• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sony Cancels Theatrical Release for ‘The Interview’ on Christmas

Well, now that everyone knows that a simple threat can get the movie industry to pull a movie I guarantee you this will happen again, and it could just be some troll with an anonymous internet connection.
 
VanceMack said:
Wait...the threat of TERRORISM is the reason why people dont want to see the movie and NOT because it looks like its going to suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck?
Click to expand...

It does look like a ****ty movie. I didn't want to watch the thing regardless.
 
Fiddytree said:
It does look like a ****ty movie. I didn't want to watch the thing regardless.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is a bad movie,
That being said, the two stars, Franco and Rogen are usually pretty funny.
I will watch the soon-to-be-released DVD----just to spite North Korea---- and give you my review.
 
i was posting a comment, but now i can't decide if i'm more annoyed by NK or ****ty, unfunny comedy movies.

i guess it's probably NK. still probably not going to watch the piece of ****, though, unless someone else is buying the drinks.
 
solletica said:
:rolleyes: sony doesn't care about the safety of movie-goers. It only cares about profit. The story about there being a threat to movie-goers is likely just some PR b. s. put out by the studio.

It's more likely that the hackers have information on sony that could further endanger their profitability and have threatened to release it.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what Sony corporate thinks.
 
Helix said:
i was posting a comment, but now i can't decide if i'm more annoyed by NK or ****ty, unfunny comedy movies.

i guess it's probably NK. still probably not going to watch the piece of ****, though, unless someone else is buying the drinks.
Click to expand...

It's a toss up who is more ignorant - Sony or NK.
 
Sony has blustered against journalists who have been covering the hacking incident, yet it showed no courage whatsoever in capitulating to the hackers. Its capitulation will only encourage additional hacking incidents, as cyber-terrorists will conclude that hacking can yield big payoffs. Moreover, its capitulation is an abandonment of the filmmakers the company claims to be 'standing by' and a retreat from free expression, not a defense of it.
 
Grant said:
It would have been interesting to see how many people would have attended despite the threats. My guess it is that it would have been SRO.
Click to expand...

I agree. I doubt I would have liked it, but I would have attended as a patriotic duty.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It sounds weak and it makes me angry that it comes to this, but in this day an age it would be irresponsible on the part of Sony and the theaters that would air the movie to potentially put crowds of movie goers in danger. Can you imagine the outcry and calls for Sony's crucifixion if they aired the movie and some ass blew up a theater or in some other way harmed people.

When someone sends in a bomb threat at an airport or government building, people don't just ignore that threat - they close down the location until everything is clear. I'm not sure how you clear anything from what equates to a terrorist threat.
Click to expand...

That's why there needs to be a swift and violent response from The United States.
 
Lutherf said:
What liability could Sony or the theaters possibly have? In order for a threat to be credible there needs to be some indication of ability to carry it out. I mean, if North Korea had a history of blowing up movie theaters in foreign countries then maybe there would be cause to claim negligence but barring that I just don't see where there would be any basis for a liability claim.
Click to expand...

We're talking about lawyers and big money lawsuits. Logic is not necessary.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It sounds weak and it makes me angry that it comes to this, but in this day an age it would be irresponsible on the part of Sony and the theaters that would air the movie to potentially put crowds of movie goers in danger. Can you imagine the outcry and calls for Sony's crucifixion if they aired the movie and some ass blew up a theater or in some other way harmed people.

When someone sends in a bomb threat at an airport or government building, people don't just ignore that threat - they close down the location until everything is clear. I'm not sure how you clear anything from what equates to a terrorist threat.
Click to expand...

In Israel every citizen is considered a front line soldier, wherever he/she is. Admirable.
 
SMTA said:
It's a toss up who is more ignorant - Sony or NK.
Click to expand...

probably NK, but apparently, they have better hackers. hard to believe, considering that the only internet connection in NK is in KJU's bedroom so that he can watch porn and order luxury goods.
 
Sony should immediately release it on torrent to spite NK
 
US Conservative said:
Word is that Sony knows they have more damaging info. Hollywood chumps appeasing commies and terrorists like its cool-who saw that coming? :roll:
Click to expand...

Hollywood has been responsible for attacking "commies and terrorists" far more often than not. There are literally thousands of movies depicting communists as bad guys and terrorists as evildoers. Just take a look at any of the recent Marvel movies. Iron Man, Captain America, etc are still fighting former communists, terrorists and the like. Hollywood (and all of its derivatives - including video games) have literally help mold tens of millions of young minds into thinking that communism is bad. Furthermore, if you want to argue it from an social perspective, Hollywood has literally given voices to millions of oppressed people in communist/Islamic countries through the sheer number of documentaries released by major studios every single year. This is a private company acting to defend itself and its image until further attacks aren't guaranteed as a result of its actions. It's not "Hollywood".
 
Last edited:
I understand why they cancelled it, but I am disappointed because it will encourage more threats of violence to stop content that someone dislikes. If we want to stand up to terrorist threats we have to be willing to risk the violence that might result. I don't think our country is ready to do that at this time. Even if we were willing to take the risk and accept some violence to keep our freedom the severity of the attacks could be escalated until we capitulate. There are no easy answers.

I hope that the people who threatened the violence are found and punished severely.


The situation reminds me somewhat of a porn movie I saw once with a scene where a woman asked to be spanked during a sex scene. The other performer responded that they couldn't do that because of the distributors. At the time (early 1990s) the distributors were reasonably afraid of being busted due to the recent history of prosecutions if a scene included explicit sex and any S&M content, even if was just a bit of consensual spanking. Distributors knew that even if they were not convicted they could have their business and personal lives ruined due to pre-trial asset seizures. That was an example of content being restricted by terrorism from our own government.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
I understand why they cancelled it, but I am disappointed because it will encourage more threats of violence to stop content that someone dislikes. If we want to stand up to terrorist threats we have to be willing to risk the violence that might result. I don't think our country is ready to do that at this time. I hope that the people who threatened the violence are found and punished severely.

The situation reminds me somewhat of a porn movie I saw once with a scene where a woman asked to be spanked during a sex scene. The other performer responded that they couldn't do that because of the distributors. At the time (early 1990s) the distributors were reasonably afraid of being busted if a scene included explicit sex and any S&M content, even if was just a bit of consensual spanking due to the recent history of prosecutions. Distributors knew that even if they were not convicted they could have their business ruined due to pre-trial asset seizures. That was an example of content being restricted by terrorism from our own government.
Click to expand...

They had this conversation in the middle of the porn?
 
US Conservative said:
They had this conversation in the middle of the porn?
Click to expand...

That must have been awesome dialogue.

*grunt grunt*

"Spank me"

"But I can't. U.S. regulations stipulate a performer cannot engage in the portrayal of violent sexual intercourse, including, but not exhausting: spanking, choking, pulling hair, slapping..."

*grunt grunt*
 
Fiddytree said:
That must have been awesome dialogue.

*grunt grunt*

"Spank me"

"But I can't. U.S. regulations stipulate a performer cannot engage in the portrayal of violent sexual intercourse, including, but not exhausting: spanking, choking, pulling hair, slapping..."

*grunt grunt*
Click to expand...

Right in the middle...
maxresdefault.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom