
Theater Chains Decline to Show Sony’s ‘The Interview,’ Citing Threats - greenburger
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/business/theater-chains-decline-to-show-sonys-the-interview-citing-threats-.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
======
bobsky
This is a horrible precedent. This was only a digital hack, that unfortunately
violated many personal privacy's. But what happens when fundamentalist, a la
ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their
twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then?

Another film set to premier on Dec 25 is Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper"
(yea I know, a Christmas classic /s) an easy film to misunderstand and sure to
rally those oppose to the US coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan, if threats start
about this film from fundamentalists will the studios respond?

*cross post from the dead WSJ discussion thread "Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film."

~~~
VLM
"This is a horrible precedent."

There is more than one horrible precedent, in that the plot of the movie from
what I've read, is the an assassination of a contemporary country leader by
specific name. AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by
Hollywood before. Close, but advocating assassination of a current world
leader by name?

Of course, two wrongs not making a right, and all that.

My gut level guess is the whole thing is being orchestrated for PR, lets call
it the "snakes on a plane part 2" marketing plan. Hoping for the netflix
revenue.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "advocating assassination of a current world leader by name"

It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the
White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?

~~~
ElComradio
I suspect few would be as cool with this reasoning if a comedy came out of
Asia featuring a climax where Obama is lynched.

~~~
EpicEng
Those among us with a bit of perspective would be. Do you imagine that the
leader of our nation would call for the movie to be banned? Don't think so.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Hilary Mantel's short story about the (ahistorical) assassination of Margaret
Thatcher was almost banned in the UK.

A contemporary story about the assassination of David Cameron would be
unlikely to make it to the BBC.

A contemporary _movie_ about same would never be funded.

~~~
roywiggins
The BBC is going to (or already did?) air the story on Radio 4's "Book at
Bedtime" which is the furthest thing from being banned that I can think of.

Mind you they've received a share of vitriol for doing so.

[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/14/hilary-
mantel-a...](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/14/hilary-mantel-
attacks-critics-bbc-margaret-thatcher-story-broadcast)

------
joezydeco
Part of me secretly wishes that Sony would just put out a press release saying
"You know what? Fuck it. _The Interview_ will be on Netflix on Christmas Day
for 24 hours. No extra charge. So stop downloading our Excel sheets and enjoy
a movie. Merry Christmas."

~~~
smackfu
If I was a movie star with a percentage of the profits, my lawyers would be
very opposed to that strategy.

~~~
logfromblammo
...and your agent and accountant would be completely incompetent.

By now, everybody ought to know to demand a percentage of the gross revenue,
and not the net profit.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Huh? The fact that the actor may or may not have negotiated for gross revenue
versus profit wouldn't make a difference if the movie made neither.

~~~
logfromblammo
Movies never make a profit. Hollywood accounting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)

~~~
cdcarter
The point is that if there's never a box office release, there will be no
revenue (net or gross) to take a share of.

------
Animats
The last time this happened was in 1977, when an Islamic group made threats if
"Mohammad, Messenger of God" was shown.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege))

It's now on the Internet Archive: [https://archive.org/details/The-
Message-1976-StoryofIslam](https://archive.org/details/The-
Message-1976-StoryofIslam)

~~~
danielweber
Hardly the last time. _Last Temptation Of Christ_ had theaters refusing to
show it because of threats.

~~~
sytelus
Available on Netflix for live streaming and has only 2 stars:
[http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/28000446?strkid=49037960_0_0&...](http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/28000446?strkid=49037960_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=28000446)

~~~
pimlottc
Maybe you are seeing your own personal rating? For me, it shows:

Average of 413,520 ratings: 3.4 stars

------
d23
That's a shame. I'm not a huge fan of Rogen's, but I saw a screening of this a
few weeks ago (the first public screening, actually), and it was probably my
favorite work of his so far. It's weird to read it framed as "a movie about
the assassination of a sitting foreign leader," because it didn't _feel_ that
way. Yes, that plot is technically true, but it feels like its just background
for the comedy. It's actually very light for most of the time, with James
Franco joking around with the leader and learning his more human side.

I don't want to give anything else away. It's just a shame.

