They are able to stop not because they are worried about another 9/11, but if something happens, the class-action suits will fly all over, that scares the theaters. So, in essence its not the North Korean dictator or his minions, but the good old lawyers of US&A.
What you are doing is "victim blaming". It's not Sony's fault. It's not the theaters' faults. It's not the lawyers's faults.
It is the fault of the people threatening violence against moviegoers.
edit: I'm not commenting on the overly litigious culture of the US or easily panicked mentality over any threat. Those are fair critiques of the US. However, both of those would be moot if it were not for a credible threat of violence from some person/group. This philosophy of culpability pre-dates the US legal system.
No, the fault really does lie with the overly-litigious culture of the US.
Did you know that if you graduate from med school in Canada, they advise you not to step forward if you're on a US flight and someone asks if there's a doctor on the plane?
I'd be interested to see such a citation as well. Quick searching shows that the US (and other countries such as Canada and the UK) have Good Samaritan laws that protect doctors assisting people in such situations. Specifically:
"The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 ensures that if you're flying in the United States, even if the airline is not owned by a U.S. company, you have Good Samaritan protection."[1]
I also found one article interviewing a doctor who answered the call who mentioned that no physician has been successfully sued for assisting in an inflight medical emergency.[2] A claim that he actually backs up with a citation.[3]
A certain amount of victim-blaming is appropriate, IMHO. You can't make the world a perfect place, and if you tried, you'd likely make it much worse (Orwellian).
The US needs a more sane legal system and the world needs an appreciation of higher quality software systems, made more slowly and carefully.
EDIT: "made more slowly and carefully" is more specific and simplified than I needed there, feel free to ignore it...
I don't even think it was that. I think enough theater chains opted out, Sony assumed more would follow, and they realized a limited release didn't make financial sense. Sony knows the threat against theaters was bullshit. The theaters didn't have much to lose, there's other movies they can put on that screen, and this didn't even look like a good movie anyway. Maybe they just saw an opportunity to put The Hobbit on another screen and used this as an excuse.
It's also in no small part due to the already controversial nature of the film. I'm pretty sure that a vague threat emailed to reporters wouldn't cause Fox to cancel Avatar 2.
- North Korea is not that technologically sophisticated (at least compared to China or Russia, for example).
- North Korea has very limited internet access in general.
- It is highly likely the few internet pipes NK has are being heavily monitored.
- NK has bigger fish to fry, frankly. They can easily control this movie within their borders and they've ignored previous movies that made fun of them (World Police?).
If it is a NK supporter or supporters I doubt they're located physically within NK. But I suspect this was just a random hacker who decided to blame it on NK/the movie for the lolz.
"North Korea is not that technologically sophisticated"
NK has access to the same tech as any other country. They have an intelligence service called room 39. They got enough funds to do some pretty sophisticated stuff. Internet access is no problem.
A hand-picked group of say 5 kids from within NK, given special training for years and access to lots of resources could easily pull off what happened at Sony. None of your points are things that would stop a small special ops team from pulling off the Sony hack. Nor would it have required a significant reason or investment.
Simply because the alternative is that a small group of semi-sophisticated non-state backed hackers could also pull if off. To say that NK can't acquire or won't utilize similar capabilities is a bit naive.
What we need is evidence that it wasn't NK than even more endless conjecture here.
See also "In North Korea, Hackers Are a Handpicked, Pampered Elite"
Nah, I just don't see a country that isolated and impoverished having the resources and talent necessary to do any major damage through hacking. They may very well claim to have l33t hax0rz but just like everything else their claimed superiority and reality don't quite line up.
Now, I would not be surprised if they had help from China, but I really doubt NK did this themselves.
I think that's correct. Either innocuous (somebody tried to think what it might be and reported it as if it were likely / truth), or insidious (government saw chance to increase negativity towards North Korea)...
Still, crazy how much of a shit storm this has created!
"Guardians of Peace" sounds like an elaborate troll. Yes the hack was significant, but I can't imagine the people responsible can do any damage to these movie theaters beyond ordering a bunch of pizzas to their address.
Yeah it sounds more and more like someone doing it "for lulz".
North Korea will never bomb an American theater, unless they developed a suicidal urge for sudden and forceful "liberation".
Maybe, given the hyperbolic rhetoric they are fond of using, they might feel perfectly OK threatening to unleash "a sea of fire" on the US, but I doubt even North Koreans are taking these expressions seriously.
Whether or not NK can attack an American theater isn't really the issue (they can't). What was accomplished was planting the seed that something could happen at a theater if the movie was released. I could easily see some nutcase acting on his own behalf attacking a screening of the movie, and then the fallout from "Sony was warned and they showed the movie anyway!!!" would be massive.
Have any of you read the book: Trust Me I'm Lying (http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator...)? I have not, but have had many discussions with friends who have read it. It's my understanding that the premise of the book is that mainstream media isn't as relevant as they use to be due to the rise of blogs; mainstream media picks up stories from a lot of blogs. Many of these stories are planted there by media manipulators to drum up controversy and thus increase sales.
Admittedly, I don't have evidence to suggest this, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a publicity stunt.
Edit: I'm not claiming the hack was a publicity stunt, I'm claiming that I wouldn't be surprised if the cancelation of the movie was a publicity stunt.
I am truly saddened for free speech. Doesn't anyone realize that capitulating to threats is the worst thing one can do, it only emboldens the idiots further.
Unless of course, you are suggesting that North Korea (accused) is infringing on your freedom of speech. In that case, maybe we can organize a sit-in or something.
Although I don't think it's a matter of free speech (private businesses can choose what they want to show) it's sad that threats the police aren't even taking seriously have to be taken seriously by companies most likely because if something did happen people would sue them. I will never understand the people who would sue if something happened but they are the reason businesses are so damn careful about things like this.
Overall, this is just great publicity for the movie. I predict that in the long run, it will be successful financially. Before, I just wanted to wait for it to get to Netflix or Amazon. Now I want to see it when possible.
I doubt Sony care at this stage. The damage this has done is far more significant than one single movie. Even if the movie is a runaway success, they won't look back on this episode fondly.
I believe that the reviews are coming from press screenings in cinemas. I don't think screeners for (intended) wide releases are generally sent to critics before the theatrical release.
Agreed... This is a terrible precedent that only show everyone in the world how easily we fall back on our principles and values.
I think that Judd Apatow and Jimmy Kimmel said it best on twitter..
"I think it is disgraceful that these theaters are not showing The Interview. Will they pull any movie that gets an anonymous threat now?" - Judd Apatow
" @JuddApatow I agree wholeheartedly. An un-American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent." - Jimmy Kimmel
While I agree in principle, put yourself in the shoes of #1 at Sony.
This movie has unleashed a massive hack upon your company. Tons of damage has been done.
Now the hackers say releasing the movie is going to result in violence against movie theaters that show it. Logically you know this can't happen, but there is certainly a chance some psycho acting on his own behalf could attack a screening after all the publicity this has generated.
Do you take the chance of releasing a mid-budget stoner comedy knowing that you will ultimately be held responsible if some crazy dude attacks a theater?
Sony needs to grow some balls, this is growing into a complete and utter joke. This is the entire problem with the world right now complete and utter risk aversion, red tape and politics.
If i was the CEO of sony, I would not dumb down the death scene, I would make it more extreme, I would edit the film and add recent events into it along with some dialogue that says "Screw North Korea, screw The guardians of peace", as the credits roll up there would be a scene with some computer geeks, a "guardians of peace banner" and something amusingly horrible happening to them all, like being annally rapped to death by a pack of gorillas while trying to hack into the sony website from there underground hacking bunker.
After the credits, maybe a crying Seth Rogen after he discovers the true damage that the guardians of peace have done... they have deleted is midget porn collection!!!
I would do my upmost to get it in every theatre in the world that could and any chain that refused to show it, I would withdraw rights for them to show future big Sony releases, because basically screw them. If they're not willing to have the balls to be awesome, then they aren't important enough to have anything else.
This is a joke, oh no... someone read some emails and leaked them on the internet... on no there is a movie script or two and some unrealised movies. Oh noes they hacked our network, BIG ing deal.. nobody cares, it makes no difference to anyone. Sony just got frapped and went crying to mommy. Sony come out of this looking pathetic, I will avoid this brand in the future unless they do something more awesome soon.
Sony is not a political entity, they're a global multimedia conglomerate. It's not their job to make "awesome" statements defending free speech, or to turn against their distributors, or to rage against the machine. Their job is to make money selling, in this case, a comedy which has turned out to be more trouble for them than it's worth (which given the unlikely franchise potential of comedies, probably isn't much.)
I could imagine them taking a patriotic tack and inviting everybody to show up well armed to the showings. Or heck, put it up for streaming at $15 on all the major providers, let the terrorists hit every data center between here and Pyongyang.
I've never seen an instance where armed law abiding citizens made a terrorist attack or mass shooting worse. If you know of any, I'd love to hear about them.
I cannot. I can name numerous situations where one "armed law abiding citizen" has shot another "armed law abiding citizen." If people came armed to a movie, I wouldn't go, not because I fear a "terrorist" attack, but because I fear armed individuals in general.
And statistics back me up, the number of people in the US killed in terrorist attacks is insignificant relative to the deaths from gun violence.
I'm not even sure that was the goal of the hackers, but either way the fear of lawsuits certainly carries a scary level of influence. Not sure that I like that.
Well, even when they have 'credible intelligence', they don't tell us, and if they did, it would not be the whole truth, if true at all.
That statement is meaningless. It's just the gov saying "if something does happen, we swear we didn't know, but we're not saying it's going to happen"...
We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the
distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our
company, our employees, and the American public.
I hope the spirit of "the American public" is not too badly damaged and that they will rise above this very trying episode.
What would be so cool is if theatres all got together and screened the other THE INTERVIEW, the one starring Hugo Weaving. It's a 1998 Australian thriller that got very good reviews when it came out. I doubt anyone's seen it in the U.S.
