Amazon is actually much more reasonable than the headline makes it seem:
> “We have the utmost respect and admiration for Luca Guadagnino as an award-winning filmmaker — not to mention a longstanding relationship that we hope to continue,” a spokesperson for Amazon said to Variety in a statement. “We believe that Artificial will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home.”
Well, yeah, I kind of agree. Amazon probably shouldn't be the one producing the film, and it sounds like they're working to get the rights sold to someone else.
The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
Amazon dropped the movie after announcing a partnership with OpenAI. The headline clearly communicates the only demonstrable action Amazon has taken.
Whether they're actually going to sell it is TBD. Until they do, they've taken no concrete action except cancel it. I don't think this article is clickbait.
Why do you agree that Amazon shouldn't be the one producing the film if you don't believe there's any evidence them dropping it is related to the partnership?
There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly plumbing the cash to independent studios through a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios.
In the 1940s it was common for studios to own movie theaters, but the Supreme Court ruled that this violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell off their theaters.
To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios.
Corporations are legally humans (in the US). You might not like it, but it is what has allowed our current tech infrastructure to flourish. It's the reason you're able to post this.
Sure but I’m not saying it’s not legal right now, I’m saying fuck the corps, free speech is for humans. Fuck the Supreme Court of a ~decade ago, too, for fucking this up.
There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it.
It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.
Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios.
What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.
Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid?
This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters).
Amazon can't bury it without alienating Luca Guadagnino. Instead they are allowing anyone else publish it. Maybe A24 will want it, it is screening well.
Either get used to more and more stuff like that, or regulate the sh* out of it. Without stopping stuff like that early on, the concentration of wealth and power only increases.
Honestly not that big of a loss. Even if it’s Sam Altman being an ass the entire movie, it still wouldn’t be a good film because it’s about a wet blanket.
He’s not Steve Jobs or something. It’d be about as interesting as a Jeff Bezos film. Nobody cares.
Zuckerberg's not a very interesting character but in the hands of a David Fincher, that wasn't a problem. Maybe the same is true for Altman and this director?
"We believe that Artificial will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home."
They are claiming they will not. Many people would have to have the power to hold it up indefinitely, films get delayed by many different factors. It remains to be seen which happens.
It reads like this is meant to be a Social Network style portrayal where Altman is not necessarily portrayed flatteringly or with his approval, no? Where Melania was a payoff to a world leader, dropping this as they're making business deals also seems to be in service of their relationship.
Amazon is actually much more reasonable than the headline makes it seem:
Well, yeah, I kind of agree. Amazon probably shouldn't be the one producing the film, and it sounds like they're working to get the rights sold to someone else.The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
Amazon dropped the movie after announcing a partnership with OpenAI. The headline clearly communicates the only demonstrable action Amazon has taken.
Whether they're actually going to sell it is TBD. Until they do, they've taken no concrete action except cancel it. I don't think this article is clickbait.
Why do you agree that Amazon shouldn't be the one producing the film if you don't believe there's any evidence them dropping it is related to the partnership?
Headlines are there to trigger people. It’s a shame that hacker news folk fall for them too often.
>The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
post hoc ergo propter hoc is how print media imply a unstated fact without falling foul of Betteridge's law of headlines.
There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly plumbing the cash to independent studios through a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios.
In the 1940s it was common for studios to own movie theaters, but the Supreme Court ruled that this violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell off their theaters.
To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
And a federal government openly encouraging it
>a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios
Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea.
More like ensuring culture and art isn’t captured by the big conglomerate.
How is it different than media companies owning studios? Or simply studios existing? Studios publish viewpoints.
What you’re saying seems to completely ignore the first amendment.
The first amendment is for humans fuck the corps
But in practice no, the government cannot compel speech like this due to the first amendment
Corporations are legally humans (in the US). You might not like it, but it is what has allowed our current tech infrastructure to flourish. It's the reason you're able to post this.
Sure but I’m not saying it’s not legal right now, I’m saying fuck the corps, free speech is for humans. Fuck the Supreme Court of a ~decade ago, too, for fucking this up.
Persons, not humans.
It's also the reason a lot of crap has flourished, too. I'll take a bit less tech progress if it meant less of it.
There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it.
It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.
Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios.
What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.
Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid?
Maybe it's not so simple?
> It’s trivial to make and distribute a video
It's trivial to shout into the void
It's nontrivial to get heard
Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices
This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters).
Why do you feel differently?
At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died.
They already paid for it though. The movie was done.
So the government should force them to publish the viewpoint against their will?
I want a movie about Jassy ratting out Amodei to the feds
Amazon can't bury it without alienating Luca Guadagnino. Instead they are allowing anyone else publish it. Maybe A24 will want it, it is screening well.
Right after taking part of restricting Fable etc?
They don‘t even hide it anymore.
Stuff like that happens in every oligarchy.
Either get used to more and more stuff like that, or regulate the sh* out of it. Without stopping stuff like that early on, the concentration of wealth and power only increases.
Oh so there will be a sequel!
Honestly not that big of a loss. Even if it’s Sam Altman being an ass the entire movie, it still wouldn’t be a good film because it’s about a wet blanket.
He’s not Steve Jobs or something. It’d be about as interesting as a Jeff Bezos film. Nobody cares.
is more about the drama of him being fired of openai it doesn't have to be positive to be interesting
Zuckerberg's not a very interesting character but in the hands of a David Fincher, that wasn't a problem. Maybe the same is true for Altman and this director?
The Facebook founding was interesting, not sure about Z on his own.
Does Amazon likely have the power to hold this up indefinitely or will it easily be moved to another studio?
"We believe that Artificial will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home."
They are claiming they will not. Many people would have to have the power to hold it up indefinitely, films get delayed by many different factors. It remains to be seen which happens.
[flagged]
It reads like this is meant to be a Social Network style portrayal where Altman is not necessarily portrayed flatteringly or with his approval, no? Where Melania was a payoff to a world leader, dropping this as they're making business deals also seems to be in service of their relationship.
It's too early to do a Social Network for OpenAI
Because he is one?
I wonder how long before we get a Bezos biopic.
We already had a movie where Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor