# Sony cancels 'The Interview'



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2014)

> With theater chains defecting en masse, Sony Pictures Entertainment has pulled the planned Christmas release of “The Interview.”



http://variety.com/2014/film/news/s...se-for-the-interview-on-christmas-1201382032/


----------



## DaveNV (Dec 17, 2014)

Seemed like kind of a stupid plot anyway. 

Dave


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 17, 2014)

BMWguynw said:


> Seemed like kind of a stupid plot anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave




+1

Somehow this is news. I recently received at least three news alerts from various sources. 

It's time Sony got serious about producing quality entertainment.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2014)

What makes this story newsworthy isn't the fact that it may or may not be a bad movie.  I don't care anything about that.

However, the intrigue is how the hackers were able to bring a major corporation to it's knees and eventually those same hackers were also able to impact a major picture release through blackmail.  The other angle is how the North Koreans are the prime suspects in the case (the N. Korean dictator is depicted unfavorably in the movie.)  You have to wonder if this is the start of more of this behavior in the future, especially when a particular group or cause is depicted in a similar manner.


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 17, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> What makes this story newsworthy isn't the fact that it may or may not be a bad movie.  I don't care anything about that.
> 
> However, the intrigue is how the hackers were able to bring a major corporation to it's knees and eventually those same hackers were also able to impact a major picture release through blackmail.  The other angle is how the North Koreans are the prime suspects in the case (the N. Korean dictator is depicted unfavorably in the movie.)  You have to wonder if this is the start of more of this behavior in the future, especially when a particular group or cause is depicted in a similar manner.


+1  Completely agree.

This is kind of scary.  The fact that a small, radical group could have this kind of influence -- that's what makes this development interesting.  

What if a group of skinheads were able to prevent the release of _Shindler's List_?  Or a group of pro-gun owners were to prevent the release of _Bowling for Columbine_?  Will movie companies now be less likely to take on a controversial topic?

Kurt


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 17, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> +1  Completely agree.
> 
> This is kind of scary.  The fact that a small, radical group could have this kind of influence -- that's what makes this development interesting.
> 
> ...



Bowling for Dollars? I remember that as a TV show when I was growing up in Canada. Did you mean Bowling for Columbine?

Given that they probably won't be able to make any money on this movie in the theaters, I say they show it nationwide on national television.


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 17, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Bowling for Dollars? I remember that as a TV show when I was growing up in Canada. Did you mean Bowling for Columbine?


I corrected that 2 minutes after I posted.  Not sure how my fingers typed that. 

Kurt


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> +1  Completely agree.
> 
> This is kind of scary.  The fact that a small, radical group could have this kind of influence -- that's what makes this development interesting.
> 
> ...



++  Now we're being censored by hackers?  Quick!  Let's issue an apology.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 18, 2014)

This is scary but keep in mind, this is not a small, radical group doing this! This was done by a section of the North Korean Government!

_[Comments deleted, although it's interesting how you started the discussion only to say it's not supposed to be discussed.]_

Since I don't want this to get into a political discussion I will refrain from pursuing this further. Just my thoughts.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 18, 2014)

I still find it odd that such a movie was made. Can anyone think of any other movies where the main plot was to assassinate a living head of state? Sure there are a lot of movies based on history where previous heads of state are targeted, but a current one? Manuel Noriega was a target in a video game which resulted in a lawsuit. Even given the head of state being targeted in The Interview, I think the movie was in bad taste.


----------



## Tia (Dec 18, 2014)

Agree this is the real issue 



ace2000 said:


> What makes this story newsworthy isn't the fact that it may or may not be a bad movie.  I don't care anything about that.
> 
> However, the intrigue is how the hackers were able to bring a major corporation to it's knees and eventually those same hackers were also able to impact a major picture release through blackmail.  The other angle is how the North Koreans are the prime suspects in the case (the N. Korean dictator is depicted unfavorably in the movie.)  You have to wonder if this is the start of more of this behavior in the future, especially when a particular group or cause is depicted in a similar manner.


----------



## Sea Six (Dec 18, 2014)

Seth Rogan's movies are crude, rude, and offensive.:annoyed:


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 18, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the movie was in bad taste.





