Sony Pictures Folds Up Like a Lawn chair?

[Tidus44]

Sony let theater companies decide whether to play the movie.

Rogen and Franco cancelled all media appearances for their movie.

Sony Pictures cancelled the release after the big movie/theater companies and distributors decided not to show the movie.

Sony should take further losses financially by releasing a movie no one is going to show? I doubt Sony made the decision on fear, but more so on financial concerns, and especially concerns about getting sued into bankruptcy if something should happen at some theater.

 

As for the theater companies, I don't see how one can be critical of them for cancelling either; it's not like there isn't a plethora of nutbars out there who may be inspired to do something at some theater. After all, no theater in North America has ever had someone walk in and start shooting people have they?

 

How critical would people be if Sony and theater companies did show the movie and some wack job killed people at some theater? The whiners would be complaining about how irresponsible Sony was releasing the movie. Sony and the theater companies are in a no win situation no matter what they do. Better to not release it than to open the door for every crazy to have an excuse to do something.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Tidus44

[Aurielius]

I tend to agree with Tidus, Sony is an entertainment corp not a national security agency. I am sure they had a chat with their legal dept who advised them of their liabilities if an incident occurred. National cyber defense is supposedly being handled by the NSA....who seem to be asleep at the switch.

[Maharg67]

Given that I am not sure of the wisdom of making such a provocative movie, I believe that...

 

In the end, one way or another, the movie will have to be shown if for no other reason than to 'show' that none should have the right, or ability, to stop 'freedom of expression'.

 

That the North Korean Regime has in the end been self defeating in that many people will want to now see the movie just out of curiosity, even if they do so on DVDs and limited cinema release. There will be others who watch it to support the idea of freedom of expression.

 

How would Japan, or the USA, respond if a film was made that was a parody of one of their leaders being under threat of assassination? It is a difficult and complicated issue. I think that the makers, of the movie, should have used a far more imaginary autocratic nation, and leader, to make their parody about even if they 'hinted strongly' that the movie reflected North Korea.

[Tidus44]

While I do believe in the right of freedom of expression, I do ponder where this movie falls in regards to that right. I have seen the question raised numerous times regarding, "How would the USA feel about a film that was about a plot to assassinate the President?" and I do wonder what the reaction would be if such a movie was made.

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech and expression do not offer an open ended right to express any idea or anything. There are limitations on freedom of expression and I would suggest that if the movie didn't cross a line, then it was pushing the boundary pretty hard.

 

One of the limitations that the Declaration identifies is the "offence principle". This came about through a number of incidents such as the Danish newspaper cartoons portraying Mohammed, the movie "Jerry Springer: The Opera" and the movie Behzti.

The declaration recognizes that offence can be very deeply felt and its consequences can be damaging. The principle suggests that consideration of how offensive something is should consider the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, community interests and the extent to which the material could be avoided. It also considers who expresses the view. There is a significant difference between an individual expressing a view and a corporation that has global finance, global reach and close relationships with governments. The Declaration does consider the levels of responsibility that would be expected from an individual and those of a global corporate media differ.

 

I don't say that Sony and the movie makers are wrong, but I do question if it was absolutely necessary to make the movie as it was made and if the intent was to be offensive. There is a fine line between offending someone and satire or a parody.

[HeyYou]

There have been a whole host of movies about assassinating presidents...... most made right here in the good ol' US of A.

[bben46]

For anyone looking for a new conspiracy theory I heard one yesterday.

 

Sony leaked it's own stuff as a publicity stunt when they realized the movie was not really that good. By claiming to have been hacked by NK, then threatned with bigger leaks if they released - it would drive up intrest in a 3rd rate movie and increase viewers & profits. Then it blew up on them. And that's why they folded so quickly - it was getting out of control.

[Aurielius]

Personally I find the film's plot to be inane and would not even watch it on a plane..my lowest bar since I'm a captive audience. However Free Speech is important principle that should be defended vigorously..even for visual slush.

[JimboUK]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/21/sony-youtube-possible-release-the-interivew

 

Good luck getting $44 million back on Youtube.

[Tidus44]

While I appreciate that there are movies about a US President being assassinated, pretty much every movie made that had an assassination plot against a US President (or other head of state) involved a fictional character. The movies I can think of that referred to actual heads of state were based on actual events or were a serious examination of events that did or that may potentially impact society. In any case, the movies did not advocate assassination, didn’t make fun of the idea of assassinating a head of state and had at least some thought provoking questions raised.

The other movies didn’t make fun of a real (living) head of state or treat the assassination as a joke, which is what this movie seems to do.

 

Again, I don’t deny that freedom of expression should be defended, but to what degree? If a movie made fun of pedophilia should it be defended as freedom of expression? The free expression of ideas and opinion is not just entertainment. Opinions influence individuals and even society as a whole and the freedom to express an opinion also holds with it responsibility and accountability. Or is it that anyone should be free to express any idea or opinion they want without any limitation, restriction, responsibility or accountability?

 

I see at least one conspiracy raised here in the thread, so I’ll raise another. What if the movie was made to deliberately provoke North Korea into retaliating in order to start a war? Is this freedom of expression that should be defended?

 

How offensive does a movie have to be and to whom before it should not be defended as freedom of expression?

And while the movie in question is just a stupid movie that holds no interest for me and I couldn’t care less if it was shown or not; and honestly I don’t even care what it may provoke North Korea to do in retaliation, I only raise the question as something that I ponder, not as something I advocate as reason not to defend freedom of expression.

[Aurielius]

Tidus,

I have always gone by the concept that even though something irritates or offends the hell out of me I'll defend your right to say it.

That being said, the premise of the film is inane and the humor lame to say the least. A better title than 'The Interview' would be 'Animal House Vacation in Pyongyang'.