• 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

ReverendHellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's the funny thing...

Say the theaters themselves didn't start pulling this.

I think "The Interview" would've actually done pretty well. Why? Because it's aimed at your 20-40 year old male demographics. A type of demographic that isn't just likely to ignore such a "threat", but the type to do the action simply as a means to either thumb their nose at the hackers or to puff their chest out for a feeling of false bravado. It also seemingly enticed some that normally wouldn't fall in that demographic or normally wouldn't want to see the movie to want to go based on the basic nature of political stubborness some have.

HOWEVER...

I imagine a big amount of Christmas Day movie traffic are families, likely going to more family oriented movies (or letting the kids go off to one while the adults go to another). I think there's a fair bit of people in those demographics that absolutely WOULD be turned off by these threats and make a decision to just wait for another day to go see the totally unrelated movie they were going to go see. And I have a feeling those numbers would've been more damaging to the theaters than the number of people flooding in to see The Interview.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

As Hard Truth said perfectly above - Sony can't win in this situation because it will be criticized either way.

Maybe all the big talkers on this thread can crowdfund the purchase of the movie from Sony and a couple of theaters and show the movie themselves. Then if anyone gets attacked, you can tell everyone it wasn't your fault and you weren't reckless.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This makes the most sense, honestly.

But then I would just say that the theaters are still being stupid. The chances of a NK terrorist blowing up any theater in the US are really small. There's a higher chance of a fire breaking out in their theater or a domestic terrorist or whack job going crazy and shooting people in any theater, over any movie than this specific threat on this specific movie. No one cares that much about N. Korea except some N. Koreans, who are generally still in N. Korea.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Here's the funny thing...

Say the theaters themselves didn't start pulling this.

I think "The Interview" would've actually done pretty well. Why? Because it's aimed at your 20-40 year old male demographics. A type of demographic that isn't just likely to ignore such a "threat", but the type to do the action simply as a means to either thumb their nose at the hackers or to puff their chest out for a feeling of false bravado. It also seemingly enticed some that normally wouldn't fall in that demographic or normally wouldn't want to see the movie to want to go based on the basic nature of political stubborness some have.

HOWEVER...

I imagine a big amount of Christmas Day movie traffic are families, likely going to more family oriented movies (or letting the kids go off to one while the adults go to another). I think there's a fair bit of people in those demographics that absolutely WOULD be turned off by these threats and make a decision to just wait for another day to go see the totally unrelated movie they were going to go see. And I have a feeling those numbers would've been more damaging to the theaters than the number of people flooding in to see The Interview.
Click to expand...



I think the movie would at the end of the day take no more than a 25% hit on opening day, or it would do better as it could have been swung around as you say a big FU to north korea.


I would understand if al qaeda made the threat but north korea? come on that would be a direct "ACT OF WAR". it ain't gonna happen.
 
reinoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you still talking about. Seriously, you're making no sense with your ignorant and ridiculous claims of what my "efforts" are.

Talking about whether or not theaters would be potentially "liable" if something happened (which is ambiguous) and pointing out the situation is different than what happened in Colorado so isn't direclty comparable (which is factually correct) are entirely different than talking about whether or not Sony should release the movie.

I've made no effort what so ever to make my stance on this ambiguous, you just seemingly are blinded by your bigotry to the point that you can't read the very plain and clear words I'm typing on screen. Let me spell it out for you really simply and perhaps you'll actually be able to read it rather than focusing on your seething hatred for the fact I have "conservative" as my lean. As it relates to whether Sony should release it...

1. The moment major theaters started pulling the movie, it was a reasonable business move for Sony to simply give into that and not push it on the theaters forcefully

2. At that point Sony should've begun planning to use their own Crackle service, or struck a deal with Netflix or Amazon, to put it out over VOD in the near future. While they are likely afraid of the impact of another damaging leak, I think the impact of completely capitulating to a terrorist hacker group is likely going to prove to be more troublesome to them in the future than another leak...AND there's no guarantee the leak won't happen anyways.