Sea Six said:


> Seth Rogan's movies are crude, rude, and offensive.:annoyed:



I don't think whether or not people would like the movie or think that it is in good taste is the issue at all.  I didn't care for the material that Larry Flynt produced, but to censor Hustler magazine was wrong.  While not a legal censorship, this new situation opens the door to any group effectively censoring a movie they happen not to like.  Do we really want to go down that path?

Kurt


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I still find it odd that such a movie was made. Can anyone think of any other movies where the main plot was to assassinate a living head of state? Sure there are a lot of movies based on history where previous heads of state are targeted, but a current one? Manuel Noriega was a target in a video game which resulted in a lawsuit. Even given the head of state being targeted in The Interview, I think the movie was in bad taste.



+1

Who are these Sony executives that allowed this movie to even go forward?  How stupid can you be!?  When I first saw the previews of this movie my first thought was man that's asking for trouble!

Censorship and political issues aside, heads should roll at Sony for making such an epic blunder!


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I don't think whether or not people would like the movie or think that it is in good taste is the issue at all.  I didn't care for the material that Larry Flynt produced, but to censor Hustler magazine was wrong.  While not a legal censorship, this new situation opens the door to any group effectively censoring a movie they happen not to like.  Do we really want to go down that path?
> 
> Kurt



Uhm, do we really have a choice?  It's a rogue government with presumed nuclear weapons that's doing the hacking and making the terrorist threats.  The worlds sanctioning the hell out of them and short of any military action there's not much else we can do about them.

Our government isn't censoring anything as its a combination of Sony self censoring and movie theater groups deciding they don't want to run it for whatever reasons they choose.  It really has no relation to the government led other Censoring issues like Hustler.

The Sony executives that didn't have the foresight to see this happening should really lose their jobs!


----------



## Patri (Dec 18, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I still find it odd that such a movie was made. Can anyone think of any other movies where the main plot was to assassinate a living head of state? Sure there are a lot of movies based on history where previous heads of state are targeted, but a current one? Manuel Noriega was a target in a video game which resulted in a lawsuit. Even given the head of state being targeted in The Interview, I think the movie was in bad taste.



Totally agree. My grown kids and I were discussing this yesterday, before the cancellation. I said essentially the same thing, why was it ok to make a movie about assassinating a living person? Just opening the door for trouble, and sending out bad messages. Now, if the movie was based on an Asian country with a leader under a different name, that is more palatable, and people could make the connection.
I assume the movie is a comedy, and they fail in their mission. But how could any of it be funny?


----------



## davidvel (Dec 18, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I still find it odd that such a movie was made. Can anyone think of any other movies where the main plot was to assassinate a living head of state? Sure there are a lot of movies based on history where previous heads of state are targeted, but a current one? Manuel Noriega was a target in a video game which resulted in a lawsuit. Even given the head of state being targeted in The Interview, I think the movie was in bad taste.


There was movie not too long ago about the fictional _assassination_ of George W. Bush. Not attempted. The movie was a faux documentary that actually depicted the president being fatally shot by a sniper after an address at a Chicago Hotel. 

No world-wide coverage of that movie. Most probably never heard of it.


----------



## wilma (Dec 18, 2014)

Bucky said:


> This is scary but keep in mind, this is not a small, radical group doing this! This was done by a section of the North Korean Government!
> 
> _[Comments deleted ...]_
> 
> Since I don't want this to get into a political discussion I will refrain from pursuing this further. Just my thoughts.



I love it when people make blatantly political, anti-govt. statements and then say "let's not make this a political discussion"!


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2014)

Patri said:


> Totally agree. My grown kids and I were discussing this yesterday, before the cancellation. I said essentially the same thing, why was it ok to make a movie about assassinating a living person? Just opening the door for trouble, and sending out bad messages. Now, if the movie was based on an Asian country with a leader under a different name, that is more palatable, and people could make the connection.
> I assume the movie is a comedy, and they fail in their mission. But how could any of it be funny?


 

It might actually be a hilarious movie, we don't know. It was in poor taste to make the movie about a living head of state, but it could still be really really funny if you suspend that piece of it, which shouldn't be hard to do since we as Americans have no affection or appreciation toward North Korea.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> It might actually be a hilarious movie, we don't know. It was in poor taste to make the movie about a living head of state, but it could still be really really funny if you suspend that piece of it, which shouldn't be hard to do since we as Americans have no affection or appreciation toward North Korea.



Yeah, I actually wanted to see it.  The previews made me laugh.

I still think the Sony execs who ok'd it's production were nuts, but I still want to see it.


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 18, 2014)

Bucky said:


> This is scary but keep in mind, this is not a small, radical group doing this! This was done by a section of the North Korean Government!



It is probably a good thing I am not President.  If I was and *if we knew with absolute certainty* that the North Korean Government was behind this, I would bomb the Hell out of one of their military bases.

George


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I don't think whether or not people would like the movie or think that it is in good taste is the issue at all.  I didn't care for the material that Larry Flynt produced, but to censor Hustler magazine was wrong.  While not a legal censorship, this new situation opens the door to any group effectively censoring a movie they happen not to like.  Do we really want to go down that path?
> 
> Kurt



I vote no.  But I don't know what the answer is because if this situation repeats with other movies I'll be one of the people who will stay away from theaters when threats are lodged.  Say what you want, that I'll be enabling the bad guys or giving in to the terrorists or whatever, but it would frighten me enough to not go.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 18, 2014)

bogey21 said:


> It is probably a good thing I am not President.  If I was and *if we knew with absolute certainty* that the North Korean Government was behind this, I would bomb the Hell out of one of their military bases.
> 
> George



You have to wonder if there will be some retaliation coming.  IMO, a military option seems excessive though.  I did read that some are estimating the costs to Sony as greater than $200M.  That's a lot.  Sony headquarters is based in Tokyo Japan though so that might be a factor in our decision process.  I'd be willing to bet that our intelligence knows exactly who's behind it. 

The more frightening aspect is how many more companies are at risk?  Sony is a technology company and they got burned here by the hackers.


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 18, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I vote no.  But I don't know what the answer is because if this situation repeats with other movies I'll be one of the people who will stay away from theaters when threats are lodged.  Say what you want, that I'll be enabling the bad guys or giving in to the terrorists or whatever, but it would frighten me enough to not go.



I would fully understand your fear and whatever decision you would make based on a threat like that.  It just makes me sad, I guess, that we have gotten to this point where anonymous threats can have such a huge impact.

Kurt


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I would fully understand your fear and whatever decision you would make based on a threat like that.  It just makes me sad, I guess, that we have gotten to this point where anonymous threats can have such a huge impact.
> 
> Kurt



+1.

Concerned that a precedent has been set here, possibly.


-


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I would fully understand your fear and whatever decision you would make based on a threat like that.  It just makes me sad, I guess, that we have gotten to this point where anonymous threats can have such a huge impact.
> 
> Kurt



Sad.  That's the perfect word.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm not really sadenned by it and I don't view as a challenge to free speech or giving into terrorists or whatever.  I just view as a stupid decision by a private company (Sony) that's now going to cost them a lot of money.  

What did they think would happen?  I mean why not make a movie making fun of and a mockery of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad?  What do you think the reaction to a movie like that would be?  Isn't it obvious!

If you're going to walk up to a bee hive and whack it with a stick you should expect to get stung!


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 18, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> I'm not really sadenned by it and I don't view as a challenge to free speech or giving into terrorists or whatever.  I just view as a stupid decision by a private company (Sony) that's now going to cost them a lot of money.
> 
> What did they think would happen?  I mean why not make a movie making fun of and a mockery of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad?  What do you think the reaction to a movie like that would be?  Isn't it obvious!
> 
> If you're going to walk up to a bee hive and whack it with a stick you should expect to get stung!



I'd agree with you if the general public decided that this movie was junk and it flopped, and the movie studio got "stung", as you call it.  

But that's _not_ what happened.  

A movie studio made a controversial movie, and the general public wasn't allowed to even _make_ the decision if they liked it or not because a small, radical group decided they didn't like the movie and effectively blackmailed the studio to pull the movie.

By your post, you seem to be ok with what happened; that Sony got "stung".  Would you have been ok if similar actions took place and some other controversial movies were never release, such as:

_Fahrenheit 9/11 _
_Brokeback Mountain_
And since you brought up making a mockery of Muhammad, how about:
_The Last Temptation of Christ_ and
_The Passion Of The Christ_ 

heck, even _Deep Throat_

Now that the precedent has been set, movies like this may not even see the light of day to even be "judged" by the general public.  Yes, that does make me sad.

Kurt


----------



## Bucky (Dec 18, 2014)

wilma said:


> I love it when people make blatantly political, anti-govt. statements and then say "let's not make this a political discussion"!



If you think my post was blatantly political and anti govt I've got a timeshare to sell (give) you. To make an honest statement and get a snarky response is blatantly rude!


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2014)

Bucky said:


> If you think my post was blatantly political and anti govt I've got a timeshare to sell (give) you. To make an honest statement and get a snarky response is blatantly rude!


 
Your statement may have been honest, but still your comment was blatantly political.  wilma may have been rude as you say, but she was quite correct.  Notice that your comment was edited by a moderator.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I'd agree with you if the general public decided that this movie was junk and it flopped, and the movie studio got "stung", as you call it.
> 
> But that's _not_ what happened.
> 
> ...



You're acting as like our Freedom of Speech rights in this country are being trampled on.  However, that's NOT what's happening.  

We have no real control over how another country or religion is going to react, but we should be smart enough to anticipate it.  Sony failed to anticipate this reaction from North Korea and now they're paying the price financially. 

A couple of years ago a southern preacher was going to burn a Koran and broadcast it on the internet.  Did he have the right to do that?  Sure!  Was it the smart thing to do? No, because it was sure to incite the fanatics and some innocent people would've gotten killed.  Fortunately he decided against doing it.

I'm not against controversial movies being made.  We as Americans are a lot more accepting of them and in general we don't get all crazy about them and are more level headed and don't resort to violence or terrorism to protest them.  That's just in general who we are and that's great, but that's not how other parts of the world are.

If somebody walks up to a bee hive and wacks it with a stick, then they should anticipate that they're going to get stung.  Simple as that.

Stupid is as stupid does!


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> You're acting as like our Freedom of Speech rights in this country are being trampled on. However, that's NOT what's happening.
> 
> We have no real control over how another country or religion is going to react, but we should be smart enough to anticipate it. Sony failed to anticipate this reaction from North Korea and now they're paying the price financially.
> 
> ...


 
I don't really disagree with you.  But if a foreign government hacks into a privately owned corporation's systems and also makes violent terrorist threats against Americans, I consider that an overtly aggressive act against the United States that should be not taken lightly.  That is worthy of an a$$whooping of some sort in my book.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 18, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> I don't really disagree with you.  But if a foreign government hacks into a privately owned corporation's systems and also makes violent terrorist threats against Americans, I consider that an overtly aggressive act against the United States that should be not taken lightly.  That is worthy of an a$$whooping of some sort in my book.



I'm actually not against giving North Korea a little ass whooping here and there.  I actually said on another thread awhile back that the U.S. should blow up the USS Peublo and send it to the bottom of that river they have it in.  However, do we really want to start a war with them over this movie or them hacking into a Japanese company?

All I'm really saying on this thread is the Sony execs who gave the go ahead to make this movie were playing with fire and they got burned!  Stupid is as stupid does!


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 19, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> ...You're acting as like our Freedom of Speech rights in this country are being trampled on.  However, that's NOT what's happening.
> 
> ...We have no real control over how another country or religion is going to react, but we should be smart enough to anticipate it.  Sony failed to anticipate this reaction from North Korea and now they're paying the price financially...



I agree this was not a smart move for Sony, without considering potential repercussions in this day & age.

But, yes, our Freedom of Speech rights are being trampled on, simply because we've allowed a foreign entity/hackers to control what we're saying.

Sony may be paying the price for now, but I fear this will be a long-term cost for all of us.


----------



## Patri (Dec 19, 2014)

If it is true what I heard on the news this morning, that the U.S. govt. watched the movie and gave the OK, that is even worse. AND, the assassination is successful in the film. Unbelievable. What did Sony expect the repercussions to be?


