6 ms·

Eh. This misses a couple of things. One, the FBI told the theater chains that if they screen the movie, they could be targets for the hackers. I'm pretty doub

Eh. This misses a couple of things. One, the FBI told the theater chains that if they screen the movie, they could be targets for the hackers. I'm pretty doubtful that theater chains have good security, and they probably know it. They also don't want their internal emails spread all over the media and their business disrupted. As no company does. So I can't blame them once the FBI has scaremongered them. Two, once the theaters said they won't screen it, Sony would lose money releasing it. It's not free to send out prints and continue advertising. If they have no hope to make money, why lose more money? And why piss off the hackers further? Where's the win? It's nice to sit back and say Sony should release it, but honestly, what's in it for them at this point?

djrogers 12y ago
It was still initially Sony's call to let the theaters out of their contractural obligation to air it. Once they all took them up on the free pass, yes - canceling the release may have been the sensible move.
- spinlock 12y ago
  Is there an obligation to show a movie on the theaters part? I always assumed they paid for the right to show a film but were independent in their opperations.
  - CaptainZapp 12y ago
    I think that's where bundling comes in. You want to show the new Hunger Games movie in your theaters? Then you also have to show those duds for so and so long.
gojomo 12y ago
This interviewee's criticism is not narrowly focused against Sony, but the entire reaction: theater chains, Sony, media, the American psyche, a "lose our shit" mentality. It would take a wider cultural consensus to respond in solidarity: theaters don't cave, studios don't cave, moviegoers don't cave, media doesn't feed panics, the legal system doesn't require cowering as a liability issue. We're not there yet... but maybe we can get there, with discussion and experience.
- sosuke 12y ago
  The biggest issue to be addressed is the last one, how do you change the legal liability. If I have a shop, that is receiving public threats, I choose to remain open, you choose to visit even after hearing the threats. Something happens to you, I'm not liable, you chose to visit. Forgive me, but I think about the abortion clinics, the people working and volunteering go even in the face of threats, even though people get shot by doing what they believe in. The clinics aren't held liable for the attacks. The theaters should not be held liable. How should that work, how can we change it?
- deciplex 12y ago
  > It would take a wider cultural consensus to respond in solidarity: theaters don't cave, studios don't cave, moviegoers don't cave, media doesn't feed panics, the legal system doesn't require cowering as a liability issue. We're not there yet... but maybe we can get there, with discussion and experience. Considering that the American public has been sprinting in the opposite direction for the last decade, I wouldn't hold my breath. It takes a serious and abiding commitment to total cowardice in the face of adversity to make up excuses for admitted torturers and war criminals - I don't think a single person is going to find their stones now over a film that apparently no one was going to watch anyway.
jws 12y ago
I wonder if Sony has an insurance policy that pays if a movie can't be released? I can imagine such a thing would exist to protect them in the event of a copyright problem with the story or script. I see lots of movie industry insurance, but it appears to be geared toward filming accidents, so this may not exist.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  There's Errors and Omissions insurance for things like copyright/trademark violations. But getting it requires a pretty thorough inspection of the film, and it's hard to imagine the E&O people overlooked the whole risk of North Korea. I don't know if they pay out in the case of being unable to release the film, it's mostly protection against lawsuits. It'd be interesting to know exactly how that plays out though.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  There's a kind of production financing insurance called a completion bond, but that is meant to hedge against the risk of running out of money during production or whatever. I don't think there's any sort of financial instrument that insures against this sort of thing - if you know or suspect an outcome like this for whatever reason, the smart move would be to hedge against a fall in the stock price by buying a put option. However, a $40m loss is pretty small in the face of Sony's ~$1.8 billion in annual revenue. Every big studio has a few big-budget bombs each year, so it's not that big a tragedy in commercial terms, (plus they'll probably make the money back with ease when the DVD comes out).

djrogers 12y ago

It was still initially Sony's call to let the theaters out of their contractural obligation to air it. Once they all took them up on the free pass, yes - canceling the release may have been the sensible move.

spinlock 12y ago
Is there an obligation to show a movie on the theaters part? I always assumed they paid for the right to show a film but were independent in their opperations.
- CaptainZapp 12y ago
  I think that's where bundling comes in. You want to show the new Hunger Games movie in your theaters? Then you also have to show those duds for so and so long.

gojomo 12y ago

This interviewee's criticism is not narrowly focused against Sony, but the entire reaction: theater chains, Sony, media, the American psyche, a "lose our shit" mentality. It would take a wider cultural consensus to respond in solidarity: theaters don't cave, studios don't cave, moviegoers don't cave, media doesn't feed panics, the legal system doesn't require cowering as a liability issue. We're not there yet... but maybe we can get there, with discussion and experience.

sosuke 12y ago
The biggest issue to be addressed is the last one, how do you change the legal liability. If I have a shop, that is receiving public threats, I choose to remain open, you choose to visit even after hearing the threats. Something happens to you, I'm not liable, you chose to visit. Forgive me, but I think about the abortion clinics, the people working and volunteering go even in the face of threats, even though people get shot by doing what they believe in. The clinics aren't held liable for the attacks. The theaters should not be held liable. How should that work, how can we change it?
deciplex 12y ago
> It would take a wider cultural consensus to respond in solidarity: theaters don't cave, studios don't cave, moviegoers don't cave, media doesn't feed panics, the legal system doesn't require cowering as a liability issue. We're not there yet... but maybe we can get there, with discussion and experience. Considering that the American public has been sprinting in the opposite direction for the last decade, I wouldn't hold my breath. It takes a serious and abiding commitment to total cowardice in the face of adversity to make up excuses for admitted torturers and war criminals - I don't think a single person is going to find their stones now over a film that apparently no one was going to watch anyway.

jws 12y ago

I wonder if Sony has an insurance policy that pays if a movie can't be released? I can imagine such a thing would exist to protect them in the event of a copyright problem with the story or script. I see lots of movie industry insurance, but it appears to be geared toward filming accidents, so this may not exist.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
There's Errors and Omissions insurance for things like copyright/trademark violations. But getting it requires a pretty thorough inspection of the film, and it's hard to imagine the E&O people overlooked the whole risk of North Korea. I don't know if they pay out in the case of being unable to release the film, it's mostly protection against lawsuits. It'd be interesting to know exactly how that plays out though.
anigbrowl 12y ago
There's a kind of production financing insurance called a completion bond, but that is meant to hedge against the risk of running out of money during production or whatever. I don't think there's any sort of financial instrument that insures against this sort of thing - if you know or suspect an outcome like this for whatever reason, the smart move would be to hedge against a fall in the stock price by buying a put option. However, a $40m loss is pretty small in the face of Sony's ~$1.8 billion in annual revenue. Every big studio has a few big-budget bombs each year, so it's not that big a tragedy in commercial terms, (plus they'll probably make the money back with ease when the DVD comes out).