Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- 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.
by Gagarin1917 - is more about the drama of him being fired of openai it doesn't have to be positive to be interestingby kelvinjps10
- 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?by CamperBob2
- 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.
by andix - Oh so there will be a sequel!by d--b
- Does Amazon likely have the power to hold this up indefinitely or will it easily be moved to another studio?by basisword
- "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.
by Lerc - 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?by nicce
- They don‘t even hide it anymore.by seasox
- I want a movie about Jassy ratting out Amodei to the fedsby baq
- "I was told to say X" roll credits
- 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.
- This is the same studio that did the Melania movie.by fred_is_fred
- 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.
by nonethewiser - 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.
by lotsofpulp - >a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios
Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea.
by vovavili - 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....
by humodz - 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.> “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.”The headline also sucks because "after" means "months after with no evidence that it's related". It's just clickbait all around.
by n2d4 - Headlines are there to trigger people. It’s a shame that hacker news folk fall for them too often.by iamflimflam1
- Until they actually do “find another home for the movie”, that statement exists for one reason and one reason only.
And you fell for it.
by adjejmxbdjdn - >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.
by Lerc - 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?by Fraterkes
- 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.
by schmichael