• 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

Hard Truth said:
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
Click to expand...

Cultural Marxism is nothing new, what do you think identity politics are? Various groups of marxists seeking to divide the nation. The term merely describes the tactic that had been employed for some time.

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory[1] associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The school initially consisted of dissident Marxists who believed that some of Marx's followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of Marx's ideas, usually in defense of orthodox Communist parties. Meanwhile, many of these theorists believed that traditional Marxist theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the twentieth century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development.[2] Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Critical theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you see the left could not credibly defend communism but were still seeking marxism-and they did that by essentially painting the US as an awful place, to facilitate change more amendable to marxism. This isn't a conspiracy theory, you just aren't well read enough to know what you believe is based on marxist dogma. Welcome to the world.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. The possibility that NOK hackers could hack into Sony computers again and release movies which have yet to go into cinemas is far more threatening than anything an executive has said. If only 4-5 big ticket movies are released, it means billions in lost revenue from both licensing deals and box office revenue. That's what Sony is worried about more than anything else and it is probably what keeps them from releasing this movie. Either way, they're losing money though. If they release the film, they risk another attack. One that could damage their pockets. If they don't release it, they lose about 80 million. Right now, it's a numbers game and Sony execs are trying to figure out whether the 80 million they spent (and whatever it is going to make back) are worth risking billions in lost revenue from a cyberattack.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would go to a theater, no issue. I'm not going to let someone else make me fear living my life. I think it is stupid to give in to terrorist threats. I could easily be in more danger going out than most of those worried about this threat from N. Korea. We were in fact warned about ISIS threats, as military members have been warned since we entered service, at least here in the states, that you are potential targets no matter where you go as soon as it becomes known that you are a servicemember. Heck, we couldn't leave bootcamp without the training that said don't wear uniforms on civilian transportation, including airplanes, yet then they flew us in our dress uniforms to our next duty station after basic.

And despite those incidents you described, you are still more likely to die in a fire, car accident, or some other thing that has nothing to do with terrorism.
 
roguenuke said:
I would go to a theater, no issue. I'm not going to let someone else make me fear living my life. I think it is stupid to give in to terrorist threats. I could easily be in more danger going out than most of those worried about this threat from N. Korea. We were in fact warned about ISIS threats, as military members have been warned since we entered service, at least here in the states, that you are potential targets no matter where you go as soon as it becomes known that you are a servicemember. Heck, we couldn't leave bootcamp without the training that said don't wear uniforms on civilian transportation, including airplanes, yet then they flew us in our dress uniforms to our next duty station after basic.

And despite those incidents you described, you are still more likely to die in a fire, car accident, or some other thing that has nothing to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Indeed so - in free and democratic societies like yours and mine, you're free to do as you please and take as much risk as you choose with your own life. Likewise, a business such as Sony, and the theaters they distribute to/through, are equally free to do as they choose to protect and promote their business interests. See how that works?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Indeed so - in free and democratic societies like yours and mine, you're free to do as you please and take as much risk as you choose with your own life. Likewise, a business such as Sony, and the theaters they distribute to/through, are equally free to do as they choose to protect and promote their business interests. See how that works?
Click to expand...

And I am also free to criticize them for making such decisions. Why does everyone act like those against these decisions are saying that there should be some law against them doing so? That isn't what we are saying. It is about our feelings towards these decisions being made just to appease certain groups, to give in due to fear. They are free to make such decisions, but it doesn't mean we aren't also free to view such decisions as wrong, and even take actions, such as boycotts or just expressing our feelings towards these decisions.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, is now someone just needs to make a threat and we'll kowtow to their demands. If someone just has to say "Remember 9/11" and we go all crazy, then it's pretty well over at that point.

I don't know, the movie looked really dumb so I wasn't going to see it, but I hate seeing this groveling at terrorists' feet.
 
roguenuke said:
And I am also free to criticize them for making such decisions. Why does everyone act like those against these decisions are saying that there should be some law against them doing so? That isn't what we are saying. It is about our feelings towards these decisions being made just to appease certain groups, to give in due to fear. They are free to make such decisions, but it doesn't mean we aren't also free to view such decisions as wrong, and even take actions, such as boycotts or just expressing our feelings towards these decisions.
Click to expand...

You didn't see or hear me criticizing anyone else's opinion, including yours. I didn't challenge anyone else's point of view - I only expressed mine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one who engaged me in discussion by being critical of my position.

Generally speaking, I never criticize or challenge someone's opinions but I will criticize or challenge someone's fact basis for those opinions, if I feel they have their facts wrong. Part of the reason I joined DP is to share opinions and to be exposed to the opinions of others.
 
Ikari said:
The problem with that, is now someone just needs to make a threat and we'll kowtow to their demands. If someone just has to say "Remember 9/11" and we go all crazy, then it's pretty well over at that point.

I don't know, the movie looked really dumb so I wasn't going to see it, but I hate seeing this groveling at terrorists' feet.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you - I'm personally angry about it myself - but I respect/accept the business choice made. If it was government caving, I'd express far more objection. But businesses caving to the ravings of the public is an everyday occurrence.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with you - I'm personally angry about it myself - but I respect/accept the business choice made. If it was government caving, I'd express far more objection. But businesses caving to the ravings of the public is an everyday occurrence.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think some of this also probably has to do with litigation. I do think that if the premiere went ahead and something did happen, that many people would sue Sony despite knowing of the threats.
 
Hard Truth said:
Despite all the talk from internet tough guys, I suspect most Americans would blame Sony if they released the movie and an incident happened.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a case of posturing by "Internet tough guys." The reality, at least as far as U.S. law enforcement and intelligence is concerned, is that the probability of an attack is extremely low. No specific or credible threats exist. It would be an entirely different matter if people were advising a course in the face of specific and credible threats that had a high probability of occurring.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You didn't see or hear me criticizing anyone else's opinion, including yours. I didn't challenge anyone else's point of view - I only expressed mine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one who engaged me in discussion by being critical of my position.

