[jechamt]

I don’t doubt any of the reporting I have read thus far from either theverge or variety, but the sequence of events seems utterly disconnected and difficult or impossible to reason about. Standing out to me:

> in response to “feedback from the filmmaking team that wanted the actor’s remarks to be centered on the movie.”

the idea that someone could make edits to the text that will go to the teleprompter and thus favorably control what a human being will say, after being surprised on stage with edits to what they certainly planned and practiced, strikes me as phenomenally absurd and disconnected from reality.

It is even more striking that included in the cut speech (which the reader sort of must take for granted was part of an alternative, planned speech) is an impassioned description of the pervasiveness of lies and efforts to present alternative/revisionist histories.

It recalls comedy scenarios like a scene from Anchorman, or more acutely, that someone made decisions thinking people will actually behave this way.

[filoleg]

My best guess is that De Niro is involving Apple in his blame because the movie (that he was receiving the awards for that night) was produced by Apple Studios and distributed by Apple Original Films. So he probably assumed that the decision to edit the speech “to be centered on the movie” came from above aka Apple.

Regardless, it is a conflict that is simply about whether the final edit of the speech was approved between De Niro and the producer of the movie, and it just so happens that the producer here was Apple Studios. None of this controversy is related to Apple as a tech company or their products.

[weard_beard]

I beg to differ. If Apple the production company is embroiled in a series of high profile censorship missteps then it DEFINITELY impacts Apple the tech company. Their devices and software are not dumb platforms. Their APP store, their DRM and media distribution, and their ability to remotely control your technology devices are all major escalating factors when it comes to discussing censorship.

The opaque nature of how this decision was made, the opaque nature of how any decision at Apple gets made, is also a contributing factor.

There is a long and problematic history of Apple censoring content, maintaining tight control and hooks into their technology products.

If their censorship in one area is becoming more draconian we have no way to predict how it will impact other areas of the business.

Your dismissal, that these are totally unrelated smacks of damage control, spin, and I think you know that is EXACTLY the opposite of what is going on here. People ARE going to assume this will impact the media and control they have over the technology they buy from Apple. People will respond by not buying those products out of fear.

Your casual assumptions and assurances don't really mean anything.

[filoleg]

> If Apple the production company is embroiled in a series of high profile censorship missteps then it DEFINITELY impacts Apple the tech company.

Would you say that a controversy around something as high-profile as a Spidermman movie production have any impact on Sony the tech company, rather than just Sony Pictures Studios? Or, an even better example, would that be attributable to Sony the tech company in any way? Is it Kenichiro Yoshida (the current CEO) or the high-up Sony corporate pulling the strings whenever there is a conflict on a movie set of Sony Pictures Studios?

> The opaque nature of how this decision was made, the opaque nature of how any decision at Apple gets made, is also a contributing factor.

It is a movie production. It is a specific movie production crew having an argument with an actor working on the same movie over whether he approved the final draft of his speech or not. It wasn’t something coming from Apple the tech company (unless there is any evidence to the contrary, which I am yet to see).

Also, De Niro read his original unedited speech anyway, it was broadcasted just fine, and he faced no consequences for it (as he shouldn’t have). This kind of tells that none of this was about censorship and more of just about the movie production team disagreement over who approved which edit.