HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
I like this quote from EW...basically, we held an Olympics after 9/11 but we can't show a movie after a hacker attack?
"The United States hosted the Olympics in 2002, when security was hardly guaranteed; during the five preceding months, there had been the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax scare, the attempted shoe bombing of an American Airlines flight, and too many other vague threats to list here. But a threat from a supposed hacker group is all it takes to sink a film, even if the Department of Homeland Security has its doubts about what those threats mean."
Interview Blame Game (Exhibitors or Sony?), possible boycott backlash, and could it now be released early next year? Dec 18, 07:49
Link or is this more speculation? If the take insurance payout, it will no longer be theirs to decide. {nm} Dec 18, 08:00
+1 screw the hacker nitwits {nm} Dec 18, 08:14
It should be released straight to internet anytime now by those same North Korean hackers. Who screws who? {nm} Dec 18, 08:15
The potential damage from a long-term boycott backlash by legitimate moviegoers would far exceed skulking downloaders. Dec 18, 08:37
North Korea is not going away in a month. {nm} Dec 18, 08:43
Overall box office damage from people staying home out of fear would be much worse. {nm} Dec 18, 08:48
That's the calculation right now, yes, give in to the hacker nitwits. Those who disadain that can also boycott though. {nm} Dec 18, 09:00
Not enough boycotters to matter {nm} Dec 18, 09:06
Maybe not, but it's way too early to make that call. Caving to nitwit hackers / terrorists is unpopular {nm} Dec 18, 09:15
No it's not. This is not a matter of National pride. {nm} Dec 18, 09:21
A Google search thoroughly refutes you on it being popular, and it's principle not pride. {nm} Dec 18, 09:27
Only people i see visibly upset are actors who are screaming about their pocketbooks under the guise of patriotism. Dec 18, 09:49
No - a boycott would require sustained protest. Trending stuff is a flash in the pan. {nm} Dec 18, 10:19
uhhh No but way to get the stock moving. How can the reward outweigh just one event? Dec 18, 08:32
Motive agreed. {nm} Dec 18, 08:38
Did you read the lasted tagged article? Sony is not releasing the movie in any form. {nm} Dec 18, 08:46
+1 {nm} Dec 18, 08:47
Why would I halt and delist NTRVW? Has it been released in theaters, VOD or DVD, or been 3 years without any release? Dec 18, 09:00
Yes, EVER. You're just not paying attention. Sony going the insurance route, for that to happen, they can't make a penny. {nm} Dec 18, 09:17
I've answered your question twice now. You're just not paying attention. {nm} Dec 18, 09:46
Beyond that if your object wasn't to move the stock why include a 50 million opening figure in your original post? {nm} Dec 18, 09:52
Coupled with weaksauce arguments, his motive is now quite clear. {nm} Dec 18, 10:29
Retained per the rules. See the FAQ. Anti already said the 3 circumstances that would merit delist Dec 18, 12:22
I like this quote from EW...basically, we held an Olympics after 9/11 but we can't show a movie after a hacker attack? Dec 18, 09:02
+1 True. DHS said no credible threat {nm} Dec 18, 09:10
And the DHS , just like the poster here, isn't going to be paying the lawsuit off if the worse happened. {nm} Dec 18, 09:13
apparently, Sony is more afraid of lawsuits than the IOC {nm} Dec 18, 10:16
So everytime someone threatens something we should just shut it down or pull it from being shown? Thats Bulls**t {nm} Dec 18, 10:25
