So I Guess The Terrorists Have Won

[Borachio]

Link to video.

I see what you mean.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I remember that religious people were upset about Avatar. If you use 'religious people are upset' as a barometer of controversial you are doomed to sail a sea of storms.

The movie was interesting to me, but not controversial. It was controversial to the religious groups who objected to it, because it dared to hint that Jesus could be tempted by the opportunity to have a normal, married life with Mary Magdalene.


As for the current movie being discussed, I saw a commercial for it on TV a couple of days ago, and thought it looked like just one more mindless piece of nonsense.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Could it have contained social commentary? I'd guess very likely. Satirical commentary in the US about the president of the US is social commentary just by its very existence. But portrayal of the 'leader of the enemies' as a stereotypical buffoon is not a cut of the same cloth. It's much more in line with the Captain America comics of the forties depicting Cap crushing the cowering krauts and wading into waves of the yellow peril. Cartoonish dehumanization propaganda at best, totally devoid of social commentary at worst...or perhaps vice versa.

I'd like to think something as fictive as a national border would not be the place to draw the line between what can and cannot be commented on. I, as a citizen of the world, should be able to make commentary and all sort of leaders across the world, not just my own. People make social commentary on U.S. leadership all the time, what's stopping me from saying, hey, maybe the Juche regime in North Korea isn't so hot? And maybe the monarchical splendor of the Kim family is a bit gratuitous compared to how people live in the country?

Like it or not, even the stuff like the yellow peril, or other sorts of dehumanizing literature from the 19th/20th century was in fact social commentary. Sure, we don't agree with it, its disgusting, but doesn't take away the fact that it was making commentary on their view of the world at that point in time.

I don't see The Interview on the same level as that, though. What I see is a comedy movie taking a well known world personality and poking fun at it. Maybe it just sticks to that line, uses Kim Jong-Un as a punch line. Or, maybe, it could delve further. It beats me. But just because it's a comedy, and it takes a position on a world leader as opposed to a domestic one, does not make it any less social commentary. In fact, if you really want to read a lot into things, it can be said all media is a reflection its contemporary time, and is making social commentary in one form or the other.

I don't see why some forms of media should be put up on a pedestal while others denounced as not belonging in the "in" group.

 

[Commodore]

Just out of curiosity, if someone wanted to make a comedy about a CIA plot to assassinate Benjamin Netanyahu how do you think that would go over? Do you think in the business of entertainment we were recently at 'oh anything goes' and it is just now that some limit has been placed on what we are allowed to see?

If this movie had been made about any other world leader, even Putin, the US State Department would have had a cow, and we all know it, so pretending that this is some glaring infringement of otherwise free speech is just baloney.

Yeah, the State Department would have had a cow, but they would not have gone so far as to take steps to coerce the makers of the film to shut it down. Unlike the pudgeball dictator with the hedgehog haircut in North Korea, who seems to think no one should be allowed to poke fun at Supreme Leader or Best Korea, no matter where in the world they reside.

And your analogy doesn't really hold up in this instance either. To make a proper analogy would be to find an instance where another country made a movie that poked fun or otherwise criticized our government and see what our government's reaction was. As far as I am aware, there are many anti-American government films out there and not once has the US employed hackers or terrorists to get any of those films shut down. So while our government may hem and haw over certain politically sensitive films, they at least respect free speech enough to not outright attack the makers of the film.

 

[Mouthwash]

Kim Jong-Un death scene already leaked. Not that great, although context would probably make it better.

 

[Borachio]

-kim-jong-un-death-scene.html

 

[MobBoss]

In that case, given total war, the movie theatres in the US are also legitimate military targets. Especially if they insist in engaging in psychological warfare and propaganda.

Not really, no. A theater simply isn't a military target...unless Hitler is watching a movie in one ala 'Inglourious Bastards'.

I remember that religious people were upset about Avatar. If you use 'religious people are upset' as a barometer of controversial you are doomed to sail a sea of storms.

I don't remember that about Avatar at all. Anyone else?

 

[JollyRoger]

Not really, no. A theater simply isn't a military target...unless

. . . it offers military discounts thus causing members of our military to hide among civilians like they are a bunch of damned Hamas fighters.