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

Well I'm sure that what it seems like in the ridiculous make believe scenario you're responding to, but unfortunately that's not what I'm doing. But continue to prattle on about your inane fiction.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As Hard Truth said perfectly above - Sony can't win in this situation because it will be criticized either way.

Maybe all the big talkers on this thread can crowdfund the purchase of the movie from Sony and a couple of theaters and show the movie themselves. Then if anyone gets attacked, you can tell everyone it wasn't your fault and you weren't reckless.
Click to expand...

It isn't their fault. It is absolutely not the fault of the "offender" if someone decides that they don't like something and blow up innocent people over that offense they take. It is solely the fault and responsibility of the terrorists/people who did the act. There is nothing "reckless" about "offending" people, especially not when it is something like entertainment. In fact, the movie would have bombed completely if those "offended" wouldn't have said anything about it in the first place. If anyone is responsible for good publicity and making the movie known, it is those who decided to be offended, to express that offense in a violent or ridiculous way. They are responsible for the likely increase in the number of people who now wish to watch this movie.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
the excuse that theaters were pulling it is smoke screen for sony to try to save face under threat of something truly embarrassing and revealing about the hollywood culture.


I hope the n. koreans release it anyway. lol
Click to expand...

Some of it, I do too. I don't think that they should release the actor SSNs or anything harmful to individuals, but to put out the real data that the Hollywood studios have been hiding for decades, let's see it all come out so they can't keep lying that none of their movies make a profit.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think the movie would at the end of the day take no more than a 25% hit on opening day, or it would do better as it could have been swung around as you say a big FU to north korea.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'm not understanding you, or if it may be the other way around.

I actually think that the movie would do just as well, if not better, on opening day then it would have if there was no such threat. I don't think the threat would cause a sizable hit to how much traffic The Interview would do. That goes back to my comments regarding the target audience of the movie and their likely reaction to such "threats".

Where I think the theaters would take a hit would be with the majority of the OTHER movies in the theater that day...specifically kid, tween, or family movies. I think the target audiences there (or those with control over said target audiences) would be more likely to see the threat and be scared off by it, deciding to just forgo a trip to the theaters on that day.

Your average soccer mom, for instance, isn't thinking about the nuanced notions of what a terrorist attack by north korean hackers would end up causing and how different these "terrorists" are from other "terrorists"...they just likely see an unnecessary threat that's being bulit up as problematic and go "umm, I'll keep my kids home instead".
 
roguenuke said:
It isn't their fault. It is absolutely not the fault of the "offender" if someone decides that they don't like something and blow up innocent people over that offense they take. It is solely the fault and responsibility of the terrorists/people who did the act. There is nothing "reckless" about "offending" people, especially not when it is something like entertainment. In fact, the movie would have bombed completely if those "offended" wouldn't have said anything about it in the first place. If anyone is responsible for good publicity and making the movie known, it is those who decided to be offended, to express that offense in a violent or ridiculous way. They are responsible for the likely increase in the number of people who now wish to watch this movie.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of offense, it's a matter of the threat. As I said previously, if someone calls in a bomb threat to an airport, or a specific flight, do you think the authorities just let everyone go on their merry way and if the place blows up or the plane blows up they just say, oops, not our fault, guess the "offended" party meant it - go sue them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's not a matter of offense, it's a matter of the threat. As I said previously, if someone calls in a bomb threat to an airport, or a specific flight, do you think the authorities just let everyone go on their merry way and if the place blows up or the plane blows up they just say, oops, not our fault, guess the "offended" party meant it - go sue them.
Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of offense. And the threat is still coming from someone else, and that person should be held responsible. Especially since it is not a reliable threat.

I'm not on the bandwagon to stop the world over unconfirmed or highly unlikely threats. Something like this, is not a likely threat. It also should never be the fault of the people to consider such a thing a legitimate threat. It would be one thing if you got a specific threat, at a specific theater, and that theater didn't take precautions, such as to have their theater checked for bombs or other things.

This is not a legitimate threat. It is a general threat which has happened before and resulted in absolutely no deaths, nothing. It is empty as far as loss of life or attacks go in all likelihood.
 
Hard Truth said:
Nations with nukes don't get attacked militarilly. (with an exception for the rocket attacks on Israel)
Click to expand...

Or an attack out of Afghanistan on twin towers in nyc or Pakistan. Or on. .. But that isn't your question. Do we have the capability of hitting NK with impunity, is what you are wondering. And yes, we probably could.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't know if I'm not understanding you, or if it may be the other way around.

I actually think that the movie would do just as well, if not better, on opening day then it would have if there was no such threat. I don't think the threat would cause a sizable hit to how much traffic The Interview would do. That goes back to my comments regarding the target audience of the movie and their likely reaction to such "threats".

Where I think the theaters would take a hit would be with the majority of the OTHER movies in the theater that day...specifically kid, tween, or family movies. I think the target audiences there (or those with control over said target audiences) would be more likely to see the threat and be scared off by it, deciding to just forgo a trip to the theaters on that day.

Your average soccer mom, for instance, isn't thinking about the nuanced notions of what a terrorist attack by north korean hackers would end up causing and how different these "terrorists" are from other "terrorists"...they just likely see an unnecessary threat that's being bulit up as problematic and go "umm, I'll keep my kids home instead".
Click to expand...



I didn't factor in attendence for other movies, so yeah, it may either be more of a total loss for the theaters with 25% to maybe a slight bump on that particular movie alone.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I didn't factor in attendence for other movies, so yeah, it may either be more of a total loss for the theaters with 25% to maybe a slight bump on that particular movie alone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the overall hit to the theaters is why I understand...from a business perspective...why the theaters were trying to pull it.

Do I like that? No. Do I wish they would just show a little guys rather and take a little bit of a profit hit for one day? Yes. But can I BLAME a business for likely making a good BUSINESS decision? No, not really.

Which is also why I feel the same way about Sony pulling it from the theaters after the major ones started to say they wouldn't show it. This isn't Sony's only movie, and it would be bad business to try and get into a slug fest with the theaters over this and trying to litigate it and force it on them. Again, hard to blame them for making a reasonable business decision even if I personally wish they would act otherwise.

Where the blame for me finally lands is with them seemingly just refusing to distribute it in any fashion. To me, that isn't a sound business decision what so ever, and is thus completely reasonable to blame them for doing it.
 
solletica said:
It's important to recognize that there is zero conclusive evidence that NK was behind the hack.

Anyone could be a suspect. Allegations made by corporations (i. e. for PR purposes) are not credible statements, and even otherwise, there's no way sony could know the identity of the hackers.
Click to expand...

Fascinating!!

So now you are an expert on computer security, and the intricate details of the FBI investigation of the Sony hack.

Pray tell, please keep us updated.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
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?
Click to expand...

I suspect that it is because of the theaters that are refusing to show the movie and Sony not wanting to risk getting most of the blame if any attacks happen.
 
Hard Truth said:
Can you name any mainstream Hollywood movies with a pro-communist message?
Click to expand...

By the idiotic logic used above? How about enemy at the gates? :doh
That wasn't my point, it was the ideological lean of hollywood, where America is the bad guy, where America is this awful, racist, sexist place (pick your favorite wedge issue or identity political group) where the soldier is the bad guy. Where celebrities paint the US as this horrible place. Thats cultural marxism of the hollywood variety.

Its amazing how much you guys miss.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it's a matter of offense. And the threat is still coming from someone else, and that person should be held responsible. Especially since it is not a reliable threat.

I'm not on the bandwagon to stop the world over unconfirmed or highly unlikely threats. Something like this, is not a likely threat. It also should never be the fault of the people to consider such a thing a legitimate threat. It would be one thing if you got a specific threat, at a specific theater, and that theater didn't take precautions, such as to have their theater checked for bombs or other things.

This is not a legitimate threat. It is a general threat which has happened before and resulted in absolutely no deaths, nothing. It is empty as far as loss of life or attacks go in all likelihood.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the ISIS/ISIL/IS general threat asking supporters to kill innocent people using their cars or whatever other means they could was an idle threat too because it wasn't specific enough. That's why one Canadian soldier was run over and killed by a car driven by someone who took up the suggestion and another soldier was shot on Parliament Hill, at the Tomb for the Unknown Soldiers. And Sydney Australia also thinks the attack at the cafe there was no big deal.

It's easy to sit on our asses in our safe homes or offices and recommend everyone ignore such threats. Flying planes into the World Trade Center was once considered impossible, something that would never happen. I fully understand and accept that Sony and the theaters had no interest in calling anyone's bluff.
 
Hard Truth said:
If Sony had released the movie and if the distributors and theaters accepted it and and if an attack happened, Sony would take much of the blame, face massive lawsuits and suffer an even worse PR problem than they have now. Chances are many of the same people currently criticizing Sony for pulling the film would be even more critical towards them if there was a violent attack. They are in a no-win situation.
Click to expand...

Several things:

1. Sony's capitulation occurred when there was no specific or credible threat according to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.
2. The movie theaters had already pulled the film. Sony didn't have to do anything and would have had the same substantive impact other than the visible effect of capitulating.
3. Sony could have made the film available on DVD.

Sony's decision was not a necessary requirement. Sony's capitulation has made cyber attacks more lucrative, as it had demonstrated such attacks can be very effective. It is also an example that Sony does not stand behind the creative community nor is it willing to stand up for creative expression.
 
US Conservative said:
By the idiotic logic used above? How about enemy at the gates? :doh
That wasn't my point, it was the ideological lean of hollywood, where America is the bad guy, where America is this awful, racist, sexist place (pick your favorite wedge issue or identity political group) where the soldier is the bad guy. Where celebrities paint the US as this horrible place. Thats cultural marxism of the hollywood variety.

Its amazing how much you guys miss.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Enemy at the Gates but I looked at the plot description. It doesn't sound pro-communist, just pro-Russian when they were fighting against Nazi Germany. I assume you know that Russia was on our side during WWII. Pointing out the flaws of our culture(racism, sexism etc) is not pro-communist. I know of no movie that claimed that other countries are perfect, or even significantly better, compared to the USA. Even in the anti-war movies I have seen, ordinary soldiers are not the bad guys. The bad guys are the crazy or fanatical soldiers who kill for pleasure, kill civilians indiscriminately or abuse the locals, not the regular troops. Cultural Marxism is an unfounded conspiracy theory used to red bait people who want the USA to be a more free, just and fair nation.

"According to German political scientist Thomas Grumke, the new American extreme right undertook a reinterpretation of the enemy image in the 1990s because the classical Red Scare ceased working. Part of this strategy is the introduction of fighting terms such as “Cultural Marxism”, which is used by American conservatives to describe an alleged conspiratorial attempt of the Left to destroy the cultural and moral values of the United States through systematic attacks on the American Way of Life[citation needed]. According to the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism supposedly began in the culture war of the 1930s when a small group of Jewish philosophers fled from the German Reich to the United States...."
Wikipedia
 
donsutherland1 said:
Several things:

1. Sony's capitulation occurred when there was no specific or credible threat according to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.
2. The movie theaters had already pulled the film. Sony didn't have to do anything and would have had the same substantive impact other than the visible effect of capitulating.
3. Sony could have made the film available on DVD.

Sony's decision was not a necessary requirement. Sony's capitulation has made cyber attacks more lucrative, as it had demonstrated such attacks can be very effective. It is also an example that Sony does not stand behind the creative community nor is it willing to stand up for creative expression.
Click to expand...

I don't have strong feelings about Sony's decision. As I wrote previously "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 don't buy the notion that Sony would make the decision to flush a couple hundred million dollars down the drain lightly, that it was decided based on self centered cowardice alone, or simply due to the released e-mails, that there is an ulterior motive, or a conspiracy that includes Sony involved. Despite all the talk from internet tough guys, I suspect most Americans would blame Sony if they released the movie and an incident happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom