11 ms·

Theater Chains Decline to Show Sony’s ‘The Interview,’ Citing Threats

250 points by greenburger 12y ago

tallerholler 12y ago
This seems like a reaction completely based in fear not reality.
- angkec 12y ago
  Maybe they were all blackmailed by the same attacker?
- existencebox 12y ago
  When I see things like this, it makes me wish I had the ability to just "spin up a theater" just to run one and call their bluff. Perhaps this is just naive bluster, but I there are few things that make me stand my ground like threats.
  - at-fates-hands 12y ago
    I agree. If you start thinking about the logistics, odds are, this is a very remote possibility. Most of the reports have said the hackers are either in N. Korea or Eastern Europe. They've threatened US theaters here. So either this is a huge bluff, or they have some serious sleeper cells here in the US they are going to activate them and have them attack theaters in specific cities where the movie is being shown.
    - zenocon 12y ago
      The problem with North Korean "sleeper cells" that are resident in the US, is well...once they're here, they kinda shift their opinion on how the world works.
- sebular 12y ago
  It's liability, which you might call the corporate version of fear. Even though the chance that North Koreans would stage a terrorist attack in an American movie theater is slim to none, if something did happen, there would be no end to the lawsuits. As the article mentions, even in the case of the Aurora shooting there was plenty of blame being thrown around in the courtroom. The shooter dressed like the Joker, is the Batman movie to blame? Is the theater to blame? Even in a case like that, where there's clearly one violently insane person to blame, lawsuits happened. In this case, where there was a clear threat issued, if something happened the theaters would be instantly culpable. It wouldn't even have to be North Koreans, maybe just some sick DPRK sympathizer going nuts and shooting someone. And like they say, on top of that there might be reduced attendance for other movies as well. If someone's going berzerk in the theater that's playing The Interview, do you really want to be next door watching the Hobbit? Do you even want to go to the mall? I don't think anyone is seriously worried about an attack. They're worried about the potential legal fallout / lowered profits that could occur in a variety of ways. Controversy isn't great for business, especially during the holidays. That being said, I think it's spineless. The US Government doesn't respond to threats and blackmail, but corporate America is more than happy to sacrifice anything in order to preserve the bottom line. I had no intention of going to see The Interview at a theater, but if I can find an independent place playing it on opening night (assuming they'll even try to have it open that night), I'll be tempted to go and support them for standing up to idiocy.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    On top of everything else, the DHS even announced yesterday that they didn't consider it a credible threat. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat-to-sony-movie-launch-113618.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat... Theaters should have gone forward with it. God forbid something happened they could have said "DHS has far more expertise in these matters than entertain chain management, so we were trusting their judgement".
    - Anthony-G 12y ago
      I personally doubt the credibility of the threats; I've also yet to be come across evidence that the same people who made the recent physical threats are responsible for cracking. Anyhow, according to the article: "officials with the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person briefed on the sessions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment. That person said the officials spoke in terms far less assuring than those used publicly by Homeland Security, which had played down the threat." This would seem to indicate that federal security agencie were influential in the decision by the cinema theatres.
joezydeco 12y ago
Part of me secretly wishes that Sony would just put out a press release saying "You know what? Fuck it. The Interview will be on Netflix on Christmas Day for 24 hours. No extra charge. So stop downloading our Excel sheets and enjoy a movie. Merry Christmas."
- jpmattia 12y ago
  Sony just announced it was pulling the Dec 25 release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-says-it-will-pull-the-interview-from-theaters-2014-12-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-says-it-will-pull-the-...
- smackfu 12y ago
  If I was a movie star with a percentage of the profits, my lawyers would be very opposed to that strategy.
  - cwyers 12y ago
    At this point, what profits?
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      Hold off 6 months, wait until the figure out who hacked them, and then release it.
    - fargolime 12y ago
      A lot of people might see it now, who otherwise wouldn't have.
      - cwyers 12y ago
        How? Theaters refused to show it. Sony has pulled the movie from distribution.
        fargolime 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 12y ago
Remarkably absent is any discussion about the precedent this sets for the future. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea, even private corporations should understand this. But I think I know what the calculus here was: the public would have excoriated Sony and Regal (or any other theater owner) if an attack was actually carried out. We seem to be a nation remarkably devoid of principle, and in that environment, it makes little sense to take a principled stand yourself.
- zaroth 12y ago
  I am very disturbed by the implications this has for the next decade of cyber-warfare. I don't think it was a physical attack the theaters were actually worried about. The unspoken fear is getting hacked as badly as Sony, since they have establish they can pull that off, and the theaters know they can't defend against it. The physical threat gives them an easier 'out'. I thought the article actually mentioned this angle but I was trying to find the quote and don't see it now.
bobsky 12y ago
This is a horrible precedent. This was only a digital hack, that unfortunately violated many personal privacy's. But what happens when fundamentalist, a la ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then? Another film set to premier on Dec 25 is Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" (yea I know, a Christmas classic /s) an easy film to misunderstand and sure to rally those oppose to the US coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan, if threats start about this film from fundamentalists will the studios respond? *cross post from the dead WSJ discussion thread "Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film."
- smackfu 12y ago
  Theater chains are pretty spineless in general.
  - jobu 12y ago
    My initial thought was the opposite. There's no way this is a credible threat, but the theater chains can pretend it is and use it as a negotiating tactic against Sony for better terms.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Or they can use it as an excuse for their decision to remove an already controversial film.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Controversial with who? American audiences? I doubt it. What little controversy might exist over the film with American audiences is dwarfed by the controversy there was over even mundane family films like Harry Potter. Sure, the North Koreans hate the film, but why do these cinema companies give half a shit? They weren't going to get North Korean ticket sales regardless of the movies content.
steven777400 12y ago
Sony just announced they are cancelling the entire Christmas day premier of the movie. http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-owners/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-the...
Animats 12y ago
The last time this happened was in 1977, when an Islamic group made threats if "Mohammad, Messenger of God" was shown. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege) It's now on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam
- danielweber 12y ago