~~~
nacho_weekend
Jealous! I know his stuff isn't that intellectually engaging, but I've enjoyed
his previous stints with James Franco while enjoying a beer and hanging out
with friends. There will have to be some direct to video form to get the film
out there to compensate the cost.

------
amckenna
A line at the end of the article caught my eye: _" Hackers claim to have taken
at least 100 terabytes of Sony data, or about 10 times of the amount stored in
the Library of Congress."_

Which struck me as very small. So I did some digging and it looks like as of
2009 (almost 6 years ago) the Library of Congress had 74 TB of online data
available to the Internet. Additionally the U.S. Library of Congress Web
Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about
525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per
month. That just includes the web archive team which is one of 8 featured
digital collections ([http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-
digital.html](http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html)).

Here the LOC debunks the 10TB figure directly:
[http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferrin...](http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferring-
libraries-of-congress-of-data/)

I'm not sure where the author got their figure, but they are way off the mark.

[1] - [http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-
of-c...](http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-congress/)

~~~
tzs
100 terabytes is pretty small for a movie company. Sony has done several
animated feature films, and modern feature animation has insane data
requirements. 100 terabytes isn't even the assets from one movie.

I haven't seen numbers for any particular Sony movies, but numbers for several
Dreamworks movies have been published, which can give an idea of just what
goes into an animated feature film. "Rise of the Guardians" [1] had 250 TB of
assets. "How to Train Your Dragon 2" has over 400 TB.

[1] No, not the owl movie. That was "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of
Ga'Hoole". People often get them confused because of the slight similarity of
titles, but they have nothing to do with each other.

------
nickthemagicman
I get the feeling that theres a bunch of black hat guys with no affiliation to
Korea snickering to themselves right now.

~~~
uxp
I've honestly thought from the very beginning that the hackers had absolutely
zero ties to the DPRK. Early on when people were curious on who did this and
there was very little communication from the perpetrators I feel that the the
only ties to North Korea was the speculation between the release date of the
movie and the general speculation of Chinese and N. Korean IP addresses being
increasingly prevalent in network attacks in recent years. I think the hackers
glommed on to this speculation and are using it to increase the damage by
playing on their (and our) fears.

~~~
jszymborski
Never considered that, but I think this is the only explanation.

------
javajosh
Remarkably absent is any discussion about the precedent this sets for the
future. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea, even private
corporations should understand this.

But I think I know what the calculus here was: the public would have
_excoriated_ Sony and Regal (or any other theater owner) if an attack was
actually carried out.

We seem to be a nation remarkably devoid of principle, and in that
environment, it makes little sense to take a principled stand yourself.

~~~
zaroth
I am very disturbed by the implications this has for the next decade of cyber-
warfare. I don't think it was a physical attack the theaters were actually
worried about. The unspoken fear is getting hacked as badly as Sony, since
they _have_ establish they can pull that off, and the theaters know they can't
defend against it. The physical threat gives them an easier 'out'.

I thought the article actually mentioned this angle but I was trying to find
the quote and don't see it now.

------
steven777400
Sony just announced they are cancelling the entire Christmas day premier of
the movie.

[http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-
the...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-
owners/index.html)

------
birken
FWIW I would have never seen this movie but now I will due to all of the
hoopla. Though obviously it will be harder to see if it isn't in any theaters,
this is still a lot of free publicity for the movie, and I'm sure it will be
viewable somehow.

------
maceo
Why are people surprised Hollywood capitulates to fear? It's a generally risk-
averse industry. That's why Fast and Furious 7 is coming out soon.

The precedent for this was set 70 years ago when Hollywood execs decided to
blacklist purported communists and fellow travelers. Several movies were never
distributed because of alleged left-wing sympathies
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth)).

As a curious side-note, North Korea's GDP is 12.4b and Sony's market cap is
22.8b.

------
tallerholler
This seems like a reaction completely based in fear not reality.

~~~
sebular
It's liability, which you might call the corporate version of fear.

Even though the chance that North Koreans would stage a terrorist attack in an
American movie theater is slim to none, if something did happen, there would
be no end to the lawsuits. As the article mentions, even in the case of the
Aurora shooting there was plenty of blame being thrown around in the
courtroom. The shooter dressed like the Joker, is the Batman movie to blame?
Is the theater to blame? Even in a case like that, where there's clearly one
violently insane person to blame, lawsuits happened.

In this case, where there was a clear threat issued, if something happened the
theaters would be instantly culpable. It wouldn't even have to be North
Koreans, maybe just some sick DPRK sympathizer going nuts and shooting
someone.

And like they say, on top of that there might be reduced attendance for other
movies as well. If someone's going berzerk in the theater that's playing The
Interview, do you really want to be next door watching the Hobbit? Do you even
want to go to the mall?

I don't think anyone is seriously worried about an attack. They're worried
about the potential legal fallout / lowered profits that could occur in a
variety of ways. Controversy isn't great for business, especially during the
holidays.

That being said, I think it's spineless. The US Government doesn't respond to
threats and blackmail, but corporate America is more than happy to sacrifice
anything in order to preserve the bottom line.

I had no intention of going to see The Interview at a theater, but if I can
find an independent place playing it on opening night (assuming they'll even
try to have it open that night), I'll be tempted to go and support them for
standing up to idiocy.

~~~
MBCook
On top of everything else, the DHS even announced yesterday that they didn't
consider it a credible threat.

[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-
threat...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat-to-
sony-movie-launch-113618.html)

Theaters should have gone forward with it. God forbid something happened they
could have said "DHS has far more expertise in these matters than entertain
chain management, so we were trusting their judgement".

~~~
Anthony-G
I personally doubt the credibility of the threats; I've also yet to be come
across evidence that the same people who made the recent physical threats are
responsible for cracking. Anyhow, according to the article:

 _" officials with the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security,
according to a person briefed on the sessions, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because he was not authorized to comment.

That person said the officials spoke in terms far less assuring than those
used publicly by Homeland Security, which had played down the threat."_

This would seem to indicate that federal security agencie were influential in
the decision by the cinema theatres.

------
fattybuddha
After reading stories about some of Sony's emails I have to wonder if they
were looking out for public safety or if they are being blackmailed with some
juicy new ones.

[http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-
sony...](http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony-emails-
reveal-project-goliath-a-grand-plan-of-hollywood-studios-and-mpaa-against-
google.htm)

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-
general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-
written-mpaa.shtml)

(Removes tin foil hat)

------
lisper
The terrorists have won. :-(

~~~
jrockway
They won a long time ago.

------
thomasmarriott
'My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come
back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace
for our time...Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.'

— Chamberlain, 1938

Appeasement, it works.

~~~
bruceb
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html)

~~~
thomasmarriott
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk)

------
rmason
It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would
have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most
certainly died down.

Back in the day the studios always released their best pictures on Dec 25th.
If it was being released on Christmas day it was a picture that they expected
would be a great hit and garner multiple Oscar nominations.

I don't intend to be a movie critic, but I've seen the trailer and my question
is did Sony really expect this picture to be a blockbuster for them?

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it
would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most
certainly died down."

It was originally supposed to be released in October 2014.

------
praneshp
This happens to pretty much every movie of a couple of actors in my home state
in India. Random group makes threats to bomb theaters -> spineless theaters
refuse to run the movie -> 2 weeks of negotiations with politicians -> movie
comes out. There are two paths after that. Either it runs well because its
garnered enough publicity, or it has already been leaked on DVDs. Sickening to
see that happening in the US though.

------
encoderer
I can't believe they capitulated. I hope Sony gives the movie away for free,
in the spirit of the last U2 Album. Make it the widest release ever.

------
kevinalexbrown
I don't understand what this has to do with hacking in particular.

That they had a list of theaters showing the film? It seems trivially easy to
find however many theaters you want, just by googling.

It just seems confusing.

------
remarkEon
Really confused by all the "it was offensive and in bad taste, so nbd"
comments on here. I don't even know where to begin.

Related on the margins, if only that it has to do with the 1st amendment,
check out Elonis v. United States[1]. Important 1st amendment case dealing
with online threats and reasonable perceptions or expectations of harm.

[1] [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-
united-s...](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-
states/)

------
tn13
Well, I was not planning to watch this movie but now plan to visit any movie
theater that is screening it and watch it. Hope those chains who show spine
make more money this holiday season.

------
whiddershins
It isn't Sony who benefits from pulling the movie. It is the theaters. If this
movie was going to be a dud, Sony would make some money back, greater than
zero revenue. All their costs are sunk.

But the theaters would lose money relative to how much they might make
screening a more popular movie. So the theater chains can use this as an
excuse to cancel showing the release, which is probably a violation of some
contract or agreement, but they can get away with it in this special
circumstance.

------
anw
How many North Koreans "sleeper agents" do we actually have inside the USA,
that companies see this as a legitimate threat?

Shutting down an event because someone is able to say "remember Sept 11" says
more about our own government than it does theirs. We should not be at the
point where anybody can cause a disturbance for something they don't like just
by uttering threats.

------
ctdonath
Yeah, the threat is highly unlikely to come through.

Problem is, if it did - by as little as one random nutcase coincidentally
firing one shot during one screening - the studio would be sued into oblivion
for failing to act on a then-proven threat. This movie is _not_ what they want
to make a stand on, for principle nor for profit. Cancel the release, eat the
losses, and move on.

------
dba7dba
Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-
play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters
first.

I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his
underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it.

In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think
they do.

------
mindcrime
Well, this is somewhat disappointing, but the original "threat" did accomplish
one thing: It reminded me I need to get off my ass and go get my concealed-
carry permit.

Granted it wouldn't help if they crashed a plane into the theater, but if some
whack job decides to start shooting, I'd like to at least have the option of
returning fire if need be.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Yes, because more bullets flying in a dark room full of panicked civilians
would help the situation.

~~~
MrZongle2
Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims?

Or perhaps you have another option, say an increased movie ticket price and
on-site, armed security?

~~~
vec
> Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims?

...yes?

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that arming victims does in fact
reduce or eliminate the ability of a mass shooter to inflict casualties. The
only way to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in whichever
screening is hypothetically attacked is to ensure that someone is carrying a
concealed weapon in most if not all screenings. That's a lot of handguns.

The vast majority of these weapons will be used responsibly, but some small
fraction of them will be used in crimes of passion or suicides that would not
have happened but for the easy availability of a deadly weapon. Some other
tiny fraction of them will injure or kill someone accidentally.

Mass shootings and terrorist attacks, while incredibly tragic, are incredibly
rare. They also rarely have casualty counts above the low double digits.
Meanwhile firearm accidents kill hundreds of people every year, and suicide
and homicide claim tens of thousands. Arming ourselves to a level that can
prevent black swan events is optimizing for the wrong case and will almost
certainly lead to more loss of life than it prevents.

~~~
Meekro
Letting violent assholes do what they want usually results in less total harm
than fighting back does. To take an extreme example, capitulating to Germany
would have resulted in less loss of life than World War 2 did. But is that the
kind of people we want to be?

I think every person has a moral right to turn to their attacker and say "No.
If I'm going down, then I'm going to take a bitch with me."

~~~
briandear
I think your facts must be confused. Capitulation to Germany would have
resulted in every single minority in the entirety of Eurooe being
exterminated. Capitulating to Germany (and therefore Japan) would have
resulted in all of China becoming the Rape of Nanking.

------
ha292
What about the cyber defense command ? Couldn't they have done anything to
protect the U.S. companies?

This is becoming a security issue.

~~~
kbart
Government can't place a policemen at the every doorstep of a house which
owners failed to lock windows. With billions of funds available, Sony should
have taken more steps to protect itself, the malware was quite primitive[1].
Especially, when you have so many enemies as Sony..

1\. [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-
or-n...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-not-sony-
pictures-malware-bomb-used-slapdash-code/)

------
shaunrussell
These hacks were probably done by hackers in US/EU to help expose SOPA
legislation. However they found other goodies, and then trolls started
trolling about this movie and blaming it on NK, who cant deny it because they
like the attention.

I find it hilarious that anyone takes NK as a serious domestic threat.

------
flipp
They should stream it for free, today. Perhaps with a 'pay what you like'
button.

------
briantakita
Bruce Schneier weighs in.

"this is like Snowden, only with Sony."

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-
hackers...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers-
completely-owned-this-company)

------
tn13
Well, American companies shared user's confidential data with NSA because they
were too scared of the action. Google stopped hiring ex-Apple because of
Steve's threats and we are twisting our pants over a movie ?

More bad things have happened in past.

------
rtpg
I can't believe people actually take the NK threat seriously. I mean these
hackers sold the information to journalists. If these were state hackers
wouldn't they have just released everything immediately?

Some people seem to really live in a bubble

~~~
codingdave
If they release everything immediately, there would be no leverage to make
demands.

It is a valid question whether or not NK has the capabilities to cause harm.
But if lives are at stake, why take the risk? It is just a movie after all.

~~~
rtpg
Sorry, I misspoke, I meant the prevailing theory that North Korea is even
involved in this. There's basically no evidence that North Korea has any
involvement

Wired has a good write up on the lack of evidence
[http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-
sony-p...](http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-probs/)

~~~
dba7dba
Wrong. Minutes after it was published, NYT reports govt is pointing fingers at
N Korea.

Update at 8p.m. 12/18/14: Minutes after we published this story examining the
known evidence for and against North Korea as the source of the hack, The New
York Times and other media outlets announced that the U.S. administration was
ready to conclude North Korea was involved in the Sony hack. We have updated
the story with this new information

------
Pro_bity
Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release -
[http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-
interview-120132...](http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-
interview-1201328639/)

------
DAddYE
Doing that they are just opening the doors for the next threat.

I'm a dreamer but instead I'll create one ad to show before the movie
explaining what _Art_ actually is and why anyone shouldn't be offended.

------
nickbauman
North Korea has done a great PR boost for this film. Now many more will see it
than before. It's the movie that got North Korea officially off the sidelines
and right in the middle of GWOT.

------
chrischen
Possibly relevant: AMC theaters is owned by Chinese Wanda Group. China is an
acquaintance of North Korea.

Also, the Chairman and 100% owner of Wanda is a high level communist party
member.

~~~
msie
What would China have to fear from North Korea? China dictates things to NK
not the other way around.

~~~
chrischen
They probably don't have anything to fear from North Korea. That's beyond the
point though.

The point is that China can influence American pop culture to be more
communist-friendly.

~~~
msie
So they are influencing American pop culture by pulling the movie? They could
have decided not to carry the movie months ago when it was first being pitched
for distribution. And I believe one of the leaked Sony emails show that a
China distributor decided not to carry the movie. So there was ample
opportunity to exert influence ahead of the movie's release.

------
brador
Rumors of threats against the theatres that showed the movie. Understandable
that they'd pull it, but dangerous precedent indeed.

------
mwsherman
Seems like a good opportunity to route around the damage: release it ASAP on
iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, perhaps for free.

------
cphoover
They should do a digital release or sell to netflix. Then we should air drop
copies of the film over Pyongyang.

------
jballanc
...land of the free, home of the brave.

------
ForFreedom
Will the hackers bring down the torrent network if the movie is shared by
torrents.

------
binarytrees
A part of me wants to believe this is all marketing and a viral publicity
stunt.

------
brotherdey
Boycott all theater chains for not showing the INTERVIEW.

------
motxilo
Are we obviating that Sony is a Japanese company?

------
woodchuck64
If someone with broken English successfully hacks your company's internet
firewall, are the odds improved that they will blow up your garage next? This
seems strange to me.

------
lemiant
[http://guysgirl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg](http://guysgirl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg)

------
k-mcgrady
Will there still be a release outside the US?

------
obvio
Sony should release it free on YouTube.

------
brotherdey
Boycott all theaters chain

------
shalbert
If this movie went to theatres, it would hit $1B because how fucked up this
situation is.

------
Istof
The NSA would have prevented any attacks, why are they worried...

------
jprince
Cowards.

------
curiously
This is intolerable. To have a thug like regime such as North Korea impose
their will on rest of the world on what they can or can't see is infuriating.

------
TEMPLEOS_DEV
All of this is just a publicity stunt and you all fell for it.

Making a specific threat like this is completely out of line with the way the
regime works. They work by brinkmanship; they learned in the 80s that they
can't effectively use terrorism as they have a physical nexus.

~~~
MrZongle2
So, we must assume that Sony hacked themselves and leaked their internal
emails and data to promote a _Seth Rogan movie_?

Genius!

/sarc

~~~
TEMPLEOS_DEV
I'm not saying that studio is the principal agent here. What I am saying is
that it's probably not coming from Pyongyang.

~~~
MrZongle2
So who's benefiting from the "publicity stunt", if the hackers aren't North
Korean?

~~~
MichaelGG
Sony? If you're hacked, might as well spin it into a good-vs-evil story, where
the evil just happens to be part of a movie you're launching.

If Sony didn't have this cover story, then they'd have nothing with which they
could distract people with.

~~~
MrZongle2
So....Sony issued a false threat supposedly from the hackers, or otherwise
convinced all these movie theater chains to _not_ run the movie?

I'm failing to see the beauty of this plan, or even how somebody with a room-
temperature IQ could think this is a smart move _even if the original Sony
hack was legitimate_ (which I have no reason to disbelieve is the case).

~~~
MichaelGG
No, Sony just needs to hint about NK and let the media do the rest. The movie
theatre threat is anonymous, right? So basically anyone else could just tag
along for the ride.

And I'm not sure why it's stupid to think that a, from the looks of it, low-
quality movie would not benefit from a "ban". Great hype for the movie, Sony
might as well ride it. There's no upside for them to stand up and say "nope,
we just have poor security and someone did it for the lulz".

------
kafkaesque
(Going to take some downvotes today)

 _The incident is likely to be remembered as a failure of Hollywood
leadership. As the attack progressed, both studios and the industry’s
Washington-based trade associations — the theater association and the Motion
Picture Association of America — remained in a defensive posture, and
ultimately found no way to save the film or to stem the flow of Sony’s private
data, which has been released online by hackers in waves since Nov. 24._

How out of touch is NY Times with the times?

The Oscars are a joke and, come on, so is Hollywood. The latter is good at
providing vacuous entertainment and the former is a self-congratulating
organisation. It's an incestuous industry that only seeks out an opportunity
where there are millions of dollars to be gained. Don't get me wrong, there is
absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, don't expect Hollywood to do the
moral/ethical thing. With Sony getting sued, they saw this was no longer their
big profit making movie they wanted it to be, so they pulled the plug.

Nothing to see here, folks. Low revenue = no movie. It takes a lot of money to
make films these days and they don't want to risk losing (more) money.

The movie itself was most likely not going to bring some insight or analysis
to North Korea or Asian history or political dynamics, so I don't understand
why so many people are up in arms about it--no pun intended.

People are saying "terrorists won" and some Republicans are making a big stir
on Twitter:

[https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928](https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928)

[https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664](https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664)

America's low point in film history happened a long time ago, and yes, it was
caused by Hollywood.

Also: "This Is Cyberwar, Not Tabloid Fodder",
[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-
cyberwa...](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwar-not-
tabloid-fodder/)

~~~
balls187
> only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be
> gained

This isn't just isolated to Hollywood. Many companies across industries are
profit driven.

It is perhaps more in your face in the entertainment industry, but greed
doesn't just occur there.

------
fffrad
It was an offensive stupid movie anyway. In the era of youtube and the
internet, making a movie is no different then posting a youtube video. See
Youtube comments to see what happens when you post something.

You have the right to upload a video, others have the right to tell you what
they think of it.

------
donatj
On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms.

On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say
Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical,
but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.

That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm
internally divided on the issue.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Rights don't erode from the center, they erode from the edges. As such
protecting the rights at the edges is where it's most important. If you find
yourself defending the center, it's generally already too late.

