>*looks into the camera*
>
>
>"Kevin Heart","inevitable defeat of Mister Pete"
>
>
>*stares into camera*
>
>
>but yea
>just to play along
>seeing how the sony leaked plan regarding the (initial)
>interview controversy
> was to just redact their name and leave columbia holding the
>bag,
>i wonder how many of the films dude is giving them credit for
>may have come from columbia's/tristar/screengems camp, vs sony
>proper

It's all the same company. Columbia (A-films), TriStar (B-films), Screen Gems (genre and African-American), and Sony Pictures Classics (indie films) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sony Pictures (which does not release films under that name). Although each subsidiary has dedicated staff, they essentially function like specialized imprints, since all of the films are actually released to theaters by Sony Pictures Releasing and to video by Sony Home Entertainment. Sony Pictures also encompases Sony' TV production and network businesses as well, so info about "The Boondocks" and "Seinfeld" is leaking as well.

Columbia, TriStar, and Screen Gems aren't really meant to have much, if any autonomy (similar to how Disney used to have Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, and Hollywood Pictures, the latter two of which were in-name companies used to copyright "adult themed" productions by the former), providing the Sony execs are paying attention (which they weren't to Sony Pictures Animation, another story for later).

It's like - same conglomerate, isn't this ironic - how Columbia Records and Epic Records and now RCA Records are all wholly owned subsidiaries of Sony Music Entertainment. It's all the same corporation and the same people running the show at the top.

That's why that shit about "taking Sony's name off of 'The Interview' " was such bullshit. 400% of whatever coin "The Interview" makes is going into the same pot as all the other Sony films, and the company just recently started going more out of their way to tag up all of their films with more prominent Sony branding because they wanted people to know what time it was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjpWB8Qt30

That poor Columbia woman...

>
>
>but the larger question is what exactly does a studio's list
>of films, designed from the gate to eiher make money or be a
>tax writeoff, have to do with rich folks' sniggling and
>giggling "racial humor" at work
>
>the obama jokes are prolly like #2478 on my list of
>microaggressions, but im saying


I agree that just because they make a lot of black films doesn't mean they can't have some issues with personal stereotyping. It does make for an odd conundrum, however.
>
>
>