  Hardly the last time. Last Temptation Of Christ had theaters refusing to show it because of threats.
  - codingdave 12y ago
    I just read the book instead.
    - nickbauman 12y ago
      Good book, that.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        Way better than the movie. The book is always better than the movie.
        grogenaut 12y ago
        fight club
        vutekst 12y ago
        Is Fight Club an example or a counterexample?
        BrandonMarc 12y ago
chrischen 12y ago
Possibly relevant: AMC theaters is owned by Chinese Wanda Group. China is an acquaintance of North Korea. Also, the Chairman and 100% owner of Wanda is a high level communist party member.
- msie 12y ago
  What would China have to fear from North Korea? China dictates things to NK not the other way around.
  - chrischen 12y ago
    They probably don't have anything to fear from North Korea. That's beyond the point though. The point is that China can influence American pop culture to be more communist-friendly.
    - msie 12y ago
      So they are influencing American pop culture by pulling the movie? They could have decided not to carry the movie months ago when it was first being pitched for distribution. And I believe one of the leaked Sony emails show that a China distributor decided not to carry the movie. So there was ample opportunity to exert influence ahead of the movie's release.
  - djloche 12y ago
    This is not a China fearing NK. This is China using an unaffiliated hacking group to hurt a Japanese company. A small dose of payback for the conquests of the 20th century.
    - msie 12y ago
      How is this related to the Chinese owner of a theatre chain? They are hurting themselves with lost ticket sales. Are you linking the theatre owner to the hacking incident?
- msie 12y ago
lisper 12y ago
The terrorists have won. :-(
- jrockway 12y ago
  They won a long time ago.
mindcrime 12y ago
Well, this is somewhat disappointing, but the original "threat" did accomplish one thing: It reminded me I need to get off my ass and go get my concealed-carry permit. Granted it wouldn't help if they crashed a plane into the theater, but if some whack job decides to start shooting, I'd like to at least have the option of returning fire if need be.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Yes, because more bullets flying in a dark room full of panicked civilians would help the situation.
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    It might, it might not. There's no way to know in advance, so I'd say your comment here is pretty much content-free. What I want is the option to make that call, if/when an actual situation develops where it might be justified - based on the actual situation "on the ground"... not hypotheticals.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      Sure but giving you the option to make that call has an effect on others. Giving you that option may increase my chance of death in that situation. How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives. I would guess almost none.
      - mindcrime 12y ago
        How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives Of the civilian population at large? Yeah, almost none, percentage-wise. But of the civilian population who choose to carry and even more the civilian population who choose to get a CCW permit I'd say it's "a very high percentage". I don't know if you are a gun owner / enthusiast or not, or if you hang out with "gun people" or not, but my experience has been that the kind of people who carry regularly, go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit, etc., take shooting and training pretty seriously. There are plenty of civilians who shoot competitively and are absolutely better trained than (many|most) cops.
rmason 12y ago
It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down. Back in the day the studios always released their best pictures on Dec 25th. If it was being released on Christmas day it was a picture that they expected would be a great hit and garner multiple Oscar nominations. I don't intend to be a movie critic, but I've seen the trailer and my question is did Sony really expect this picture to be a blockbuster for them?
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down." It was originally supposed to be released in October 2014.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  Seth Rogen and James Franco were concerned about the Oscar contention.
- aaron695 12y ago
  > It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down. This is pretty clear victim blaming, this is not clear. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis )
- dba7dba 12y ago
  A movie that Sony expected to be their best movie (44 million to make and 55 million to advertise) turns into a fiasco that cost them tens of millions in lost work, rebuilding IT, hurt brand. man, man.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Will there still be a release outside the US?
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Will there still be a release outside the US?
birken 12y ago
FWIW I would have never seen this movie but now I will due to all of the hoopla. Though obviously it will be harder to see if it isn't in any theaters, this is still a lot of free publicity for the movie, and I'm sure it will be viewable somehow.
flipp 12y ago
They should stream it for free, today. Perhaps with a 'pay what you like' button.
nickthemagicman 12y ago
I get the feeling that theres a bunch of black hat guys with no affiliation to Korea snickering to themselves right now.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- danielweber 12y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-korea-to-sony-hacking.html?smid=tw-share http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-...
  - baddox 12y ago
    Except that when you read the article, you find that the opposite is true.
    - nickthemagicman 12y ago
      "It is not clear how the United States determined that Mr. Kim’s government had played a central role in the Sony attacks. " I really don't think North Korea has the sophistication to do this. This is perfect explanation: http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why-the-sony-hack-is-unlikely-to-be-the-work-of-north-korea/ http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why-the-sony-hack-is-unlike...
- uxp 12y ago
  I've honestly thought from the very beginning that the hackers had absolutely zero ties to the DPRK. Early on when people were curious on who did this and there was very little communication from the perpetrators I feel that the the only ties to North Korea was the speculation between the release date of the movie and the general speculation of Chinese and N. Korean IP addresses being increasingly prevalent in network attacks in recent years. I think the hackers glommed on to this speculation and are using it to increase the damage by playing on their (and our) fears.
tn13 12y ago
Well, I was not planning to watch this movie but now plan to visit any movie theater that is screening it and watch it. Hope those chains who show spine make more money this holiday season.
motxilo 12y ago
Are we obviating that Sony is a Japanese company?
TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
All of this is just a publicity stunt and you all fell for it. Making a specific threat like this is completely out of line with the way the regime works. They work by brinkmanship; they learned in the 80s that they can't effectively use terrorism as they have a physical nexus.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  So, we must assume that Sony hacked themselves and leaked their internal emails and data to promote a Seth Rogan movie? Genius! /sarc
  - TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
    I'm not saying that studio is the principal agent here. What I am saying is that it's probably not coming from Pyongyang.
    - MrZongle2 12y ago
      So who's benefiting from the "publicity stunt", if the hackers aren't North Korean?
      - MichaelGG 12y ago
        Sony? If you're hacked, might as well spin it into a good-vs-evil story, where the evil just happens to be part of a movie you're launching. If Sony didn't have this cover story, then they'd have nothing with which they could distract people with.
        MrZongle2 12y ago
