So I Guess The Terrorists Have Won

[Commodore]

Cowardice on the part of whom? Cowardice on the part of those who issued the threats or cowardice on the part of Sony? Both?

Both obviously. The ones who issued the threats are cowards for doing so without revealing their true identities and hiding behind a computer screen. The people at Sony are cowards for caving to such threats even though all of the intelligence from the US government indicated there was no reason to believe that those that issued the threats had the means or the intent to actually follow through with the threats.

 

[Borachio]

What? The movie itself or the action taken in the movie?

Well, that's why it's so baffling. The action taken in the movie is plainly terrorism. (Or doesn't assassination of a head of state by an undercover government organization count as terrorism?)

The movie itself can't be terrorism, I think. Unless it is a really dreadful movie.

Or unless it's trying to terrorize the North Koreans with psychological warfare. Though I don't suppose it will be shown in North Korea at all.

Isn't it strange, though, that a movie which is about assassination should be subject to "terrorism"? State sponsored terrorism. But the state-sponsored terrorism which the movie portrays doesn't get a second mention.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm really baffled by this.

Let me get it straight: The Interview is a "comedy" about some guy who gets an interview with the head of state of North Korea, and is then told by the CIA to assassinate him, right?

Isn't that a terrorist act?

This is actually a great question.

Consider that North Korea still considers itself at war with us since the 1950s, that would make their leader a legitimate military target, wouldn't it?

 

[kramerfan86]

The whole thing just frustrates me, not that i had any interest in likely a dumb comedy movie, but its just another example of how cowardly free countries are when it comes to freedoms v security. We have now reached a point where foreign dictators can dictate what entertainment we are allowed to see by making a vague threat our intelligence agencies say is a bluff. Just ridiculous.

 

[Borachio]

This is actually a great question.

Consider that North Korea still considers itself at war with us since the 1950s, that would make their leader a legitimate military target, wouldn't it?

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.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Anybody think Russia might have a hand in the hacking? A situation involving North Korea would probably be a useful distraction.

 

[sophie]

There's still a good part of me that's convinced this [the Interview threats, not the hack] is all a clever pr stunt to drum up interest in a movie that really just looks like a schlocky unfunny stoner comedy. If you asked me about this movie a month ago there was no chance I was ever going to watch it. If it was announced tomorrow that the film will be shown in theaters for one day only? I'd go watch it.

Reminds me of:
cartmanland

 

[Borachio]

Ironically: "UK and Ireland: South Park content from this site cannot be viewed in your country."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The whole thing just frustrates me, not that i had any interest in likely a dumb comedy movie, but its just another example of how cowardly free countries are when it comes to freedoms v security. We have now reached a point where foreign dictators can dictate what entertainment we are allowed to see by making a vague threat our intelligence agencies say is a bluff. Just ridiculous.

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.

 

[tetley]

It's true. There was a huge effort to shut down Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, because it portrayed Jews as killing Jesus. Even though there it is, right there in the Bible. Exodus is playing in theaters right now--also from the Bible--and somehow no one seems to have an issue with it. The Interview comes along, now North Korea is offended, and we're back to terrorists infringing on free speech again.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's true. There was a huge effort to shut down Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, because it portrayed Jews as killing Jesus. Even though there it is, right there in the Bible. Exodus is playing in theaters right now--also from the Bible--and somehow no one seems to have an issue with it.

Oh, some people have an issue with it. They're upset that Moses isn't being played by an Egyptian actor.

There have been attempts for a long time to shut down showings of so-called 'controversial' movies. I remember when religious people were picketing theatres that showed The Last Temptation of Christ. A friend and I decided to go see it, as we were curious to see what all the fuss was about. We came out of the theatre, wondering, "You mean that's what they were upset about?" <shrug>

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Agreed. Now, how bold a statement is being made in the current environment by trying to discredit the leader of North Korea? I see this movie more as 'hey, here's someone so cartoonishly unpopular that we can really press the envelope of how crass we can be about a genuine living person and get away with it'. Not exactly social commentary there.

I don't see how it isn't. Plenty of movies have been made about living people before, heads of state and what-not. I distinctly remember there being a cartoonish portrayal of Bush in one of the White Castle movies.

It didn't involve his death, but it was still in the same vein of poking fun at something. Could it have just been riding on the unpopularity of the president? Sure. Could it have contained social commentary hidden below? Just as much, yes.

Checking for contraband chips, chocolate bars, candy, and slurpees?

