"The Interview" gets pulled

Jamie Stick wrote: Goken, please stop me if you feel I'm hijacking your thread, but I wonder...

No worries. Discussions are organic and thus change, to expect otherwise would be foolish. I didn't expect it to go quite this direction, but that's why I discuss things, to hear things that I didn't expect and to broaden my views. :laugh:

Jamie Stick wrote: I think what we should have done is staged mass boycotts of such a tasteless film. It's not as though Kim Jung-Un is a saint, but the CIA killing dictators isn't really representing democracy and freedom very well.

This thought hadn't occured to me, I do rather agree with you now that I think about it like that. I hadn't really planned to see it because it wasn't really my kind of humor. I'm not one to organize a boycot or really do anything big over a movie of any sort (otherwise I very well might have done something about Twilight and 50 Shades of How Can They Show This in Theaters. LOL). T me a movie just isn't worth that much energy.

Jestor wrote: Why would someone make a movie about a crazy dictator that is living? WHy provoke a bear?

Excellent point. In most movies (not all) when they do things like that they use fictionalized leaders. Even in movies where the leader is a good character they are usually fictitous. Why provoke some one who is not exactly known for being tollerant and merciful.

Jamie Stick wrote: ...I also suspect that this is all a hoax to get prospective fans riled up and more than eager to see the film.

Senan wrote: I've suspected this as well. If so, it's brilliant.

Senan is right, if they did make it all up on purpose it's brilliant. I think it might be illegal too though. Fake terrorist threats aren't treated lightly.

As for Qur'an burning, I don't see the point to it. The only reason to do that and tell people about it (or make videos about it) is to anger people. The main reason (as I can see it) to anger people is to force them to be clouded by emotions and thus make a mistake. (we'll save the discussion over whether or not people should be angered by it for a different thread). That does make it kind of like this movie.

Jamie Stick wrote: giving into the threats of violence to theater goers over a movie which makes light of CIA plots to kill the leader of North Korea is not an efficient way to deter terrorism.

Also true, but again, would it be worth the energy to fight over a movie?

Zenchi wrote: A movie being pulled from theaters should be the least of our concerns with this guy...

Hard to argue with that.

I'm glad this conversation has gone the direction it has because it does bring up another question I have about this entire situation.

Does anyone else think it is ironic that we are debating the ethical use of our right to "free speech" when a movie release was just cancelled due to terrorist threats from people attempting to squash "free speech"?

The entire premise of this movie is ridiculous and it makes the CIA look like blundering idiots. The same can be said about "Team America". They are as much an indictment of America as they are of North Korea. Burning a Qur'an could be far more offensive and inflammatory than either of these movies could ever be.

Free exchange of information, regardless of how idiotic, is paramount in any free society. If we're going to start censoring Seth Rogan movies out of fear, we might as well hang every foreign news correspondent out to dry for reporting things that are "unpleasant" to terrorists.

How would Americans feel if NK made a movie about killing our President? Funny? I don't think so.

There are quite a few movies out there with US Presidents being killed and/or attempted to be killed, usually not intended to be comedies, but each person viewing something can take different things from it. I thought the humour was in the manner of the attempt by the leading actors who are comedians, and I'm not even sure it portrays an actual successful assassination? I'd have to see it to make judgement on it.

Making a movie about killing a currently serving leader is in very poor taste imo. The more appropriate way would be to use fake names with fake places, only using vague resemblances... (like "the great dictator" or "the dictator") I don't know about US laws, but in europe we have lots of personal rights, and I doubt very much this movie would ever have been legal. Even wikipedia has to be careful about what it says about living people.

I wouldn't even be surprised if sony realised it would get banned in many countries and then staged the "hacking" stuff in order to somewhat still make money out of it.

True I guess, all the movies were the US President and family are hunted, kidnapped or killed are fake characters.

I say play the movie. Must not give power to our fear. Thus it be named

:whistle: :whistle: http://uproxx.com/movies/2014/12/anonymous-north-korea-plan-release-the-interview/ :whistle: :whistle:

I just can't wait to see obama defend the release of Iran's very own "مصاحبه"

As I recall, Sony didn't pull the movie until the major chains refused to play it because of threats of terrorist attacks on theatres, so technically it wasn't Sony that backed down, it was the theatre chains. More Importantly, it was silly of Sony to not attach a fictitious country name instead of North korea and its president. Everyone would know what was really meant while maintaining plausible deniability. Such a large company should have known better. Although I believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression, there is such a thing as common sense.