Sony Cancels The Interview Over Hacking Threat - Update

[hermes]

Are people seriously blaming Sony for risking the life of people over a James Fanco movie? Seriously? I mean, I am not going to go all "this is not censorship" on your asses, but are you seriously considering a publicly held company needs to use people as bait to see if the thread was real?

And if it was, if some random theater in some random city in the world gets blown up to smithereens, what would Sony tell? use the freedom of speech as a defense? make people sign a release contract at the door of every cinema?

Yeah, the thread of terrorism was enough to make a company backpedal (and no matter how bad the movie was, small earnings still beat no earnings), and that sucked, but it was still the only reasonable course of action. On the other hand, I think Sony should just "leak" the movie into Internet; just post it into torrents and let hackers in both side to fight over it.

 

[Mau95]

Eh, it was gonna be mediocre at best anyway.

 

[JennAnge]

BBC world news posted a breakdown on the most likely suspects, and on the surface of it, they think NK is NOT the most likely suspect.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30530361

Not that it changes anything to the reason why Sony most likely (IMO, not confirmed) pulled out: part fear of liability in case something does happen, even if not terrorist related, and part fear that the movie was going to be panned and ignored anyway. As is, the net gain for Sony is that people are no longer looking that hard at WHAT was leaked from their emails and more HOW, WHO and WHY, while for many, Sony now becomes almost some kind of martyr. Not pulling the movie themselves but giving the distributors the 'option' was a masterstroke, since it shifted the onus of pulling the movie.

As the BBC correspondent said, it's become a nailbiting thriller it didn't take a cent to produce.

 

[JoJo]

Sony made the right call. There were threats being made (by a tyrannical government, mind you) to real-world businesses and lives, just weeks after that same government followed through on a previous threat and unleashed one of the largest and most brazen cyberterrorist attacks in history.

It is not the job of a movie studio--much less a theater--to judge the credibility of threats from a terrorist state, nor to counter those threats. If a crazy man runs up to you on the street and says, "I have a gun, give me your money," you don't go, "Ho hum, I don't know, I don't want to set a precedent; do you REALLY have a gun? How big of a gun are we talking here?" No: you give the guy your wallet, and then you call the fucking cops, the guys whose job it is to take care of crazy guys who may-or-may-not-have-guns.

If there was even a .000001% chance that the threat was credible, then Sony made the only possible ethically-responsible call. Else tomorrow we might be reading a very different headline.

You want to know who to be mad at? Be mad at the government of North Korea, and at the state department which shrugged its shoulders and mumbled, "It's not a credible threat," to this whole ordeal. Be mad at a President (and I *LIKE* President Obama! I voted for him TWICE!) who lets a dictator-state bully around companies and dictate the terms of our culture.

But don't blame Sony. I know it might not seem like it, because they're this big faceless corporation that makes a lot of movies that aren't all that good, but yes, they were THE VICTIM here. And I think it's absolute crap to demonize or chastise them for not telling a violent fascist dictatorship, "G'head, I'm pretty sure you're bluffing this time; come at me bro!"

A better analogy would be receiving a message on the Internet from someone claiming to have a gun and that they'll shoot you if you release your next YouTube video, even though you know they live on the other side of the world and are known for throwing out baseless threats. Because that's all this is, hacking and a jumped up Internet death threat that's bullshit like every previous Internet threat has been, ever.

Truth is, every time you go out you have somewhere close to a 0.00001% chance of being hit by a car, or murdered, or hit by lightning. Few would argue that you should never go out because of that tiny risk, as some risks are so unlikely that they are not worth considering if you ever want to do anything in your life. Some Internet threat from North Korea, the empty-threat king of the world if there ever was one (remember how they were going to nuke the U.S. last year?), is not something that any reasonable business should pull a product for and I'm disappointed in every company who decided to chicken out today. I'm led to believe from BBC news it was primarily the cinema chains rather than Sony who pulled the plug, I'm sure they're all responsible to a degree though.

 

[JennAnge]

Now THIS (taken from another BBC source) is how to respond

"However, the Alamo Drafthouse cinema in Texas has decided to replace The Interview with a screening of Team America, a film featuring a marionette of late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, the father of Kim Jong-un."

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-30528772

I saw that movie ages ago, and I'm pretty sure that marionette gets torched at the end. In NK, you are sent to a re-education camp for defacing, destroying or otherwise disposing of the image of their Glorious Leader or his Son. If NK really is implicated (which I'm pretty sure they're not, not directly) I wonder how they'll react...

 

[Ashley Blalock]

To everyone saying FUCK SONY for giving in to the terrorists... just think for a moment. Yeah it sucks that this kind of thing happens and yes maybe it might set a bad precedent. However...

Sony Pictures is a business. Sure there may only be a .1% chance of anything happening, but still A chance, however slim.

If something did happen, Sony Pictures would now cease to exist. 100% cease to exist due to outcry of them ignoring the threat, lawsuits, you name it.

They may lose a few million from this decision, but is the entire company, and all those jobs and people who rely on them for their income worth the risk?

I guarantee you that they had a lot of people inside and outside assessing the risk, including government agencies, and after deliberation deemed the risk nowhere near worth it. I probably would have made the same call.

I'm going to have to disagree. After the Boston Marathon bombing people didn't say I'll never visit Boston again and I'll never take part in a marathon, people rallied around Boston and run marathons became a way to defy domestic terrorist. When the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked we might have gone crazy with airport security but we didn't park the airplane forever because bad people still wanted to do bad things. When James Holmes shot up the Aurora movie theater there wasn't a back lash against The Dark Knight, it's studio, and people didn't turn against the movie theaters.

I think this sets the horrible precedent of any lunatic can shut down any film whenever they want by making hollow threats they can't follow threw on. Should theaters pull films on slavery if the KKK makes threats? Should theaters pull World War II films if Neo-Nazis make threats? Can we never have films where terrorist are the bad guys because terrorist might attack movie theater? Should a film get pulled every time Micheal Bay gets a stack of death treats from angry fans over his next movie? If we give into every hallow threat out there then we might as well just board up every theater in the US.

 

[the December King]

I'm going to have to disagree. After the Boston Marathon bombing people didn't say I'll never visit Boston again and I'll never take part in a marathon, people rallied around Boston and run marathons became a way to defy domestic terrorist. When the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked we might have gone crazy with airport security but we didn't park the airplane forever because bad people still wanted to do bad things. When James Holmes shot up the Aurora movie theater there wasn't a back lash against The Dark Knight, it's studio, and people didn't turn against the movie theaters.

I think this sets the horrible precedent of any lunatic can shut down any film whenever they want by making hollow threats they can't follow threw on. Should theaters pull films on slavery if the KKK makes threats? Should theaters pull World War II films if Neo-Nazis make threats? Can we never have films where terrorist are the bad guys because terrorist might attack movie theater? Should a film get pulled every time Micheal Bay gets a stack of death treats from angry fans over his next movie? If we give into every hallow threat out there then we might as well just board up every theater in the US.

This has nothing to do with anything, really, but I love the fact that you just defended freedom and your avatar pic is Storm Shadow!

 

[wooty]

Its a slippery slope wither way.

Either hold the film back and face criticism from people over censorship. Or, release the film, something potentially happens that hurts or kills people and then they get sued for making it, and people ask why it was released in the first place.

Tough call, but its been made.

 

[Ishigami]

Terrorism, it works!
Well we knew this for some time already? it?s just the note for latecomers.

Are people seriously blaming Sony for risking the life of people over a James Fanco movie? Seriously? I mean, I am not going to go all "this is not censorship" on your asses, but are you seriously considering a publicly held company needs to use people as bait to see if the thread was real?

I don't know? but I assume I would consider blaming people like you.
The people are not bait, the credibility of the thread can be assets otherwise. It was assessed and the conclusion was as far I have seen it: It's not credible.

And if it was, if some random theater in some random city in the world gets blown up to smithereens, what would Sony tell? use the freedom of speech as a defense? make people sign a release contract at the door of every cinema?

If in the very unlikely event of something like this occurring neither Sony nor the theater showing the movie is responsible for the crimes of others.
Public safety is also only to a certain degree their responsibility and I'm pretty certain preventing terrorist attacks isn?t on that list.

Yeah, the thread of terrorism was enough to make a company backpedal (and no matter how bad the movie was, small earnings still beat no earnings), and that sucked, but it was still the only reasonable course of action.

No it isn?t.
The goal of terrorism is to influence your daily life by infusing fear. If you let your daily life be controlled by that fear, the terrorists win by default.
It is as simple as that.
The reasonable course of action would be to assess the threat and act according to that assessment. In this case it was pretty obviously deemed not credible the reasonable reaction would therefore be to release the movie as scheduled and ignore the threat.
The chances of being caught up in a terrorist attack in North America, Western Europe or Japan are so small it?s not even worth to be considered.
Crossing the street in front of your house is probably more dangerous by a few magnitudes.

?Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.?

Benjamin Franklin

 

[RJ 17]

Just to be fair to Sony since everyone seems to be trashing on them, a number of the major movie theater chains (AMC, Cinemark, etc) declared that they will not be showing the movie before Sony announced that it was officially canning it. Even if Sony had gone through with it, it's likely that the movie wouldn't have been widely seen considering the theaters themselves were refusing to show it.

I just want to know who's bright idea it was to make a movie featuring an assassination attempt on a world leader that's still currently in power. God forbid they make up a name like "Definitely Not Kim Jong Un" and have him ruling the country of "Definitely Not North Korea" (that is to say a parody ruler who clearly looks like/etc Kim Jong Un in a fictitious nation that is North Korea in every way except for its name)...no, that'd be too easy, we have to be edgy and go for real names and places.

Oh well, I'm not a Seth Rogan fan so I wouldn't have given two shits and a fuck for this movie anyways.

 

[Aeshi]

A better analogy would be receiving a message on the Internet from someone claiming to have a gun and that they'll shoot you if you release your next YouTube video, even though you know they live on the other side of the world and are known for throwing out baseless threats. Because that's all this is, hacking and a jumped up Internet death threat that's bullshit like every previous Internet threat has been, ever.

Except for that analogy to work you'd also need to have about 40 people in your local area who are both willing and able to shoot you, and now have someone to deflect suspicion for them.

Sony isn't very popular as of late. I have no trouble imagining at least a couple of People would sneak into a Theater, set off some Firecrackers or something, yell "KOREAN BOMBERS! YOU COULD'VE STOPPED THIS SONY!" and then laughed as they got lawsuited into oblivion.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I didn't know North Korea has capable hackers?

Honestly, I'm suprised it had made it this far since I would of thought they stopped it during production.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Now, while interest is in it at an all time high, Sony should just release the film digitally, and make mad money.

Yes, this'll probably just hype it up even more if it does eventually get a release.

What I find interesting is that movie theatres backed out even after the government couldn't find any evidence that there really was going to be an organized attack. Honestly, that blurb in the article reads like the rantings of a teenage fanboy.

 

[JoJo]

A better analogy would be receiving a message on the Internet from someone claiming to have a gun and that they'll shoot you if you release your next YouTube video, even though you know they live on the other side of the world and are known for throwing out baseless threats. Because that's all this is, hacking and a jumped up Internet death threat that's bullshit like every previous Internet threat has been, ever.

Except for that analogy to work you'd also need to have about 40 people in your local area who are both willing and able to shoot you, and now have someone to deflect suspicion for them.

Sony isn't very popular as of late. I have no trouble imagining at least a couple of People would sneak into a Theater, set off some Firecrackers or something, yell "KOREAN BOMBERS! YOU COULD'VE STOPPED THIS SONY!" and then laughed as they got lawsuited into oblivion.

Heh, I know Sony has been taking some flack recently but I don't think there's that many people chomping at the bit to carry out a terrorist attack against a theatre showing of one of their films

 

[SinisterDeath]

I just want to know who's bright idea it was to make a movie featuring an assassination attempt on a world leader that's still currently in power. God forbid they make up a name like "Definitely Not Kim Jong Un" and have him ruling the country of "Definitely Not North Korea" (that is to say a parody ruler who clearly looks like/etc Kim Jong Un in a fictitious nation that is North Korea in every way except for its name)...no, that'd be too easy, we have to be edgy and go for real names and places.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't Team America world police released while his father was still alive.

 

[RJ 17]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't Team America world police released while his father was still alive.

Indeed it was...evidently his father had a better sense of humor.

All I'm saying is that if people are looking to get pissed off at someone caving into terrorists, some of the fingers should be pointing at the movie theaters themselves. I think it's debatable that Sony would have still gone through with the movie if most of the major theater chains didn't openly declare that they will not be showing the movie.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't Team America world police released while his father was still alive.

Indeed it was...evidently his father had a better sense of humor.

All I'm saying is that if people are looking to get pissed off at someone caving into terrorists, some of the fingers should be pointing at the movie theaters themselves. I think it's debatable that Sony would have still gone through with the movie if most of the major theater chains didn't openly declare that they will not be showing the movie.

I know other companies in the past have released movies with a severely limited theater release. Course, those are mostly your indie/artsy movies. So there really is no reason for a full-out cancel unless they are
A) Planning on releasing at a later date
B) Going straight to DVD (which would be a great thing for rogan... his films should have been going that way since they first started coming out!)
C) Actually caved to the pressure from chains & threats.

 

[Imper1um]

It just got worse. In order to fill the "gap" that this showing left, some theaters purchased the rights to show "Team America: World Police" in theaters instead. Paramount cancelled those agreements.

Source: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/18/7417155/paramount-team-america-cancelled

 

[Augustine]

They should just make it public domain, as a big middle finger to the hackers.

This is brilliant.
And you are brilliant.

 

[JennAnge]

It just got worse. In order to fill the "gap" that this showing left, some theaters purchased the rights to show "Team America: World Police" in theaters instead. Paramount cancelled those agreements.

Source: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/18/7417155/paramount-team-america-cancelled

Now that...that is bloody depressing, that is.

('Paramount has not made a statement as to why it cancelled those agreements yet, but their head of IT was seen sprinting across the parking lot screeching "Not until I patch all our systems!"')