        So....Sony issued a false threat supposedly from the hackers, or otherwise convinced all these movie theater chains to not run the movie? I'm failing to see the beauty of this plan, or even how somebody with a room-temperature IQ could think this is a smart move even if the original Sony hack was legitimate (which I have no reason to disbelieve is the case).
donatj 12y ago
On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms. On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy. That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm internally divided on the issue.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Rights don't erode from the center, they erode from the edges. As such protecting the rights at the edges is where it's most important. If you find yourself defending the center, it's generally already too late.
- callum85 12y ago
  > On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy. Based on what?
- hartator 12y ago
  The dictator was aired in 1940 when Hitler was still well-alive and the US was not at war against Germany. I pretty sure some people were making the exact same comments back in these days. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator
- xrange 12y ago
  Which censors don't claim that the objects that they wish to censor are needless, tasteless, and harmful to the good moral character of the people?
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Once you start picking and choosing what deserves to be censored or not, it's already over.
- Crito 12y ago
  What is wrong with a "needless tasteless" movie? The primary purpose of movies is to entertain, and neither being "needless" nor "tasteless" prevents a movie from entertaining. Seriously, how is your appraisal of the content relevant at all?
encoderer 12y ago
I can't believe they capitulated. I hope Sony gives the movie away for free, in the spirit of the last U2 Album. Make it the widest release ever.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
d23 12y ago
That's a shame. I'm not a huge fan of Rogen's, but I saw a screening of this a few weeks ago (the first public screening, actually), and it was probably my favorite work of his so far. It's weird to read it framed as "a movie about the assassination of a sitting foreign leader," because it didn't feel that way. Yes, that plot is technically true, but it feels like its just background for the comedy. It's actually very light for most of the time, with James Franco joking around with the leader and learning his more human side. I don't want to give anything else away. It's just a shame.
- nacho_weekend 12y ago
  Jealous! I know his stuff isn't that intellectually engaging, but I've enjoyed his previous stints with James Franco while enjoying a beer and hanging out with friends. There will have to be some direct to video form to get the film out there to compensate the cost.
kafkaesque 12y ago
(Going to take some downvotes today) The incident is likely to be remembered as a failure of Hollywood leadership. As the attack progressed, both studios and the industry’s Washington-based trade associations — the theater association and the Motion Picture Association of America — remained in a defensive posture, and ultimately found no way to save the film or to stem the flow of Sony’s private data, which has been released online by hackers in waves since Nov. 24. How out of touch is NY Times with the times? The Oscars are a joke and, come on, so is Hollywood. The latter is good at providing vacuous entertainment and the former is a self-congratulating organisation. It's an incestuous industry that only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, don't expect Hollywood to do the moral/ethical thing. With Sony getting sued, they saw this was no longer their big profit making movie they wanted it to be, so they pulled the plug. Nothing to see here, folks. Low revenue = no movie. It takes a lot of money to make films these days and they don't want to risk losing (more) money. The movie itself was most likely not going to bring some insight or analysis to North Korea or Asian history or political dynamics, so I don't understand why so many people are up in arms about it--no pun intended. People are saying "terrorists won" and some Republicans are making a big stir on Twitter: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928 https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928 https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664 https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664 America's low point in film history happened a long time ago, and yes, it was caused by Hollywood. Also: "This Is Cyberwar, Not Tabloid Fodder", http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwar-not-tabloid-fodder/ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwa...
- balls187 12y ago
  > only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained This isn't just isolated to Hollywood. Many companies across industries are profit driven. It is perhaps more in your face in the entertainment industry, but greed doesn't just occur there.
brador 12y ago
Rumors of threats against the theatres that showed the movie. Understandable that they'd pull it, but dangerous precedent indeed.
rtpg 12y ago
I can't believe people actually take the NK threat seriously. I mean these hackers sold the information to journalists. If these were state hackers wouldn't they have just released everything immediately? Some people seem to really live in a bubble
- codingdave 12y ago
  If they release everything immediately, there would be no leverage to make demands. It is a valid question whether or not NK has the capabilities to cause harm. But if lives are at stake, why take the risk? It is just a movie after all.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Sorry, I misspoke, I meant the prevailing theory that North Korea is even involved in this. There's basically no evidence that North Korea has any involvement Wired has a good write up on the lack of evidence http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-probs/ http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-p...
    - dba7dba 12y ago
      Wrong. Minutes after it was published, NYT reports govt is pointing fingers at N Korea. Update at 8p.m. 12/18/14: Minutes after we published this story examining the known evidence for and against North Korea as the source of the hack, The New York Times and other media outlets announced that the U.S. administration was ready to conclude North Korea was involved in the Sony hack. We have updated the story with this new information
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
praneshp 12y ago
This happens to pretty much every movie of a couple of actors in my home state in India. Random group makes threats to bomb theaters -> spineless theaters refuse to run the movie -> 2 weeks of negotiations with politicians -> movie comes out. There are two paths after that. Either it runs well because its garnered enough publicity, or it has already been leaked on DVDs. Sickening to see that happening in the US though.
fffrad 12y ago
It was an offensive stupid movie anyway. In the era of youtube and the internet, making a movie is no different then posting a youtube video. See Youtube comments to see what happens when you post something. You have the right to upload a video, others have the right to tell you what they think of it.
jprince 12y ago
Cowards.
Istof 12y ago
The NSA would have prevented any attacks, why are they worried...
anw 12y ago
How many North Koreans "sleeper agents" do we actually have inside the USA, that companies see this as a legitimate threat? Shutting down an event because someone is able to say "remember Sept 11" says more about our own government than it does theirs. We should not be at the point where anybody can cause a disturbance for something they don't like just by uttering threats.
nickbauman 12y ago
North Korea has done a great PR boost for this film. Now many more will see it than before. It's the movie that got North Korea officially off the sidelines and right in the middle of GWOT.
obvio 12y ago
Sony should release it free on YouTube.
kevinalexbrown 12y ago
I don't understand what this has to do with hacking in particular. That they had a list of theaters showing the film? It seems trivially easy to find however many theaters you want, just by googling. It just seems confusing.
woodchuck64 12y ago
If someone with broken English successfully hacks your company's internet firewall, are the odds improved that they will blow up your garage next? This seems strange to me.
cphoover 12y ago
They should do a digital release or sell to netflix. Then we should air drop copies of the film over Pyongyang.
binarytrees 12y ago
A part of me wants to believe this is all marketing and a viral publicity stunt.
mwsherman 12y ago
Seems like a good opportunity to route around the damage: release it ASAP on iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, perhaps for free.
Pro_bity 12y ago
Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release - http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-1201328639/ http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-120132...
jballanc 12y ago
...land of the free, home of the brave.
shalbert 12y ago
If this movie went to theatres, it would hit $1B because how fucked up this situation is.
lemiant 12y ago
http://guysgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg http://guysgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg
tn13 12y ago
Well, American companies shared user's confidential data with NSA because they were too scared of the action. Google stopped hiring ex-Apple because of Steve's threats and we are twisting our pants over a movie ? More bad things have happened in past.
dba7dba 12y ago
Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters first. I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it. In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think they do.
dba7dba 12y ago
Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters first. I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it. In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think they do.
amckenna 12y ago
A line at the end of the article caught my eye: "Hackers claim to have taken at least 100 terabytes of Sony data, or about 10 times of the amount stored in the Library of Congress." Which struck me as very small. So I did some digging and it looks like as of 2009 (almost 6 years ago) the Library of Congress had 74 TB of online data available to the Internet. Additionally the U.S. Library of Congress Web Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about 525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per month. That just includes the web archive team which is one of 8 featured digital collections (http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html). Here the LOC debunks the 10TB figure directly: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferring-libraries-of-congress-of-data/ http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferrin... I'm not sure where the author got their figure, but they are way off the mark. [1] - http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-congress/ http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-c...
- tzs 12y ago
  100 terabytes is pretty small for a movie company. Sony has done several animated feature films, and modern feature animation has insane data requirements. 100 terabytes isn't even the assets from one movie. I haven't seen numbers for any particular Sony movies, but numbers for several Dreamworks movies have been published, which can give an idea of just what goes into an animated feature film. "Rise of the Guardians" [1] had 250 TB of assets. "How to Train Your Dragon 2" has over 400 TB. [1] No, not the owl movie. That was "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole". People often get them confused because of the slight similarity of titles, but they have nothing to do with each other.
thomasmarriott 12y ago
'My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time...Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.' — Chamberlain, 1938 Appeasement, it works.
- bruceb 12y ago
  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
  - thomasmarriott 12y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk
maceo 12y ago
Why are people surprised Hollywood capitulates to fear? It's a generally risk-averse industry. That's why Fast and Furious 7 is coming out soon. The precedent for this was set 70 years ago when Hollywood execs decided to blacklist purported communists and fellow travelers. Several movies were never distributed because of alleged left-wing sympathies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth). As a curious side-note, North Korea's GDP is 12.4b and Sony's market cap is 22.8b.
curiously 12y ago
This is intolerable. To have a thug like regime such as North Korea impose their will on rest of the world on what they can or can't see is infuriating.
remarkEon 12y ago
Really confused by all the "it was offensive and in bad taste, so nbd" comments on here. I don't even know where to begin. Related on the margins, if only that it has to do with the 1st amendment, check out Elonis v. United States[1]. Important 1st amendment case dealing with online threats and reasonable perceptions or expectations of harm. [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...
ha292 12y ago
What about the cyber defense command ? Couldn't they have done anything to protect the U.S. companies? This is becoming a security issue.
- kbart 12y ago
  Government can't place a policemen at the every doorstep of a house which owners failed to lock windows. With billions of funds available, Sony should have taken more steps to protect itself, the malware was quite primitive[1]. Especially, when you have so many enemies as Sony.. 1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-not-sony-pictures-malware-bomb-used-slapdash-code/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-n...
ctdonath 12y ago
Yeah, the threat is highly unlikely to come through. Problem is, if it did - by as little as one random nutcase coincidentally firing one shot during one screening - the studio would be sued into oblivion for failing to act on a then-proven threat. This movie is not what they want to make a stand on, for principle nor for profit. Cancel the release, eat the losses, and move on.
ForFreedom 12y ago
Will the hackers bring down the torrent network if the movie is shared by torrents.
fattybuddha 12y ago
After reading stories about some of Sony's emails I have to wonder if they were looking out for public safety or if they are being blackmailed with some juicy new ones. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony-emails-reveal-project-goliath-a-grand-plan-of-hollywood-studios-and-mpaa-against-google.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor... (Removes tin foil hat)
shaunrussell 12y ago
These hacks were probably done by hackers in US/EU to help expose SOPA legislation. However they found other goodies, and then trolls started trolling about this movie and blaming it on NK, who cant deny it because they like the attention. I find it hilarious that anyone takes NK as a serious domestic threat.
DAddYE 12y ago
Doing that they are just opening the doors for the next threat. I'm a dreamer but instead I'll create one ad to show before the movie explaining what Art actually is and why anyone shouldn't be offended.
briantakita 12y ago
Bruce Schneier weighs in. "this is like Snowden, only with Sony." http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers-completely-owned-this-company http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers...
whiddershins 12y ago
It isn't Sony who benefits from pulling the movie. It is the theaters. If this movie was going to be a dud, Sony would make some money back, greater than zero revenue. All their costs are sunk. But the theaters would lose money relative to how much they might make screening a more popular movie. So the theater chains can use this as an excuse to cancel showing the release, which is probably a violation of some contract or agreement, but they can get away with it in this special circumstance.
valugi 12y ago
bowing to pressure, this is the same as negotiating with terrorists. What is next? ISIS approved movies? Fundamentalist rating system? 3D glasses with included burka?
brotherdey 12y ago
Boycott all theater chains for not showing the INTERVIEW.
brotherdey 12y ago
Boycott all theaters chain