 

[madviking]

terrorists are winnier

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/12/18/paramount-bans-showing-team-america.html

 

[FriendlyFire]

Not really, no. A theater simply isn't a military target...unless Hitler is watching a movie in one ala 'Inglourious Bastards'.

I don't remember that about Avatar at all. Anyone else?

In "Total war" civilians were targeted for "strategic bombing" by all the major powers during ww2 ? (Too much Christmas alcohol )
Pretty sure Hitler actually helped the war end sooner with hes ridiculous micromanaging and stand and fight orders.

RINO
I liked the CG in Avatar but I found the movie to be good but well short of great.

Avatar has "an abhorrent New Age, pagan, anti-capitalist worldview that promotes goddess worship and the destruction of the human race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Avatar#Pantheism_vs._Christianity

I hope Republicans are happy with GOP control of congress
Merry Christmas (for some, for others sadness)

 

[Gary Childress]

I don't remember that about Avatar at all. Anyone else?

I remember some flak about Avatar having anti-neocolonialism messages or something to that effect because the plot and story line (didn't see the movie myself but heard a little about it.) I didn't realize there were any kind of organized protests or anything against it by any religious groups though.

 

[Kaitzilla]

terrorists are winnier

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/12/18/paramount-bans-showing-team-america.html

Theaters across the country are canceling showings of “Team America: World Police,” previously scheduled to replace “The Interview” after Sony pulled the film due to security concerns.

Multiple theaters on Thursday blamed the cancelation on Paramount Pictures, the distributor of the 2004 comedy.

“Team America World Police pulled from all theatres as per Paramount Pictures,” the Plaza Theatre in Atlanta tweeted.

“Our Late Shift screening of "Team America: World Police" has been canceled by Paramount Pictures,” echoed the Capitol Theatre in Cleveland, Ohio.

The terrorists won again.

Twice now in 1 week.

 

[bhsup]

Is it really a victory when a crappy movie like Team America gets pulled? The only redeeming thing about that is the glorious song. And even then, only when not used with Team America footage. I mean, would you say the terrorists won if the NFL announced they were pulling Miley Cyrus from the halftime superbowl show because of threats? Personally, I'd call that a victory for America.

Here's my personal fave video of that song, btw.

NSFW -naughty language. Oh, and it's kinda violent. Also, beloved cousins across the pond may not want to watch.

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[LoneRebel]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the cancellation of the showings was because of the threat to attack movie theaters, and not because of the hacking? So the hacking had nothing to do with it then. These terrorists could have made those same threats even without hacking.

 

[Quintillus]

If Sony had released it, the film probably would've benefited from the Stresand effect. If they do wind up releasing it in the near future after all, it probably will even more. I've become interested in it mainly due to the controversy (and have actually seen more of it via trailers than any other film that came out in 2014). I wasn't a big fan of The End, but based on the trailers it looks like this might have actually been a more entertaining film. There were certainly some funny moments in the trailers.

Although it's definitely a questionable decision to portray the assassination of a living person in a film, no matter who that is. So I can see why North Korea's a bit miffed (well... more than a bit I suppose). I'm sure if they did that with any other world leader there'd also be a brouhaha, and if they did that with some well-known person in the U.S., there probably would be a lawsuit. Kim Jong Un is an easy target to lampoon if you're in the west, but yeah, I can see why he wouldn't find it terribly funny. With the hacking, and reports from this summer that he planned to watch the film, you do have to wonder if they hacked the entire film and screened it before issuing the further threats regarding the premiere and such.

Should they have released it anyway? I don't know. Given that North Korea appears to have creamed Sony pretty thoroughly with the hack, Sony probably considered it at least somewhat credible that they'd pull off something at at least one showing, whether the premiere or not. But it does look like they're essentially giving in to blackmail by not releasing it.

 

[Gary Childress]

Is it really a victory when a crappy movie like Team America gets pulled?

If "The Interview" is as boring and pointless as the title sounds, maybe we should be sending thank you cards to the hackers. Just saying...

 

[MobBoss]

In "Total war" civilians were targeted for "strategic bombing" by all the major powers during ww2 ? (Too much Christmas alcohol )
Pretty sure Hitler actually helped the war end sooner with hes ridiculous micromanaging and stand and fight orders.

Not exactly. Factories and war production were targeted......but civilian housing wasn't. However, WW2 bombing wasn't as accurate as we have today, so a lot of civilians still died even if they weren't specifically targeted.

