i wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't posted. i wonder if it is available on my favourite torrent sites... because freedom! https://variety.com/2014/digital/news/sonys-the-interview-has-not-hit-piracy-sites-yet-analyst-1201381941/ Nope :(

So a fictional comedy based around the oh so hilarious premise of murdering a real person is scuppered by an equally fictional threat from hackers?

Seems rather apt.

They should make a new movie "The Hacker" about how "The Interview" can't be shown.

I think Lord Tebbit and Nadine Dorris MP have had a hand in this, they also wanted to stop the BBC showing a story about the murder of Maggie Thatcher.

It's hardly suppressing free speech. Free Speech =/= the right to have your film broadcast by one of the largest corporations in the industry.

Having said this, it's not been cancelled, merely delayed, from what I can tell.

I find it incredibly stupid that they would make a movie about assassinating a ruthless dictator while that dictator is still alive and expect him, arguably the most insane man in the world, to be cool with it.

I don't think they thought he'd be cool with it. But who knew that there'd be this type of backlash.

Sony knew they had terrible IT security, and didn't fix it, so they clearly were arrogant enough to believe that no-one would touch them.

It was projected to make $25 million opening week and cost $44 million so Sony will probably find a way to release it later. Even if it goes direct to DVD they will recoup their cost.

"Sony knew they had terrible IT security, and didn't fix it, so they clearly were arrogant enough to believe that no-one would touch them."

Most companies don't want to spend to upgrade security until it's too late otherwise we wouldn't have so many breaches in the news especially of stolen credit information. I bet most of the other studios didn't have any better security until this happened. It's the revenue loss by leaking films that hits them.

I think Sony has been especially bad, to the point where they are now being sued by employees about it.

I think this says it all.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/special-editorial-surrender-north-korea_821798.html

This is absolutely suppression of free speech. A threat of terrorist violence against moviegoers in retaliation for showing a particular film led a company to nix the release of the film. In what world is that NOT suppression of free speech?

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/18/7415995/the-interview-sony-assassination

Someone needs to hack Sony and threaten violence if they /don't/ show The Interview.

Out of curiosity, what are some other examples of movies in which current heads of state where assassinated?

This is I believe the first time one was assassinated. "Day of the Jackal" had a living head of state, De Gaulle, as a target that almost was killed.

There have been movies in the past that have had boycotts over content, but this is the first time that the threat of violence has gotten to the point where it gets yanked.

KJU is still pissed about the remake of Red Dawn.

We all are...

Zoolander was about assassinating the Malaysian PM, but I don't think he was the real one.


But, let's be clear, Kim Jong Fatso isn't a normal world leader. He's *exactly* the sort of tyrant we ought to be lampooning in movies like this. North Korea is the most monstrous state on Earth. The fact that Sony and the theater chains caved to these threats is shameful.

It's all about money. Sony made the movie to make it and the theaters worry about losing it during the prime Christmas season. No one has confidence that the police would protect the theaters from terrorist actions. All it takes is a repeat of the Colorado incident with a lone gunman to pretty much close all the theaters that would carry it.

It's a cowardly overreaction. The government has said they have no evidence of any actual threat. This is literally North Korean computer nerds pounding on keyboards in Pyongyang. Caving in and cancelling the release is a victory for the worst regime on the planet, and wholly unnecessary from a safety perspective.

Do you really think the United States is full of North Korean terrorist cells? And if fear of a lone wolf shooting a theater is enough for this response then we've set a very low bar to justify hiding movies.

How did Exodus get released under this sort of standard? It basically says God exists only in Moses' imagination? A kooky Christian, Jew, or Muslim could shoot up a theater in response to that blasphemy. If we didn't block Exodus, how can we justify what happened here? Exodus is a much more realistic target for lunatic rage than a comedy movie lampooning a near universally hated man. This was knee-jerk cowardice on Sony and the theaters' part.

Hang on, I didn't know Exodus made God out to be Christian Bale's wet dream. Can you elaborate on that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3nKBR2mIU

There are bigger problems with Exodus than that - the race politics in that film (for example) are terrible.

On how Exodus portrays God as not literally existing.
http://www.avclub.com/review/christian-bale-leads-slog-through-old-testament-ri-212694


What a pointless sidetrack, mendax. I'm not saying the way Exodus depicts God is a problem. It may be really good. I haven't seen it. I'm saying how it's portrayal of God is a much more plausible one to inspire lone wolves to attack theaters, and yet Sony and theater chains caved out of fear of non-existent North Korean terrorist cells. It's a disgrace and shows how their knee-jerk cowardice has lead to them giving in to a tyrant for a phantom reason.


To be clear, I don't think an attack based on Exodus' content is at all likely. I'm just saying it would be more likely for someone out of all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the country to do something at that movie than it would be for some well-hidden North Korean terrorist cell to do something. Especially since, while crazy fanatics of those religions do for sure exist here, there's not reason to believe Nork sleepers do.

But if a crazed Christian attacks a movie theater and Sony gets sued, insurance can handle it. If an agent of NK attacks a theater, it could be legally construed as an act of war, which insurance isn't going to cover.

(But IANAL)

@abge,

In "Death of a President," President Bush was assassinated. The film was made in 2006.

Thanks for the link, by the way. Good read.

"But if a crazed Christian attacks a movie theater and Sony gets sued, insurance can handle it. If an agent of NK attacks a theater, it could be legally construed as an act of war, which insurance isn't going to cover."

I don't think that's the scenario Sony was fearing, if indeed that fact pattern is even legally possible.