250 points by greenburger 12y ago

tallerholler 12y ago

This seems like a reaction completely based in fear not reality.

angkec 12y ago
Maybe they were all blackmailed by the same attacker?
existencebox 12y ago
When I see things like this, it makes me wish I had the ability to just "spin up a theater" just to run one and call their bluff. Perhaps this is just naive bluster, but I there are few things that make me stand my ground like threats.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  I agree. If you start thinking about the logistics, odds are, this is a very remote possibility. Most of the reports have said the hackers are either in N. Korea or Eastern Europe. They've threatened US theaters here. So either this is a huge bluff, or they have some serious sleeper cells here in the US they are going to activate them and have them attack theaters in specific cities where the movie is being shown.
  - zenocon 12y ago
    The problem with North Korean "sleeper cells" that are resident in the US, is well...once they're here, they kinda shift their opinion on how the world works.
sebular 12y ago
It's liability, which you might call the corporate version of fear. Even though the chance that North Koreans would stage a terrorist attack in an American movie theater is slim to none, if something did happen, there would be no end to the lawsuits. As the article mentions, even in the case of the Aurora shooting there was plenty of blame being thrown around in the courtroom. The shooter dressed like the Joker, is the Batman movie to blame? Is the theater to blame? Even in a case like that, where there's clearly one violently insane person to blame, lawsuits happened. In this case, where there was a clear threat issued, if something happened the theaters would be instantly culpable. It wouldn't even have to be North Koreans, maybe just some sick DPRK sympathizer going nuts and shooting someone. And like they say, on top of that there might be reduced attendance for other movies as well. If someone's going berzerk in the theater that's playing The Interview, do you really want to be next door watching the Hobbit? Do you even want to go to the mall? I don't think anyone is seriously worried about an attack. They're worried about the potential legal fallout / lowered profits that could occur in a variety of ways. Controversy isn't great for business, especially during the holidays. That being said, I think it's spineless. The US Government doesn't respond to threats and blackmail, but corporate America is more than happy to sacrifice anything in order to preserve the bottom line. I had no intention of going to see The Interview at a theater, but if I can find an independent place playing it on opening night (assuming they'll even try to have it open that night), I'll be tempted to go and support them for standing up to idiocy.
- MBCook 12y ago
  On top of everything else, the DHS even announced yesterday that they didn't consider it a credible threat. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat-to-sony-movie-launch-113618.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat... Theaters should have gone forward with it. God forbid something happened they could have said "DHS has far more expertise in these matters than entertain chain management, so we were trusting their judgement".
  - Anthony-G 12y ago
    I personally doubt the credibility of the threats; I've also yet to be come across evidence that the same people who made the recent physical threats are responsible for cracking. Anyhow, according to the article: "officials with the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person briefed on the sessions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment. That person said the officials spoke in terms far less assuring than those used publicly by Homeland Security, which had played down the threat." This would seem to indicate that federal security agencie were influential in the decision by the cinema theatres.

joezydeco 12y ago

Part of me secretly wishes that Sony would just put out a press release saying "You know what? Fuck it. The Interview will be on Netflix on Christmas Day for 24 hours. No extra charge. So stop downloading our Excel sheets and enjoy a movie. Merry Christmas."

jpmattia 12y ago
Sony just announced it was pulling the Dec 25 release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-says-it-will-pull-the-interview-from-theaters-2014-12-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-says-it-will-pull-the-...
smackfu 12y ago
If I was a movie star with a percentage of the profits, my lawyers would be very opposed to that strategy.
- cwyers 12y ago
  At this point, what profits?
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Hold off 6 months, wait until the figure out who hacked them, and then release it.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    A lot of people might see it now, who otherwise wouldn't have.
    - cwyers 12y ago
      How? Theaters refused to show it. Sony has pulled the movie from distribution.
      - fargolime 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

javajosh 12y ago

Remarkably absent is any discussion about the precedent this sets for the future. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea, even private corporations should understand this. But I think I know what the calculus here was: the public would have excoriated Sony and Regal (or any other theater owner) if an attack was actually carried out. We seem to be a nation remarkably devoid of principle, and in that environment, it makes little sense to take a principled stand yourself.

zaroth 12y ago
I am very disturbed by the implications this has for the next decade of cyber-warfare. I don't think it was a physical attack the theaters were actually worried about. The unspoken fear is getting hacked as badly as Sony, since they have establish they can pull that off, and the theaters know they can't defend against it. The physical threat gives them an easier 'out'. I thought the article actually mentioned this angle but I was trying to find the quote and don't see it now.

bobsky 12y ago

This is a horrible precedent. This was only a digital hack, that unfortunately violated many personal privacy's. But what happens when fundamentalist, a la ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then? Another film set to premier on Dec 25 is Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" (yea I know, a Christmas classic /s) an easy film to misunderstand and sure to rally those oppose to the US coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan, if threats start about this film from fundamentalists will the studios respond? *cross post from the dead WSJ discussion thread "Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film."

smackfu 12y ago
Theater chains are pretty spineless in general.
- jobu 12y ago
  My initial thought was the opposite. There's no way this is a credible threat, but the theater chains can pretend it is and use it as a negotiating tactic against Sony for better terms.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Or they can use it as an excuse for their decision to remove an already controversial film.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Controversial with who? American audiences? I doubt it. What little controversy might exist over the film with American audiences is dwarfed by the controversy there was over even mundane family films like Harry Potter. Sure, the North Koreans hate the film, but why do these cinema companies give half a shit? They weren't going to get North Korean ticket sales regardless of the movies content.

steven777400 12y ago

Sony just announced they are cancelling the entire Christmas day premier of the movie. http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-owners/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-the...

Animats 12y ago

The last time this happened was in 1977, when an Islamic group made threats if "Mohammad, Messenger of God" was shown. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege) It's now on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam

danielweber 12y ago
Hardly the last time. Last Temptation Of Christ had theaters refusing to show it because of threats.
- codingdave 12y ago
  I just read the book instead.
  - nickbauman 12y ago
    Good book, that.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Way better than the movie. The book is always better than the movie.
      - grogenaut 12y ago
        fight club
        vutekst 12y ago
        Is Fight Club an example or a counterexample?
        BrandonMarc 12y ago

chrischen 12y ago

Possibly relevant: AMC theaters is owned by Chinese Wanda Group. China is an acquaintance of North Korea. Also, the Chairman and 100% owner of Wanda is a high level communist party member.

msie 12y ago
What would China have to fear from North Korea? China dictates things to NK not the other way around.
- chrischen 12y ago
  They probably don't have anything to fear from North Korea. That's beyond the point though. The point is that China can influence American pop culture to be more communist-friendly.
  - msie 12y ago
    So they are influencing American pop culture by pulling the movie? They could have decided not to carry the movie months ago when it was first being pitched for distribution. And I believe one of the leaked Sony emails show that a China distributor decided not to carry the movie. So there was ample opportunity to exert influence ahead of the movie's release.
- djloche 12y ago
  This is not a China fearing NK. This is China using an unaffiliated hacking group to hurt a Japanese company. A small dose of payback for the conquests of the 20th century.
  - msie 12y ago
    How is this related to the Chinese owner of a theatre chain? They are hurting themselves with lost ticket sales. Are you linking the theatre owner to the hacking incident?
msie 12y ago

lisper 12y ago

The terrorists have won. :-(

jrockway 12y ago
They won a long time ago.

mindcrime 12y ago

Well, this is somewhat disappointing, but the original "threat" did accomplish one thing: It reminded me I need to get off my ass and go get my concealed-carry permit. Granted it wouldn't help if they crashed a plane into the theater, but if some whack job decides to start shooting, I'd like to at least have the option of returning fire if need be.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Yes, because more bullets flying in a dark room full of panicked civilians would help the situation.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  It might, it might not. There's no way to know in advance, so I'd say your comment here is pretty much content-free. What I want is the option to make that call, if/when an actual situation develops where it might be justified - based on the actual situation "on the ground"... not hypotheticals.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Sure but giving you the option to make that call has an effect on others. Giving you that option may increase my chance of death in that situation. How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives. I would guess almost none.
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives Of the civilian population at large? Yeah, almost none, percentage-wise. But of the civilian population who choose to carry and even more the civilian population who choose to get a CCW permit I'd say it's "a very high percentage". I don't know if you are a gun owner / enthusiast or not, or if you hang out with "gun people" or not, but my experience has been that the kind of people who carry regularly, go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit, etc., take shooting and training pretty seriously. There are plenty of civilians who shoot competitively and are absolutely better trained than (many|most) cops.

rmason 12y ago

It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down. Back in the day the studios always released their best pictures on Dec 25th. If it was being released on Christmas day it was a picture that they expected would be a great hit and garner multiple Oscar nominations. I don't intend to be a movie critic, but I've seen the trailer and my question is did Sony really expect this picture to be a blockbuster for them?

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down." It was originally supposed to be released in October 2014.
jfoutz 12y ago
Seth Rogen and James Franco were concerned about the Oscar contention.
aaron695 12y ago
> It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down. This is pretty clear victim blaming, this is not clear. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis )
dba7dba 12y ago
A movie that Sony expected to be their best movie (44 million to make and 55 million to advertise) turns into a fiasco that cost them tens of millions in lost work, rebuilding IT, hurt brand. man, man.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Will there still be a release outside the US?

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Will there still be a release outside the US?

birken 12y ago

FWIW I would have never seen this movie but now I will due to all of the hoopla. Though obviously it will be harder to see if it isn't in any theaters, this is still a lot of free publicity for the movie, and I'm sure it will be viewable somehow.

flipp 12y ago

They should stream it for free, today. Perhaps with a 'pay what you like' button.

nickthemagicman 12y ago

I get the feeling that theres a bunch of black hat guys with no affiliation to Korea snickering to themselves right now.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 12y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-korea-to-sony-hacking.html?smid=tw-share http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-...
- baddox 12y ago
  Except that when you read the article, you find that the opposite is true.
  - nickthemagicman 12y ago
    "It is not clear how the United States determined that Mr. Kim’s government had played a central role in the Sony attacks. " I really don't think North Korea has the sophistication to do this. This is perfect explanation: http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why-the-sony-hack-is-unlikely-to-be-the-work-of-north-korea/ http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why-the-sony-hack-is-unlike...
uxp 12y ago
I've honestly thought from the very beginning that the hackers had absolutely zero ties to the DPRK. Early on when people were curious on who did this and there was very little communication from the perpetrators I feel that the the only ties to North Korea was the speculation between the release date of the movie and the general speculation of Chinese and N. Korean IP addresses being increasingly prevalent in network attacks in recent years. I think the hackers glommed on to this speculation and are using it to increase the damage by playing on their (and our) fears.

tn13 12y ago

Well, I was not planning to watch this movie but now plan to visit any movie theater that is screening it and watch it. Hope those chains who show spine make more money this holiday season.

motxilo 12y ago

Are we obviating that Sony is a Japanese company?

TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago

All of this is just a publicity stunt and you all fell for it. Making a specific threat like this is completely out of line with the way the regime works. They work by brinkmanship; they learned in the 80s that they can't effectively use terrorism as they have a physical nexus.

MrZongle2 12y ago
So, we must assume that Sony hacked themselves and leaked their internal emails and data to promote a Seth Rogan movie? Genius! /sarc
- TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
  I'm not saying that studio is the principal agent here. What I am saying is that it's probably not coming from Pyongyang.
  - MrZongle2 12y ago
    So who's benefiting from the "publicity stunt", if the hackers aren't North Korean?
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      Sony? If you're hacked, might as well spin it into a good-vs-evil story, where the evil just happens to be part of a movie you're launching. If Sony didn't have this cover story, then they'd have nothing with which they could distract people with.
      - MrZongle2 12y ago
        So....Sony issued a false threat supposedly from the hackers, or otherwise convinced all these movie theater chains to not run the movie? I'm failing to see the beauty of this plan, or even how somebody with a room-temperature IQ could think this is a smart move even if the original Sony hack was legitimate (which I have no reason to disbelieve is the case).

donatj 12y ago

On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms. On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy. That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm internally divided on the issue.

