• 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

Ok, let's keep going. This is all literally me just thinking off the top of my head:

Almost all of the Rambo movies (is that 3? not including first blood)
Team America
Rocky IV
What's the movie with owen wilson where he crashes his plane in Russian territory? That one.
Top Gun (migs were commie)
Die Hard (the last one was in Russia but all of them contained Eastern European guys for the most part)
(God I want to look up evil commie movies but i promised I'd do it off memory)
From Russia with Love (and I'm sure a few other Bonds as well)
Oh, there's all of the Jack Ryan styles books, let me see if I can rattle some off:
I can't but there's the one with Ben Affleck where he boards the sub and there is about to be a nuclear war with Russia
Ohhhhh, and the big one, Air Force One. A good one for Harrison Ford

Someone else hop on and think of some movies off of the top of their head to shut US Conservative up about there not being enough commie hating movies.

*Edit: And don't talk **** to me. You still haven't backed up your dumb "fascism is more liberal" statement that you know is stupid as hell.

*Edit 2: I didn't include them, but pretty much any movie that includes the Vietnam War could count technically. So that gives me Forrest Gump, Platoon, etc

Original Red Dawn (the entire concept of the movie was they were going to invade from Cuba), and even the remake is China. Stripes (sort of), Salt (according to what I've read, although I've never seen it), Little Nikita, and so many others (although many people might not recognize some of my many more obscure ones). Although I do think some people forget that China is communist.
 
This is different than Aurora 2012 however, because there's this ambiguous "broad" threat hovering around out there.

There was no "broad" threat until sony allegedly claimed to have received a threat to moviegoers (i. e. an unverifiable fact). No one else said anything about such a threat.

If sony had said nothing at all, and movie goers were massacred (which likely wouldn't have happened since the threat itself was likely concocted by sony), sony would have had zero liability as there would have no knowledge of a prior threat anywhere.
 
Who cares? The movie looks terrible anyway.

Hey Sony, try making a movie that doesn't suck.
 
Good morning 2M,

That's easy to say, Israelis are protecting their country, their religion, and their way of life. They've only got one of each.

Sony and movie theaters have lots of movies and potentially dying for one is idiotic and false bravado.

I hope whomever is behind this can be ferreted out and specifically punished, in addition to the North Koreans who appear to be the instigators. But Sony and the theaters have acted responsibly, considering the threat. If the movie was distributed and showing and a bomb threat was called in, even for every theater, do you think or expect that authorities would simple say "be brave, keep your seat, we don't believe it". No, they'd clear the theater and investigate and make sure everyone is safe. It's the responsible thing to do.

And let's be clear, we're talking about businesses here, not government. Businesses cave to political correctness nonsense on a regular basis for far less.

There is a potential for dying from a terrorist threat anywhere. I have a sticker on my car that increases my chance of being killed by a terrorist. Oh well. I would be more afraid of dying in a car crash on the way to the movie theater or even choking on popcorn or a hot dog purchased for the movie than being killed by a terrorist targeting movie goers to this movie. There are simply much higher odds of those other things occurring than of the threat being fulfilled.

This is why I believe that Sony is more afraid of the potential of the issues that could come from release of the information than from terrorists actually harming movie goers over this movie.
 
There is a potential for dying from a terrorist threat anywhere. I have a sticker on my car that increases my chance of being killed by a terrorist. Oh well. I would be more afraid of dying in a car crash on the way to the movie theater or even choking on popcorn or a hot dog purchased for the movie than being killed by a terrorist targeting movie goers to this movie. There are simply much higher odds of those other things occurring than of the threat being fulfilled.

This is why I believe that Sony is more afraid of the potential of the issues that could come from release of the information than from terrorists actually harming movie goers over this movie.



You have a better chance of being shot by a cop and struck by lightning in the same year as you do being a victim of a terrorist attack.
 
The only reason Sony pulled it was because some dumb hollywood liberal or liberals said far more "racially insensitive" things. You had that lady apologizing in advance.

Oh, good grief.
 
She's already apologized for **** that hasn't been released after the racist **** they were emailing each other.


Why else do you think they pulled it, seriously. lol

So the threats had nothing to do with it; it was just another case of PC run amok?
 
Zyphlin's Lean: Conservative.

I'm noticing a trend about these people who put their tails between their legs, hide under the bed, and give in to terrorists while making flimsy excuses to do so.

The **** are you talking about? Seriously, you're talking absolute nonsense. Your comment is seemingly based on nothing but your own bigotry based on my political lean, because it's absolutely not based on anything I've actually SAID.

Indicating that the notion of liability is not as clear cut as it was in aurora doesn't equate to, or in any way take a stance on, whether or not we should "give in to terrorists".

Indeed, in every other thread I've participated in on this subject I've unabashedly criticized Sony...claiming that they're not doing the "right thing" here by giving into terrorist demands, and mocking the fact that they're basically sending the message that threats of violence will get you whatever you want.

