December 17, 2014 at 7:55 pm #169730
I don’t think they’re cowardly like many are saying on twitter and that they have people’s safety in mind. They’re not cowardly but they justifiably caved in.
Edited – Added
If there were a foreign group of people making a movie of killing Obama, the US military would hunt them down and have no mercy. Demanding a film to be stopped, is a lot less damage than attacking a nation. I’m not saying it’s right! Just reversing the roles for a minute and imagining how the US military would handle this if North Korean filmmakers were making an assassination movie about our president. Comedy or not, the military would take it as a threat and take action.December 17, 2014 at 8:21 pm #169732
They had no choice. If the movie theatres refuse to show the film, then it’s not their fault at all. They must have envisioned that some type of backlash would happen with this film, but they obviously didn’t imagine it would be this extreme. I’m really interested in how this plays out, because I can’t think of a time where a wide-release Hollywood film has garnered this much controversy. Also, this is pretty great publicity for the film, no matter how it turns out.
Come participate in this year's Goldderby Rankings! http://www.goldderby.com/forum/movies/2017-goldderby-rankings/December 17, 2014 at 8:21 pm #169733
Well since no major movie theatre is going to play the film. I understand why Sony pulled it. With that being said, I strongly disagree with the decision of the movie theathers not to play the film. They’re letting hackers/terrorists win. I don’t believe for a second that any attacks would have happened if the movie was exhibited as planned. For starters, NK isn’t going to start warfare because of a film and it is completely unrealistic that they would be able to attack every theatre that plays the movie. This sets the precedent that if someone doesn’t want a movie to come out, they just have to threaten an attack and theathers/film companies will buckle in to the demands. If they let this happen for one movie, whose to say someone won’t do it again for another film?December 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm #169734
A disgrace. Every actor, writer, director, below the liner should swear never to work for Sony Pictures again. The bad guys won. There are no shades of gray here.December 17, 2014 at 8:44 pm #169735
If there were a foreign group of people making a movie of killing Obama, the US military would hunt them down and have no mercy. Demanding a film to be stopped, is a lot less damage than attacking a nation. I’m not saying it’s right! Just reversing the roles for a minute and imagining how the US military would handle this if North Korean filmmakers were making an assassination movie about our president. Comedy or not, the military would take it as a threat and take action.December 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm #169736
If there were a foreign group of people making a movie of killing Obama, the US military would hunt them down and have no mercy. Demanding a film to be stopped, is a lot less damage than attacking a nation. I’m not saying it’s right! Just reversing the roles for a minute and imagining how the US military would handle this if North Korean filmmakers were making an assassination movie about our president. Comedy or not, the military would take it as a threat and take action.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Remember 2006’s BAFTA nominated Death of a President (about the assassination of George W. Bush)? I bet most people have never heard of it. I sure didn’t until I saw it mentioned on The Interview’s IMDB message board last night. US didn’t do anything except say it was tasteless.December 17, 2014 at 9:29 pm #169737
^ Yes, you got a point! I stand corrected. I hadn’t heard of the movie or how it was addressed.December 17, 2014 at 11:04 pm #169738
1. There is no value in assassinating an idiot, so why are they even making a comedy that some might take seriously?
2. It is downright silly to allow hackers to threaten the screening of any movie, but this may all work to the benefit of The Interview. Way i see it, the movie has no chance of doing well in a crowded release day, so this controversy plus its delayed release is both a face-saving way of retreat and generating more interest that will add to box office receipts later, say in January.
3. Goodie goodie, pulling out on Christmas Day will hopefully mean more screens for Into the Woods.
December 18, 2014 at 12:10 am #169739
The film also received a nomination for Best Visual Effects from the British Academy TV Awards in 2007.December 18, 2014 at 3:30 am #169740
Well these people, whoever they are, that have made these threats have simply created a lot of interest in a film that was probably not going to do very well anyway and would have been quickly forgotten.
They have effectively now written the film into future film history books and make a whole lot of people who previously would have had no interest in seeing the film, want to see it now.
December 18, 2014 at 3:32 am #169741
If they released it and something terrible happened, how much blame would be on Sony for releasing the film after a threat? Just for the sake of ‘creative control’ or whatever people are calling it. It should be pulled.
All seriousness aside, I think it’s a blessing in disguise, this looked like the worst film ever. I had no idea this film was made until the leak started. I don’t get why Sony would put money behind this film. It’s another case of Rogen & Franco think they’re hilarious, so just let them do it, before they throw a childish strop, even though it looks and sounds shit, will be massively controversial, and most people will want to avoid it like the plague.
Hopefully, it gives studios a kick up the arse to stop green lighting such rubbish, which is why they are losing money!December 18, 2014 at 3:47 am #169742
Great news for Marky-markers and Streepers? ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯December 18, 2014 at 6:55 am #169743
Why are people attacking Sony? Major movie theaters
were the ones that refused to carry the film. Not Sony. What choice did they
A threat was made. Whether the
threat was real or not is beside the point. People’s lives are worth more than
a tasteless parody not worth the attention.
Colorado Batman tragedy anyone?
Parody or not, the film’s subject
matter/plot was controversial.
Am I the only one that finds this movie’s premise horrifying? A movie
that shows the assassination of a living world leader? A controversial head of
state. Head explosions? How is that comedic? And a release on Christmas day of
There is a difference between freedom of speech/expression and
attempting to use your freedom for tasteless inciting.
People are debating how Freedom
of expression died today and how Sony should be boycotted for doing what any
normal human being should do.
Ferguson, racism, school shootings and the debate on fire arms. Now people want
to go to war over some silly comedy film?
I believe in freedom of speech and will not be forced to prove it by
wasting time and money on an unnecessary film like this. I will wait for a more
If people wanna go up in arms about freedom of expression and the art of
films, it’s just going to have to be for about freedo of expression and the art of films, being should: Knowing
human life and peace is worth way more than some sillya better movie
Edit: To add, Judd Apatow can have several seats. No one is
imprisoning anyone for saying something, people are being threatened because of a film that is incredibly offensive to a large number of people.
free speech is a powerful concept, but “the challenge of power is to use
it and not abuse it, when you abuse it , it reverses on you, and hurts
December 18, 2014 at 7:12 am #169744
I think it’s easier to suggest that theater chain owners should call state sponsored terrorists out on their bluffs than for them to actually do so. It’s not a good precedent, but at this stage it was a no-win scenario all around. Even if the FBI, as the Times reported, hadn’t discussed these threats in graver terms privately than they made it seem publicly, media outlets reported on the hacked Sony emails so extensively that obviously other companies would freak out over the possibility of what could happen to their brand.December 18, 2014 at 8:21 am #169745
It’s irritating to think that these hackers, hired by North Korea though they may be, are given any attention. I get it. They need to look out for themselves, and their filmmakers. That’s fine. Still, I wish we could have taken a stand. With that in mind, I think that giving theaters the choice as whether or not to play the film is a fine compromise.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.