[n2d4]

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.

[schmichael]

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.

[testbjjl]

Watching what is done versus what is said is an increasingly important executive level function when words can be generated for just a few tokens.

[ulfw]

You don't need "tokens" to lie

See Trump

[cyanydeez]

and if you have an attention span longer than a goldfish, you'll see how often headlines are propagated in lieu of actions.

[n2d4]

What makes you think they've canceled it? Did you read past the headline?

What should they have done here — keep the movie despite the obvious conflict of interest? Be more secretive about the fact they're trying to separate so no one can write articles like these?

If they did the right thing, it would look exactly like this. And I think it's generally a good idea to assume good faith (even with corporations) — you can still get your pitchforks up if they do refuse to give away the rights to movie.

[afavour]

> I think it's generally a good idea to assume good faith (even with corporations) — you can still get your pitchforks up if they do refuse to give away the rights to movie

I take the opposing viewpoint. They don’t have to “refuse” to give away the movie rights, they can just… not do it. Pitchforks in three months or is that still reasonable? Six months? Two years?

I don’t believe a word they say until I see action that backs it up.

Look at their distribution of the Melania movie. It was very obviously a money losing favour to Trump. But they’d never admit as such because why would they? And what do I gain by taking them at their word that it’s a wonderful piece of film deserving of the money spent on it when that’s obviously untrue?

[tqi]

You should probably also take the opposing views of corporate media, especially a tabloid rag like the independent, and assume their intent is to foment the maximum amount of outrage possible in order to drive ad impressions.

[apecat]

What on earth are you on about? The article is referring to Variety, which refers to Puck as having broken the story. Are Variety, the renowned trade publication, and Puck, an independent and journalist-owned publication also "tabloid rags"?

https://variety.com/2026/film/global/luca-guadagnino-sam-alt...

https://puck.news/amazon-is-dumping-its-sam-altman-movie/

[bluealienpie]

Agree on tabloids in general but this is widely reported https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jun/19/luca-guadagnino...

[afavour]

…yes? Here I am reacting to a direct quote from the studio, not the article itself.

[Fraterkes]

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?

[n2d4]

1. Because Amazon is a bigtech corp making a film about another bigtech corp. Plenty of conflicts of interest here (in either direction).

2. Regardless of whether it is or isn't related, implying they are without any evidence is just speculation. There's a reason they didn't say "months after" in the headline, even though it would be much more informative and much less confusing!

You also seem to conflate "there's evidence for" and "you believe that". Those are very distinct statements. "you don't believe there's evidence for X" doesn't make sense here — I said "there is no evidence for X in the article", that's a fact, not a belief.

[TurdF3rguson]

He's agreeing with like, the universe, man.

[Lerc]

>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.

[n2d4]

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. You are correct, and it is so rampant these days that I wish we just banned the word "after" in headlines.

[Lerc]

I am quite certain that I am being downvoted because there are people who no longer care about the quality of arguments and think that a poor argument in support of their cause is a good thing.

The bulk of downvotes I have received fall into two categories. One is from people who disagree with me, and the other is from people who believe that my critique of a bad argument means that I believe the opposite to the conclusion of the argument.

The latter is the one that bugs me more. Because I feel that a bad argument in support of a conclusion that I believe is damaging to the understanding of the conclusion because it represents a refuge that anyone arguing the opposite can cling to in order to undermine good arguments. They can legitimately ask "Why should I believe your good argument, if you express a similar degree of support for an obviously flawed argument" It signals that the position is held because of allegiance, not because it is correct.

Even scarier is that it raises the spectre of people passionately advocating for a position when they themselves do not respect the opinion, but simply acknowledge that this is the position of their allegiance.

There is experimental evidence for this on both sides of American politics with people being tested flipping their opinions on identical policies just by presenting them as being the favoured opinion of a different side.

[adjejmxbdjdn]

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.

[iamflimflam1]

Headlines are there to trigger people. It’s a shame that hacker news folk fall for them too often.