InclinedPlane 12y ago
Rights don't erode from the center, they erode from the edges. As such protecting the rights at the edges is where it's most important. If you find yourself defending the center, it's generally already too late.
callum85 12y ago
> On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy. Based on what?
hartator 12y ago
The dictator was aired in 1940 when Hitler was still well-alive and the US was not at war against Germany. I pretty sure some people were making the exact same comments back in these days. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator
xrange 12y ago
Which censors don't claim that the objects that they wish to censor are needless, tasteless, and harmful to the good moral character of the people?
Igglyboo 12y ago
Once you start picking and choosing what deserves to be censored or not, it's already over.
Crito 12y ago
What is wrong with a "needless tasteless" movie? The primary purpose of movies is to entertain, and neither being "needless" nor "tasteless" prevents a movie from entertaining. Seriously, how is your appraisal of the content relevant at all?

encoderer 12y ago

I can't believe they capitulated. I hope Sony gives the movie away for free, in the spirit of the last U2 Album. Make it the widest release ever.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

d23 12y ago

That's a shame. I'm not a huge fan of Rogen's, but I saw a screening of this a few weeks ago (the first public screening, actually), and it was probably my favorite work of his so far. It's weird to read it framed as "a movie about the assassination of a sitting foreign leader," because it didn't feel that way. Yes, that plot is technically true, but it feels like its just background for the comedy. It's actually very light for most of the time, with James Franco joking around with the leader and learning his more human side. I don't want to give anything else away. It's just a shame.

nacho_weekend 12y ago
Jealous! I know his stuff isn't that intellectually engaging, but I've enjoyed his previous stints with James Franco while enjoying a beer and hanging out with friends. There will have to be some direct to video form to get the film out there to compensate the cost.

kafkaesque 12y ago

(Going to take some downvotes today) The incident is likely to be remembered as a failure of Hollywood leadership. As the attack progressed, both studios and the industry’s Washington-based trade associations — the theater association and the Motion Picture Association of America — remained in a defensive posture, and ultimately found no way to save the film or to stem the flow of Sony’s private data, which has been released online by hackers in waves since Nov. 24. How out of touch is NY Times with the times? The Oscars are a joke and, come on, so is Hollywood. The latter is good at providing vacuous entertainment and the former is a self-congratulating organisation. It's an incestuous industry that only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, don't expect Hollywood to do the moral/ethical thing. With Sony getting sued, they saw this was no longer their big profit making movie they wanted it to be, so they pulled the plug. Nothing to see here, folks. Low revenue = no movie. It takes a lot of money to make films these days and they don't want to risk losing (more) money. The movie itself was most likely not going to bring some insight or analysis to North Korea or Asian history or political dynamics, so I don't understand why so many people are up in arms about it--no pun intended. People are saying "terrorists won" and some Republicans are making a big stir on Twitter: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928 https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928 https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664 https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664 America's low point in film history happened a long time ago, and yes, it was caused by Hollywood. Also: "This Is Cyberwar, Not Tabloid Fodder", http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwar-not-tabloid-fodder/ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwa...

balls187 12y ago
> only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained This isn't just isolated to Hollywood. Many companies across industries are profit driven. It is perhaps more in your face in the entertainment industry, but greed doesn't just occur there.

brador 12y ago

Rumors of threats against the theatres that showed the movie. Understandable that they'd pull it, but dangerous precedent indeed.

rtpg 12y ago

I can't believe people actually take the NK threat seriously. I mean these hackers sold the information to journalists. If these were state hackers wouldn't they have just released everything immediately? Some people seem to really live in a bubble

codingdave 12y ago
If they release everything immediately, there would be no leverage to make demands. It is a valid question whether or not NK has the capabilities to cause harm. But if lives are at stake, why take the risk? It is just a movie after all.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Sorry, I misspoke, I meant the prevailing theory that North Korea is even involved in this. There's basically no evidence that North Korea has any involvement Wired has a good write up on the lack of evidence http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-probs/ http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-p...
  - dba7dba 12y ago
    Wrong. Minutes after it was published, NYT reports govt is pointing fingers at N Korea. Update at 8p.m. 12/18/14: Minutes after we published this story examining the known evidence for and against North Korea as the source of the hack, The New York Times and other media outlets announced that the U.S. administration was ready to conclude North Korea was involved in the Sony hack. We have updated the story with this new information
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

praneshp 12y ago

This happens to pretty much every movie of a couple of actors in my home state in India. Random group makes threats to bomb theaters -> spineless theaters refuse to run the movie -> 2 weeks of negotiations with politicians -> movie comes out. There are two paths after that. Either it runs well because its garnered enough publicity, or it has already been leaked on DVDs. Sickening to see that happening in the US though.

fffrad 12y ago

It was an offensive stupid movie anyway. In the era of youtube and the internet, making a movie is no different then posting a youtube video. See Youtube comments to see what happens when you post something. You have the right to upload a video, others have the right to tell you what they think of it.

jprince 12y ago

Cowards.

