The following is myself asking questions I don’t have the answer for. I’m, of course, not advocating for anything in this. I do not believe that movies or video games lead directly to violence. But I think these are questions that should be raised:
It’s hard not to view this as a PR move, which means it’s a money move.WB wants to be seen as sensitive in order to bolster good will. For the same reason that both presidential candidates decided to not campaign this weekend. This event, like every other news event, will be politicized.
If WB feels that is inappropriate to show guns at this time, why show them at all any time? If you pull the trailer for a movie with a theater shooting because it is insensitive, why show it at all?
Or shouldn’t you feel strongly enough about the moral/ethical character of your industry to not pull back even when something may be seen as insensitive?
How is it better to pull ads from the news when that same news is devoting all of its time showing grainy cell phone panic videos, images of blood and guns, and photos of the killer?
People are shot everyday. In Chicago, it’s an epidemic. Maybe not 12 at a time in a public place designed to be a terror spectacle, but at least one a day. This is not to equate the two events. This is rather to question the motives of the invested parties of politicians and businesses: why pull ads for one and not the other? Why is insensitive to show guns in one context, yet still air them for the other?
It also will not enact any change. Movies will still find creative ways to shoot characters. There will never be any significant gun legislation in my lifetime in the United States. Is pulling your ads or trailers or political punches for a few days just another, perhaps more cynically insensitive way of profiting off of a tragedy?