Home / Others / Universal's cancellation of Blumhouse's movie "The Hunt" is morally indefensible and financially irreversible

Universal's cancellation of Blumhouse's movie "The Hunt" is morally indefensible and financially irreversible




<div _ngcontent-c15 = "" innerhtml = "

I've often theorized that the spin-offs on Sony L & # 39; interview, which took place at the end of 2014, is one of the main reasons why the studios have slowly stopped producing original and / or political films in a decent budget. The film Seth Rogen / James Franco, about two idiotic journalists recruited as part of a CIA operation to assassinate Kim Jong Un, was just a studio programmer conceived as a counterprogram of Christmas. It was "just a movie" produced by Sony from guys who had already scored solid revenues from That's the end ($ 127 million on a budget of $ 32 million) and The Express Pineapple ($ 87 million / $ 27 million).

But someone, who could have been linked to the North Korean government, hacked Sony and leaked innumerable private e-mails on the Internet. While the media searched for stolen emails, public threats against the film, allegedly carried out by North Korea, were made against the film's release date for Christmas. Once the Carmike cinemas chose not to show the film, all the other theater chains were all the more responsible if they had played the film and that something had happened violent. Why does the public risk getting hurt during (or not showing up to)? The Hobbit or In the woods for a R-rated comedy farce?

In one week, the film was out of the multiplexes, except for about 200 independent theaters and broadcast in VOD. The media did not help by reacting not with horror at the acts of a foreign power, but by pointing fingers and laughing at the emails that came to light. This reaction of "blaming the victim" was replayed in 2016 when the DNC was hacked as part of Russia's maneuvers aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. While correlation is not synonymous with causality, 2015 was the last year we saw a decent number of original medium-high-budget films (Blackhat, Spy, Tomorrowland, San Andreas, etc.) next to the IP-specific tents.

On this note, as you've probably already heard, Universal canceled indefinitely the theatrical release The hunt. With, among others, Betty Gilpin, Emma Roberts and Hilary Swank, Blumhouse's movie is / was a variation of the game "The most dangerous game" (or, choose your poison, Hunger Games, Battle Royale, Hard Target or Survive the game) with wealthy elites paying to chase people of the lower class for sport and for fun. It was due to be released on September 27, 2019, just between Lionsgate's R rating and possibly ultraviolet. Rambo: last blood September 18 and Warner Bros. 'R-valued and probably violent Joker October 4th.

Directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, the film was come under fire following two highly publicized mass shootings and after being apparently distinguished by President Donald Trump for an intrigue that claims to portray wealthy paying Liberals to chase poor "deplorable" whites. Although you can discuss the hypocrisy of being outraged by The hunt but no The purge (which shows that rich / conservative whites orchestrate the massacre of minorities and the poor), people who shout the loudest may not A) do it in good faith, B) worry about their context and C) worry to be called to hypocrisy.

Even a look at the First man marketing would have noted a plethora of American flags, but that did not stop people inclined to politics to argue that Neil Armstrong's biopic, starring Ryan Gosling, had erased the American flag from the sequence of the moon landing and feature film directed by Damien Chazelle. I do not think the controversy over the "false flag" caused the box office's failure (it was an emotionally introverted character game when people were waiting for that Apollo 13), but he dominated the media discourse until its publication. Idem that created a controversy that downplayed A dog's goal concerning a video tampered showing an abused dog.

Universal may have fired The hunt because he did not think he could successfully market a violent Grindhouse actor who was running after a few high-profile mass murders. Universal may have been genuinely concerned about the political reprisals of a famous American president and / or the risk of violence, either for the release of the film or at a theatrical screening of the film. In a mixture of the two notions, they were perhaps worried about the repetition of L & # 39; interview, where theatrical channels pulled out at the last minute after an expensive marketing campaign.

Universal was burned by ridicule and manufactured First man "no flags" controversy. And while the film was recovering, Universal A dog's goal opened less than expected because of this false controversy. Besides, it was at a Universal Screening Night Railway accident when a 59-year-old man entered the auditorium on July 23, 2015 and killed two movie buffs. Even though the repulsive risks, political or in the form of previously unthinkable acts of (probably) politically motivated violence, are slim, Comcast is a gigantic enterprise and The hunt was an $ 18 million film that would have been lucky enough to reach some $ 75 million worldwide.

If Universal pulls the film of "sensitivity", then it's always a scenario where the company is apparently more comfortable with Hollywood shoot or delay movies (Telephone booth) and television programs (Buffy against the vampires"Graduation Day" (Part II) is characterized by armed violence as it is by the adoption of laws aimed at reducing actual armed violence. If they shoot the film after being targeted by the President of the United States, either on a whim after the film has been referenced on Fox and friends, or as a political strategy to divert the attention of a debate on effective gun control (or divert the attention of Trump-type rhetoric married by at least one of the shooters), it's close to the government's censorship.

