as I want Microsoft to finally get its shit together with regard of eliminating all the damned holes in its operating system, in this case it sounds like Microsoft can deflect much of the blame on this hack back to Sony and its personnel.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-20-2014, 03:36 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I expect she'll lose her job. However a lot of specific lower level employees, whose negligent computing practices contributed to this nightmare, are guaranteed to be fired.
I don't really see the great need to fire too many people. Amy Pascal probably had (and still has) no idea of the mechanics of what happened. If they fire their whole IT staff, they'll just have to bring in another group of people to start from the ground up not knowing anything. Better to maybe fire the head(s) of the IT department (who let this happen), let the rest of the staff learn from the mistakes of the past and move on.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-20-2014, 03:57 PM:
So, this whole hack was carried out by little more than a few North Korean script kiddies?
And, these little cyberpunks are essentially holding a multinational corporation hostage?
While North Korea has demonstrated that they MIGHT be able to launch a nuclear weapon, we haven't seen any real proof of that, beyond a few nuclear tests and a few test missile launches. I don't remember if they have ever put the two together and launched a nuclear warhead ON a missile. Have they?
Besides, that I haven't seen much of the North Korean military besides a bunch of guys parading around in lock-step like a bunch of Nazis, breaking bricks with their fists and busting boards over each other's heads. Teenagers do junk like that on YouTube, FFS!
Why, I bet that Sony pictures could hire a bunch of actors, special effects artists and pyrotechnicians to go to North Korea and wipe them out in a weekend. Then they could film it and make a movie out of it, while they are at it. Selling that on PPV video would quickly recover the costs of the para-military operation.
The only thing propping up North Korea is China and even THEY think of Kim Jong Un (or whoever is really running the country) like a red headed stepchild!
I think the solution, here, is to drive a wedge between China and North Korea and turn them into the "New Cuba." I think the U.S. could easily start pulling money out of China and funneling it into Cuba. They've got an impoverished working class that would be great to use as a cheap source of low-paid industrial workers.
During the next couple-few decades, Cuba could be a new banana republic and we could leave China and North Korea high and dry.
In the mean time, somebody needs to to a mash-up on "Kyle's Mom is a Great Big Bitch" and substitute "Kim Jong Un" for "Kyle's Mom."
THAT would be funny! ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-20-2014, 04:33 PM:
Can't we just hack some North Korea computers and turn off their electricity or something? Let's get some movie directors thinking about our "response," that'll be more fun and have more action than anything the government might think up.
After we kick butt, then the movie could be retitled "Fuck You, Korea" and be released worldwide.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-20-2014, 04:43 PM:
Does North Korea even have electricity outside Kim Jong Un's private crib?
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-20-2014, 06:21 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
When large companies set up the computers that they put onto employees' desktops, they use a standard master image to do so. Therefore, the local admin hashes will all be the same.
I would hope that any modern windows installation (W/7 onwards) would no longer use the local admin account, as the risks of doing so are so well understood.
But the risks of password hashes remain, see Pass the Hash, made worse by adminstrators not understanding basic separation of roles and using separate credentials for each role. Domain admins (of which there should be very few) need three sets of credentials to do their jobs, or bad things will happen.
Another big problem is that most installations have grown up over the years and been through several sets of upgrades, so a lot of old cruft remains, one the worst being LAN Manager support, which if users have passwords of less than 15 characters, they may as well be published on the homepage.
And then there is Windows stupidity. By default, Windows stores a copy of the current user's password in plain text, and will hand it out to an application on request. This behaviour can be disabled, but its something that needs to be done, and is not without impact to convenience.
So although windows can be made to be damned secure, secure to the point that our governments use it for top secret stuff, by default it isn't, and coupled with organisational poor security posture, administrators poor practices, users that don't give a f**k about security, and then general pervasivness of leaky networks, the game is lost before the first dice is rolled.
Welcome to the 21st century.
The problem is: Security is hard. Security inconveniences users. Perhaps worse, Security inconveniences managers and important people.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Can't we just hack some North Korea computers and turn off their electricity or something?
Of course. America (so the world believes) fired the first shot in this war with stuxnet, and America told the war that cyberwarefare is OK, because "America does it". But the USA knows that it has far more to lose in this war than everyone else, and they are far more vulnerable than most. America has seen what poking Iran with cyberwarfare has done; Iran has upskilled, and fast. They went from nowhere to a (cyber) world power in just a few years.
The USA is not going to go all assy over something as trivial as the Sony mess, it is leaving Sony to end up with the red faces.
quote: Randy Stankey
During the next couple-few decades, Cuba could be a new banana republic and we could leave China and North Korea high and dry.
That is not a strategy without risk; at the moment the USA and China are in a state of detente over the minor matter of the $1.2T that the USA owes China. If China called in that debt then the USA would be farked, as would the USD. But China aren't going to demand debt repayment any time soon, as to do so would also fark China. However, if the USA decides to fark China by abandonment, then China would have little to lose...
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-20-2014, 07:50 PM:
Yes, it was mostly a "a modest proposal" if you pardon the figure of speech.
But if you considered that the transition would, as I said, take a couple-three decades. Within that time, a debt could be paid off, at least substantially enough that telling them to go flake off wouldn't cause too much of a ruckus.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-21-2014, 02:28 AM:
quote: David Buckley
The problem is: Security is hard. Security inconveniences users. Perhaps worse, Security inconveniences managers and important people.
It also needs to be proportionate to the nature and extent of the perceived threat. You don't put a cast iron, 300-ton door on the entrance to your house, but you do on the entrance to Fort Knox.
Sony, however, don't seem to have got this point. They had the master level, unencrypted digital assets of their latest mainstream releases on these effectively unsecured servers: the IP the North Koreans uploaded out must have been worth hundreds of millions. Once you add their legal liability for having leaked the personal data of employees, suppliers and customers, and the indirect costs in loss of reputation, you can probably add even more hundreds of millions on to that. That's essentially what shocks me about this episode: that such a large corporation, and in a security-conscious industry, didn't understand this.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-22-2014, 10:04 AM:
In the big picture, Sony has done everything wrong it could have done wrong. First, they got their systems breached and tons of information stolen. They apparently have even been warned about it, but failed to act on it.
Then they hired a big shot lawyer and started dishing out big warnings across the world.
Then they decided to cancel the release of the movie it was, apparently all about, getting them nothing but bad press from around the globe.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Can't we just hack some North Korea computers and turn off their electricity or something?
Which will probably hurt many people which have absolutely nothing to do with all of this the most.
As of now, it's not even sure it was the North Koreans, even if the president himself claims so. The proof given up until now is of the same quality as the proof we as a public got regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and we all know how well that went.
Nobody is also going to war over this kind of stuff, or it must be part of some kind of false pretext. Still, it would be a pretty lame excuse. It’s SPE who messed up, SPE in the picture of a whole nation, is irrelevant. Even if they would go bankrupt because of the fallout of it all, it is still almost completely irrelevant.
Apparently, a bunch of other hackers has gotten hold of the whole picture already, although that's what they're publicly claiming. They also claimed they got it from a separate hack… They’re threatening to release it to the public. If this turn out to be true, how can we even remotely trusting those other bigshots pointing their fingers at North Korea?
quote: Leo Enticknap
Sony, however, don't seem to have got this point. They had the master level, unencrypted digital assets of their latest mainstream releases on these effectively unsecured servers: the IP the North Koreans uploaded out must have been worth hundreds of millions.
At least some of their IP needs to be treated with military grade security. This is true for all multi-billion dollar corporations. For most U.S. and European corporations, their most valuable assets are their Intellectual Property assets. Much of it being governed by copyright and patents, but many trade secrets which are protected by no real law in existence.
There's nothing what the Chinese cannot copy, so you better protect your IP with a proverbial 300-ton door or else you're just a bunch of amateurs. You will be eaten up and spitted out by the global economy in the blink of an eye.
The biggest problem is, this will require you to put your really important stuff on something different than some easily accessible file servers on your local Windows domain or in some Dropbox account "in the cloud". You will also need the tools, training and procedures to keep them safe. A single employee not following the rules can potentially open the floodgates: Copy a bunch of super-important files to an USB dongle and lose it at the local Starbucks… They need to sink millions upon millions into security that actually matters and in return the CxO cannot even have his e-mail on his latest iShiny.
But heck, something needs to change. What we see now is just the beginning of this ever increasing push to "the cloud" and "always on". As long as we keep releasing products before they're finished, we should not even dream about those kind of interconnected worlds as we're creating a nightmare for ourselves.
I for once have started to airgap all kinds of systems both at work and at home once and again. It's really great that I can control the lights at home from my office, but as long as it is strung together via a bunch of systems that need a security upgrade every now and a fortnight to be even remotely secure, I don’t even dare to hook it all together.
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-23-2014, 12:21 PM:
Predictably, Sony is going ahead with a limited release of The Interview on Christmas Day"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/23/sony-the-interview-screenings_n_6373096.html
quote: Huffington Post posted:
Moviegoers will be able to see "The Interview" after all. Sony announced on Tuesday that "The Interview" will have a "limited theatrical release" in the Untied States on Christmas Day.
"We have never given up on releasing 'The Interview' and we're excited our movie will be in a number of theaters on Christmas Day," Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Entertainment, said in a statement. "At the same time, we are continuing our efforts to secure more platforms and more theaters so that this movie reaches the largest possible audience.
"I want to thank our talent on 'The Interview' and our employees, who have worked tirelessly through the many challenges we have all faced over the last month," Lynton added. "While we hope this is only the first step of the film's release, we are proud to make it available to the public and to have stood up to those who attempted to suppress free speech."
Following terror threats made by hackers against theaters that planned to show "The Interview," Sony had reportedly told theater owners they could pull the film at their discretion. Last week, after major chains such as AMC Entertainment, Regal Entertainment, Cinemark, Cineplex Entertainment and Carmike Cinemas decided against screening "The Interview," Sony yanked the comedy from the release schedule.
"In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film 'The Interview,' we have decided not to move forward with the planned Dec. 25 theatrical release," the studio said in a statement on Dec. 17. "We respect and understand our partners' decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers."
In the wake of the decision, the studio was criticized by members of the Hollywood community and even President Barack Obama, who said in a press conference on Friday that Sony had made "a mistake."
TheWrap reports that Sony will soon announce plans to release the film on video on demand as well, but that was not confirmed by Sony. Some theaters planning screenings of the film include the Alamo Drafthouse. Tim League, the theater's founder, was first to tweet news about Sony's change of plans:
The Alamo's Dallas location is now offering showtimes and tickets on its website, and Atlanta's Plaza theater also tweeted that it would have showtimes for "The Interview" available soon.
Seth Rogen, who co-directed "The Interview" and stars in the film alongside James Franco, was pleased with the studio's decision:
This story is developing ...
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-23-2014, 12:54 PM:
So you have to wonder if those that theatened Sony are also in a position to impact the exhibition industry. Thinking like the bad guy, I'd certainly have planned for this eventuality, and I suspect that a big chunk of exhibition (ie the chains and VPFfers) would have made for an achievable and worthy target.
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-23-2014, 02:45 PM:
Is there a list anywhere online of locations running it?
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-23-2014, 02:50 PM:
This is the only "list" I've been able to find. I am not going to paste the content in the body of this thread because the list at the link is a living document that will continue to grow.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/full-list-of-theaters-showing-the-interview-starting-christmas-day/
Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 12-23-2014, 03:08 PM:
The cynic in me says that Sony will use this as a test bed for direct to video releases..
Fairly major film, limited cinema release and then does massive business on VOD. Who needs cinemas?
Obviously this is completely wrong but it is surely how some studio types will look at it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2014, 03:41 PM:
Considering all the hoopla on every media platform known to man, I don't think it's a very valid test....but who knows how the average studio suit thinks?
I suppose every theater showing the movie will be surrounded by TV cameras so if anything bad does happen, at least it'll be beamed around the world immediately in living color!
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-23-2014, 04:38 PM:
quote: Sean Weitzel
I am not going to paste the content in the body of this thread because the list at the link is a living document that will continue to grow.
I wouldn't classify the list as a living being. Is it male or female? Does it have sex with other lists in order to reproduce? How?
Also that list is already outdated. The mighty Alamo Drafthouse here in Denver is gonna rock the movie once per day (night, actually). It really is amazing how often Alamo Drafthouse gets itself in the news, usually in a positive light. One thing is for certain... they know how to market their name better than most.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-23-2014, 05:14 PM:
The Plaza in Atlanta is getting a lot of interest. I personally do not care for that theater. The guy who bought it supposedly shows some movies on BluRay without informing the customers and charging ridiculous rates for a second rate projection. Anyone know if that theater has real theatrical quality digital projection?
I called Lefont theaters(Sandy Springs) and they have no plans of showing it. What a missed opportunity for a sometimes indie multiplex in the middle of the metropolitan area(right between the city and the majority of the suburbs) to get a lot of business. They could have packed the house for the entire week and that theater has struggled to get people once Madstone departed.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2014, 05:21 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
It really is amazing how often Alamo Drafthouse gets itself in the news, usually in a positive light. One thing is for certain... they know how to market their name better than most.
It's because they're a small company. Trying to get a corporation to turn on a dime is like trying to push a cat out from under a porch with a rope.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-23-2014, 06:57 PM:
I THINK I read that the "Guardians of Peace" said Sony could release the movie if the assassination scene was removed. Is that the case? Was it?
Harold
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2014, 07:05 PM:
I highly doubt that's true.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-23-2014, 07:24 PM:
quote: Harold Hallikainen
I THINK I read that the "Guardians of Peace" said Sony could release the movie if the assassination scene was removed. Is that the case? Was it?
You remember where you read this? There's so much misinformation out there, it's hard to determine fact from fiction...
According to "Anonymous", "we" will get the movie on Christmas anyway. Either by Sony or by them...
Really, Sony should just give the movie away for free. Use the marketing power left in it to bolster up your image, it's not like you're going to make any money of it if you're not going to give it a proper release...