----------



## Tia (Dec 19, 2014)

MuranoJo said:


> Sony may be paying the price for now, but I fear this will be a long-term cost for all of us.




Ya out in full view seems blackmail worked........


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Dec 19, 2014)

Hackers by their very nature will continue to do this. They are intrinsically rogue.


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Dec 19, 2014)

*George Clooney vs. Kim Jong-un*

George Clooney doesn't seem to be afraid of North Korea, and he's called out the Hollywood big shots who are.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 19, 2014)

> "It's very wise that you have made a decision to cancel the release of 'The Interview,'" the message said, according to CNN. "We ensure the security of your data unless you make additional trouble."



Or translated as "we got you by the short hairs"...  :hysterical:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...na-may-have-helped-North-Korea-US-states.html


----------



## Sea Six (Dec 20, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I don't think whether or not people would like the movie or think that it is in good taste is the issue at all.  I didn't care for the material that Larry Flynt produced, but to censor Hustler magazine was wrong.  While not a legal censorship, this new situation opens the door to any group effectively censoring a movie they happen not to like.  Do we really want to go down that path?
> 
> Kurt



Are you totally clueless?  This movie is CRAP!


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 20, 2014)

It seems that this came down to a private company opting to make their own decision to cancel the movies release. Ultimately to limit liability, both in the event of an actual attack and to prevent further data releases. There is no censorship here. It is more like corporate blackmail. This really could happen at any time with any movie. The movie just hit a nerve. In N. Korea it is taboo and even illegal to disparage the supreme leader. They don't want anyone in the north getting any ideas if this movie somehow got seen by those in the north.


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 20, 2014)

Sea Six said:


> Are you totally clueless?  This movie is CRAP!


Did you actually _see _the movie?   Yeah, that's what I thought. 

And thanks for the unsolicited personal insult of calling me clueless.  You really took the high road on that one.

Kurt


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 20, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> It seems that this came down to a private company opting to make their own decision to cancel the movies release. Ultimately to limit liability, both in the event of an actual attack and to prevent further data releases. There is no censorship here. It is more like corporate blackmail. This really could happen at any time with any movie. The movie just hit a nerve. In N. Korea it is taboo and even illegal to disparage the supreme leader. They don't want anyone in the north getting any ideas if this movie somehow got seen by those in the north.



The net effect is censorship.  The weapon was cyber-blackmail.

I, for one, would go to a theater to see this if it were released, just for the principle of the matter.  Someone else mentioned another option where it's released over TV and anyone could see it at home.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 20, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> It seems that this came down to a private company opting to make their own decision to cancel the movies release. Ultimately to limit liability, both in the event of an actual attack and to prevent further data releases. There is no censorship here. It is more like corporate blackmail. This really could happen at any time with any movie. The movie just hit a nerve. In N. Korea it is taboo and even illegal to disparage the supreme leader. They don't want anyone in the north getting any ideas if this movie somehow got seen by those in the north.



Yeah, you nailed it.  It's really cyber corporate blackmail by a rogue country.

I kind of view freedom of speech as a constitutional protection preventing our own government from trampling on those freedoms and not what a rogue country can or cannot do to influence the decisions of a private corporation.

Imagine being born and raised in North Korea!?   Thank God I won the birth lottery!


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 20, 2014)

MuranoJo said:


> I, for one, would go to a theater to see this if it were released, just for the principle of the matter.  Someone else mentioned another option where it's released over TV and anyone could see it at home.



Would you have gone to the theater to see it if this controversy hadn't arose?

The previews actually made me laugh and I wanted to see it.  I'm not heartbroken that I now won't be able to see it.  It's more of like an ah, oh well kinda response.

My bet is that it will eventually be released through something like Netflix.


----------



## Carol C (Dec 20, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I still find it odd that such a movie was made. Can anyone think of any other movies where the main plot was to assassinate a living head of state? Sure there are a lot of movies based on history where previous heads of state are targeted, but a current one? Manuel Noriega was a target in a video game which resulted in a lawsuit. Even given the head of state being targeted in The Interview, I think the movie was in bad taste.




Well stated. What if it was Angela Merkel or another head of state? I thought it was tasteless when I first saw the poster and trailer. Just a dumb idea by two punks in the movie industry so popular that Sony gave them a green light apparently without thinking. Btw I think it would have failed box-office-wise...maybe Sony knew that too and pulled it partly for that reason.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 20, 2014)

I wonder if this movie had the disclaimer at the end of the credits _"The events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental."_


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 20, 2014)

What We Can Learn from Charlie Chaplin and 'The Great Dictator' - by Nina Porzucki/ Arts, Culture & Media/ Public Radio International/ pri.org

"Seth Rogen is far from the first filmmaker to take a pot shot at a notorious world leader.

Charlie Chaplin’s famous portrayal of fictitious dictator Adenoid Hynkel, a thinly-veiled version of Hitler, made waves around the world when he premiered the 1940 comedy, "The Great Dictator."

“Initially, when he proposed the film, there were fears — in Britain, particularly, where appeasement was still very much in the air — and there was talk that the film would be dangerous," says film critic and historian David Thomson.

But events overtook the worries. "By the time it was ready, by the end of 1940, the world was at war, and it was clear that there was no getting out," Thomson says. "The film became a huge success."

Chaplin’s film made huge cultural waves around the world — except in Germany. "The Great Dictator," along with many other films during that time, was banned in Germany. But "the story is that Hitler himself saw it," Thomson says. "Somehow a print was taken there and the story says that he saw it twice."..."


Richard


----------



## davidvel (Dec 20, 2014)

Carol C said:


> Well stated. What if it was Angela Merkel or another head of state? I thought it was tasteless when I first saw the poster and trailer. Just a dumb idea by two punks in the movie industry so popular that Sony gave them a green light apparently without thinking. Btw I think it would have failed box-office-wise...maybe Sony knew that too and pulled it partly for that reason.


What if?  Like if it were George W. Bush?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 20, 2014)

I support free speech very strongly.  I also think that along with this right to free speech comes the obligation to speak responsibly.  Sony was not acting responsibly when they made the head of an actual government an assassination target in a "comedy".  Really, what is funny about that premise?

It was imo stupid and offensive but they had a right to make that movie under the United States Constitution.  I hate to see our Constitution undermined by terrorists and other  governments.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 20, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I support free speech very strongly. I also think that along with this right to free speech comes the obligation to speak responsibly. Sony was not acting responsibly when they made the head of an actual government an assassination target in a "comedy". Really, what is funny about that premise?
> 
> It was imo stupid and offensive but they had a right to make that movie under the United States Constitution. I hate to see our Constitution undermined by terrorists and other governments.



I thought the premise was funny actually, albeit surprising given that it was not a fictional country or head of state. Maybe I am in the minority, I dunno.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 20, 2014)

Here's your 10 characters


----------



## Sea Six (Dec 20, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I don't think whether or not people would like the movie or think that it is in good taste is the issue at all.  I didn't care for the material that Larry Flynt produced, but to censor Hustler magazine was wrong.  While not a legal censorship, this new situation opens the door to any group effectively censoring a movie they happen not to like.  Do we really want to go down that path?
> 
> Kurt



Don't drag me down your path of political bullcrap.  All I said was that Seth's movies are offensive, so I don't care if there is one less.


----------



## PigsDad (Dec 20, 2014)

Sea Six said:


> Don't drag me down your path of political bullcrap.  All I said was that Seth's movies are offensive, so I don't care if there is one less.


Not worth the effort...


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 20, 2014)

Who Really Hacked Sony Pictures? It Probably Wasn't North Korea (Updated) - by Sebastian Anthony/ Computing/ ExtremeTech.com

"North Korea was indeed responsible for the massive hack on Sony Pictures, according to officials from within the US government. This follows on from Sony cancelling the release of The Interview amid threats of further attacks from the hackers — including threats of terrorism against cinemas if they show the movie (which lampoons the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK). While we obviously condemn the continued threats and release of private, non-newsworthy information, I would like to point out one thing: There is very little evidence that North Korea was actually behind the attack — which makes me wonder, a) Why is the US government fingering North Korea? and b) If it wasn’t North Korea, who hacked Sony Pictures?

Updated @ 11:52am, December 19: The FBI has issued an official statement saying it’s really quite sure that the North Korean government is behind the hack on Sony Pictures. The statement says that the malware used by the hackers, and the infrastructure/IP addresses connected to the hack, line up with previous cyber attacks by North Korea.
Who framed North Korea?

From the outset, the only connection between the Sony Pictures hack and North Korea was The Interview, a comedy movie where Seth Rogen and James Franco assassinate Kim Jong-un. Now, North Korea was certainly upset about the movie — it complained about it to the UN back in July — but the hackers didn’t mention the movie at all in its original set of demands, which was emailed to Sony executives a few days before the hack went public. The famous Guardians of Peace image (below) didn’t mention the movie, either.





Sony Pictures, hacked by Guardians of Peace (GOP) warning message


Richard


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 20, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> I thought the premise was funny actually, albeit surprising given that it was not a fictional country or head of state. Maybe I am in the minority, I dunno.



My point was it would have been more responsible to use  a fictional country and a fictional leader as has been done many times.  I think it detracts from a movie when you say the CIA is out to kill the actual leader of another nation. I don't see how that could make the movie better.  However, I hate the idea that terrorists could shut the movie down.  Film makers are guaranteed under our constitution the right to make bad movies, great movies, etc. in our great nation.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 20, 2014)

Commentator Jeff Greenfield said on CNN that this was the cyber-equivilency of 9/11. Talk about hyperbole.  No one has died from this. But it may be time to realize that we are all vulnerable and take additional steps to protect ourselves.

None of this would be happening, if Sony Pictures hadn't taken the the need to secure their network a bit more seriously. Complacency may be the real enemy when it comes to cyber-crime.  We seem to assume that, becuz it hasn't happened to us, its not gonna.

We like to focus on evil-doers (i.e. Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, ISIS or N.Korea), as if having a common enemy somehow contributes to the common good. These folks are certainly worthy of condemnation, but I sometimes wonder if in doing so, we don't take our eye off the ball of getting our own house in order.
.


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 20, 2014)

Talent312 said:


> Commentator Jeff Greenfield said on CNN that this was the cyber-equivilency of 9/11. Talk about hyperbole.  No one has died from this. But it may be time to realize that we are all vulnerable and take additional steps to protect ourselves.
> 
> None of this would be happening, if Sony Pictures hadn't taken the the need to secure their network a bit more seriously. Complacency may be the real enemy when it comes to cyber-crime.  We seem to assume that, becuz it hasn't happened to us, its not gonna.
> 
> ...



+1.  Bottom line, excellent points.

(And where the heck are those chip & pin CCs?)


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 21, 2014)

Companies out there need to be employing hackers to find ways to try to exploit their own networks. I am sure those protecting sensitive data are doing so, but who knows. The best way to protect yourself it to find the holes before the bad guy does.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 21, 2014)

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/snl-preempted-dr-evil-schooling-sony-north-korea-052436089.html


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 21, 2014)

Sony: No Online Service has 'Stepped Foward' to Distribute The Interview - by Ross Miller/ Culture-Entertainment/ TheVerge.com

"A number of people — The Verge included — have called on Sony to release The Interview online, be it streaming à la Netflix / Hulu or for sale on a service like iTunes / Google Play. In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria (which will air in its entirety tonight), Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton says that while Sony "has every desire" to release the film, online isn't the immediate option. The network has been teasing the interview all day — here's the relevant snippet:..."


Richard


----------



## davidvel (Dec 21, 2014)

Talent312 said:


> None of this would be happening, if Sony Pictures hadn't taken the the need to secure their network a bit more seriously. Complacency may be the real enemy when it comes to cyber-crime.  We seem to assume that, becuz it hasn't happened to us, its not gonna.


I see the hacking and threats related to the release to be two separate issues. The theaters and SONY acted not after the hacked material was exposed, but only after threats referencing 911, if the movie was released. These threats could have been made without any hacking whatsoever, had SONY been "secure."