The Nazi's utilized the terror weapons like V1 and V2 rockets specifically targeting civilians to lower morale.

 

[Old Hippy]

Not exactly. Factories and war production were targeted......but civilian housing wasn't. However, WW2 bombing wasn't as accurate as we have today, so a lot of civilians still died even if they weren't specifically targeted.

The Nazi's utilized the terror weapons like V1 and V2 rockets specifically targeting civilians to lower morale.

they might have started that way and the US did continue with daylight raids longer than the Brits, because of accuracy concerns, but by the end they were both 'area' bombing, and their is no getting around the fact that civilian homes were in those areas and thus targeted

thats why it took 50 years after the war, for the Britts to give medals to bomber command

 

[FriendlyFire]

Not exactly. Factories and war production were targeted......but civilian housing wasn't. However, WW2 bombing wasn't as accurate as we have today, so a lot of civilians still died even if they weren't specifically targeted.

The Nazi's utilized the terror weapons like V1 and V2 rockets specifically targeting civilians to lower morale.

Factories, war production, cities same difference

The twin campaigns—the USAAF by day, the RAF by night—built up into massive bombing of German industrial areas, notably the Ruhr, followed by attacks directly on cities such as Hamburg, Kassel, Pforzheim, Mainz and the often-criticized bombing of Dresden.

General LeMay, commander of XXI Bomber Command, instead switched to mass firebombing night attacks from altitudes of around 7,000 feet (2,100 m) on the major conurbations. "He looked up the size of the large Japanese cities in the World Almanac and picked his targets accordingly."[182] Priority targets were Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate..._II#Allied_bombing_statistics_1939.E2.80.9345

 

[Kaitzilla]

Businesses are set to become even more cowardly January 1st.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/b...-is-stopped-by-a-senators-objection.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — On Jan. 1, thanks to an unanticipated legislative roadblock as Congress adjourned, insurers will no longer be required to provide federally guaranteed financial protection from terrorist attacks.

Then the cascade is expected to begin.

Most existing terrorism insurance policies will turn into pumpkins, thanks to clauses that say those policies exist only because the federal government backed them. Many insurers will stop offering terrorism insurance at all. Some will continue, but at much higher rates. Planned developments will be mothballed; some risky public events might be canceled. The Super Bowl, however, will be played, the National Football League said Wednesday, contrary to the rumor mill.

“I am comfortable saying on Jan. 1, we will see a major market disruption,” said Howard Mills, the chief adviser to Deloitte’s insurance industry group and a former superintendent of the New York Insurance Department.

Virtually no member of Congress — Republican or Democrat — wanted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to lapse at the end of this year. The Senate had passed a revamped version in July, 93-4. The House passed a new compromise last Wednesday, 417-7. Then the bill died — over an objection by a single senator, in large part to a provision unrelated to the federal financial backstop for terrorism recovery.

“This is taking people by surprise, quite frankly,” said Robert P. Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute in New York. “It won’t have an instantaneous effect, the economy grinding to a halt, cancellation of the Super Bowl. The effects will be more gradual, but in many ways more insidious.”

For the real estate industry, especially in places like New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas[/B] or anywhere that could be considered a terrorism target, the adjournment of the 113th Congress late Tuesday night left a changed world. Congress first wrote the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in 2002 after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, froze construction and development. Suddenly, banks were demanding broad insurance against terrorism before they would finance any project, and private insurers were not about to write those policies.

Congress stepped in, promising that the government would help recoup losses for terrorism destruction over $100 million. Without the federal statute, known as TRIA, Lower Manhattan would look nothing like it does today, real estate experts said on Wednesday. One World Trade Center, the shining new symbol of post-9/11 recovery, would not exist, since the Port Authority would not have built a tower that size if tenants could not insure their space.

“I can tell you the building I’m in right now, 1 Bryant Park, would never have been built without TRIA,” said Douglas Durst, one of the prime developers of Manhattan after 9/11. Private insurers might have provided some terrorism coverage for top dollar, but not nearly enough to ensure the financing of a $2.5 billion building.

“Everybody expected this would get done,” he said, fuming. “These actions make it impossible to make investments in this country.”

No more free federal government backstops for the insurance industry?

It's over.
We're done.
Turn off the lights.
The terrorists won.