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-23-2014, 08:18 PM:
It apparently has been posted a few places. One place is at http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-tell-sony-the-interview-may-release-now-with-edits/ where they say it difficult to determine authenticity.
Harold
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-23-2014, 09:18 PM:
I'm hearing 200 screens going with it for Christmas.
The Egyptian in Hollywood is getting it, along with quite a few other screens in SoCal.
Here in NM, the Jean Cocteau Cinema in Santa Fe is getting it. And I thought my local art house The Guild Cinema was getting it, but now I can't find any mention...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2014, 09:46 PM:
quote: Harold Hallikainen
One place is at http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-tell-sony-the-interview-may-release-now-with-edits/ where they say it difficult to determine authenticity.
Ehhh, the quoted "message from the hackers" in that story is so obviously phony even a junior FBI trainee could detect it. But I really doubt that even Sony, as stupidly as they've handled this, would take orders on how to edit a movie from some unidentified parties. Plus, removing the Kim death scene would remove the whole point of the movie apparently, so why would they ever agree to do that? (Although I guess studios have done dumber things.)
I guess we'll know in 2 days. The bigger interesting thing is how pissed off the chains are getting over this whole mess, what with being thrown under the bus and all.
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-23-2014, 10:28 PM:
A much more comprehensive list is linked in a Variety article:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/where-to-watch-the-interview-on-christmas-day-1201386553/
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-24-2014, 09:43 AM:
I think it is quite entertaining seeing all of the liberals crying "patriotic free speech" as reasons to play this movie which would not be a movie they normally would play after for years making fun of the right wing patriots for crying patriotism after 9/11.
As far as the owner of the Plaza Theater, I recall seeing many were critical of him when he played Star Wars recently. Many think he is an ass.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 12-24-2014, 10:45 AM:
I agree Mike. What a giant load of bullshit. The same people that are crying about Sony not releasing this would do two things.
1. Never see this piece of crap of a movie anyway.
2. Be on there hands and knees doing whatever the hackers said if there family was threatened the same way that Sony was threatened.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-24-2014, 01:12 PM:
It will be available for online rental later today from Youtube and whatnot.
If I was one of the folks who was planning to play this thing starting tomorrow, I would be unhappy right now.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-24-2014, 01:37 PM:
"This is how it ends, not with a bang but with a whimper..."
Make no mistake that this is the beginning of the end of movie theatres and movies as we know them. It won't be instant but this will be the example used for day and date release with VOD. The studio executives will completely ignore the fact that the only reason that people will pay to stream this is a morbid curiosity. Plus, they are only charging $6, not the $30+ that they envision for "Premium VOD."
None of that will matter. Eventually, some studio will point to this release as the example of how the day and date release worked. Within a few years of that, 90% of theatres will close. Following that, movies will be nothing more than 2 hour TV shows. Budgets will drop and that will be it.......
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-24-2014, 03:01 PM:
I think you are being a little too Chicken Littleish about this. This situation is unusual in a myriad of ways.
1. This movie already had a huge amount of advertising and was well known even before the hack.
2. Since the hack it's gotten hundreds of millions of free 'impressions' in every worldwide media outlet known to mankind, unlike any movie before it.
3. When Sony pulled it from release, it became the "forbidden fruit" that now suddenly EVERYBODY was interested in, even those who didn't care at all before.
4. Now that they are "really" releasing it, and at a stupid bargain (on VOD, on YouTube) price at that, OF COURSE a lot of people will stream it...due to the even more massive publicity that THAT will generate.
There is almost no hope whatever of EVER re-creating this particular scenario again, considering studios are now shying away from making this kind of "controversial" content.
The screwup now is with the indie and arthouse theaters, who should have said to Sony, "HOLD ON THERE, pardner -- if you're going VOD, we are OUT."
One thing about this situation, it sure has exposed a lot of spineless wimps for what they really are.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-24-2014, 04:06 PM:
Interesting patchwork of bookings. The New York City screens, the Quad and the Cinema Village, are literally a five minute walk from each other. I guess no area exclusivity for this. Whoever wants, gets.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-24-2014, 05:03 PM:
Mike frees and Jarrod Reddig, your anti liberal rant made no sense (not to mention out of place on this forum). You dont' seem familiar with the fan base of This is the End and Pineapple Express. Last I checked, liberals were part of that fan base too. A lot of liberals that I know wanted to watch this movie well before the controversy, just by watching the TV ads. Maybe you should know who your audience is if you want to be a successful part of the film exhibition biz. Inglorious Bastards with a not so dissimilar theme had fans of different ideologies enjoy it.
As far as the VOD, amazed it is so cheap at 5.99 when they could have easily gotten 9.99 at least. It is not comparable to a rental three months later where I actually feel 5.99 on your cable on demand is overpriced. I am not going to bother going to the Plaza and wonder about its projection quality and be hostage to the lack of theater options in my area and will watch this on my big screen plasma at home for a cheaper price and not wondering if I could get the very few walk-in tickets available(all advance tickets sold out since there are only two screens). The big theater chains probably unintentionally opened the door for a high profile preview of this kind of VOD release(not realistic pricing for a mainstream movie, but could be used as a model for movies that might end up going direct to cable). Which is why I am confused why SONY didn't try to kill two birds with one stone by trying to price this more realistically at 14.99 or 9.99 as a test case and see how the rentals do in the cities that are showing this movie compared to the rest of the country.
But I have to agree with Mike B. SONY did eff the indie theaters that stepped forward by releasing this online a day before the theaters. THey could have waited at least two weeks for the VOD. Or priced it higher.
Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 12-24-2014, 08:22 PM:
I don't think they screwed the independents. They and the FBI probably set up the streaming and YouTube deal to get the hackers to DDOS the streams. Maybe to catch them, maybe just to throw them off of harassing the theaters. When no one can download it, they will just shake their fists, blame the hackers, and recommend everyone go to the theater, where the hackers can't stop it.
I personally think that North Korea was NOT involved in the attack. Many security experts agree. Do a search for it, you come up with many articles and many different experts speaking up that they don't believe NK was involved. Example below.
I listened to a podcast today that had two experts from Mcaffee, who both agreed that there is zero evidence that points to NK.
I think it is all political bullshit. Obama was meeting with Cuba, and then was to meet with North Korea in an attempt to improve relations. His political opponents saw blaming North Korea as a way to derail Obama's plans (maybe I've just been watching House of Cards too much). Or maybe they even hired those who did the attack. Hacking Sony would not be a matter of national security, so I could see a politician rationalizing that as being OK to further their political agenda. Although like the article below states, The Interview wasn't mentioned by the hackers until the press started speculating about it, so that kind of eliminates politicians hiring someone, but it does not eliminate them as using it for their agenda, by blaming NK.
One of many sony hack articles blasting the goverment story, this one is from Gigaom.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 12-24-2014, 09:41 PM:
I would readily believe that its some sort of governmental ploy.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-24-2014, 09:58 PM:
So wasn't it Sony that was caught with movie critics on their payroll to give their movies 5 star reviews?
This stinks of the same thing:
Just pay for “The Interview,” even if you don’t watch it
quote:
Michelle Quinn
I had been wavering about seeing “The Interview.” The reviews have been mixed, but mostly negative. I don’t have a lot of expendable time, so I like sure bets in my entertainment.
But now that Sony has decided to make the film available both online and in theaters, I’ll pay and watch it.
And I think most people should cough up the $5.99 to rent it even if they never see it.
Sony’s decision to pull the movie last week in response to continued threats from hackers was depressing. I understood the public safety argument of theater owners.
But as many argued, it was a very bad precedent, “The Satanic Verses” all over again. But that was 1988. How could content be held as a virtual hostage in the digital age?
Fortunately, tech companies like Google and Microsoft have stepped up.
Microsoft’s Brad Smith said in a blog post that the company’s decision to make the film available on Xbox Video is because “we are supporting the Constitutional right of free expression, and we hope that by acting together, we will help deter other attacks.”
Given the greater cause, so what about the film’s quality?
It is a historic moment, as I wrote earlier. Tech helping out Hollywood. The White House stepping in on Sony’s behalf to talk to Apple about making it available on iTunes (Apple reportedly declined).
So buy it but don’t sit through it if this description by Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times sounds unappealing: “a sloppy farce with the look of a low-budget affair, perhaps to match its lowbrow idea.”
But Jake Coyle of the Associated Press praised the film because it “pulses with an unpredictable absurdity and can-you-believe-we’re-doing-this glee.”
That reminds me of Adam Johnson’s “Orphan Master’s Son,” by Stanford University’s Adam Johnson, also about North Korea. Some critics pooh poohed the book for its absurdity, much like “The Interview.” But it won the 2013 Pulitzer for fiction.
Now that I can stream it on YouTube or Xbox, rather than go to a theater, it’s an easy decision. I’ll give it a go.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-24-2014, 09:58 PM:
The Alamo Drafthouse in Lubbock has already sold out it's showings for Christmas Day for the movie.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 12-24-2014, 11:00 PM:
Pravin I only volunteer in the film exhibition business these days so my opinion about a movie really means jack shit. My main point was that some of the same people that are calling Sony cowards for not releasing the movie would have done the same thing if the shoe was on there foot. Im totally done with this whole movie though.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-25-2014, 12:38 AM:
I have never really been interested in seeing this movie because, from what I have seen, it looks totally tasteless. Nauseatingly, tasteless.
Do I believe that North Korea really did it? Maybe. It is still just as possible that it was, as one report put it, a bunch of teenagers wearing Guy Fawkes masks. However, I believe that there are enough generations of people who have grown up under the North Korean regime's influence that the NK government wouldn't have to order such an attack. There are enough brainwashed sympathizers in the world who could have done such a thing on their own.
Even now, I am still not totally convinced that Sony isn't somehow in cahoots with the perpetrators or isn't making mountains out of molehills, all for the sake of a movie that really wouldn't have amounted to much if it wasn't for this.
It just doesn't stand up to reason that any normal person could truly think that they could get away with something like this.
If anybody tries to block the release of a movie, this close to the official release date, after publicity is already in place, they would have to consider the the effect of that would be to generate even MORE publicity for that movie. Any normal person would know that would have the opposite of the effect that they wanted.
If you are going to try to coerce a studio to cancel a movie, you would have to do it way more than two weeks before the release.
As mentally ill as the North Korean government is, I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that.
I can't imagine that sympathizers wouldn't know that.
That leaves only three possibilities left, that I can think of:
A prank by some unknown idiots. (Wearing aforementioned Guy Fawkes masks )
A cover for some other corporate espionage against Sony. Like some weird kind of diversionary tactic.
A weird publicity stunt by Sony or somebody in cahoots with Sony.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-25-2014, 03:46 AM:
From Lyle's post:
quote: Lyle Romer
Eventually, some studio will point to this release as the example of how the day and date release worked. Within a few years of that, 90% of theatres will close. Following that, movies will be nothing more than 2 hour TV shows. Budgets will drop and that will be it.......
Saw the app to download the feature, "The Interview" on my Android.
Below this ad was a comment section
Interesting to note that one user made the affirmation comment where he would love to see Hollywood have an Online Streaming Option.
This person would love to see Sony and other companies consider this and change how movie are released because they're still going make money if not more with going to online releases
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-25-2014, 08:25 AM:
I am embarrassed to say, I never really get nauseated by tasteless movies...in fact, I can usually enjoy the tasteless stuff,, you know, the stuff that makes my lady frown and answer me with single word sentences for the rest of the night. This pretty much explains it:
I don't know why everyone assumes this is not going to be a decent film before they see it. Rogan and Franco are two funny guys and certainly work well together as a comedic team. Why assume this is going to be particularly trashy or unfunny?
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 12-25-2014, 09:58 AM:
"The Interview" is now available for purchase via Google Play, YouTube Movies, Xbox, Kernel, and it's all over the torrent sites. Knew it.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-25-2014, 10:16 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
I am embarrassed to say, I never really get nauseated by tasteless movies...
I agree. I feel like I'm in hot water because I think that some things are funny which others don't.
In this case, it's about the killing.
Stuff in Tarantino movies is one thing but a supposed comedy that is based on killing just makes my stomach turn.
"Be vewwy quiet! I'm hunting wabbits!"... Cartoon violence.
I don't have a problem with that. That's funny. Real violence isn't funny to me. I had too much of that, growing up.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-25-2014, 11:18 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Interesting to note that one user made the affirmation comment where he would love to see Hollywood have an Online Streaming Option.
This person would love to see Sony and other companies consider this and change how movie are released because they're still going make money if not more with going to online releases
Sooner the better, I am sick and tired of waiting for months until a movie is released on Netflix or DVD. I don't want to see everything with a theatrical experience and if it takes a down a few shitty theaters with it then so be it.
I also noticed a few members on this board calling SONY or the big chains weenies and such for pulling the Interview, did they all of sudden book the movie in their independent theaters or did they weenie out too?
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-25-2014, 11:31 AM:
The problem is that there are so many people who run around, "I want! I want! I want!," but don't think of the long term effect, then, when, for instance, theaters go out of business, they are the very first to jump up and down bemoaning the fact.
People who run theaters (not just owners... everybody, all the way down to ushers and ticket takers...) need to remember that there are people out there just like that.
Customers don't HAVE to go to theaters. They can stay at home and sit on the sofa, wearing nothing but their underwear. It's not just about the movies. It's about going OUT. It's about socializing and being with other people. It's about having other people take care of the things you need in order to have a good time. It's about paying for the privilege.
People who think that it's ONLY about the movies are thinking bass ackward.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-25-2014, 11:39 AM:
Randy, your comments are true to some extent, but the "wanting to see the movie" plays a bigger part.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-25-2014, 12:23 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I also noticed a few members on this board calling SONY or the big chains weenies and such for pulling the Interview, did they all of sudden book the movie in their independent theaters or did they weenie out too?
We close in December and I'm out of town, so didn't book it (would have).
However, a good number of the Art House Convergence, which sent an open letter and petition to Sony urging them to release the film to independent theaters, DID book the film. This required rearranging schedules and a mad rush to get it on the screen in one or two days. Many of them also tried, but were turned down by Sony. From the reports I've been reading on the AHC group, they have sold out shows, that will go to help fund the exhibition of more indie films in the future.
I can't speak for indie theatres on Film-Tech, but yes, many indie theatres calling out Sony did book The Interview in their theaters.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-25-2014, 04:12 PM:
I wouldn't book it now because it's out on video. It's spoiled goods.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't want to see everything with a theatrical experience and if it takes a down a few shitty theaters with it then so be it.
You're just proving, again, that you don't know how this business works or the economics of it. A day and date video/theatrical pattern for all movies would kill most or all of the theaters eventually, not just "a few shitty theaters." Yes, even your beloved Imax wouldn't be safe.
The biggest risk and problem is, not 100% of the public moves to new trends at the same rate. Some are early adopters, some wait months or years. So someday the studios will try the day/date thing with a 'mainstream' movie, and it'll still do well in theaters too because most moviegoers will still be in the habit of going out to the movies. The studio will say "See? There's no problem" and continue to do day/date, and then the die will be cast. More and more people will opt for the cheaper/easier option because they only care about the movie itself; they're willing to do without the "experience" in exchange for cheaper/easier. There won't be enough "experience" lovers left to sustain the business. Within a couple of years, there won't be much of a "movie exhibition business" left, except maybe for some art or revival houses in large cities.
If you don't believe that, look what has happened to video and music stores. They're gone! People have opted for cheaper/easier, even though the experience of shopping for music is much better in a really good store.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-25-2014, 04:47 PM:
Not only most remaining movie theaters would go out of business, but it would most likely also be the end of the big budget Hollywood productions all together...
And I still cannot get my mind around what kind of clusterf*ck Sony managed to get going here.
Instead of releasing this in broadside salvos on all channels, everywhere, globally, they went for a "limited theatrical release" and released it on a limited number of Video on Demand sites, but ONLY in the U.S.
So, as a result, their movie is already all over the Internet in Full HD. Since nobody knows when this thing will become available and everybody wants it NOW, nobody is paying jack shit for it and they don't even get the credits, they only look stupid.
What did they earn here? The answer is simple: nothing. Almost no theater will be interested to book their movie anymore, because everybody has already seen it or by the time it's finally available, all the buzz has been blown over.
And how much did they earn on their VOD release? Even if a million people actually paid for it, after Google and Microsoft cashed that's still just a few millions in the bank.
Ah, and I guess since they did release it, in the end, this so called hacker group will also not be pleased. I guess we can expect yet another round of "juicy SPE internals" hitting the news the coming days.
Great work Sony. I hope your execs are enjoying this year's bonuses, looks like they earned them well...
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-25-2014, 08:42 PM:
Playing it all day to sold out houses.
No security problem-all quiet.
SONY struck gold with this one along with the limited release houses playing it.
What ya wanna bet the Big Box cinemas will book it for this weekend release to try to play catch up with the ones already playing it?
. Monte
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-25-2014, 09:19 PM:
I wonder if they'll use this movie as a platform to show how "well" movies do on VOD.
Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 12-25-2014, 09:43 PM:
I watched it last night. It's well balanced and don't believe anyone inteligent would really be offended
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-25-2014, 10:19 PM:
Since it is sold out here, I just rented it on youtube. Problem is the computer browser version of youtube supports only 480p max resolution. And my Panasonic 65VT50's youtube app(acceptable for HD playback) for some reason doesn't support the video playback of the rental. I get an error "This video format is not supported". So I can't watch it at all in any resolution on the supported device it listed as acceptable for HD. So I am watching it on 480p. The Sound quality is not that great.Streaming is smooth, but once again, only at 480p.
I might take the trouble to hook up my PS3 and see if it's youtube app supports playback. Youtube tech support is inundated and is unable to help. So far, the experience is mediocre enough I am glad I am not paying more money than the 5.99
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-26-2014, 12:08 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Randy, your comments are true to some extent, but the "wanting to see the movie" plays a bigger part.
Then, why do people go to restaurants and pay top dollar for food that they can eat at home? People just want to eat but they still go out for food.
Movie theaters are like restaurants but the great majority of theaters are more like McDonalds instead of like fine dining. THAT is the problem with the movie industry.
The theaters that survive into the future will be the ones that come to terms with the idea that they are in the SERVICE industry. The theater's job is to give the people the experience they want
I really hate it when people refer to movies as "product." The theater's product isn't the movie. It is the experience and the service.
"Service" doesn't just mean that we bend over and take it up the ass for every customer who bitches at you. Service means being NICE to people and making sure they enjoy their visit. That's why draft houses and dinner theaters are becoming popular. Because people can walk in, sit down, watch and movie, eat some food and ENJOY THEMSELVES.
Until more theaters get hold of that idea and make it their own, people WILL just stay at home and sit on on the sofa to watch movies.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-26-2014, 12:15 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
I really hate it when people refer to movies as "product." The theater's product isn't the movie. It is the experience and the service.
It's a bit of a combination. The service and experience is extremely important. However, if the movies are horrible, people aren't going to pay just to experience the theatre.
A restaurant with great atmosphere and service but crappy food won't last very long. Unfortunately in the exhibition business the "food" comes from another supplier and the owner can't do anything about the quality.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-26-2014, 03:00 PM:
That's true, but upping the quality of the experience can help. I remember when we first put in DTS sound. A friend and I tested the system by watching the movie "True Lies." During the first big shootout scene, my friend leaned over to me and yelled, "Wow, this could even make a shitty movie fun to watch!"
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-26-2014, 03:41 PM:
Like going to McD's: Crappy hamburgers, but people buy them in throngs.
Go figure
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-26-2014, 05:26 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
SONY struck gold with this one along with the limited release houses playing it.
Yeah, they made a whopping ONE MILLION dollars already on their "theatrical release"... On a movie with a budget of about 44 million dollars, which apparently got SPE’s most kept secrets stolen and almost triggered an International crisis, this ONE MILLION $$$ sure sound daunting...
But yeah, forgive my sarcasm.
You know who really struck gold? The pirates! The movie was downloaded about 750.000 times alone via BitTorrent in the first 20 hours...
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Like going to McD's: Crappy hamburgers, but people buy them in throngs.
Yeah, but the whole point is: People can have crappy Mickey D's quality movies at home nowadays. They just need to turn on their tube and hit the Netflix button, they don't even need to get in the car. It's like having a McD's "hamburger" delivered instantly to your plate by the push of a button. The day this materializes (quite literally), your local McD's franchise will go the way of the local movie rental shack.
quote:
That's true, but upping the quality of the experience can help. I remember when we first put in DTS sound. A friend and I tested the system by watching the movie "True Lies." During the first big shootout scene, my friend leaned over to me and yelled, "Wow, this could even make a shitty movie fun to watch!"
In my very personal experience, a good presentation can make a mediocre movie a good experience and a good movie a great experience. A crappy presentation can even ruin the best movie. It has always been a combination of both movie and presentation and it will always be this way. Hollywood and the exhibition industry need each other. I guess the f*cked up release of this movie really proves this point.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2014, 05:43 PM:
There are HD download links all over the internet. I looked yesterday via a couple of simple google searches to see how bad the piracy on this movie was, and it didn't even take someone with the knowledge on how to download a torrent to get. There were lots of direct FTP servers dishing it out directly through a browser download with multiple user comments posting screenshots and certifying it was a valid download. It's pretty much exactly what scenario I expected to find.
With a VOD release, they're going to have a MAXIMUM of 48 hours to get their money back. In reality it's probably more like 24 hours. After that point clean copies will be available everywhere to anyone for free. This is just how the internet works.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-26-2014, 05:57 PM:
I watched it via Google Play. The movie is vulgar crude too long and not funny enough.
I give it a thumbs up anyway.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-26-2014, 06:20 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
With a VOD release, they're going to have a MAXIMUM of 48 hours to get their money back. In reality it's probably more like 24 hours. After that point clean copies will be available everywhere to anyone for free. This is just how the internet works.
And good luck with that...
Right now, it's not even available internationally.
The only way to get it semi-legally outside the U.S. is by using a proxy in the U.S. and a credit card that actually somehow works. Apparently, Google doesn't match your credit card to a country, but Sony does.
So a bunch of frustrations, while the illegal version is just a Google search and a few clicks away...
Sony even didn't indicate when it will be available. Will it still go into theatrical release first or will it show up on VOD and rental within a few weeks?
Anyway, it doesn't matter by then. Everybody is talking about this movie right NOW, but you cannot legally see it or have it. So what do you expect what will happen in a world where everything needs to be NOW?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2014, 08:25 PM:
One thing that might be on the side of Sony -or could be if they bothered to educate the public about it, is that anyone downloading torrents of The Interview (or torrents of anything else) is putting their computer's security at extreme risk.
Personally, most people I've known to get their computers hosed by trojans or other malware were doing something illegal. They were illegally downloading pirated music, movies or software. They get baited to download something they want badly and end up getting their computer infected in the process. Some of it is all too easy, like a person downloading Adobe Creative Suite and then downloading what he thinks is a license key generator, but is really a malicious script to totally fuck up his computer. It's even better than attaching malware to a junk e-mail.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I am sick and tired of waiting for months until a movie is released on Netflix or DVD. I don't want to see everything with a theatrical experience and if it takes a down a few shitty theaters with it then so be it.
Leave it to Terry the Troll to throw some obviously ignorant flame-bait into the thread.
Just in case you're serious about that stance Terry, and are too stupid or ignorant to release the often previously repeated truth, it's pretty damned simple math. If the movie studios release movies onto VOD and home video formats the same time they release the same movies in theaters ALL commercial movie theaters will go out of business. When they go out of business, the movie industry as we know it will go out of business.
The theatrical release platform is what bankrolls those $200 million productions and $100 million ad campaigns. There is no fucking way any movie studio is going to ever spend that kind of money on a 2 hour movie made only to watch on little home HDTV screens. No way at all.
You'll say goodbye to all those epic-level movie productions and say goodbye to "A-list stars" commanding $20 million paychecks to helm a movie. All the big movie studios will be reduced to companies far lesser in size and relevance. They'll be production companies merely trying to sell content to cable or broadcast networks. They won't even be on par with outfits like Netflix.
The contagion will spread to all tiers of home entertainment. Anything that relies on "Hollywood Movies" to attract customers will just be screwed. An unstoppable domino effect will take place. Movie theaters will die first. As movie content goes low-budget and shitty due to its new "direct to video" model, customers will sour on buying/renting movies via PPV VOD and optical disc formats like Blu-ray. Then they'll sour on paying for premium cable channels like HBO. Then they may sour on paying all that money for cable. Netflix and other streaming outlets will also take it in the ass.
At least the movie theater has the opportunity, like restaurants, to deliver a great "out of home" entertainment experience. If you're paying to watch movies in your home it's only going to be about the quality of the content. Nothing else. If all the content is low budget and shitty then why bother paying for it? In the end TV networks will be the only game in town for dramatic recorded entertainment.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-26-2014, 09:39 PM:
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-26-2014, 09:44 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Then, why do people go to restaurants and pay top dollar for food that they can eat at home? People just want to eat but they still go out for food.
There's a difference in skill/work required between watching a movie online and cooking food. It's not a fair comparison.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2014, 10:45 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Then, why do people go to restaurants and pay top dollar for food that they can eat at home? People just want to eat but they still go out for food.
Special occasion
Branding (huge importance)
Can't make it at home (I know Ruth Chris makes their steaks at 1800 degree broiled on a 500 degree plate) I know I cannot replicated that currently.
Want to go out
I think it is more complicated than just wanting to go out. I just think the movie is the most important thing first.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2014, 12:10 AM:
Terry, my family ran a steak restaurant. I grew up eating steak virtually every day of my life since I can remember until I went away to college. In fact, even after all these years, I went out to dinner, this evening and had steak.
There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that Ruth's Chris does that you can't do at home except provide a good atmosphere with attentive staff and excellent chefs. That "1,800 degree" stuff is bullshit, pure marketing bullshit.
I have eaten at Ruth's Chris and it was a top notch dining experience. The food was delivered hot and well-cooked. The waiter stood at his station, two tables away, and any time I needed something, I didn't even have to call his name. He was right there in two seconds. The guy even laughed at my stupid jokes.
I paid top dollar for that meal which I could have bought from the butcher's counter at the supermarket and I could have cooked it myself for less than one tenth of the price, yet I WILLFULLY got dressed up and hauled my butt to that restaurant because I wanted to have a nice time at a nice restaurant where people pay attention to ME and what I want.
Yes, I can download "The Interview" virtually for free and I can watch it on the TV in my home. I won't have to get dressed. I won't have to drive anywhere. I won't have to do anything.
All of us here at Film-Tech, know how to put on a great movie presentation at home. We don't need to go to the theater but we still WANT to.
Because what we REALLY want is for other people to pay attention to US and take care of OUR needs if only just for two hours out of a day.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2014, 12:19 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think it is more complicated than just wanting to go out. I just think the movie is the most important thing first.
How good do you think the movies will be if/when they're made solely for TV?
***
I couldn't immediately make a different post after this one, so I'm appending this news story to this edited post:
quote: Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg
Web Economics May Not Add Up for Sony’s ‘The Interview’
The economics of pay-per-view suggest Sony Pictures will have a hard time generating enough revenue to recoup the estimated $80 million it has spent so far making and marketing “The Interview.”
The movie opened in 331 theaters on Christmas day, taking in more than $1 million in ticket sales, according to Rentrak Corp. It also topped the charts of two online marketplaces, Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox video store and YouTube’s movie store.
A family of five could watch “The Interview” at home for the $5.99 online rental price at YouTube Movies, compared with the $50 or more they would pay in a theater. The Seth Rogen film, a fictional comedy about a plot to kill North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, prompted a cyber-attack that the FBI linked to that country’s government and led Sony to shelve the release.
“There’s a reason why the industry has its typical release pattern, with the theatrical first,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Rentrak Corp.
One potential benefit is that studios keep a larger share of revenue from typical video-on-demand deals, as much as 70 percent, according to Rich Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG LLC. The split with cinema owners is about 50-50. Sony declined to comment on possible terms.
Screenings in 300 theaters won’t add a lot compared with what the studio planned previously. It represents fraction of the 3,000 or more locations that typically constitute what the industry calls a wide release for a film such as “The Interview.”
Digital distribution of entertainment has been growing. Online sales of films and TV shows increased 47 percent last year to $1.2 billion, while rentals rose 5 percent to $2 billion, according to the Los Angeles-based Digital Entertainment Group, a studio-led consortium.
Because of the controversy and weeks of international media coverage, “The Interview” could see much more traffic online than is typical for films that are released simultaneously on the Internet and in theaters.
Without knowing how many households will pay to see the film online or what the split is with the distributors, it’s difficult to estimate how much Sony Corp. (6758)’s entertainment division will recoup from “The Interview,” according to Eric Wold, an analyst at B. Riley & Co. in San Francisco.
“I don’t think they end up getting back all of their costs,” Wold said.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2014, 12:50 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
That "1,800 degree" stuff is bullshit, pure marketing bullshit.
Let's just say it wasn't bullshit, is it possible to do the 1800 degree thing at home with a simple conventional oven?
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-27-2014, 01:09 AM:
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2014, 02:15 AM:
Terry, you are concentrating on a single four-digit number that has no meaning, whatsoever. I know steaks. I ate steaks and breathed charcoal fumes for the first, almost twenty years of my life.
You put a freakin' steak on the grill and you cook it. PERIOD!
Everything else is just pure, Hollywood, marketing fantasy!
Do you want to know why restaurants use sizzle platters?
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sound and sight of sizzling steak. It's a good side effect but it's not the real reason.
Hot, sizzling steak gives off hot vapor that the customer smells, long before the food ever gets to his mouth. The scent and sensation of hot, sizzling steak vapor increases the customer's sense of satisfaction something like ten times over the same steak served on a cold plate.
The sense of smell is much more directly connected to a person's emotional response than sight or hearing.
Eating in a restaurant is all about the emotional response.
You can buy a sizzle platter on-line for less than $10.
Ruth's Chris sells an excellent product but there is absolutely nothing magic about what they do. The steak is only half the product. The rest is all presentation and serving the customer's needs.
I can take you to a meat market where you can pick out your own cow and you can watch while they slaughter it for you.
I can buy you a fancy grill-broiler combination cooker if you want but I'd rather cook on a Weber grill using real, hardwood charcoal. NOT briquettes! Trust me. There is a difference!
I can give you sizzle platters. I can give you all of the technical know-how. To be honest, it's bloody easy. There are no secrets, there.
You can have the EXACT, same steak cooked in my back yard with my lifetime expertise or you can go to Ruth's Chris and pay the premium.
The magic that Ruth's Chris has is only because they cook the steak, to perfection, for you. They serve it on a sizzling platter. The waiter brings it to you and cleans up afterward. They bring you wine and they'll even pour it for you. If you don't know what kind of wine to drink, they have a sommelier who will pick something for you. You don't even have to know crap about wine. That's what a sommelier gets paid for.
Going to a restaurant is all about serving the emotional needs of the customer. It doesn't matte HOW you do it. It only matters that you pay attention to what the customer wants.
If the customer wants to eat barbecued pork on a wooden picnic table, I can tell them where to get it.
If the customer wants to eat that same meal in a fine dining restaurant where the waiters all wear tuxedos, I can tell them where to get that, too.
Movies are no different. You can watch a movie in a googolplex or you can watch the same movie in a movie palace. It will be the exact same product but the emotional response of the customer will be different.
It is the theater's job to serve the customer's emotional need.
That is what they are REALLY paying their money for.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2014, 02:25 AM:
So Randy, I can't burn charcoal on my apartment balcony. If I want a charcoal grilled steak, I guess I have to leave the house and eat at a restaurant because I can't make it at home?
Forget the experience, I just want a charcoal grilled streak. I get what you are saying, but I just think it is a little more complicated than just wanting to go out. I do respect what you are saying BTW.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2014, 02:57 AM:
Dude, you are so far off the beaten path the buses don't even stop there!
It has NOTHING-NOTHING-NOTHING to do with how or where the steak is cooked and it has NOTHING-NOTHING-NOTHING to do with how or where the movie is presented.
It has EVERYTHING-EVERYTHING-EVERYTHING to do with how, where and why the customer's needs are met.
You are a technical expert so that means it is in your vested interest to talk about the technical aspects of making movies but that is less than half of the formula.
If you are not meeting your customer's needs, I don't give a rat's ass how big and bright and perfect your television screen or your movie theater screen is.
If you wanted steak and I wanted to give it to you, we could do it in my back yard. I would bring the steak and charcoal. You could bring a side dish or a case of beer. Be forewarned! I don't do cheap beer! (That's what meets my emotional needs.)
We could eat steak in my back yard or we could go to a restaurant. Which one meets your needs?
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-27-2014, 08:16 AM:
On the first day that the INTERVIEW was available from the Kernel website, which was delivering the movie, the URL for the picture was not unique and could be shared with others. Also, it was possible to just right-click the movie and save the file in an unprotected format.
This was reported by THE VERGE website:
quote:
It's been an interesting day for Kernel, the site powering Sony's digital rentals of The Interview in the US. Not only did it briefly buckle under the pressure of people hammering its site to watch the movie, but apparently it didn't do a great job in securing copies of the film, either. Those who spent $5.99 to watch a 48-hour rental of The Interview on their browser could simply share the URL of the film with anyone else. Worse yet, anyone who had access to the link was able to save an unprotected copy locally through a super obvious loophole, something The Verge was able to confirm from different browsers and locations.
Kernel did not respond to a request for comment, but tweeted that it was "working on a fix as we speak," after the issue was pointed out.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-27-2014, 09:13 AM:
A barely funny film with just a few good laughs and which for some unknown and unnecessary reason, needed to go to the violent end of "not funny" -- bits like biting off fingers in particular. I have to admit, the early bit with Eminem was hilarious. And once again, Franco dances around the question whether he is gay or bisexual, which he and many of his friends have hinted about publicly on many other occasions.
Anyone want to take bets, now that it's out, how long it will take for this one to fade into oblivion?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2014, 04:14 PM:
I think it already has.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2014, 04:28 PM:
I can watch movies like Death Proof where three chicks beat the living snot out of Kurt Russel... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXowTxmhQ5w
That kind of violence is "funny" (quotes intended) in an "OMFG" kind of way. Tarantino does that kind of thing well.
Then, there is that "Three Stooges" kind of thing or the "Cartoon" violence where the coyote gets blown to smithereens.
Then there is that place, in between the extremes where one has to tread really, really carefully. If it's not JUST RIGHT, it ceases to be funny and can even become offensive.
One thing that is important in comedy is that when you make fun of something, you MUST understand the serious concept of the thing you make fun of before you go forward.
It's like Mel Brooks with the "Up yours N-word" joke.
If Mel Brooks didn't understand the serious nature of those words and didn't use them in just the right way, not only would the line have failed, it could have ruined the whole movie.
(Richard Pryor being on the writing team doesn't hurt, either.)
Groucho Marx sums it up best:
quote:
...An amateur thinks it's really funny if you dress a man up as an old lady, put him in a wheelchair, and give the wheelchair a push that sends it spinning down a slope towards a stone wall. For a pro, it's got to be a real old lady.
— Groucho Marx
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-27-2014, 04:38 PM:
We had 10 of us watch the 5,99 link as it was replayable over a 48 hour period. And the second group that watched it already had access to an illegal copy if they chose to watch that. I think this model only works for movies that would go direct to cable. But for movies that can get theatrical distribution, this is such a losing proposition.
And as I mentioned in my review, I am glad I didn't pay more than 5.99 because without the usual ensemble that you see in the Rogan Franco movies (guys like McBride), this movie just doesn't have any real funny moments. It was mildly amusing in parts.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2014, 06:49 PM:
We had to jump trough all kinds of hoops to watch it over here in Europe, halfway legally for six bucks via YouTube. We were a group of five. Those economics will never work out...
quote:
It's been an interesting day for Kernel, the site powering Sony's digital rentals of The Interview in the US. Not only did it briefly buckle under the pressure of people hammering its site to watch the movie, but apparently it didn't do a great job in securing copies of the film, either. Those who spent $5.99 to watch a 48-hour rental of The Interview on their browser could simply share the URL of the film with anyone else. Worse yet, anyone who had access to the link was able to save an unprotected copy locally through a super obvious loophole, something The Verge was able to confirm from different browsers and locations.
Sorry, but isn't this the absolute most basic of all basic things to get right if you offer such a service? About ten years ago, when this whole streaming thing was just starting to become achievable via the Internet and I needed to make it work for some early VOD services, those kind of things were the very first things on my list.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-28-2014, 11:19 AM:
Sony About to Get Sued For Pirating Music in The Interview
quote:
As the controversy surrounding the The Interview continues, a singer is claiming that after failing to reach terms with Sony, the company put her music in the movie anyway. After receiving not a penny from the movie giant, Yoon Mi Rae is now set to sue. Meanwhile, 1.5 million pirates have downloaded the comedy.
The way things are panning out, the Sony movie The Interview is on course to become one of the most controversial movies of all time.
The comedy, which depicts the violent death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, made headlines worldwide when the so-called Guardians of Peace hacking group threatened Sony if it was released. Facing what amounted to a “terrorist” threat, theaters all around the U.S. backed away from showing The Interview in the week leading up to Christmas.
After pulling the movie completely, Sony had a change of heart and on Christmas Eve released the music online via YouTube, Google Play and Xbox Live. Predictably the movie was quickly gobbled up by pirates, with the latest figures suggesting that in just two days the movie has been downloaded 1.5 million times.
But while Sony deals with rampant piracy issues at one end, it’s now facing copyright infringement allegations of its own. According to new claims, Sony used copyrighted music in The Interview without permission and without compensating an artist.
Yoon Mi-rae (real name Natasha Shanta Reid) is a US-born hip hop and R&B singer who currently releases music on the Feel Ghood Music label. In January 2013 as part of MFBTY (My Fans Better Than Yours), the 33-year-old hit the number 1 spot in the Korean Music Charts and in September reached the same heights on Billboard’s Kpop Hot 100 list with her song ‘Touch Love’.
But while these recognitions were achieved by fans buying her music, she’s now in the spotlight for not getting paid for her work. It appears that Yoon Mi-rae was in negotiations with Sony to have her track ‘Pay Day’ appear in The Interview. Even though no agreement was reached, Sony used the music anyway.
“There were initial discussions for using ‘Pay Day‘ in the movie, but at some point, the discussions ceased and we assumed that it would not follow through,” Feel Ghood Music says.
“However, after the movie was released, we learned that the track had been used without permission, legal procedure, or contracts.”
Sony, who are already facing a world of pain following the hacking and near destruction of their IT systems in recent weeks, will now face a copyright infringement lawsuit over the unauthorized use of the ironically named ‘Pay Day’.
“We will be taking legal action against Sony Pictures as well as DFSB, the agency that had been carrying out the discussion regarding the use of the track,” the label says.
It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will result in a messy legal battle. The huge publicity the movie has enjoyed in the past few weeks will virtually guarantee decent sales for Sony, even without lucrative box office revenues. Yoon Mi-rae should not only be able to secure a piece of that but also raise her profile in a way that would not have been possible had Sony paid her in the first instance.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-28-2014, 12:40 PM:
quote: Article posted by Frank
The way things are panning out, the Sony movie The Interview is on course to become one of the most controversial movies of all time.
If your concept of movie history begins with Pulp Fiction, maybe. But otherwise, that's a ridiculous statement. The Birth of a Nation, Jew Suss, Mission to Moscow, Straw Dogs, umpteen "video nasties" from the 1980s, etc. etc. etc.? In the history of movie controversy, this one will be lucky to make a footnote. It will probably make for a serious chapter in a history of IT security failures, though.
As for the copyright issue, it sounds like a simple failure of communication between two departments at Sony. The haggling between the studio and the record company stalled, the production unit assumed that it would eventually be ironed out and went ahead and used the audio, and no-one caught this loose end in the final stages of post-production. As someone who has worked in an archive and licensed clips to filmmakers, I feel confident in noting that this sort of thing happens all the time, albeit usually with much more obscure and low profile content than this.
Assuming Sony don't argue over paying her the going rate for this sort of usage (which I'm guessing is a percentage of the gross for something this high profile), the only possible lawsuit would be if she did not want the music used at all, for artistic/ethical reasons, and quite simply denied permission. In that scenario, then unless Sony could come up with a fair use defense (very unlikely, given that this is a commercial entertainment movie, pure and simple), they could be in trouble. They'll be some further haggling over what the going rate actually is, but that'll be about it.
Posted by Michael Riley (Member # 5693) on 12-28-2014, 05:16 PM:
This film was a complete dog turd, North Korea was doing us a favor trying to make sure no one had to see it.
Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 12-28-2014, 10:42 PM:
I can report in as a theatre that signed the Art House Convergence email and subsequently booked the film in a mad rush on Tuesday, we sold out four Christmas Day screenings (we opened solely to screen the film), and have showed out our two daily screenings each day since. It's already our 83rd highest grossing film ever. After just FOUR days!
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-28-2014, 11:03 PM:
The media is reporting The Interview took in $15 million since Christmas in online rentals and sales. While that is not a huge number, I can't help wondering if it's big enough to embolden studios to do streaming releases for more high profile releases than has been the norm in recent years. Will the unintended consequence of theatres not playing The Interview be increased momentum toward non-theatrical releases.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2014, 03:05 AM:
I guess we'll need another hack to get the real numbers .
Anyway, even with $15M, with all the buzz that surrounded this movie and everybody wanting to see it, it's just not cutting it.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-29-2014, 03:18 AM:
Quoting the bang-on-the-money Bobby:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the movie studios release movies onto VOD and home video formats the same time they release the same movies in theaters ALL commercial movie theaters will go out of business. When they go out of business, the movie industry as we know it will go out of business.
As one might expect, there has been a bit of discussion on this on Reddit, and reading it there seems to be one fact that the people don't get.
The theory is that there are movies that one should see at the cinema because that is the only place to do them justice, example, Interstellar, and then there are other movies that the cinema experience brings nothing to the movie.
What folks in the wild seem incapable of understanding is that exhibition cant survive on the few percent of movies that are must-see-at-the-cinema movies. If exhibition is down to a fraction of what it does today, then there is no exhibition business. And VoD and streaming etc wont, as Bobby notes, bring in the bucks that are necessary to keep the production industry going as it is today.
This isn't the first time that VoD has been seen as the saviour of movies, and it wont be the last, but this "experiment" will have everyone that has been clammouring for day and date online release claiming that there was no impact on exhibition. This movie was the exception, not the rule, and if the production and distribution side of the movie business don't get that, well, the end for all is in sight.
This could end up being a very bad week in the history of cinema.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-29-2014, 05:45 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
The media is reporting The Interview took in $15 million since Christmas in online rentals and sales.
Of course, the big question is how many eyeballs saw it for that $15 million. That's about 2.5 million streams. If you assume an average of 2 viewers per stream (which I'd imagine is low) that is $3 per viewer.
If they keep 70%, that is $2.10 revenue per viewer. That is less than half of what they'd get with the same gross in theaters.
If they raise the price to a "premium" VOD day and date thing, the number of viewers per stream is going to go up which will keep the revenue per viewer down.
The bottom line is that it will be very difficult for studios to find a distribution model that brings them the revenue per viewer of a theatrical release. Also, the theatrical release grosses provide a huge amount of marketing for the eventual home release.
Finally, if they ever did go day and date with streaming on major releases, how long do you think it would be until the pirates hack the electronics of a player or TV to be able to record a pristine copy and distribute it no matter how encrypted it is? At some point, the actual picture information is available.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2014, 09:26 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
Finally, if they ever did go day and date with streaming on major releases, how long do you think it would be until the pirates hack the electronics of a player or TV to be able to record a pristine copy and distribute it no matter how encrypted it is? At some point, the actual picture information is available.
In case of The Interview (which did have to seem crappy DRM to start with), it took them how long exactly? About 6 hours I guess...
No widely deployed DRM scheme has ever survived in the field, yet some studios still seem to believe in magic. HDCP, AACS, you name it, none have survived.
It has been repeated over and over in this topic, but it's clear that the end of the theatrical release cycle the end of the exhibition business as we know it and will also be the end of Hollywood as we know it. Let this messed up release be a lesson and let's hope it sticks somewhere.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-29-2014, 10:27 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
No widely deployed DRM scheme has ever survived in the field, yet some studios still seem to believe in magic. HDCP, AACS, you name it, none have survived.
Which harkens back to something I was taught studying electrical engineering in college:
"If man can make it, man can break it."
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2014, 10:42 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
Finally, if they ever did go day and date with streaming on major releases, how long do you think it would be until the pirates hack the electronics of a player or TV to be able to record a pristine copy and distribute it no matter how encrypted it is? At some point, the actual picture information is available.
Lyle, I don't think the studios want to do a day and date release, they want to do a theatrical release and then approx 3 week later they want to the VOD release. People need to get this through their heads, its not day and date that they want. The Interview on VOD only happened because the chains did not release the movie which usually require a 3 month window between release date and VOD date.
Also, a big part of the studios rationale for releasing the movie 2-3 weeks after the theatrical run is to avoid the piracy that occurs from the current model of release that is a 3 month window.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-29-2014, 11:11 AM:
Even at a 3 week delay, MOST movies people would be willing to just wait the 3 weeks for. As it is I can't tell you how many people I hear talking almost every day saying "it will be out on bluray in a few months and I'll watch it then".
So add to that the extra tens of millions the marketing people are going to have to spend to make every movie EVEN MORE of an "event" than they already do if there is going to be a 3 week VOD window.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2014, 11:45 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Interview on VOD only happened because the chains did not release the movie which usually require a 3 month window between release date and VOD date.
The chains don't "require" anything. Lots of movies come out on video in under 3 months.
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-29-2014, 05:07 PM:
quote:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Interview on VOD only happened because the chains did not release the movie which usually require a 3 month window between release date and VOD date.
The chains don't "require" anything. Lots of movies come out on video in under 3 months.
Rarely are there ones they care about though.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2014, 05:33 PM:
The exhibition and movie industry are really in the same boat. In my opinion, there's no need for a fixed window between theatrical and video/streaming release. This release window could be entirely dynamic based on the movie's performance. No theater will want to hold on to a movie that isn't performing and there's really no need for the studios to keep pushing for bookings, as it will only block screens for newer, potentially more profitable releases. Sure, there should be sufficient time for a movie to build an audience, but why would you want to wait months for a movie that obviously failed?
The logistics for a video/streaming release are trivial and can be almost entirely dynamic. So if a movie fails in the theater, why bother if it gets pushed to video/streaming early? The other way around is equally true of course. If a movie keeps going strong or needs a little while to get a strong audience, why kill it via an early video/streaming release?
I think the piracy argument for an early release to video/streaming is nonsense. As long as the studios manage to keep their high quality "screeners" under wraps for once... Because those really WILL hurt your bottom line.
Also, the movie industry really shouldn't bother too much about those bootleg copies created with camcorders or other recording gear in the theater. Not that this should be in any way tolerable, but it's rather fighting a lost cause. Any big movie will get "cammed" somewhere around the globe and will make its way to the Internet almost immediately. But I'm entirely certain that almost *nobody* who really watches such dreck would ever pay for a ticket anyway. So while you may cry foul about how much gazillion dollars you're losing to those suckers, in the end you're not really losing anything.
Another great way of keeping piracy at bay and the release window between the theatrical and video release manageable is a quite simple one: Release your movies to theaters on the same day and date or at least in the same week globally... There is no more print availability excuse, the extra time it takes for localizations like subtitling and dubbing are also a weak excuse. Then there are potential conflicts with local releases, but those are also largely moot. If you know, as a local publisher, that a large studio is going to do a major release in a certain week that has a conflicting target audience, why would you even want to compete with this? So, those local productions will almost always be moved out of the way rather automatically.
Another positive side effect is that such a global release will potentially save you millions on extra marketing efforts. The world is a small place nowadays. When the news is filled with how bigshot movie #42 went into premiere in the U.S. but will only be available locally in a month or two, you're losing money...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2014, 06:07 PM:
quote: David Buckley
The theory is that there are movies that one should see at the cinema because that is the only place to do them justice, example, Interstellar, and then there are other movies that the cinema experience brings nothing to the movie.
What folks in the wild seem incapable of understanding is that exhibition cant survive on the few percent of movies that are must-see-at-the-cinema movies. If exhibition is down to a fraction of what it does today, then there is no exhibition business. And VoD and streaming etc wont, as Bobby notes, bring in the bucks that are necessary to keep the production industry going as it is today.
Those home only viewers are ignoring the financial realities with movie theaters due to their own selfish motivation to avoid spending money at movie theaters. It costs a lot of money to build & operate a modern movie theater. Most theaters don't have profit margins big enough to endure the big drop off in ticket sales certain to occur if customers can see the same movie at home for far less money.
Many, including some movie distribution company executives, have this odd faith commercial movie theaters will still attract enough customers to survive even if movies are released day and date in theaters and on home video formats at the same time.
Proponents of a day and date release model or a minimal theatrical window are not thinking about the drastic ripple effects that will spread from the failure of commercial movie theaters. Obviously, if there are no movie theaters the movie production business will shrink to a far smaller size, making movies far lower in budget and far less compelling to mainstream viewers and perhaps not compelling at all to international viewers. That's a whole lot of revenue gone. The pint sized studios would likely be swallowed up by TV networks and streaming services, with their brands and catalogs the only things of value left to buy.
The negative ripple effects wouldn't stop there. Any business that depends on Hollywood movies for a supply of content would be badly affected. The shake-up would spread to:
• Disc-based movie sales & rentals
• Download-based (VOD) movie sales & rentals
• Netflix & other movie streaming services
• HBO, Shotime & other premium cable channels
• Commercial-based cable channels that show movies
• Cable TV subscriptions (movies are a huge part of it)
• High Speed Broadband Internet (movie streaming)
• HDTV & Home Theater hardware sales
• Portable "media consumption" device sales
• Parts of the video game industry (games based on movies)
• Merchandising businesses (movies provide a lot of content)
• Advertising businesses (no more $100 million marketing campaigns)
The negative effects would alter other parts of the United States' economy, particularly this country's ability to project its own popular culture across the rest of the globe. That would negatively affect related industries like music and fashion. The movie industry does generate some serious technological innovation. Some of the beginnings of popular applications like Adobe Photoshop began in visual effects studios. A radically altered and diminished movie industry could reduce our nation's drive to innovate.
quote: David Buckley
If exhibition is down to a fraction of what it does today, then there is no exhibition business. And VoD and streaming etc wont, as Bobby notes, bring in the bucks that are necessary to keep the production industry going as it is today.
This is what would start the domino effect I described.
Allow me to expose a little bit of hypocrisy in people who watch movies only at home. There's lots of people who have by choice not set foot in a commercial movie theater in years. They have various reasons, some of which are valid, for making that choice. Yet, most of them still watch Hollywood movies. They still see VALUE in movies that were made to play in commercial movie theaters. And that's what they're going to prefer to watch. Some of these home only movie viewers have decent home theater systems. "Home theater" is based very much on duplicating at least some aspects of the theatrical movie going experience.
How much VALUE will the average viewer see in a 2 hour movie made only to watch on TV sets at home?
I'll repeat the guarantee that movie studios will never bankroll a $200 million production and $100 million marketing campaign for a movie that would only play on home TV sets. They'll radically shrink budgets and then take even fewer chances in storytelling that they're already not taking. The content would basically turn to shit and make binge watching a previous season of Duck Dynasty a more compelling alternative.
People know the difference between a real, legitimate movie that played in movie theaters versus something cheaper released direct to DVD or cable. The perceived differences in value are much greater in international markets, like China. Bigger explosions and more elaborate action set pieces do more to sell movies overseas than witty banter between characters. The latter demands too much fluency in American culture. Anyone can understand an epic car chase.
Cable TV programs have been getting better in terms of what some networks are doing with series like Game of Thrones or Justified. But networks like HBO, FX and AMC are still very dependent on Hollywood movie content as a revenue foundation. If we see big Hollywood movie productions disappear they might take a bunch of those big cable TV series right along with them.
quote: Brad Miller
Even at a 3 week delay, MOST movies people would be willing to just wait the 3 weeks for. As it is I can't tell you how many people I hear talking almost every day saying "it will be out on bluray in a few months and I'll watch it then".
I'll go one better: "I'll just wait until it's available on Netflix." There's a lot of people who have no problem waiting a few weeks more if they can watch the same show for a lot less money or even for virtually free as part of a streaming subscription.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The exhibition and movie industry are really in the same boat. In my opinion, there's no need for a fixed window between theatrical and video/streaming release. This release window could be entirely dynamic based on the movie's performance. No theater will want to hold on to a movie that isn't performing and there's really no need for the studios to keep pushing for bookings, as it will only block screens for newer, potentially more profitable releases. Sure, there should be sufficient time for a movie to build an audience, but why would you want to wait months for a movie that obviously failed?
The problem is customer perception: how long do they think they'll have to wait to pay less to see the movie at home? It doesn't matter so much if a movie already failed financially at the box office. What counts is audience interest to see the movie when it first hits theater screens. If they think they won't have to wait long to see the same movie at home they'll be more than happy to wait and save a lot of money. Even an honestly good movie worthy of box office hit status could be stung by that.
IMHO, movie studios need to increase the length of the theatrical window, especially for their movies generating the most public interest. Getting the big event movie onto home video formats more quickly is only going to reduce theatrical box office performance. If the movie does well at theaters and is allowed a long enough window to have "legs" then it will sell through very well when it finally arrives on home video. If the movie studios do the opposite and rush the movie to home video then customers will happily wait very little time for it to appear on Netflix.
I can go along with releasing crappy movie titles onto home video quickly, but that needs to be done carefully so customers understand it is an exception and not a new normal.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think the piracy argument for an early release to video/streaming is nonsense. As long as the studios manage to keep their high quality "screeners" under wraps for once... Because those really WILL hurt your bottom line.
Agreed about the pre-release screener discs and other assets. If I was a studio executive I wouldn't even allow the screeners to be made at all. Anyone needing to see a certain movie prior to release would have to watch it in a screening room via a DCP or another digital master under tight wraps.
OTOH, it's clear people are cracking various kinds of VOD movie downloads/streams.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-29-2014, 07:01 PM:
Bobby, you forgot the sales and property taxes generated by the megaplexes. One film like Mockingly at one of the megaplexes in this town will generate more taxes in a week or two than my single screen will all year. And though property taxes are practically nothing in this state, that's not the case everywhere. And then there are all of the business in the malls that glom off the theatre crowds.
It's a very delicate golden egg that the chains have put in one basket from which the studios want to make an ommlet.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2014, 07:05 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'll go one better: "I'll just wait until it's available on Netflix."
Yep. And the truth of the matter is like we've said many times over and over again is that people just don't care. As long as they see the movie it doesn't matter much to them if it's on a 70-foot screen or their phone. Like David Lynch says (and I paraphrase): "You won't get the same experience watching the movie on your phone. You'll think you did, but you didn't". People just don't care as they think the experience is the same no matter where and how the movie is delivered.
Surprisingly though, I heard a lot of non-theater-obsessed people talking about seeing Interstellar in large format. So the marketing actually worked somewhat. Maybe not as much as they would have liked it to, but it did get it into people's minds that there is a better way to see the movie. We need more of that kind of marketing.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2014, 08:48 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Like David Lynch says (and I paraphrase): "You won't get the same experience watching the movie on your phone. You'll think you did, but you didn't". People just don't care as they think the experience is the same no matter where and how the movie is delivered.
The people who don't care how they watch a movie will still care that they're watching a real movie, even if they're watching it on their smart phone via some shitty looking camcorder bootleg uploaded to YouTube or whatever.
I wonder how many of those clowns will still watch a camcorder bootleg on their phone when the bootleg is a videotaped image of some dude's TV set playing a lower budget made for TV movie. Probably not very many.
Both movie studios and movie theaters need to be working together to improve the movie-going experience enough to make customers feel like they're missing out by waiting to see any movie at home.
quote: Martin McCaffery
Bobby, you forgot the sales and property taxes generated by the megaplexes. One film like Mockingly at one of the megaplexes in this town will generate more taxes in a week or two than my single screen will all year.
I forgot about property tax revenues and neighboring retail/service businesses that would get hit by the failure of an "anchor" business such as a multiplex movie theater.
Carmike is building a new 13-screen complex that, from what I can see based on construction progress, looks a lot bigger than their existing 8-plex here (that theater opened 20 years ago this month). Aside from the theater, the site is supposed to have at least a couple or more new businesses built adjacent to it so the whole thing functions as an entertainment destination. I heard rumors that Dave & Busters is planning a new location there, which would really surprise the hell out of me since D&B is usually only in much larger cities, but they seem to be on an expansion kick.
Meanwhile, a new shopping complex here on 2nd Street has been struggling. Some of that had to do with the I-44, 2nd Street & Cache Road interchange being all blocked off with construction for much of this year. Another problem is this new shopping center doesn't have any restaurants and other entertainment options attached to it. Shoppers want to do more than merely go into a store, buy something and leave. Central Mall is just down the street. They have a small 12-plex theater inside the mall, as well as a food court and a bunch of other stuff. Obviously it's a lot more busy.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2014, 11:59 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Yep. And the truth of the matter is like we've said many times over and over again is that people just don't care. As long as they see the movie it doesn't matter much to them if it's on a 70-foot screen or their phone.
I don't believe this is true. I think more than ever people are more aware of what they want to watch on a big screen (like AVX/Cinemark Big D for big event films) than in the past. I personally think that the medium sized screens have the most to lose. The small screens will be gone IMO in the next the 10-15 years.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-30-2014, 02:48 PM:
Terry, Joe's point was that many consumers just don't care whether they watch most movies on a big cinema screen or a small tablet/phone screen. Yes, there are a handful of event films that some consumers will seek out on the largest screen possible. But the issue is with the average consumer with the average movie.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2014, 03:36 PM:
And it is the ticket sales from all those "average" movie viewers that would be lost if the theatrical movie release window is not maintained.
Nearly all of those average movie viewers would chose a cheaper alternative over paying more to watch the same movie in a commercial movie theater, especially if that viewing alternative was available at the same time. They would probably choose that cheaper viewing alternative if they didn't have to wait long for it. A substantial theatrical release window forces many of those so-called average viewers to paying more to see the movie in theaters if they're interested enough in the movie.
Movie theaters don't have the profit margins to be able to live off big event movies alone, particularly if a lot of the crowd really does want to see the event movie on some higher priced, specially branded screen. Theater operators still have to fill as many seats in the other standard priced rooms as they can.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2014, 06:23 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The problem is customer perception: how long do they think they'll have to wait to pay less to see the movie at home? It doesn't matter so much if a movie already failed financially at the box office. What counts is audience interest to see the movie when it first hits theater screens. If they think they won't have to wait long to see the same movie at home they'll be more than happy to wait and save a lot of money. Even an honestly good movie worthy of box office hit status could be stung by that.
The perception will indeed be a leading factor, but leaving Hollywood Accounting practices aside, I presume we expect Hollywood to deliver more financially successful movies than failures.
In the developing story about the Sony hack itself… Not that it would surprise anybody with half a brain, but it seems that fingers are now pointing back at Sony more or less as there seem to be strong indications the hack was an inside job.
If this all turns out to be the one and only truth, let's wait and see if the President of the United States himself has the balls and decency to deliver a few due words of apology. I'm not the P.R. specialist here, but it might actually help to restore some vague resemblance of credibility in him and his government to the rest of the world...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2014, 07:01 PM:
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology to North Korea from the United States' government. Considering all the anti-American propaganda the North Korean government pumps out daily the US government's hack accusations are seem pretty minor. By the way, the FBI is sticking to its claims the North Korean government had a hand in the Sony hack.
If the Sony hack does happen to be an inside job and the half dozen or so people within North America possibly involved are brought up on charges it will be pretty brutal for those that are charged. The disgruntled Sony employee could easily be facing decades in prison and countless millions of dollars worth of civil court judgments. The courts are bound to make examples out of those involved in the Sony hack if they have the chance to do so.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The perception will indeed be a leading factor, but leaving Hollywood Accounting practices aside, I presume we expect Hollywood to deliver more financially successful movies than failures.
My predictions would work either way. It wouldn't make any difference if the movie studios were cranking out lots of hits or they fell into a bad slump. For now, they're still showing brand new movies exclusively. Customers do visit theaters as something to do just to get out of the house, but they do so with the understanding the theaters are showing something they can't see at home.
Even if a couple drives to a movie theater, not even knowing what's playing, and they find the choices there don't look all that interesting, they're still likely to hold their noses and pick something. If Hollywood is in a slump, but only releasing crappy movies to view on TV sets at home, the same couple might not pick anything from the studio. Instead, they may go out to eat and then go get some drinks at a bar. Or if they stay home they'll just continue binge-watching some TV series on Netflix.
Certain bean counters in Hollywood have this fantasy they'll make even more money by releasing the movie on as many platforms as possible all at once. I'd like to know the evidence they're using to support those claims. I suspect some of these guys have a vested interest in home viewing-based movie business and intend to grow that at the expense of the theatrical side of the business.
There are more movie viewing platforms, but there are still only so many movie viewing customers in a given market and only so many dollars available they're going to spend on movie watching. Most customers always have their eyes out for a bargain. We've already seen what Netflix, Redbox, Amazon and iTunes have all done to wipe out lots of video stores, music stores and book stores. The paradigm shift of customers from traditional brick and mortar businesses to cheaper online alternatives was very swift. The same thing will happen with movie theaters if the movie studios pull the same kind of stunts.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2014, 11:06 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not the P.R. specialist here, but it might actually help to restore some vague resemblance of credibility in him and his government to the rest of the world.
I guess I don't see where the US is all of a sudden the "bad guy" in any of this. First, we didn't go bomb anybody in reaction to this hacking; Obama just said he thought North Korea was responsible, based on patterns observed in previous hacks, and that there would be a response. Add the fact that NK already hates us and it's no surprise the government would come to that conclusion.
Obviously if it's proven to be an inside job (which I highly doubt) or if it's just some random group of pimply computer nerds behind this, then there would be no need for a response from the U.S. against Korea. The perps will be dealt with as befitting their crimes.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-31-2014, 01:36 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology to North Korea from the United States' government. Considering all the anti-American propaganda the North Korean government pumps out daily the US government's hack accusations are seem pretty minor. By the way, the FBI is sticking to its claims the North Korean government had a hand in the Sony hack.
Not to defend North Korea in any way, because we all know what kind of crackpot government they have in place, but I highly doubt it was them. It really makes no sense at all. It's not like they're usually in any way reluctant in the propaganda they put out. But them vehemently denying any involvement and even calling for an international investigation doesn't match up with how they usually handle situations. They either would boldly claim to have learned the enemy a lesson or would not react at all. There really aren't any more sanctions you can impose on them and they know nobody will do anything considerable to them, even it it would be proven to be them...
Also, keep in mind that the evidence, which has been released up until now is almost solely based on the kind of malware being used. This malware is freely available for anyone.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the Sony hack does happen to be an inside job and the half dozen or so people within North America possibly involved are brought up on charges it will be pretty brutal for those that are charged. The disgruntled Sony employee could easily be facing decades in prison and countless millions of dollars worth of civil court judgments. The courts are bound to make examples out of those involved in the Sony hack if they have the chance to do so.
When the time comes, it would be interesting to see what kind of precedent they would set. It certainly wouldn't be the first case where important trade secrets and IP would have leaked out of a major U.S. and international corporation, but the scale of it all is a rather unique event. In any case, it would suck to be "them" .
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess I don't see where the US is all of a sudden the "bad guy" in any of this. First, we didn't go bomb anybody in reaction to this hacking; Obama just said he thought North Korea was responsible, based on patterns observed in previous hacks, and that there would be a response. Add the fact that NK already hates us and it's no surprise the government would come to that conclusion.
Perhaps you're not really aware of the image the U.S. has created of themselves in the rest of the world in the last 14 or so years. This is not my personal opinion talking here, just rather the facts how unfortunate it really is. It has moved from "generally positive" to "highly skeptical" in the "western" part of the world. In large parts of the rest of the world it has moved from "highy skeptical" to "sub zero". Those premature accusations aren't really helping to bolster up this image. Not trying to move this into a political discussion, but you might remember the airliner shot down over the Ukraine last summer. Since the majority of the people on board were Dutch, it was rather a matter of national importance around here. Still, nobody here really appreciated when Obama put the finger squarely at the Russians, before anything was clear at all. In the end it also only helped to further frustrate the recovery operations. So nobody was helped by those "bold", premature statements at all.
Also, nobody is defending any of the heinous crimes North Korea commits against their own people, but accusing them of something they (possibly) didn't do is not helping your own credibility, it's actually rather immature.
It takes more balls to say sorry and take the blame than to continue holding on to your story, even if you’re proven wrong in the end.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Certain bean counters in Hollywood have this fantasy they'll make even more money by releasing the movie on as many platforms as possible all at once. I'd like to know the evidence they're using to support those claims. I suspect some of these guys have a vested interest in home viewing-based movie business and intend to grow that at the expense of the theatrical side of the business.
Up until now it's primarily from the likes of Netflix we hear those kind of voices. But they surely do have a strong lobby. Let's just hope Hollywood continues to resist them and their obviously broken theories. No doubt some of them will try to test the waters again with some smaller release. Let's just hope it explodes in their face, much like it did this time.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-31-2014, 10:12 AM:
That's it...with those sorts of statements...we need to add the Netherlands to the "Axis of Evil[doers]". We in the USA are AWESOME! (I saw that on the TV recently...well actually I saw it on Facebook that had a link to a YouTube of a TV program). Just remember, we took the name of "Americans" despite being just a portion of one half of the "Americas". ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Happy New Year!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2014, 11:01 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Not to defend North Korea in any way, because we all know what kind of crackpot government they have in place, but I highly doubt it was them. It really makes no sense at all.
The North Korean government has been implicated in numerous cyber attacks, particularly on South Korean and Japanese state & business firms. They have been suspected in previous attacks on American firms. FBI investigators found striking similarities in those attacks and the latest attack on Sony. While some people may claim the US government's case against North Korea is weak, the FBI wouldn't have pulled its conclusions out of thin air. There had to be some compelling evidence there for them to make their accusations.
I'm sure the FBI and other parts of our criminal justice system are investigating the other leads, like the disgruntled ex-Sony employee sacked last May. But they're not going to ease up off this North Korea lead either.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
When the time comes, it would be interesting to see what kind of precedent they would set. It certainly wouldn't be the first case where important trade secrets and IP would have leaked out of a major U.S. and international corporation, but the scale of it all is a rather unique event. In any case, it would suck to be "them"
Why do you have the happy face applied to that comment?
Some people might find the hack of Sony's network entertaining. I don't. This hacking crap makes me angry because it costs many businesses and individual computer users a lot of time and money. It pisses me off even more knowing there's quite a few fools who think see black hats hackers as pop culture heroes.
Some people have the attitude Sony deserved to be hacked for some of its security policy errors. If a a person burglarizes a house whose doors are unlocked that person is still a piece of shit criminal with no moral integrity. The same thing goes for those hackers. I could see lawyers for those hackers trying to use Sony's security policy problems as a means of defense if the hackers are ever caught, charged and brought to trial. But using Sony's problems as a rationale for hacking is exactly the same as a rapist saying his victim looked sexy in her dress and just asking for it.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Not trying to move this into a political discussion, but you might remember the airliner shot down over the Ukraine last summer. Since the majority of the people on board were Dutch, it was rather a matter of national importance around here. Still, nobody here really appreciated when Obama put the finger squarely at the Russians, before anything was clear at all. In the end it also only helped to further frustrate the recovery operations. So nobody was helped by those "bold", premature statements at all.
That's quite a reach. Who else do you think shot down that plane?
I just love how politicians from other nations or their citizens are so quick to take part in moral hand wringing over things the US government or military does. Yet those same people prefer to sit in isolation, doing nothing, while the real monsters in this world butcher people by the thousands. They quietly let the United States spend huge sums of its taxpayers' money and contribute great numbers of personnel to the cause of being the world's police man while they provide little if any help at all to the cause (thus saving many billions of dollars). I could also go into how the United States' financial and investment system is propping up much of the world's economy. When that housing speculation/fraud bubble in the US burst late last decade it took down big parts of the world economy with it. Europe was a huge investor in that mess.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Up until now it's primarily from the likes of Netflix we hear those kind of voices. But they surely do have a strong lobby. Let's just hope Hollywood continues to resist them and their obviously broken theories. No doubt some of them will try to test the waters again with some smaller release. Let's just hope it explodes in their face, much like it did this time.
Netflix is where movies go to die after they've exhausted themselves in other platforms. Studio executives need to realize there's a huge difference between a couple spending over $50 at a theater on tickets and refreshments just to see one single movie versus spending $8 per month to watch however many TV shows and movies they want on Netflix. If those executives want to take their chances they'll get caught in awful race to the bottom economics and wind up cratering their businesses in the end.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2014, 11:43 AM:
There are a lot of articles along the lines of, "Maybe this successful VOD/theatrical release will change the game and help erase the windows" type of article coming in my email thru NATO. Of course I'm sure most of these articles are written by people who would like to have the windows be gone and/or don't know anything about the exhibition business.
The funny thing is how they think this release was somehow "successful." The movie was probably the most highly-publicized film of the year, with a huge 'want-to-see' among people who at first weren't necessarily interested in it... but still managed only $15 million in online purchases? That's only about 2.5 million sales. If those same people had each bought a movie ticket at $9.50, it would have been almost $24 million in the bank right there. Then you would have the added sales from all the freeloaders who watched the online movie at a friend's house. And probably a few of the pirate-watchers would have bought tickets too. Probably would have had at least a $40 to $50 million opening if the wide theatrical release had gone on with that kind of publicity (and had there not been death threats).
Now obviously not all of those people would have bought a ticket. But how can anyone in their right mind think of this as a raging "success?"
One writer even said, "It's obvious, VOD blew the theatrical away...this is the way of the future!" Uh no, Bozo, the movie was only in 331 theaters. Try comparing apples to apples sometime.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-31-2014, 12:20 PM:
quote:
Just remember, we took the name of "Americans" despite being just a portion of one half of the "Americas". [Cool]
"South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us."
--- Randy Newman (circa 1970)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2014, 12:57 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
There are a lot of articles along the lines of, "Maybe this successful VOD/theatrical release will change the game and help erase the windows" type of article coming in my email thru NATO.
The guys writing those articles are arguably doing more to advocate for the Internet and Internet-based businesses (along with promoting their online presence) rather than thinking about the overall health of the movie industry.
quote: Mike Blakesley
One writer even said, "It's obvious, VOD blew the theatrical away...this is the way of the future!" Uh no, Bozo, the movie was only in 331 theaters. Try comparing apples to apples sometime.
They're blind from being able to do that due to their biased and narrow point of view. They can't bother to imagine movie studios might actually lose a lot of money by pushing online VOD up front with the theatrical release.
The unavoidable fact is customers will never pay anywhere near as much to watch a movie once in their homes versus seeing it once in a commercial movie theater. At home, someone clicks the $5.99 buy button to rent The Interview and then there's no telling how many pairs of eyeballs are watching the screen.
So really I have to laugh at anyone looking at this as a contest of online vs. theatrical release. Anyone doing so is an idiot. When online VOD "wins" the movie studio succeeds in beating itself. "Congratulations, movie studio executives! You've helped Online WIN by convincing people to see the movie at home for a lot less money! Here's your lots less money now!" If the movie studios chooses to do this on a widespread basis it will beat itself to ruin. And then online doesn't won't have shit for movies to show. Without big Hollywood movies to stream the online world would lose a big selling point for high speed Internet service. Yeah, that's a real fucking big win there.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-01-2015, 10:42 AM:
First off all, a Happy New Year to everyone! Let this year bring us better movies than the last one!
quote: Steve Guttag
That's it...with those sorts of statements...we need to add the Netherlands to the "Axis of Evil[doers]". We in the USA are AWESOME! (I saw that on the TV recently...well actually I saw it on Facebook that had a link to a YouTube of a TV program). Just remember, we took the name of "Americans" despite being just a portion of one half of the "Americas".
Great, I've heard they have AWESOME cookies on the Dark Side™. Who else wants to join? We've got many cows here, so we can provide the milk.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The North Korean government has been implicated in numerous cyber attacks, particularly on South Korean and Japanese state & business firms. They have been suspected in previous attacks on American firms. FBI investigators found striking similarities in those attacks and the latest attack on Sony.
The problem here is, the claims of those three letter agencies don't really have any credibility left outside the borders of the U.S. unfortunately. Claims without hard evidence just remain that: claims. The general reaction is similar to this: Uh-huh. Let's just wait and see... Also, many of those claims have been barely substantiated the last times and building proof on basis of previously questionable evidence doesn't help either.
Some of those other hacks might be more in line with North Korean interests though. Them forcing down the systems of a major South Korean banking firm for example, makes a whole lot more sense than them hacking a movie studio because of a stupid movie. (This motivation from the hackers actually came later, their first motivation was something else.)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Why do you have the happy face applied to that comment?
If you look again you'll see it's a wink and not a happy face...
The comment was meant as an understatement. If it turns out to be the disgruntled ex-employees, I guess it essentially means their life is over as they will spend the next years in courts, jail and paying off the damages and fines the rest of their rather miserable lives.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some people might find the hack of Sony's network entertaining. I don't. This hacking crap makes me angry because it costs many businesses and individual computer users a lot of time and money. It pisses me off even more knowing there's quite a few fools who think see black hats hackers as pop culture heroes.
Well, I'm not looking entirely without a sense of irony at this unfolding soap, but if you look at my other comments, you'll see that at least I won't call this whole episode funny. The problem is, Sony isn't a company that can count on very much sympathy from a lot of people and the way they're handling the situation isn’t helping their case either. But a black hat hacker or whatever you want to call them doesn't deserve any respect at all. They're just a bunch of criminals and in my opinion a lot of them get away from it far too easy.
Still, look at it this way: If you're running a bank and you leave the door to your safe open at all times, because it's easier for your employees... what do you expect the reaction of the public will be once you get robbed and everything in your safe is gone? You’re a bank, aren't you supposed to have some levels of security in place?
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's quite a reach. Who else do you think shot down that plane?
Have you been following the news actually? Because you do know there's an important difference between the Russians and the Russian minded rebels?
If you ask me, I would say, most probably the rebels and that's also the general consensus around here. If they did it with or without Russian interference is really hard to tell, given the fact that there's only fragmented evidence and everybody is just pointing fingers at each other.
But, if you would ask the average Russian, they would say it was the CIA (and no, I’m really not kidding...) if you would ask the average "American" they would say the Russians. While the first one might be quite a stretch, the later one is also rather uninformed.
It seems that many (or most?) regions of their world are somehow subject to their own forms of propaganda in one way or another...
quote: Bobby Henderson
I just love how politicians from other nations or their citizens are so quick to take part in moral hand wringing over things the US government or military does.
Yet those same people prefer to sit in isolation, doing nothing, while the real monsters in this world butcher people by the thousands. They quietly let the United States spend huge sums of its taxpayers' money and contribute great numbers of personnel to the cause of being the world's police man while they provide little if any help at all to the cause (thus saving many billions of dollars). I could also go into how the United States' financial and investment system is propping up much of the world's economy. When that housing speculation/fraud bubble in the US burst late last decade it took down big parts of the world economy with it. Europe was a huge investor in that mess.
We're heading in directions I don't really want to go, still... Without claiming this being exclusively my own viewpoint, because in the real world, stuff is almost never just black or white. But maybe you could consider this: Why are "our" morals better than "theirs"? Maybe they're simply not interested in our "morals" and our "first world do-gooding"? Maybe "they" could actually see those interventions as some kind of imperialistic behavior, motivated by other interests than just "the greater good"? And even if "they" essentially are bad with a capital B, do you really think any military intervention of whatever sort is really going to fix this? Look at history as proof of itself, practically none of the military interventions by "the West" of the last 15 or so years, whatever their cause and costs, has really made the world a better place and it's not like there is any kind of breakthrough on the horizon. And if we're talking about real monsters and the actual subject at hand, what has "the West" done about North Korea lately? Millions of people seem to have died in that country from starvation alone in the last 20 years. So, just maybe, the current strategy isn't really working out, or maybe the strategy only serves the wrong people?
quote: Bobby Henderson
If those executives want to take their chances they'll get caught in awful race to the bottom economics and wind up cratering their businesses in the end.
The biggest threat probably doesn't come from the current Hollywood studios, but rather from the likes of Netflix themselves. They're already producing Netflix exclusive content in the form of TV series and they have sufficient money in the bank to bankroll Hollywood style productions. Netflix themselves signed a five-movie exclusive deal with Adam Sandler for example. I really despise Adam Sandler, so him gone will probably raise the average quality of cinema, but it's clear which direction they're heading. I doubt they will get the economics straight for the foreseeable future, but I'm afraid they also won't stop trying.
quote: Bobby Henderson
At home, someone clicks the $5.99 buy button to rent The Interview and then there's no telling how many pairs of eyeballs are watching the screen.
Not to give them any stupid ideas, but maybe, in the future you need to have a webcam connected to your TV/Set-top-box/playback thingy at all times, to verify if only the licensed numbers of eyeballs are watching .
quote: Mike Blakesley
And probably a few of the pirate-watchers would have bought tickets too. Probably would have had at least a $40 to $50 million opening if the wide theatrical release had gone on with that kind of publicity (and had there not been death threats).
While those threats might have motivated a select few not to go to the movie, I would think it would at least have motivated the same amount of people to go view this very movie to make a statement.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-06-2015, 12:42 AM:
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-07-2015, 04:00 AM:
For anyone looking for some evidence, there's now the Sony Hack evidence randomizer. According to the creators only slightly inspired by ex U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2015, 11:47 AM:
You could probably print up a few of those and distribute them to various news media outlets and cause mass confusion. It would be kind of funny to watch while they all tried to figure it out.
I guess the one thing I don't understand about all of this is... what changed to give Sony the courage to put the movie out? Did they decide it was "worth the risk" or did they just say 'screw it" or did they get assurances from the government or somebody that things would be OK or....what happened to embolden them all of a sudden? Or did they just feel stupid for initially falling for threats?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2015, 01:10 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You could probably print up a few of those and distribute them to various news media outlets and cause mass confusion. It would be kind of funny to watch while they all tried to figure it out.
As dopey, fast on the trigger and lacking in integrity and accountability as our 24 hour news media is these days I would not at all be surprised if they got punked by that Sony hack evidence randomizer. I almost expect it really.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess the one thing I don't understand about all of this is... what changed to give Sony the courage to put the movie out?
They might have thought the hackers did all the damage they could do. The hackers had already exposed lots of sensitive data and put several movies into the wild online. What else could they use to threaten Sony with after that? It's sort of like a hostage taker trying to negotiate with the police after killing the hostage.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-07-2015, 03:23 PM:
That evidence randomizer is awesome, but it's too late. The news isn't interested in the Sony hack any more. News has a shelf life of maybe 2 weeks before people get bored and want a different scary story. If there's not a constant stream of news then people won't be interested in reading anything new that comes along and therefore the news outlets wont report it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2015, 03:26 PM:
Right, it's a good thing some bad weather came along and is killing a few people so the news outlets have something juicy to talk about between school shootings.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-07-2015, 10:32 PM:
The media has stopped reporting on Ebola, so the disease must be cured now...
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 01-08-2015, 06:57 AM:
You realize the law of unintended consequences is kicking in: with 30 million in VOD and 5 mil from 500 some independent venues for this POS the question: "who needs the circuits" comes to mind.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2015, 11:41 AM:
Considering the whole blow-up with the circuits is what got them most of the free publicity for the movie in the first place, I'd say they still need them. If the movie had gone directly to VOD without all the front page news and hoopla and hysteria driving attendance and online purchases, they'd have been lucky to get $5 million out of it.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2015, 06:46 PM:
This may sway some studios into being more vigilante with the timing of their VOD's, but they really need a non-controversial movie for them to make their case to the world. I can't imagine them releasing Star Wars 7 in VOD day and date. But some day, maybe by the time Star Wars 9 comes out, they will. And they will make A LOT of money. Wow, I can't wait to watch it on Youtube with their fancy stereo sound!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-08-2015, 07:05 PM:
If it's entirely up to the studios, the only way to "experience" a movie around the time Star Wars - Episode IX arrives, is via direct BrainLink™. Movies will be uploaded directly to your brain and will auto-destruct within 48 hours. The only thing left afterwards will be the idea of you having had a good time "at the movies", the slight urge to click on some "like" button and a profound urge to try a new brand of breakfast cereals.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-12-2015, 01:37 AM:
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2015, 02:47 PM:
Here's an article that spells it out pretty well. There is no link to this but I expect it'll appear in next month's Boxoffice.
The Interview’s Simultaneous Release Doesn’t Change Anything
on January 16, 2015
by Patrick Corcoran, Vice President & Chief Communications Officer, NATO
The cobbled-together simultaneous release of Sony's The Interview is a Rorschach test. What you see generally tells more about you than it does about the release model of The Interview. Those inclined to believe that simultaneous theatrical and home release is inevitable point to its $31 million home tally and $5.9 million theatrical take (through January 14, 2015) and see a "game changer." Some, like me, see a blot.
Netflix's Ted Sarandos sees a "great example of what can happen with a big-budget movie if you give them distribution choices. I hope it's eye-opening for the industry." For once, we agree. So let's open some eyes.
Many industry analysts noted exhibition's oft-stated resistance to simultaneous release, pointing to the DirecTV early premium video-on-demand plan in 2011 and the canceled Tower Heist plan to offer the movie on VOD three weeks after its theatrical debut for $59.99. Several major exhibition companies announced that they would not play the movie under those circumstances, and Universal shelved the plan.
What happened when Sony announced it would be offering The Interview simultaneously in the home to accompany its Christmas theatrical release? Several major exhibition companies announced they would not play it under those circumstances. The movie played on 331 screens in its opening week--roughly the same number that were willing to play other, less well-known simultaneous releases.
Game not changed.
Some analysts grew starry-eyed at the double-digit millions taken from the home market and compared it to the lower profile Snowpiercer and Arbitrage, which took in $14 million and $11 million on VOD, respectively. These same analysts also generally neglected to note that the record holder for VOD and digital release is Bridesmaids, which took in $40 million after its traditional theatrical release grossed $169 million domestically.
Given the patriotic upsurge and massive media attention that accompanied the unusual release of The Interview, the $2.9 million in theatrical box office over the first four days was not good. Five other movies in release at the same time had higher per-screen averages, despite the fact that they played on more screens and didn't have the massive media attention. Nor did the theatrical release perform well in the second week. Despite an increase in screens of 75 percent, box office declined 40 percent. This was the case with Snowpiercer, which fell 37 percent while its screens increased more than 42 percent the same weekend it became available on VOD.
No change here either.
What was a bit surprising was the fact that The Interview's VOD revenues decreased after its opening four days, despite being available on enormously more outlets when it expanded to iTunes and cable VOD platforms around the country. The movie took in $15 million in its first four days. It took in $16 million in the next seven.
Another constant argument against simultaneous release is the erosion of value in the home market. Theatrical release has maintained a steady, modestly growing price point for years, and the pricing is per patron. Once any movie goes into the home market, it is immediately thrown into a world where price trumps nearly every other factor. The Interview is no different. The movie was offered at two price points in the home, $5.99 for rental or $14.99 for purchase. Using Sony's announced revenue and transaction figures of $31 million and 4.3 million downloads, we get an average purchase price of $7.20. The transactions clearly skewed to the lower end of the pricing spectrum.
The Wall Street Journal made an algebra problem out of it and arrived at 3.72 million opting for rental and 577,000 springing for ownership.
Further complicating the math, though, is that no one knows how many people those 4.3 million transactions represent. Some people organized viewing parties to support free speech-much as moviegoers went in groups to see the theatrical release--but we simply don't know how many people watched the average download. Was it two? Three? Suddenly that $7.20 per download becomes $3.60 per viewer or maybe $2.40. Just as a point of comparison, the average theatrical ticket price stood at $8.12 through the end of the third quarter of 2014.
The only game changed here was just how much money Sony left on the table.
An argument that is regularly advanced in favor of a shortened theatrical window is the so-called "piracy window," despite the fact that piracy increases with the availability and awareness of legitimate release and trails off the same way legitimate releases do the longer they are in the marketplace. By the end of 2014, The Interview had been downloaded from torrent sites roughly 2.5 million times. This does not count the unknown number of times the movie was watched by people whose friends had purchased the movie and shared shockingly reusable links to the movie.
When we consider whether or not the game has been changed, let's remember what the game really is. Sony invested a certain amount of money in The Interview with the intention of making a certain amount back. How much did they invest, and how much are they likely to get back?
Now, Hollywood budgets are slippery and elusive things, but it is generally accepted (in part due to hacked e-mails released online) that The Interview's production budget was $44 million, and that Sony spent an additional $30 million (some estimate $40 million) on marketing. The initial intent was to open the movie on approximately 3,800 screens, which suggests a certain confidence in its box office appeal. Most industry analysts predicted a four-day-holiday gross of around $25 million (a few went as high as $30 million).
Here things get a little speculative. To be conservative we can assume a final gross of two-and-a-half times opening weekend--not atypical of many major releases. With a $25 million opening, that gets you to $62.5 million. Holiday releases tend to have a better multiple, but again, it's tricky. Movie City News's David Poland, with his usual insightful understanding of movies' financial performance, suggests averaging the box office of Seth Rogen's comedies since Pineapple Express, which gives us $72 million (which he considers low, given the last two of Rogen's movies topped $100 million). Assume 50 percent goes back to Sony, and we are at $36 million--almost halfway there. Using the international average grosses of those same movies brings another $20 million (and, by the way, the international markets Sony has announced for The Interview will be traditional theatrical releases) or, assuming a really generous for international split of 50 percent, another $10 million back to Sony.
Now we're at $46 million.
The average theatrical release takes in roughly 60 percent of domestic box office in the home market these days-some do far worse; Neighbors managed only about 16 percent in disc sales, with rentals unknown--but it seems like a fair estimate. That's another $43 million, of which about 70 percent would return to Sony--$30 million.
Basically breakeven--$76 million in, versus $74 million out. This is before we get into pay TV and Netflix streaming and so on.
Now let's compare the traditional theatrical-release model to the simultaneous release used by Sony. As the current release plan stands, Sony can expect roughly $3.5 million from domestic theatrical (assuming a final gross of $7 million). We haven't heard any new digital dollar figures from Sony since January 4, so it's a little hard to estimate where it will end up, but I'm feeling generous. Say $50 million. Given the chaotic nature of the ad hoc release plan and Sony's desperation to play the movie on any home-release platform that would take it, I'm going to assume, less generously, that Sony pockets 60 percent of that sum (instead of the customary 70 percent)--$30 million.
We're at $33.5 million.
Let's be generous again and assume the same international box office that might have resulted from a traditional release--although with so many pirated pristine digital copies out in the wild, that may be tough. Add $10 million.
We're at $43.5 million, and it has already had a home release. Frankly, the waters here are uncharted. Premium cable usually bases what they'll pay on theatrical performance--how do you measure that? Sony has announced a DVD/Blu-Ray release for February 17--what kind of disc sales and rentals will you get when it has already been in the home? In this simultaneous-release game, Sony is $30 million in the hole and almost out of cards.
After a few weeks of giddiness-one online piece for Time titled "Sony Has Almost Made Its Money Back on The Interview," seemed to believe that the studio keeps every penny consumers spent on it--others acknowledged the movie wasn't anywhere near recoupment but touted the change in "perception" of the idea of simultaneous release.
In a Fast Company article titled, yes, "The Interview Is A VOD Perception-Changer, Not A VOD Game-Changer," producer John Sloss--whom you may remember from my November column on simultaneous release (Ted, John--we're getting the band back together!) and whose movie Boyhood did quite well in a traditional theatrical release (more than $23 million)--seems to believe the example it provides is something like "eye-opening."
"It shines a light on the possibility," says John Sloss, the indie film sales agent and lawyer who was a producer on this year's awards movie Boyhood. "But it's a complete anomaly."
Kind of like Schrödinger's cat. Simultaneous release either works or it doesn't, but to an observer like John Sloss it's possible both are true--until you look at it.
One observer who doesn't view this release as a game changer? Sony CEO Michael Lynton. In an extensive interview with the Associated Press, Lynton said the studio views the release of a film on on-demand video and in independent theaters as "still experimental."
"You would never take a movie of this size and do what we did with it in the end," Lynton said. "It's true, it proved to be that kind of experiment, but it certainly wasn't planned." The theatrical experience is important, Lynton said, especially for comedy "because people love to laugh with each other."
"Had this not come along the way it had, we would've proceeded exactly the way we planned to do it, which is to put it out on 3,500-plus screens."
Game over.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2015, 05:12 PM:
Wow, for once a well-written article based upon reality.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-17-2015, 06:57 PM:
Speaking of cyber security, Jimmy Kimmel has his own little survey going here.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-04-2015, 04:22 PM:
My parents watched the Interview on Netflix about a week ago and were gushing in amazement on how "It just came out and it's already on Netflix". I told them not to get me started. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-04-2015, 06:18 PM:
In other news today, SPE claimed the hack did only have a marginal impact on their operations of about $15M...
I guess they forgot about the write off on The Interview, those other prematurely leaked features, all the indirect damages it did to their (ex-)employees and the further erosion of their already tarnished Sony brand.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-04-2015, 07:25 PM:
This is called "trying to make it look good for the stockholders."
If they were addressing a bunch of movie industry people, they would be griping about all the hundreds of millions they've lost due to pirating of their movies.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 02-04-2015, 10:59 PM:
But getting back to the original rant I started this thread with 17 pages ago...
> I STILL HAVEN'T BEEN PAID BY SONY <
They owe me over $1k dating back as far as October, and they still
can't tell me when they might get around to cutting me a check.
It's not affecting my lifestyle any- - I've got good cash-flow, but it's just
that, (as I've said before). . "It's my money; I earned it, & I want it!" ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
<end of rant>
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2015, 02:17 AM:
Start charging them late fees.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-05-2015, 08:46 AM:
Bill Collectors!
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-05-2015, 08:49 AM:
Take them to court on Judge Judy -- she'll make wish they had paid up on time.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-05-2015, 10:24 AM:
Yeah, you can sue them for $1K in unpaid invoices and maybe you will even win, although their lawyers usually are better paid than yours. But even a verdict in your hand does not ensure payment. If they really don't want to pay, you have to collect it from them, which will cost you a lot of hassle and money too.
Depending on how important your services are to them, the best way to get your money seems to be denying any further services in my experience.
quote: Mike Blakesley
If they were addressing a bunch of movie industry people, they would be griping about all the hundreds of millions they've lost due to pirating of their movies.
It will be interesting to see what amount of damages they claim if those who are responsible are ever caught. But somehow I got the feeling we will hear nothing about this whole episode after the wind has blown over.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-11-2015, 06:05 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
Take them to court on Judge Judy -- she'll make wish they had paid up on time.
Good idea! You'll come out ahead. You will win the $1,000 and then you and Sony get to split the rest of the $5,000 judgment pool and you'll end up with $3,000. Nobody loses on Judge Judy because the awards are paid out of that pool by the show.
Plus, you'll get a free trip to LA for the taping.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-11-2015, 07:41 AM:
And as a bonus you're sure Sony will never hire you again .
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2015, 09:50 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If they were addressing a bunch of movie industry people, they would be griping about all the hundreds of millions they've lost due to pirating of their movies.
You can bet they tell the same thing to the tax man, even if the company's servers weren't hacked.
quote: Jim Cassedy
They owe me over $1k dating back as far as October, and they still can't tell me when they might get around to cutting me a check.
Most obvious thing: don't do any business with them until they pay their bill. If they need to buy something from you, make them pay their outstanding balance. No matter how big a company Sony may be, it's not worth working for them or selling them product if they're not going to pay you.
I assume they gave you a purchase order number and what not. Charging late fees is one option, but good luck with trying to collect those fees. A lot of big companies love waiting a long time to pay bills and not pay any finance charges. It's like a free loan. They help their positive cash flow while screwing up yours. When it comes to people not paying their damned bills most think of poor people doing that. Well, there's lots and lots of businesses doing it and they have money in the bank. Assholes.
Filing a lien against their property might get their attention, if that's even possible. We've resorted to doing that against local businesses that wouldn't pay their bill.
Here in Oklahoma the Oklahoma Corporation Commission can, if it is interested, step in and help get the problem solved, perhaps outside of the courts. I don't know how many other states have agencies like that.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-15-2015, 11:45 AM:
TA DAH ! ! !
SONY finally came through with the money (it was over $1000) that they've owed
me since last year when they 'lost' several of my screening invoices in their big hack
attack last November.
I've been getting the run-around from them ever since, but they finally came through.
Woo Hoo!
Of course, it arrives just as I have to pay my taxes- -so, "easy come, easy go".
oh well. . . .
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-15-2015, 12:37 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Most obvious thing: don't do any business with them until they pay their bill. If they need to buy something from you, make them pay their outstanding balance. No matter how big a company Sony may be, it's not worth working for them or selling them product if they're not going to pay you.
I assume they gave you a purchase order number and what not. Charging late fees is one option, but good luck with trying to collect those fees. A lot of big companies love waiting a long time to pay bills and not pay any finance charges. It's like a free loan. They help their positive cash flow while screwing up yours. When it comes to people not paying their damned bills most think of poor people doing that. Well, there's lots and lots of businesses doing it and they have money in the bank. Assholes.
I wish it was that simple, especially if you're dealing with bigger companies that represent a large proportion of your business and income.
I handle the billing and admin for the projectionists who work the private rentals in our theaters. Because of the 501(c)(3) rules, we have to invoice for our services separately from the building/facility rental. Those rules state in effect that a non-profit can rent out its building and infrastructure, but not the services of its employees.
As a general rule, the bigger the business the customer is, the longer and more difficult it is to get our wages out of them. I'm not convinced that this is out of maliciousness or the desire to screw us, though: I suspect it's simply that if you are a big business that processes billions of dollars of small transactions every year, you need a big bureaucracy to keep track of them all, and big bureaucracies are infamously inefficient and time-consuming.
My personal worst is a major studio that shall remain nameless, which took four months to pay me $351 for working a rental screening. The problem is that this studio will be the source of many other $351s as they're a major player in town, and we also depend on their goodwill for many of our normal (not rental) screenings to happen. So trying to put a lien on their property, or that sort of stuff, would simply be shooting ourselves in the foot.
I don't think they're doing this to p!ss us off or as a power game. It's simply because their accounting department is a cost center, not a revenue-generating one, and therefore they spend the bare minimum that they need to on it: hence a four-month wait, making suppliers go through a long and tedious online registration process (in other words, doing their clerical work for them), etc. etc.
The little PR agencies and indies who arrive with a check on the night are wonderful to work with, but they're only ever likely to be using us once.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-15-2015, 02:44 PM:
Several years ago, the Fire Department here purchased several tickets for the firefighters to come here and see a fire fighting movie. (I think it was Ladder 49.) I got a purchase order from the fire chief and submitted a bill to city hall.
There was a big kerfuffle at the city council meeting about this, who authorized it (the fire chief) and why (ask him, not me), and while I eventually did get paid it was a far bigger headache than it was worth.
Ever since then, if anything associated with the city hall wants to purchase tickets for a show or have a private show, I collect cash in advance. I tell the event organizer to bring cash when they arrive for the show, and it ain't happening unless the cash is there.
It's nice to be nice, but I'm NOT going to go through that again.
One of the best things about the theatre business is that there are almost no receivables; everyone puts their money on the counter when they walk in the door and I don't have to go out and choke anyone to get paid after the fact. Lesson learned.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-17-2015, 11:22 AM:
If you don't need the city's business (i.e. it would be nice to have, but your bottom line won't be hurt too much without it), and/or if their accounting systems allow cash payments like that to happen, then I guess that's the way to go. Our relationship with the studios is a little more complicated: they want our historic and well-known venue for their rental shows, but we absolutely need them for access to rare 35mm and 70mm prints that other theaters can't get, celebrity Q & As etc., without which we'd lose huge numbers of customers. So there has to be some flexibility and diplomacy in our case. Personally, I'm not so worried about the big boys/girls: they will pay eventually (it's not like they're going to go bust), and so I take the line that if I accept a rental gig from them, it'll likely be a while before I see the money for it.
I am more worried about the people who have no previous experience of organizing this sort of event, and especially the newer and smaller festivals, who tend to have less money, have under-budgeted for their events and know less about what they're doing. Even though I've only been doing this for just under a year, I've already compiled a "sh!t list" of a few names, who will absolutely be asked to bring cash or a cashier's check with them to the event if they come back again, purely and simply because of the time and energy taken in getting them to cough up last time.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2