And if Universal were preoccupied with a violent film spawning violence in real life, well, without pretending to blame the film (or movies of this nature), it's sadly valid, whereas it was not there a few years. When Bob Dole called Hollywood in the summer of 1995 for the "integration of deviance"There was no real fear that the president's supporters would take up arms and show up at the movies to intimidate the customers and / or get worse as a result." Ditto Joe Lieberman's habit of calling that of Hollywood "carnage culture"or Gore Benne Crusade against vulgar words.

In a rational world, Universal, owned by Comcast, could have simply ignored the noise and commercialized the film accordingly, perhaps with commercials that featured violence and savage beatings and punches over blows. of fire. Whether the media controversies helped or not the film, the attention of the general public would not have prejudiced a film that the public sincerely wanted to see. In general, online trolls complaining about Brie Larson did not hurt Captain Marvel no more than the liberal experts complaining about Bohemian Rhapsody prevented this film from winning $ 900 million worldwide. The question is whether the commercialization and theatrical release of the film would have taken place rationally and / or without incident.

It is quite possible, and even plausible today, that the theaters have become as nervous next month as they were five Christmas ago. This would only allow Universal to hold the bag after marketing the film until its release date. Again, the fact that it was a little movie would not have helped. Why risk the safety of customers flooding the theaters, or risk scared customers choosing not to go to the multiplex, to see Joker and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil for a grindhouse movie? Every feeling of anger, disappointment and frustration you may feel is valid.

The choice for Universal to shoot The hunt theatrical release, even if it is released in cinemas or VODs in the near future, is troubling to innumerable moral, artistic and social levels. But, in this probably immoral and amoral period in which we live, it may have been the only choice. Because the film was so small and the company that produced it (which is in itself a problem of our corporate conglomerate culture), it was the only logical financial choice to make once it was taken and used as a political pawn culture war. There were too many variables previously implausible and potentially potentially at stake.

Blumhouse is one of the few production companies to produce theatrical films at the moment. Universal is the best defense against a Disney theatrical monopoly. This Comcast would be willing (or forced) to dismiss a supposedly socially profitable actor from the studio who gave them famous applause (get out) and succeeded (The purge) "social thrillers" because of the external pressure is heartbreaking. But, given the very real potential for disaster, it's understandable. After all, why risk doing L & # 39; interview and or The hunt when you can instead make a lot of money with Venom and Cats? I am not angry, but I am very, very disappointed.

">

I've often theorized that the spin-offs on Sony L & # 39; interview, which took place at the end of 2014, is one of the main reasons why the studios have slowly stopped producing original and / or political films in a decent budget. The film Seth Rogen / James Franco, about two idiotic journalists recruited as part of a CIA operation to assassinate Kim Jong Un, was just a studio programmer conceived as a counterprogram of Christmas. It was "just a movie" produced by Sony from guys who had already scored solid revenues from That's the end ($ 127 million on a budget of $ 32 million) and The Express Pineapple ($ 87 million / $ 27 million).

But someone, who could have been linked to the North Korean government, hacked Sony and leaked innumerable private e-mails on the Internet. While the media searched for stolen emails, public threats against the film, allegedly carried out by North Korea, were made against the film's release date for Christmas. Once Carmike Theaters chose not to show the film, all other theater channels were all the more likely to play if they had played the movie and something violent had happened. Why does the public risk getting hurt during (or not showing up to)? The Hobbit or In the woods for a R-rated comedy farce?

In one week, the film was out of the multiplexes, except for about 200 independent theaters and broadcast in VOD. The media did not help by reacting not with horror at the acts of a foreign power, but by pointing fingers and laughing at the emails that came to light. This reaction of "blaming the victim" was replayed in 2016 when the DNC was hacked as part of Russia's maneuvers aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. While correlation is not synonymous with causality, 2015 was the last year we saw a decent number of original medium-high-budget films (Blackhat, Spy, Tomorrowland, San Andreas, etc.) next to the IP-specific tents.

On this note, as you probably have already heard, Universal has canceled for indefinite the release of the film The hunt. With, among others, Betty Gilpin, Emma Roberts and Hilary Swank, Blumhouse's movie is / was a variation of the game "The most dangerous game" (or, choose your poison, Hunger Games, Battle Royale, Hard Target or Survive the game) with wealthy elites paying to chase people of the lower class for sport and for fun. It was due to be released on September 27, 2019, just between Lionsgate's R rating and possibly ultraviolet. Rambo: last blood September 18 and Warner Bros. 'R-valued and probably violent Joker October 4th.

Directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, the film had been fired as a result of two highly publicized mass shootings and after apparently being noticed by President Donald Trump for an intrigue that claims to portray wealthy paying Liberals to chase poor "deplorable" whites. Although you can discuss the hypocrisy of being outraged by The hunt but no The purge (which shows that rich / conservative whites orchestrate the massacre of minorities and the poor), people who shout the loudest may not A) do it in good faith, B) worry about their context and C) worry to be called to hypocrisy.

Even a look at the First man marketing would have noted a plethora of American flags, but that did not stop people inclined to politics to argue that Neil Armstrong's biopic, starring Ryan Gosling, had erased the American flag from the sequence of the moon landing and feature film directed by Damien Chazelle. I do not think the controversy over the "false flag" caused the box office's failure (it was an emotionally introverted character game when people were waiting for that Apollo 13), but he dominated the media discourse until its publication. Idem that created a controversy that downplayed The purpose of a dog about a fake video showing an abused dog.

Universal may have fired The hunt because he did not think he could successfully market a violent Grindhouse actor who was running after a few high-profile mass murders. Universal may have been genuinely concerned about the political reprisals of a famous American president and / or the risk of violence, either for the release of the film or at a theatrical screening of the film. In a mixture of the two notions, they were perhaps worried about the repetition of L & # 39; interview, where theatrical channels pulled out at the last minute after an expensive marketing campaign.

Universal was burned by ridicule and manufactured First man "no flags" controversy. And while the film was recovering, Universal The purpose of a dog opened less than expected because of this false controversy. Besides, it was at a Universal Screening Night Railway accident when a 59-year-old man entered the auditorium on July 23, 2015 and killed two movie buffs. Even though the repulsive risks, political or in the form of previously unthinkable acts of (probably) politically motivated violence, are slim, Comcast is a gigantic enterprise and The hunt was an $ 18 million film that would have been lucky enough to reach some $ 75 million worldwide.

If Universal pulls the film of "sensitivity", then it's always a scenario where the company is apparently more comfortable with Hollywood shoot or delay movies (Telephone booth) and television programs (Buffy against the vampires"Graduation Day" (Part II) is characterized by armed violence as it is by the adoption of laws aimed at reducing actual armed violence. If they remove the film after being targeted by the President of the United States, either on a whim after the film's reference on Fox and friendsor as a political strategy to divert the attention of a debate on the actual control of firearms (or divert the attention from Trump-like rhetoric adopted by at least one of the shooters), it's close to government censorship.

And if Universal were preoccupied with a violent film spawning violence in real life, well, without pretending to blame the film (or movies of this nature), it's sadly valid, whereas it was not there a few years. When Bob Dole called Hollywood in the summer of 1995 for "the integration of deviance", there was no real fear that the president's supporters would take up arms and show up at the movies to intimidate customers and / or escalate accordingly. Idem Joe Lieberman has a habit of calling the "carnage culture" in Hollywood or Tipper Gore's crusade against vulgar lyrics.

In a rational world, Universal, owned by Comcast, could have simply ignored the noise and commercialized the film accordingly, perhaps with commercials that featured violence and savage beatings and punches over blows. of fire. Whether the media controversies helped or not the film, the attention of the general public would not have prejudiced a film that the public sincerely wanted to see. In general, online trolls complaining about Brie Larson did not hurt Captain Marvel no more than the liberal experts complaining about Bohemian Rhapsody prevented this film from winning $ 900 million worldwide. The question is whether the commercialization and theatrical release of the film would have taken place rationally and / or without incident.

It is quite possible, and even plausible today, that the theaters have become as nervous next month as they were five Christmas ago. This would only allow Universal to hold the bag after marketing the film until its release date. Again, the fact that it was a little movie would not have helped. Why risk the safety of customers flooding the theaters, or risk scared customers choosing not to go to the multiplex, to see Joker and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil for a grindhouse movie? Every feeling of anger, disappointment and frustration you may feel is valid.

The choice for Universal to shoot The hunt theatrical release, even if it is released in cinemas or VODs in the near future, is troubling to innumerable moral, artistic and social levels. But, in this probably immoral and amoral period in which we live, it may have been the only choice. Because the film was so small and the company that produced it (which is in itself a problem of our corporate conglomerate culture), it was the only logical financial choice to make once it was taken and used as a political pawn culture war. There were too many variables previously implausible and potentially potentially at stake.

Blumhouse is one of the few production companies to produce theatrical films at the moment. Universal is the best defense against a Disney theatrical monopoly. This Comcast would be willing (or forced) to dismiss a supposedly socially profitable actor from the studio who gave them famous applause (get out) and succeeded (The purge) "social thrillers" because of the external pressure is heartbreaking. But, given the very real potential for disaster, it's understandable. After all, why risk doing L & # 39; interview and or The hunt when you can instead make a lot of money with Venom and Cats? I am not angry, but I am very, very disappointed.


Source link