Maybe

There's still a good part of me that's convinced this [the Interview threats, not the hack] is all a clever pr stunt to drum up interest in a movie that really just looks like a schlocky unfunny stoner comedy. If you asked me about this movie a month ago there was no chance I was ever going to watch it. If it was announced tomorrow that the film will be shown in theaters for one day only? I'd go watch it.

Reminds me of:
cartmanland

I was thinking this could be it too, but it seems a bit much for just a comedy. Regular advertising did just fine for This is the End, which I thought was wonderfully funny. I was hoping this would be along similar lines of humor, rather disappointed I'm going to have to wait now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see how it isn't. Plenty of movies have been made about living people before, heads of state and what-not. I distinctly remember there being a cartoonish portrayal of Bush in one of the White Castle movies.

It didn't involve his death, but it was still in the same vein of poking fun at something. Could it have just been riding on the unpopularity of the president? Sure. Could it have contained social commentary hidden below? Just as much, yes.

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am revolted. Just as I would have been if Mel Gibson's Jesus movie or the pee soaked cross "art" had been removed(was that in New York?).

So what is the US government has a cow Tim? What are our chances at telling our own government, ever watchful, to "go F itself" if we can't even say it to the present government of North Korea?

 

[tetley]

Here's a theory: maybe Sony didn't just pull The Interview because of the terrorist threats. Maybe it got pulled because it sucks. I'm not exactly hearing raving reviews from the people who did see it. Sony could have been on the fence about it BEFORE they got hacked, and then when they did, that put them over the edge. There is still the possibility that all the press could actually increase their revenues at a later time, when the threats evaporate. But still, if it sucks, all that means is that even more eyes see this film that might tarnish Sony's reputation (even though the audience almost never thinks about the company who produced it ).

 

[Light Cleric]

There's still a good part of me that's convinced this [the Interview threats, not the hack] is all a clever pr stunt to drum up interest in a movie that really just looks like a schlocky unfunny stoner comedy. If you asked me about this movie a month ago there was no chance I was ever going to watch it. If it was announced tomorrow that the film will be shown in theaters for one day only? I'd go watch it.

Reminds me of:
cartmanland

If the hack hadn't happened I would be certain it was a PR stunt, given that Sony has done blatantly scummy crap before(see Manning, David) but as stupid as we've seen Sony has been with confidential information I would suspect any kind of plan about that would have been discussed via e-mail and leaked.

 

[Borachio]

Here's a theory: maybe Sony didn't just pull The Interview because of the terrorist threats. Maybe it got pulled because it sucks. I'm not exactly hearing raving reviews from the people who did see it. Sony could have been on the fence about it BEFORE they got hacked, and then when they did, that put them over the edge. There is still the possibility that all the press could actually increase their revenues at a later time, when the threats evaporate. But still, if it sucks, all that means is that even more eyes see this film that might tarnish Sony's reputation (even though the audience almost never thinks about the company who produced it ).

I've just heard a very favourable review by someone who's seen the film.

I was a bit alarmed that it featured Kim Jong-un getting killed.

(Well, you know, the actor playing him pretended to get killed. Kim Jong-un wasn't actually killed in the making of the film, as far as we know.)

How would a film that featured Obama getting shot go down with the US authorities?

(Come to think of it, it might meet with some favourable response.)

 

[JollyRoger]

In the good old days, even union thugs like Ronald Reagan fought the terrorists by participating in films that were shown to the public that would be torture for terrorists to watch.

 

[Light Cleric]

I've just heard a very favourable review by someone who's seen the film.

I was a bit alarmed that it featured Kim Jong-un getting killed.

(Well, you know, the actor playing him pretended to get killed. Kim Jong-un wasn't actually killed in the making of the film, as far as we know.)

How would a film that featured Obama getting shot go down with the US authorities?

(Come to think of it, it might meet with some favourable response.)

I guess it depends what you mean.

Here? I honestly don't know with the general public, but I do imagine the government would get its panties in a knot. Hard to say exactly how it would manifest itself, though, could be anything from a strongly worded letter to industrial sabotage.

In North Korea? Probably great with the .00001% of the population they allow to do things other than starve and praise the Great Leader.

Overseas in general? There's probably been some already.

The closest parallel I can think of off the top of my head is the "Bush's head on a pike" in Game of Thrones. Although there was a lot of public debate I don't know what, if anything, the government did in that case(and they shouldn't have done anything).