Generally speaking, I never criticize or challenge someone's opinions but I will criticize or challenge someone's fact basis for those opinions, if I feel they have their facts wrong. Part of the reason I joined DP is to share opinions and to be exposed to the opinions of others.
Click to expand...

Except you suggested that this was due to a credible threat that could lead to them having some liability for. It isn't reasonable for them to be held liable for some general terrorist threat, even if someone did pull it off, due to how incredibly unlikely that is. This has happened before, with other movies, and yet nothing happened during those movies.

It is really not nearly as hard to threaten action as it is to take it, especially when it is the difference between threatening violence against places in the US and simply hacking and releasing computer information. People can easily hack and distribute computer information from other countries, whereas, you sort of need someone in this country to commit the type of terrorist acts threatened by Guardians of Peace.
 
roguenuke said:
Except you suggested that this was due to a credible threat that could lead to them having some liability for. It isn't reasonable for them to be held liable for some general terrorist threat, even if someone did pull it off, due to how incredibly unlikely that is. This has happened before, with other movies, and yet nothing happened during those movies.
Click to expand...

While true, we've stopped be reasonable some time ago. We'll sue for any reason, no matter how absurd now. Though the probabilities for such an event (terrorist bombing the theaters) are ridiculously low.
 
Ikari said:
While true, we've stopped be reasonable some time ago. We'll sue for any reason, no matter how absurd now. Though the probabilities for such an event (terrorist bombing the theaters) are ridiculously low.
Click to expand...

Just because a person files a suit, doesn't mean it will have standing against the person being sued for them being liable. Plus, those who did sue would almost certainly not get a large amount of public support for such a suit.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because a person files a suit, doesn't mean it will have standing against the person being sued for them being liable. Plus, those who did sue would almost certainly not get a large amount of public support for such a suit.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but our juries seem to award huge cash payouts for stupid lawsuits. So I don't know if I'd bet the farm on that assumption.
 
Ikari said:
That may be true, but our juries seem to award huge cash payouts for stupid lawsuits. So I don't know if I'd bet the farm on that assumption.
Click to expand...

I understand it is about money for them, the same reason they do things such as not allow people to bring bags into theaters. While it is absolutely their right to do it, it still pisses people off who are affected by such decisions done especially in the name of "protecting" others.

I would love to have laws that prevented such things, maybe some sort of "grand jury" like process for civil suits in order to determine whether a group might be seen as legally responsible for such an act including random violence or terrorist act that happens on their property, rather than them neglecting safety issues they should have addressed and didn't.
 
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...

From what it looks lime to me is that the cancelation has pretty much nothing to do with the threat of terrorist violence and a helluva lot more to do with blackmail of releasing more embarrassing Sony emails they got their hands on.
 
Fiddytree said:
And now Paramount has cancelled screenings to Team America, even though screenings were requested as early as October for an unrelated event.

Now two companies have knelt down before North Korea and made American media look pathetic.
Click to expand...

There's zero evidence that NK was behind this attack, and PERSONALLY, I don't believe they did it (although I have no conclusive proof they didn't).

NK and its regime simply don't have the goods to carry out an attack like this. 'Nuff said.
 
SMTA said:
Fascinating!!

So now you are an expert on computer security, and the intricate details of the FBI investigation
Click to expand...

The US govt. is not a credible source. . .

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

As for computer security, the IP address of a hacker can easily be cloaked w/a proxy server or made anonymous behind any Wi-Fi device.

When you progress beyond the Limbaugh "believe-my-government" stage of your intellectual development, you will understand these things.
 
Ikari said:
The problem with that, is now someone just needs to make a threat and we'll kowtow to their demands
Click to expand...

We is irrelevant. But it has always been known that major corporations concede to the demands of those who have compromising info on them.

And it's kinda good. How else can one affect meaningful change in the world if not for the extortion of powerful entities?
 
solletica said:
The US govt. is not a credible source. . .

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

As for computer security, the IP address of a hacker can easily be cloaked w/a proxy server or made anonymous behind any Wi-Fi device.

When you progress beyond the Limbaugh "believe-my-government" stage of your intellectual development, you will understand these things.
Click to expand...

Which still shows that you have no I side I formation about this case.

Oopsie!
 
solletica said:
We is irrelevant. But it has always been known that major corporations concede to the demands of those who have compromising info on them.

And it's kinda good. How else can one affect meaningful change in the world if not for the extortion of powerful entities?
Click to expand...

Oh look - the U.S. Corporate expert speaks again.

More opinion devoid of fact.
 
solletica said:
There's zero evidence that NK was behind this attack, and PERSONALLY, I don't believe they did it (although I have no conclusive proof they didn't).

NK and its regime simply don't have the goods to carry out an attack like this. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Even if you were right, it doesn't matter. They were acting on the belief that they were behind the effort. Perception is reality.
 
PoS said:
Lets be clear here: its not Sony that gave in but the theatre owners have been refusing to put the movie up in their theatres so there wasnt much Sony could have done except go along with them.
Click to expand...

If the Sony execs are smart, why not release them on DVD or give them free to other countries, etc. The NKs will need to realize that in the long term they have nothing to gain.
I got an idea, give the movie to the PRC.
 
instagramsci said:
This is being taken way too seriously
Click to expand...

Really.

Who on Earth gives a crap whether a company does or does not release a film?

Besides, from what I heard, the theaters were not going to run the film even if Sony did release it...so what are they supposed to do?



So a Japanese corporation is un-American because they do not release a film?

Well duh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom