Sony Cancels Release of "The Interview"

Following threats by hackers to launch attacks on theaters who show "The Interview", a comedy movie by Sony Pictures about a planned assassination attempt on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Sony announced yesterday it is canceling the release of the film. The announcement followed decisions by several movie chains not to show the movie. Sony has no plans to release the film in the future.

Some criticize Sony's cancellation saying they are giving in to cyberterrorists, and it's a slippery slope. Others say better safe than sorry.

According to Reuters, the U.S. believes North Korea, not keyboard terrorists sitting in their parents' basement, is behind the Sony hacks and threats.

Why didn't Sony just release it to cable "On Demand", Netflix, iTunes and Amazon?

< Obama Issues Pardons and Commutations | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Fallout has arrived (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    North Korea-Based Thriller With Gore Verbinski And Steve Carell Canceled

    This was a terrible idea. I was thinking last night that maybe......

    But I changed my mind.  Partly after reading post and tweets of others.  It's a terrible idea and an even more terrible precedent.  I don't give a damn how bad the movie was.  That's not the point.  The headline above makes the actual point.

    I still agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    The reviews of "The Interview" have generally been pretty brutal. But yeah, Sony and the theatre chains should never have given in to this sort of terroristic blackmail.

    But you know, in the back of my mind, I really can't help but wonder what else was in those e-mails and the other information stolen by North Korean hackers, and whether any of that may have factored into the decision by corporate executives to cave.



    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    many others have wondered the same.  The main topic of wonder seems to be what exactly are the threatening to reveal.   It's a very interesting question.  You have to think that it's something besides SS numbers and dishy emails.

    Maybe some day we will find out.


    I am very interested in the response (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    You betcha (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    If indeed the Norks attacked a U.S. company, the Feds should do more than announce disappointment.  

    That said, I was not going to see it anyway. Too stupid for words.


    No argument (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    i would not have seen it.  And supposedly they view it as not just an attack on a company but on the american people which IMO is the best news so far in this sh!t sandwich.

    What about the "Dark Knight" massacre? (none / 0) (#29)
    by EL seattle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    Did anyone think that audiences were at risk just for going to that movie? It was just about 2 years ago, and I don't think that there were any attack warnings at all before the Aurora shooting.

    Considering the nature of the threat, I can definitely understand theater owners wanting to cancel their run of this movie. The last I heard, at least one lawsuit is still involved over the security issues at the "Dark Knight" screening.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    out litigious culture definitely was a factor in theaters pulling the movie, which left Sony little choice but to pull the release all together.

    So disappointing...yet totally predictable.


    Btw (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    the capitulation is now complete.  They announced they are not releasing it as DVD of VOD.

    Artists need to not sign with Sony.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by magster on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    in protest of censorship.

    I don't care if the movie sucks. It's a very bad precedent and Sony should be on the side of its artists (yes, Seth Rogen is an artist).


    I thought this (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    was an excellent article that pretty much nails it.  This is the ending:

    "Lowly bookstore clerks fought to keep selling The Satanic Verses when their parent chains wanted to quit, but who the f*ck wants to risk death for James Franco and Seth Rogen? Even Rogen wouldn't. (True, Franco might. But you can sell him on anything so long as it's conceptual.) It sticks in my craw that the principle is the same."

    Also - Team America World Police - assassinated the then sitting president of North.  In case anyone is looking for a recent precedent.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:37:24 AM EST
    the South Park movie made Saddam the gay lover of Satan.
    (Perhaps more a danger of offending Satan there but...)

    North Korea (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:31:47 AM EST

    They (Paramount) pulled Team America as well. (none / 0) (#46)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    Several theaters, including the one with which G.R.R.Martin is involved, were going to show the Team America movie in place of The Interview, but it's been pulled as well.

    Sony must not have been content... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:10:27 AM EST
    to have only Lil' Kim hating their guts, so they decided to be universally hated instead.

    They're on a roll in that board room, lemme tell ya! lol

    You are so right (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    Hollywood Outraged at Sony's Decision to Dump `The Interview'

    I spent several hours online talking about this last night.  I know lots of people there including several current and former Sony employees.  I did not talk to a single one, not one, who thought this was a good idea.
    As the headline says, outrage is a better word.


    I can't imagine any other reaction... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    from Sony workers and Hollywood at large...forget the MPAA, forget the FCC...Lil' Kim calls the shots now for the industry, or any other  crackpot with a skilled team of hackers.

    Lil' F*ckin' Kim and The Guardians of Extortion.


    Before you all go having an aneurysm (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    over Sony's decision, consider that this may have nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with money.

    David Atkins, writing at Digby's:

    But in truth, neither "America" nor "Hollywood" caved to the terrorist threat. Capitalism did. Sony is a Japanese-owned multinational corporation. Its decision to cancel the opening of the film was precipitated not by Hollywood studios, but by the defensive decision of a bunch of corporate conglomerate theater chains with only tenuous connections to the star-studded production companies in Tinseltown.

    An organization made a threat to a corporation and its customers if it released a certain product. Distributors of said product decided not to risk carrying that product, as a market decision. The corporation decided to pull the product from shelves--for market reasons.

    That's capitalism. Capitalism doesn't care about standing for the principle of free speech, or for patriotism, or for standing up to bullies. It cares about money. Theater chains don't make money if they lose customers too afraid to show up to the movie theaters. Production companies don't make money if not enough theaters show their movie. It's just business.

    If conservatives want to see a little more backbone in standing up to international bullies looking to squash free speech, they might want to start by looking in the mirror at their ideological elevation of profit over principle.

    Makes sense to me.

    Makes sense to me, too. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    You know, this will all make a great screenplay someday -- preferably written AFTER Kim Jong-un has passed, and the North Korean regime is but a couple of paragraphs in high school history textbooks.

    heard on the news this could cost Sony (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    around $100 million. They have to pay out to the theaters for pulling the fill along with everything they have already sunk into it . . .

    You are right (none / 0) (#63)
    by ZtoA on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:14:23 PM EST
    this had to do with money at every step of the way. And there have been so many many....many many steps before we get to now. It is just too convenient, after so many steps, to cry "free speech rights" (which are rights in the US but there it no right to get to say whatever the F one wants with no blow back). WTF was Sony thinking?

    Blow back? (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    You mean threats of violence and personal information stolen and broadcast?

    Yes, you do in fact have free speech rights from that - in theory, by law.

    People could have protested this movie, or boycotted it, or whatever and it would be 100% fine.  But that's not why they're cancelling it, and that's not what happened.


    "People" could have protested this movie (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    they could have, "People" in the US, that is, or wherever it is released.

    And, welcome to the neo-blowback. Now the powers that be are forced to deal with people all over the globe. Just a fact of neo-life. And who even knows where this hack originated from? From what I read it is impossible to say for sure.


    ... and highly questionable, given that involves a fictional attempt to assassinate a still-living head of state, who's an emotionally mercurial one at that -- and one who may also possess nuclear weaponry. What were these people thinking?

    I don't condone in the slightest what North Korea has allegedly done here. From reports today, the cyberattack on Sony Pictures was both extensive and very destructive, with damage well beyond the public relations fiasco created by the divulgence of its executives' embarrassing e-mail threads. But in their decision to green-light such a dubious project, those same executives proved themselves to be just as insensitive, crass and stupid as they sounded on their hacked e-mails.

    How could those executives not have anticipated and planned for such a possible contingency, given that North Korea had first expressed its extreme displeasure over "The Interview" months ago? Not only did their callous indifference to diplomatic sensitivities put their entire firm at risk, they played an enormously consequential (if entirely unintended) role in fomenting a major international incident and potential national security crisis.

    And the damnedest thing about this entire brouhaha is that "The Interview" is likely every bit as insipid and lousy a movie as its trailer implies. In fact, it's presently garnering a 44% rating at the Rotten Tomatoes website, hardly surprising since Variety describes the film as "an evening of cinematic waterboarding." The only ones I can see who liked it were the Brits.


    I agree, Donald (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:30:18 AM EST
    It is a tasteless movie about a head of state and certainly stretches the bounds of free speech and good judgement.

    Now no one else we know would do that, would they??

    Why yes. Yes they did.

    And I'm sure you threw a fit about it.

    Didn't you?


    Yeah, because dramatic fiction about (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:19:17 AM EST
    An elected head of state being assassinated is the same as a comedy about a plot to target the dictator of N.K.

    Thanks for clearing that up for Donald and I.


    Comedy or drama (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:08:09 AM EST
    makes no difference... fiction is fiction.

    And you have no problems if the subject is Bush.

    Okay, I understand.

    You have BDS. Must be a severe case. Six years and you still have it.


    And if it's a Muslim you have no problem (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    please.  Peddle your self righteous outrage some place you are not so well known.

    Your spewing again (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    Please wipe the spittle off the screen and show where I have said you can't say something bad about Bush. My position was made clear:

    It is a tasteless movie about a head of state and certainly stretches the bounds of free speech and good judgement.

    It is your double standard, not mine, that I have shown.


    Not (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    Wrong! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    I wouldn't have a problem if it had been about Clinton, Obama, or any other POTUS.

    You're the one who acts like any satire of Bush is a violation of some weird standard that you never bother to define, and you should work on doing balloon animals, since you still haven't  gotten any better at your mind-reading act.



    I am glad to note your (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    just discovered sense of fairness.


    Do I get kudos for reminding you of it?


    No, believing in the First Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    Isn't special, but if you could agree that criticizing GWB is covered by the 1st Amendment, that would deserve more than kudos.

    I have never said otherwise (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    You are free as a bird to display your BDS.

    But if you are going to, as Donald did, question this movie, then you must also question the one about Bush.

    Or accept the fact that you have displayed a double standard.


    M (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    you can not win.  You can not.  If you posted the literal word of God refuting him by name he would just blather some incoherent nonsense and go play checkers thinking he won because he is willing to do this longer than anyone else.  
    Give up.
    Just my opinion

    As a Russian friend of mine (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:45:21 PM EST
    used to say, if he were caught screwing a goose, he would say he was stuffing sofa cushions.

    Yay...the clown car arrives (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    Why would I quetion the one about Bush (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:52:06 AM EST
    Or are you saying that with BDS, I must be in support of a rarely seen mockumentary?

    But I haven't questioned either movie's right to exist.

    I'm pretty sure Donald can speak for himself instead of being dragged into the conversation because you're not exactly favorably disposed towards him.

    I'm sorry we Obamabots aren't performing to your liking.  You can direct any criticisms, complaints, or even whining, to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM EST, M-F.


    Where did I criticize Bush (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    In defending the moviemakers right to make a film as they see it? It was probably tasteless, made use of vulgar stereotypes, and didn't change anybody's opinion of Bush. I probably wouldn't enjoy it, but that I stand up for the right to make such movies ddoesn't mean I agree with them. Heck I even defend the right of people to make movies at the other end of the spectrum, like An American Carol. By your own reasoning, that means I have ODS. See how that works? You treat any criticism of Bush like it was an act of lèse majesté', and I remind you that the First Amendment was to protect speech we don't like, not approve of the speech we agree with. Hope you can take this little civic lesson to heart.

    ... raging about the moral equivalence of others. I never saw "Death of a President," Jim, because I tend to avoid bad movies. But as a matter of fact, a number of people on the left denounced its premise.

    Now, let's get back to the matter at hand, and please try to refrain from your tendency to change the subject.

    Given the inherently mercurial nature of the NK regime, what do you find so funny about it that you would risk its blatant provocation and retaliation, with the release of a bad movie that only somebody who's stunted emotionally in a state of perpetual adolescence could love?

    Stretching the bounds of free speech and good judgment is often nothing more than asinine babbling. It's something we have to endure on a daily basis. But at a high level of executive authority and management, it has potentially serious consequences -- which makes many of us here so very thankful that you don't hold high public office.



    Whether the movie is good or bad, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    socially relevant and important or lowest of the low brow, is irrelevant...you're talking questions of taste Don.

    And I would hope we would all agree that we don't want the Guardians of Extortion to make these decisions on taste for us, anymore than we want the US Government to make these decisions for us.

    I sincerely hope this was Sony's decision and Sony's decision alone.  They're a private corporation that can do what it wants...now if Uncle Sam put the screws to Sony somehow, or offered a quid pro quo of some sort...then we got a 1st Amendment issue on our hands.  


    Let's please stop clutching our pearls. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    I agree with you that the fact that this film looks to be laughably bad is beside the point. I was noting the irony here, the notion that a bad film can provoke an international incident as this one did. That's also why I mentioned it last.

    My primary point was that green-lighting a movie about the attempted and / or successful assassination of a national leader who's still very much alive, was a very dubious and questionable decision by Sony executives. Again, what were they thinking?

    Contrast what happened here with once upon a time in the late 1960s, when up-and-coming novelist Frederick Forsyth was trying to market his new novel The Day of the Jackal, which centers upon a conspiracy by the French far right to assassinate President Charles De Gaulle. (In fact, they had indeed tried to assassinate him in 1962, and Forsyth included that incident in his opening chapter.)

    Well, nobody would touch Forsyth's book, because De Gaulle was then still very much alive. Eventually, London-based publisher Hutchinson & Co. accepted it for publication, but only on condition that it would not be distributed and sold until after De Gaulle's passing. (He died in 1970 at age 80, and The Day of the Jackal hit the bookshelves one year later.)

    Free speech should also be responsible speech. The First Amendment was never meant to function as a rite of absolution or a firewall for whatever one says, writes, publishes, produces or broadcasts.

    Sony executives authorized the production of this silly film, and they further underwrote its distribution costs. But now they're running away from it, rather than owning it, and they're deflecting their lion's share of responsibility for having instigated this debacle by blaming the North Koreans. Oh, woe is poor Sony Pictures!

    We've known about the irrational nature of the North Korean regime for decades. Its reaction to this tasteless piece of cinematic schlock was utterly and entirely predictable, and it should have been readily anticipated by those who authorized the film's production and Christmas Day release, since cancelled. Why would anyone deliberately provoke the North Koreans to the point of retaliation with such an offensive premise for a movie?

    And let's not kid ourselves here, it was very much a deliberate provocation, regardless of whether or not it was ever initially intended as such, because North Korea was complaining last summer to the UN about "The Interview," and nobody at Sony Pictures did jack about it. And just like that, common sense caught the last train out of Dodge.

    Further, the North Koreans have a documented history of engaging in corporate hacking and retaliating against those who've incurred their displeasure. Did anyone at Sony take any action to protect the company's database from cyberassault, given the product they had been planning to release this month? No, they did not.

    Was the North Korean reaction to "The Interview" supposed to be funny, perhaps part of the overall marketing scheme to hype the film's profile with the American movie-going public? Well, who's laughing now?

    The fault for this debacle is entirely on Sony Pictures, and nobody else. And I just think it's a shame that because of its executives' appalling sense of personal judgment, they've now embroiled our country in an international incident.

    This was all wholly avoidable, had those executives simply showed some common sense and told director / writer Seth Rogen, "No, we're not going to make a movie about the attempted assassination of Kim Jong-un."

    And if Sony's corporate board of directors have any common sense of their own, they'd fire the entire lot of them over this mess -- yesterday.



    Donald (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    if your position on this is, as it seems to be,  that no one should care because it was a stupid movie what is your opinion of the cancellation of the serious thriller starring Steve Carrell fresh of his excellent dramatic turn in Foxcatcher that you praised so highly being cancelled because of this?
    Should we care about that?

    There is a link above.


    Personally, I think they're making a mistake. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:37:50 PM EST
    But then, nobody has ever accused Hollywood executives of bravery and steadfastness in the face of intimidation.

    Did you ever see Blake Edwards' 1981 black comedy S.O.B., with Julie Andrews, William Holden, Robert Preston and Richard Mulligan? That movie pretty much sums up Hollywood -- and IIRC, Hollywood execs really didn't like it.



    I have no idea if Sony's decision was (none / 0) (#49)
    by ZtoA on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:40:43 PM EST
    "right" or "wrong". I do think Sony executives were very blind to what might really offend people. I try to put myself in an "offended" person's shoes and think that if in some place on the planet where gang rape and murder of girls was all too common, then a HaHa comedy about.... a group of young guys on the town trying to have a laugh or two, somehow mess up gang raping and then murdering an underage girl. Then the thought of a bunch of guys sitting around LOLing and profiting off of that - well it would not make me happy.

    So there are often many sides to a situation.


    Hard to argue with that. (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    Dane-geld (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:38:39 PM EST

    Now that Sony has decided to pay the Dane-geld it should come as no surprise that Sharpton is looking for a piece of the action.

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
      To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
    "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
      Unless you pay us cash to go away."

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
      And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
      And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
      To puff and look important and to say: --
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
      We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
      But we've  proved it again and  again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
      You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
      For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
      You will find it better policy to say: --

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
      No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
      And the nation that pays it is lost!"

    Not so fast there, champ. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    Sharpton did confirm that the National Action Network, as well as the NAACP, the National Urban League and the Black Women's Roundtable, will work with executives from Sony about ways to increase and improve racial diversity in the entertainment industry.

    "Our interest is in changing Hollywood ... seeing to it that Sony is on the right side of changing Hollywood," said Mark Morial, the president of the National Urban League who appeared alongside Sharpton during today's new conference.

    Both men concluded their comments by condemning the hack itself, with Sharpton slamming the "dangerous precedent" that was set by, what Sharpton described as a foreign government being able to "manipulate and bully the American corporate structure."

    I think you may be having what is known as a "knee-jerk" response to seeing Sharpton's name, and you didn't bother to actually read the article.  Nor, I expect, have you familiarized yourself with Pascal's racist comments, or acquainted yourself with the issue of racial diversity within the entertainment industry.

    But why actually educate yourself on these topics when you can just latch onto one name - Sharpton in this case - and think you're saying something that means anything?


    increase and improve racial diversity (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:13:02 PM EST
    Sales pitch for the typical Sharpton shake down.  As soon as Sony coughs up enough, Al will move on to the next deep pocket.  

    Oh, so Amy Pascal's derogatory remarks ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    ... about African-Americans are somehow Al Sharpton's fault? Or are you really accusing him of orchestrating a shakedown -- without any proof, I might add?

    Jeez, Abdul -- and then you wonder why rational people laugh at conservatives like you. Part of being an adult is ensuring that your mistakes are your own. And Sony Pictures' execs have yet to own up to what they did and said.

    That's the story here. But leave it to someone like you to race-bait, in an attempt to make it about something else entirely.



    The story here (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    is the Reverend Al looking to enhance the position of the Reverend Al. The guy is a racial ambulence chaser.

    Care to make an over/under bet on what Sony will have to pay to make Sharpton go away?


    Here's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    If there weren't so many racists, there wouldn't be a need for racial ambulance chasers.

    Know what I mean, Abdul?


    Yup I know (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:37:53 PM EST

    Just like Joe McCarthy finding commies under every bed, Sharpton has the same franchise for secret KKK devotees.

    The only difference is Al's gig is much more lucrative.


    How big a thing is this? (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:28:13 AM EST
    I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react? I had no desire to see this movie but now I feel like we just set some kind of bad precedent.  

    Well, we did. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:40:16 AM EST
    By cancelling the Christmas Day release of "The Interview," Sony Picture and five of our country's largest theatre chains have given in to terroristic threatening, plain and simple.

    But on the other hand, we're talking about Kim Jong-un, an erratic and unpredictable man who late last year apparently not only executed his own uncle but also that uncle's entire family, in a fit of personal displeasure at reports of an alleged coup attempt against him.

    It's probably best to err on the side of caution.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:06:58 AM EST
    ...and only Sony knows what they had yet to release.

    I am positive their employees are breathing sigh of relief.


    They shouldn't be (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    they still have the information.  Kim is now Executive VP of Sony.  

    My Point Was... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    ...that it's Sony's film, their employees the ones suffering, and their decision to make.

    If another studio makes decisions based on Sony's, that is hardly Sony's fault.


    I talked to a couple of employees (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    last night.  They certainly not uniformly happy.

    At This Point... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    ...it's on our government to ensure foreign states aren't able to hack and extort US companies.

    And who knows, maybe the State Department was involved with this decision.  It can't be a bad thing if NK unveiled their hackary over a silly movie, if it was them, and everything I read claims it was, this is certainly a wasted use of some pretty valuable resources.

    I suspect the descent human beings at Sony aren't real happy, but the jack@sses who used work email to disparage people are.


    Look (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:45:04 AM EST
    I get your point.  And I agree with you that it may be very likely that the state department was involved in this decision.  The timing of the dual announcements was pretty telling.
    I get it.

    Just don't ask me to like it.


    My movie mind likes to think (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    the State Dept made a deal with Sony:  kill this.  Save us all some headaches and you will get the rights and the inside scoop on the backstory of how this happened and the takedown of these phuckers.  
    I call that a good pitch.  That's a movie I would see.  

    Aside from the obvious (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    hassle that goes along with the hack, the employees aren't really the target, right? Seems to me when you have the big guys, why mess with the non decision making folks?

    I don't know if "seems to us"... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    is applicable to anything regarding Lil' Kim and The Guardians of Extortion stray...case in point, "seems to me" a stupid f8ckin' movie release is a stupid reason to threaten people, either with embarrassment, theft, or violence.

    Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring what anbody involved, or uninvolved, has to be afraid of.

    "Oh my god, some hacker stole my ss number and my snarky emails...Defcon F*ckin' 2!  I'm heading to my underground undisclosed location bunker until further notice.  Hold my calls."


    Yes, Kdog... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    ...losing my 3 million dollar a year job is no big deal.  That is Pascal's salary.  Or having someone hack my bank account and steal my millions is no big deal. Rogan is worth around $185M.  Getting blackballed in my industry because I slammed the wrong folks, who cares...

    They have to put out a movie with no redeeming value of out of principle.  Excellent point, why would people printing money care if that press comes to a grinding halt...  It's a complete mystery.

    Yeah, not releasing a movie, without a doubt, should be considered DEFCON 2, which by definition means the last step before a nuclear war.

    Get a grip, jesus, you would think this is the Cuban Missile Crisis with you last post.

    But fear not, the White House is getting ready to retaliate, and with any luck they escalate this into something worthy of you ridiculous hyperbole.  Then everyone will be happy that we escalated world tensions over a stupid movie.


    Ummm... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    I think you missed my snark man...Sony is acting like it's a DEFCON 2 threat from the hackers, not me.  And it may well be for the future of their mega-corporation, but nobody is in any physical danger of any sort as far as I can tell.

    Not for nothin', doesn't Pascal kinda deserve to lose her job?  For bankrolling this movie they now can't/won't release, if nothing else.  And the IT Dept. over at Sony definitely does deserve pink slips.

    I'm not really in the banking world, don't y'all have fraud protection to protect you from hackers emptying your bank account or running up your cc's?  If not, you better take that up with your bank.

    Making fun of Lil' Kim is grounds for Hollywood blackballing now?  I don't see it...but that would sure be a switch from the 50's! lol

    Everybody is blaming a stupid buddy comedy for escalating world tensions...that's the hyperbole here man.  If that's the case, it's an indictment of the international stage, not the movie.  It's just a movie.


    Pick a an Angle... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    ...it can't be just a movie and then also be some front of idealistic principle where the line should be drawn.

    I agree, they should all lose their jobs, but the point was you keep acting like it's not a big deal, that Sony shouldn't back down, and I am saying to the people with their careers on the line, it a big deal.  And who knows what they were going to release for their Chirstmas Gift.

    And I get it, your mattress fund is safe, but for most, provoking hackers who have threatened their finances, the risk simply isn't worth the reward.

    And yes, Obama making retaliatory threats over a movie is the same non-sense, it's escalating something that does not need escalating for no apparent reason other than some principle, which as far as I can figure out, is having the right to make comedies about assassinating insane Heads of States that have nuclear weapons.  Let it go.

    That being said, talk about a good movie, the Pineapple Express crew makes a movie that leads us to the brink of a nuclear war.  Not saying that this is going there, only that a movie about it taking us there would be pretty good.


    I Like That Suggestion (none / 0) (#37)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    Why didn't Sony just release it to cable "On Demand", Netflix, iTunes and Amazon?

    I look forward to the day when we won't hear about shopping mall/movie theater/school attacks because all such localities will be obsolete due to advances in electronics.  Who knows?, maybe with smart smella/tasteaphones we won't have to undergo the dangers of travel to enjoy Christmas with the family.

    A couple of articles re N.K. internet capability (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    What It's Like To Use North Korea's Internet

    Ex-Anonymous hacker questions North Korea's role in Sony hack

    Wiki: Internet in North Korea

    Taking Cuba Off Blacklist Leaves Only North Korea as Cold War Vestige

    North Korea's Cyber Skills Get Attention Amid Sony Hacking Mystery

    Who really hacked Sony Pictures? (It probably wasn't North Korea)

    There's also the overall timeline of the hack to take into consideration. The hackers managed to exfiltrate around 100 terabytes of data from Sony's network -- an arduous task that, to avoid detection, probably took months. Given how long it would've taken to gain access to Sony Pictures, plus the time to exfiltrate the data, I think the wheels started turning long before North Korea heard about The Interview.

    As far as I know (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    no one thinks NK did it.  Only that they are behind it.

    Which makes me sort of amazed (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    at that long list of links from reasonable sources that honestly seem to have kind of missed the point.

    Otoh (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:30:58 PM EST