Istof 12y ago

The NSA would have prevented any attacks, why are they worried...

anw 12y ago

How many North Koreans "sleeper agents" do we actually have inside the USA, that companies see this as a legitimate threat? Shutting down an event because someone is able to say "remember Sept 11" says more about our own government than it does theirs. We should not be at the point where anybody can cause a disturbance for something they don't like just by uttering threats.

nickbauman 12y ago

North Korea has done a great PR boost for this film. Now many more will see it than before. It's the movie that got North Korea officially off the sidelines and right in the middle of GWOT.

obvio 12y ago

Sony should release it free on YouTube.

kevinalexbrown 12y ago

I don't understand what this has to do with hacking in particular. That they had a list of theaters showing the film? It seems trivially easy to find however many theaters you want, just by googling. It just seems confusing.

woodchuck64 12y ago

If someone with broken English successfully hacks your company's internet firewall, are the odds improved that they will blow up your garage next? This seems strange to me.

cphoover 12y ago

They should do a digital release or sell to netflix. Then we should air drop copies of the film over Pyongyang.

binarytrees 12y ago

A part of me wants to believe this is all marketing and a viral publicity stunt.

mwsherman 12y ago

Seems like a good opportunity to route around the damage: release it ASAP on iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, perhaps for free.

Pro_bity 12y ago

Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release - http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-1201328639/ http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-120132...

jballanc 12y ago

...land of the free, home of the brave.

shalbert 12y ago

If this movie went to theatres, it would hit $1B because how fucked up this situation is.

lemiant 12y ago

http://guysgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg http://guysgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg

tn13 12y ago

Well, American companies shared user's confidential data with NSA because they were too scared of the action. Google stopped hiring ex-Apple because of Steve's threats and we are twisting our pants over a movie ? More bad things have happened in past.

dba7dba 12y ago

Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters first. I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it. In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think they do.

dba7dba 12y ago

amckenna 12y ago

A line at the end of the article caught my eye: "Hackers claim to have taken at least 100 terabytes of Sony data, or about 10 times of the amount stored in the Library of Congress." Which struck me as very small. So I did some digging and it looks like as of 2009 (almost 6 years ago) the Library of Congress had 74 TB of online data available to the Internet. Additionally the U.S. Library of Congress Web Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about 525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per month. That just includes the web archive team which is one of 8 featured digital collections (http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html). Here the LOC debunks the 10TB figure directly: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferring-libraries-of-congress-of-data/ http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferrin... I'm not sure where the author got their figure, but they are way off the mark. [1] - http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-congress/ http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-c...

tzs 12y ago
100 terabytes is pretty small for a movie company. Sony has done several animated feature films, and modern feature animation has insane data requirements. 100 terabytes isn't even the assets from one movie. I haven't seen numbers for any particular Sony movies, but numbers for several Dreamworks movies have been published, which can give an idea of just what goes into an animated feature film. "Rise of the Guardians" [1] had 250 TB of assets. "How to Train Your Dragon 2" has over 400 TB. [1] No, not the owl movie. That was "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole". People often get them confused because of the slight similarity of titles, but they have nothing to do with each other.

thomasmarriott 12y ago

'My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time...Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.' — Chamberlain, 1938 Appeasement, it works.

bruceb 12y ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
- thomasmarriott 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

maceo 12y ago

Why are people surprised Hollywood capitulates to fear? It's a generally risk-averse industry. That's why Fast and Furious 7 is coming out soon. The precedent for this was set 70 years ago when Hollywood execs decided to blacklist purported communists and fellow travelers. Several movies were never distributed because of alleged left-wing sympathies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth). As a curious side-note, North Korea's GDP is 12.4b and Sony's market cap is 22.8b.

curiously 12y ago

This is intolerable. To have a thug like regime such as North Korea impose their will on rest of the world on what they can or can't see is infuriating.

remarkEon 12y ago

Really confused by all the "it was offensive and in bad taste, so nbd" comments on here. I don't even know where to begin. Related on the margins, if only that it has to do with the 1st amendment, check out Elonis v. United States[1]. Important 1st amendment case dealing with online threats and reasonable perceptions or expectations of harm. [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...

ha292 12y ago

What about the cyber defense command ? Couldn't they have done anything to protect the U.S. companies? This is becoming a security issue.

kbart 12y ago
Government can't place a policemen at the every doorstep of a house which owners failed to lock windows. With billions of funds available, Sony should have taken more steps to protect itself, the malware was quite primitive[1]. Especially, when you have so many enemies as Sony.. 1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-not-sony-pictures-malware-bomb-used-slapdash-code/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-n...

ctdonath 12y ago

Yeah, the threat is highly unlikely to come through. Problem is, if it did - by as little as one random nutcase coincidentally firing one shot during one screening - the studio would be sued into oblivion for failing to act on a then-proven threat. This movie is not what they want to make a stand on, for principle nor for profit. Cancel the release, eat the losses, and move on.

ForFreedom 12y ago

Will the hackers bring down the torrent network if the movie is shared by torrents.

fattybuddha 12y ago

After reading stories about some of Sony's emails I have to wonder if they were looking out for public safety or if they are being blackmailed with some juicy new ones. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony-emails-reveal-project-goliath-a-grand-plan-of-hollywood-studios-and-mpaa-against-google.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor... (Removes tin foil hat)

shaunrussell 12y ago

These hacks were probably done by hackers in US/EU to help expose SOPA legislation. However they found other goodies, and then trolls started trolling about this movie and blaming it on NK, who cant deny it because they like the attention. I find it hilarious that anyone takes NK as a serious domestic threat.

DAddYE 12y ago

Doing that they are just opening the doors for the next threat. I'm a dreamer but instead I'll create one ad to show before the movie explaining what Art actually is and why anyone shouldn't be offended.

briantakita 12y ago

Bruce Schneier weighs in. "this is like Snowden, only with Sony." http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers-completely-owned-this-company http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers...

whiddershins 12y ago

It isn't Sony who benefits from pulling the movie. It is the theaters. If this movie was going to be a dud, Sony would make some money back, greater than zero revenue. All their costs are sunk. But the theaters would lose money relative to how much they might make screening a more popular movie. So the theater chains can use this as an excuse to cancel showing the release, which is probably a violation of some contract or agreement, but they can get away with it in this special circumstance.

valugi 12y ago

bowing to pressure, this is the same as negotiating with terrorists. What is next? ISIS approved movies? Fundamentalist rating system? 3D glasses with included burka?

brotherdey 12y ago

Boycott all theater chains for not showing the INTERVIEW.

brotherdey 12y ago

Boycott all theaters chain