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 22, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> https://tv.yahoo.com/news/snl-preempted-dr-evil-schooling-sony-north-korea-052436089.html



That was pretty good.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 22, 2014)

There Are Signs That Someone Has Launched A Cyberattack Against North Korea



> North Korea appears to be suffering a cyberattack that has made the country's internet connection intermittent since Sunday evening.



http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-outages-reported-in-north-korea-2014-12#ixzz3Met3YIIz


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 23, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> There Are Signs That Someone Has Launched A Cyberattack Against North Korea



I heard one of the clear indicators was a decrease in Kim Jong-un's porn surfing!


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 23, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> I heard one of the clear indicators was a decrease in Kim Jong-un's porn surfing!



Hope you have your Windows Firewall turned on. You are likely the next cyber attack target making such disparaging remarks about their Supreme Leader...


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 23, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> I heard one of the clear indicators was a decrease in Kim Jong-un's porn surfing!



Here's some additional information on the story:
North Korea Loses Its Link to the Internet - by Nicole Perlroth and David E. Sanger/ Asia Pacific/ International New York Times/ The New York Times.com

"A strange thing happened to North Korea’s already tenuous link to the Internet on Monday: It failed..."





 Kim Jong-un, in an undated photo from a textile mill, leads a country that has fewer Internet protocol addresses than many city blocks in New York. As of Monday, Internet access was dead. Credit Korea Central News Agency, via Reuters 


Richard


----------



## Helaine (Dec 23, 2014)

Just saw on the news that some theaters are going to show it on Christmas now.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 23, 2014)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-23/sony-to-release-the-interview-on-dec-25-theaters-say.html


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 23, 2014)

Also, was reading that in Hot Shots Part Deux back in the early 90s, they killed Saddam Hussein in that film.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 24, 2014)

Helaine said:


> Just saw on the news that some theaters are going to show it on Christmas now.



Ditto, I just heared the the same comments on our local news broadcast.  I do not believe they will show it in  military areas.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 24, 2014)

It is being shown on Christmas Day here in the People's Republic of Cambridge (the PROC) in one of the smaller type theatres. 

Tickets are selling out very fast.



-


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 24, 2014)

Beaglemom3 said:


> It is being shown on Christmas Day here in the People's Republic of Cambridge (the PROC) in one of the smaller type theatres.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's also available now to stream from YouTube and Google Play as of 1pm Eastern today. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Jestjoan (Dec 24, 2014)

It may get on Netflix! From Variety "Netflix is in talks with Sony Pictures to stream “The Interview” to its subscribers. If a deal comes together, the movie would not be available day and date with its Christmas Day release in theaters but would likely stream on the netcaster within a few days.

Netflix declined comment. It’s understood that Sony execs screened the movie for Netflix execs in recent days."


----------



## Luanne (Dec 24, 2014)

It will be shown here in Santa Fe at the Cocteau Theater (owned by George R.R. Martin).  Not planning on seeing it.  It wasn't a movie I was interested in even before all of this.


----------



## Big Matt (Dec 24, 2014)

My son rented it on the internet for $6.  We watched it today.  It was funny just like any Seth Rogen movie.  Not much political in your face stuff, but the movie made the Korean dictator look weak and soft.  Lots of stupid humor and innuendo.  Compare it to the End of the World or maybe even Knocked Up.  

I really don't know why the movie was made.  It isn't like we are out of people to make fun of before going after a foreign leader.  That made me think twice.  

All in all the world is not a better place to me after watching it.  I certainly could have done something else this afternoon.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 26, 2014)

9 Hours, 31 minutes later, North Korea is Back Online:

http://mashable.com/2014/12/22/north-korea-internet/


Richard


----------



## Clemson Fan (Feb 9, 2015)

I just watched this movie on Netflix and I gotta admit - I kinda liked it!  It's not a classic, but I would give it a solid 3 out of 5 stars.


----------



## Patri (Feb 9, 2015)

Since American Sniper hit, I kinda lost interest in this. Maybe I will still look it up!


----------



## Clemson Fan (Feb 9, 2015)

Patri said:


> Since American Sniper hit, I kinda lost interest in this. Maybe I will still look it up!



It's a FAR different movie than American Sniper!


----------