How about instead of wallowing in your bigotry and reading everything through the scope of your prejudices, you just read what people actually right and stop making giant assumptive leaps of what they actually mean based on nothing but their ideological lean.
 
So the threats had nothing to do with it; it was just another case of PC run amok?



*sigh*


The "threats" had *everything* to do with it, the ones they told you and the ones they didn't. It was the "christmas surprise" they want to prevent, not a theater getting blowed up.
 
So the threats had nothing to do with it; it was just another case of PC run amok?

My honest best guess....

The theaters beginning to try and drop support for showing the film was likely the largest factor having to do with Sony's eventual choice.

I think the threat was a lesser factor to Sony (A big factor to the theaters) in terms of choosing to not distribute it. I think it was a big factor in choosing not to do the premier.

I think that once it was clear that a true profit was unlikely (with theaters dropping it), the desire to assuage the terrorist hackers in hopes that more embarassing and/or damaging leaks don't get put out was probably a significant factor in ultimately deciding not to release it at all and to keep anyone involved in the movie from talking about it.

Basically...I think Sony wouldn't have taken drastic action in a gamble to stop future damaging leaks IF they felt the movie was still going to hit theaters and make a potential profit. I think that's why Sony didn't bother to pull it until after numerous theater chains started indicating they wouldn't show it...because prior to that, the controversy was actually likely going to drive ticket sales up for them.

ONCE profit from the ticket sales (and the benefits in other avenues that come from a picture actually hitting the theaters and having wide spread saturation) became an unlikely prospect, the gamble to stop future damaging leaks became a more palatable one for Sony to make.

The threats had an impact on the theaters, but I don't think it had a huge impact directly on Sony's decisions for RELEASE (I think it did for the premier cancellation). I think the theaters withdrawing support for it AND the desire to try and forgo any futher damaging leaks were both stronger motivators to sony in terms of their choices regarding distribution.
 
You have a better chance of being shot by a cop and struck by lightning in the same year as you do being a victim of a terrorist attack.

Although the real risk is miniscule, it is a lot easier, and less controversial to risk your own safety than it is to take a risk that innocent people will be harmed, especially when you run a huge business and the potential victims are your employees and loyal customers.
 
Although the real risk is miniscule, it is a lot easier, and less controversial to risk your own safety than it is to take a risk that innocent people will be harmed, especially when you run a huge business and the potential victims are your employees and loyal customers.




Do you really think they would throw 42 million dollars away like that? Not to mention all the play royalties of the movie, ESPECIALLY now do to all the free publicity over a perceived threat from N. Korea who has a history of all bark no bite?


Or do you think they might of got thier hands on something sony is REALLY ****ting a brick over?
 
Love your sig.
 
It makes total sense to me as to why the Theaters would pull it, from a business sense.

It has nothing to do with that movie itself. It has to do with ALL movies. If your customer base is afraid...rationally or not...of going to the theater to see ANY movie because of the threat made about a single movie, then that is a problem if you're a movie theater. The "threat" doesn't just affect "The Interview", it affects every movie playing at the theater at that time. Whatever a theater may've lost profit wise by not showing the The Interview, they'd likely gain from not losing customers of other movies to irrational fear.

I also don't blame Sony for pulling it from the theaters once the theaters actually started boycotting it. You don't want to damage your companies relationship with the theaters for your other movies by strong arming them and trying to make it a legal matter in terms of forcing them to hold up their end of any contractual agreements.

Where I blame Sony and believe they're doing the wrong thing and being gutless, is their seeming stance that they aren't going to release it in any fashion. THAT is what's ridiculous and is clearly given into their demands.

There's only two logical reasons why they would do that at this point....either they think the threat is legitimate and they're afraid that maybe one of their actual buildings will be attacked OR they simply fear that this group has additional damaging information and are hoping to placate them by taking this action.

Those are the only really logical choices for why Sony would purposefully take a complete loss on this movie when there are clearly other VOD avenues they could take that would at least make them SOME money while making any chance of terrorist action against the public extremely unlikely (due to no clear "target").

The first one, frankly, just doesn't make much sense...especially given the nature of the threat which seemingly didn't suggest attacks on Sony itself in any way.

The second option...that once they realized they couldn't get this into theaters, the benefits of potentially placating the hackers into not releasing anything else damaging outweighed what little money they could recoup by going the VOD route...frankly does to me.
 
The **** are you talking about? Seriously, you're talking absolute nonsense. Your comment is seemingly based on nothing but your own bigotry based on my political lean, because it's absolutely not based on anything I've actually SAID.

Indicating that the notion of liability is not as clear cut as it was in aurora doesn't equate to, or in any way take a stance on, whether or not we should "give in to terrorists".

Indeed, in every other thread I've participated in on this subject I've unabashedly criticized Sony...claiming that they're not doing the "right thing" here by giving into terrorist demands, and mocking the fact that they're basically sending the message that threats of violence will get you whatever you want.

How about instead of wallowing in your bigotry and reading everything through the scope of your prejudices, you just read what people actually right and stop making giant assumptive leaps of what they actually mean based on nothing but their ideological lean.
Sony would not be held responsible. It's really that simple. You're flipping out because I called you out for what you are.
 
Also, suggesting that Sony is worried about more damaging things leaking...whether it be more racist comments by executives or insults to actors/actresses or whatever else...is not about "another case of PC run amok".

It's about business.

Once the theaters decided to pull the movies, the potential value of putting it through some other form of distribution currently like VOD (while the issue is hot) or DVD (which would likely come out long after the controversy died and people stopped caring) likely didn't outweigh the potential fiscal pain that another damaging leak could cause.

My guess is Sony thinks the hackers still have something significantly damaging, one that makes the gamble worth more than what they'd be able to get in a VOD deal with Netflix or even with their own fledgling streaming company, Crackle.
 
KYLE: You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works.

JESUS: That's right. Don't you see, gingers, if you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop.

SANTA: That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence.

I'm sorry, did you say "Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep?"

(Man I was pissed off that day)
 
Nope--neither the studios nor theaters have any liability for someone coming in and massacring theater goers, unless (possibly if) a prior threat was already called in from an external source.

As an example, Warner Bros. didn't lose a dime during the Aurora 2012 massacre.

You just contradicted yourself in your first paragraph. You said neither the studio nor theaters have any liability unless forewarned. Well duh, what do you think has happened?
 
Sony would not be held responsible. It's really that simple. You're flipping out because I called you out for what you are.

I'm "flipping out" because you ignorantly called me out for something I've never said, intimated, or suggested.

Are you somehow ignorant of what you yourself just wrote a few posts up? Here, let me post it for you

I'm noticing a trend about these people who put their tails between their legs, hide under the bed, and give in to terrorists while making flimsy excuses to do so.

Notice how nothing about you post, what so ever, was talking about whether or not Sony "would be held responsible"...but was rather an accusation that I put my tail between my legs and "give in to terrorists".

Yeah, see...that's the part that was not based on any reality and instead based on your prejudice, plain and simple, because I never suggested that.

Not to mention, I never claimed that Sony WOULD be held responsible. I simply suggested that it's ambiguous and not nearly as cut and dry as what was referenced (aurora) because of the presence of the publicly known (regardless of how it's become known) broad threat...something that wasn't present for the Colorado shooting. I'm sorry that saying SOMETHING FACTUAL bothers you so much and crazily turns into "giving in to terrorists" when done by someone with the lean you're prejudiced against....but sadly that kind of inane and nonsensical thinking is your own problem.
 
Last edited:
Although the real risk is miniscule, it is a lot easier, and less controversial to risk your own safety than it is to take a risk that innocent people will be harmed, especially when you run a huge business and the potential victims are your employees and loyal customers.



There is more likely a risk that you would be shot by two cops and struck by lightning in the same day than to be attacked by a N. Korean "terrorist".


If I had nothing to hide, I'd run it. I'd take that gamble as I already have 200 million on the table.
 
Not everyone runs away from a fire, just sayin. ;)

99.9% do, especially if their job doesn't involve running towards a fire. Why do you think it's illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater? Is it because the audience would get stampeded by all those people running in off the street to put out the blaze?
 
Zyphlin's Lean: Conservative.

I'm noticing a trend about these people who put their tails between their legs, hide under the bed, and give in to terrorists while making flimsy excuses to do so.

What an asinine piece of crap.
 
I'm "flipping out" because you ignorantly called me out for something I've never said, intimated, or suggested.

Are you somehow ignorant of what you yourself just wrote a few posts up? Here, let me post it for you



Notice how nothing about you post, what so ever, was talking about whether or not Sony "would be held responsible"...but was rather an accusation that I put my tail between my legs and "give in to terrorists".

Yeah, see...that's the part that was not based on any reality and instead based on your bigotry, plain and simple, because I never suggested that.

Not to mention, I never claimed that Sony WOULD be held responsible. I simply suggested that it's ambiguous and not nearly as cut and dry as what was referenced (aurora) because of the presence of the publicly known (regardless of how it's become known) broad threat...something that wasn't present for the Colorado shooting. I'm sorry that saying SOMETHING FACTUAL bothers you so much and crazily turns into "giving in to terrorists" when done by someone with the lean you're prejudiced against....but sadly that kind of inane and nonsensical thinking is your own problem.
You've just proven my point. Whether Sony should release the movie is cut and dry regardless of your gutless and hackneyed efforts to make it seem ambiguous.

Sony is acting cowardly and you're making excuses that try to make it seem reasonable to acquiesce to terrorists threats.
 
Back
Top Bottom