This is a horrible precedent. This was only a digital hack, that unfortunately violated many personal privacy's. But what happens when fundamentalist, a la ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then?<p>Another film set to premier on Dec 25 is Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" (yea I know, a Christmas classic /s) an easy film to misunderstand and sure to rally those oppose to the US coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan, if threats start about this film from fundamentalists will the studios respond?<p>*cross post from the dead WSJ discussion thread
"Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film."
Part of me secretly wishes that Sony would just put out a press release saying "You know what? Fuck it. <i>The Interview</i> will be on Netflix on Christmas Day for 24 hours. No extra charge. So stop downloading our Excel sheets and enjoy a movie. Merry Christmas."
The last time this happened was in 1977, when an Islamic group made threats if "Mohammad, Messenger of God" was shown. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege</a>)<p>It's now on the Internet Archive: <a href="https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam</a>
That's a shame. I'm not a huge fan of Rogen's, but I saw a screening of this a few weeks ago (the first public screening, actually), and it was probably my favorite work of his so far. It's weird to read it framed as "a movie about the assassination of a sitting foreign leader," because it didn't <i>feel</i> that way. Yes, that plot is technically true, but it feels like its just background for the comedy. It's actually very light for most of the time, with James Franco joking around with the leader and learning his more human side.<p>I don't want to give anything else away. It's just a shame.
A line at the end of the article caught my eye: <i>"Hackers claim to have taken at least 100 terabytes of Sony data, or about 10 times of the amount stored in the Library of Congress."</i><p>Which struck me as very small. So I did some digging and it looks like as of 2009 (almost 6 years ago) the Library of Congress had 74 TB of online data available to the Internet. Additionally the U.S. Library of Congress Web Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about 525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per month. That just includes the web archive team which is one of 8 featured digital collections (<a href="http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html</a>).<p>Here the LOC debunks the 10TB figure directly: <a href="http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferring-libraries-of-congress-of-data/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferrin...</a><p>I'm not sure where the author got their figure, but they are way off the mark.<p>[1] - <a href="http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-congress/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-c...</a>
Remarkably absent is any discussion about the precedent this sets for the future. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea, even private corporations should understand this.<p>But I think I know what the calculus here was: the public would have <i>excoriated</i> Sony and Regal (or any other theater owner) if an attack was actually carried out.<p>We seem to be a nation remarkably devoid of principle, and in that environment, it makes little sense to take a principled stand yourself.
Sony just announced they are cancelling the entire Christmas day premier of the movie.<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-owners/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-the...</a>
FWIW I would have never seen this movie but now I will due to all of the hoopla. Though obviously it will be harder to see if it isn't in any theaters, this is still a lot of free publicity for the movie, and I'm sure it will be viewable somehow.
Why are people surprised Hollywood capitulates to fear? It's a generally risk-averse industry. That's why Fast and Furious 7 is coming out soon.<p>The precedent for this was set 70 years ago when Hollywood execs decided to blacklist purported communists and fellow travelers. Several movies were never distributed because of alleged left-wing sympathies (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth</a>).<p>As a curious side-note, North Korea's GDP is 12.4b and Sony's market cap is 22.8b.
After reading stories about some of Sony's emails I have to wonder if they were looking out for public safety or if they are being blackmailed with some juicy new ones.<p><a href="http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony-emails-reveal-project-goliath-a-grand-plan-of-hollywood-studios-and-mpaa-against-google.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony...</a><p><a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...</a><p>(Removes tin foil hat)
'My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time...Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.'<p>— Chamberlain, 1938<p>Appeasement, it works.
It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down.<p>Back in the day the studios always released their best pictures on Dec 25th. If it was being released on Christmas day it was a picture that they expected would be a great hit and garner multiple Oscar nominations.<p>I don't intend to be a movie critic, but I've seen the trailer and my question is did Sony really expect this picture to be a blockbuster for them?
This happens to pretty much every movie of a couple of actors in my home state in India. Random group makes threats to bomb theaters -> spineless theaters refuse to run the movie -> 2 weeks of negotiations with politicians -> movie comes out. There are two paths after that. Either it runs well because its garnered enough publicity, or it has already been leaked on DVDs. Sickening to see that happening in the US though.
I don't understand what this has to do with hacking in particular.<p>That they had a list of theaters showing the film? It seems trivially easy to find however many theaters you want, just by googling.<p>It just seems confusing.
Really confused by all the "it was offensive and in bad taste, so nbd" comments on here. I don't even know where to begin.<p>Related on the margins, if only that it has to do with the 1st amendment, check out Elonis v. United States[1]. Important 1st amendment case dealing with online threats and reasonable perceptions or expectations of harm.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...</a>
Well, I was not planning to watch this movie but now plan to visit any movie theater that is screening it and watch it. Hope those chains who show spine make more money this holiday season.
It isn't Sony who benefits from pulling the movie. It is the theaters. If this movie was going to be a dud, Sony would make some money back, greater than zero revenue. All their costs are sunk.<p>But the theaters would lose money relative to how much they might make screening a more popular movie. So the theater chains can use this as an excuse to cancel showing the release, which is probably a violation of some contract or agreement, but they can get away with it in this special circumstance.
How many North Koreans "sleeper agents" do we actually have inside the USA, that companies see this as a legitimate threat?<p>Shutting down an event because someone is able to say "remember Sept 11" says more about our own government than it does theirs. We should not be at the point where anybody can cause a disturbance for something they don't like just by uttering threats.
Yeah, the threat is highly unlikely to come through.<p>Problem is, if it did - by as little as one random nutcase coincidentally firing one shot during one screening - the studio would be sued into oblivion for failing to act on a then-proven threat. This movie is <i>not</i> what they want to make a stand on, for principle nor for profit. Cancel the release, eat the losses, and move on.
Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters first.<p>I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it.<p>In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think they do.
Well, this is somewhat disappointing, but the original "threat" did accomplish one thing: It reminded me I need to get off my ass and go get my concealed-carry permit.<p>Granted it wouldn't help if they crashed a plane into the theater, but if some whack job decides to start shooting, I'd like to at least have the option of returning fire if need be.
These hacks were probably done by hackers in US/EU to help expose SOPA legislation. However they found other goodies, and then trolls started trolling about this movie and blaming it on NK, who cant deny it because they like the attention.<p>I find it hilarious that anyone takes NK as a serious domestic threat.
Bruce Schneier weighs in.<p>"this is like Snowden, only with Sony."<p><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers-completely-owned-this-company" rel="nofollow">http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers...</a>
Well, American companies shared user's confidential data with NSA because they were too scared of the action. Google stopped hiring ex-Apple because of Steve's threats and we are twisting our pants over a movie ?<p>More bad things have happened in past.
I can't believe people actually take the NK threat seriously. I mean these hackers sold the information to journalists. If these were state hackers wouldn't they have just released everything immediately?<p>Some people seem to really live in a bubble
Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release - <a href="http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-1201328639/" rel="nofollow">http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-120132...</a>
Doing that they are just opening the doors for the next threat.<p>I'm a dreamer but instead I'll create one ad to show before the movie explaining what <i>Art</i> actually is and why anyone shouldn't be offended.
North Korea has done a great PR boost for this film. Now many more will see it than before. It's the movie that got North Korea officially off the sidelines and right in the middle of GWOT.
Possibly relevant: AMC theaters is owned by Chinese Wanda Group. China is an acquaintance of North Korea.<p>Also, the Chairman and 100% owner of Wanda is a high level communist party member.
If someone with broken English successfully hacks your company's internet firewall, are the odds improved that they will blow up your garage next? This seems strange to me.
This is intolerable. To have a thug like regime such as North Korea impose their will on rest of the world on what they can or can't see is infuriating.
All of this is just a publicity stunt and you all fell for it.<p>Making a specific threat like this is completely out of line with the way the regime works. They work by brinkmanship; they learned in the 80s that they can't effectively use terrorism as they have a physical nexus.
(Going to take some downvotes today)<p><i>The incident is likely to be remembered as a failure of Hollywood leadership. As the attack progressed, both studios and the industry’s Washington-based trade associations — the theater association and the Motion Picture Association of America — remained in a defensive posture, and ultimately found no way to save the film or to stem the flow of Sony’s private data, which has been released online by hackers in waves since Nov. 24.</i><p>How out of touch is NY Times with the times?<p>The Oscars are a joke and, come on, so is Hollywood. The latter is good at providing vacuous entertainment and the former is a self-congratulating organisation. It's an incestuous industry that only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, don't expect Hollywood to do the moral/ethical thing. With Sony getting sued, they saw this was no longer their big profit making movie they wanted it to be, so they pulled the plug.<p>Nothing to see here, folks. Low revenue = no movie. It takes a lot of money to make films these days and they don't want to risk losing (more) money.<p>The movie itself was most likely not going to bring some insight or analysis to North Korea or Asian history or political dynamics, so I don't understand why so many people are up in arms about it--no pun intended.<p>People are saying "terrorists won" and some Republicans are making a big stir on Twitter:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664</a><p>America's low point in film history happened a long time ago, and yes, it was caused by Hollywood.<p>Also: "This Is Cyberwar, Not Tabloid Fodder", <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwar-not-tabloid-fodder/" rel="nofollow">http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwa...</a>
It was an offensive stupid movie anyway. In the era of youtube and the internet, making a movie is no different then posting a youtube video. See Youtube comments to see what happens when you post something.<p>You have the right to upload a video, others have the right to tell you what they think of it.
On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms.<p>On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.<p>That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm internally divided on the issue.