Sony has no balls

[Akhilleus]

Yeah like I said in an earlier post, who gives a shit about North Korea. They've spent billions trying to develop a nuke, and just can't get it to reach us. But they can get one to reach Japan, and well...you know how sensitive they are about nuclear weapons.

 

[A11oftheLights]

I havent read anything past page 4 of this, but it's the furthest thing from poking a lion. Kimmy is piss weak and all talk.

 

[Moon Knight]

North Korea might want to be careful, the last time Americans got afraid of nation we ended up invading it.

Simple fact, if Americans get too scared of another nation that can be easily used as leverage to not only win elections but increase our already bloated involvement overseas. This whole thing just reeks of political opportunity for Republicans, and some are already pouncing on this.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

LOL invading North Korea? Guess you didn't remember the last time we tried.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The line is drawn when something can easily be done to prevent possible loss of life. Sony not releasing on DVD\VOC & the theaters not showing the film may hurt the pocketbook, but the decision protects against lives being ended. This situation has gained more exposure than the other examples you have given & they are visual depictions which are not the same as a plot to kill those leaders. As has been stated, there are tons of other movies, music, etc that has taken a satirical plot similar to this which has gone unnoticed by the masses. Hell, even the more serious action movies have dealt with assassination plots & were not met with this backlash. But if they did, then those responsible would have to weigh the options on how serious the threat vs having their chosen art form seen. Most people\countries dont bother raising an eyebrow to these things because they have the common sense to realize its satirical or based in fiction. These individuals & N. Korea are a different animal.

A lot of things can be "easily done to prevent possible loss of life". It doesn't mean they actually should be done. Allowing ISIS to run roughshod over the Middle East, for example, would undoubtedly "easily prevent possible loss of life" for American soldiers, journalists, etc. Should they be allowed to simply because danger persists if the U.S. and other forces don't intervene?

Possible loss of life is not black and white. As with everything, it's a matter of cost benefit in determining risk assessment. Does the thing we are talking about matter more than the potential loss of life. The two key words there are matter and potential, because matter is subjective and potential is the key indicator in understanding that it's not guaranteed.

Now the name thing is a big stretch & anyone taking that stance, ready to throw ammo around about it, would basically be declaring war over the most trivial of things. Completely different than a movie depicting a plot to kill the factual leader of a real country. Given the nature and attitude of their country I can see how they would be pissy about it, but many others have surely been upset about various depictions of their leaders\countries over the years. The difference is that these people may actually be serious & that unknown is not worth a few ticket sales.

Except that this isn't actually true. I'd argue this movie is trivial based on it's very slapstickian nature. It's satire and designed for comedic entertainment, which would be just as ludicrous a thing to go to war over as the example I gave over the demand to no longer use the name "Kim". But remember one critical thing here — like 9/11, like any other tragic loss of life, the why no longer matters once that action has been taken. And make no mistake about it — in these scenarios, we are being attacked by another Nation. As Rambo once said, "they drew first blood, not me!"

Or if you want a less sensational analogy, it really doesn't matter why the guy at the bar punches you in the face. You farted in his presence and he took exception, you called his wife a ****e, you said his favorite band isn't very good — whatever. No matter what the actual cause of his eventual action, your reaction to that fact is now what actually matters, not what you said that lead to you getting hit. That is to say, in the event you are punched in the face, your obligation is to protect yourself from being punched again, and/or to punch back, not sit there wondering if you said the wrong thing. You may have, you may not have. That guy may just be a hot-head who was drunk and angry about other things going wrong in his life who then took those angers out on you. Guess what? None of that matters anymore. All that does is not getting hit again, and/or retaliation.

So, whether NK is upset over this stupid ass movie or whether they think the U.S. trend of allowing gay marriage is an affront to humanity, etc. If they attack this Nation over that fact, no matter how trivial it may be, the reaction to that Act of War is now what matters. Not why they attacked us in the first place.

Again, this is a comedy film & not something major that is being censored or black-listed. Does it open the door for future situations where some things may be denied distribution? Possibly, but I doubt it will get so out of hand that it warrants an out-cry against censorship from the artists\media or the possibility of going to war over it.

We wouldn't be going to war over it. We'd be going to war over the Act of War committed by NK, or sanctioned by NK as a result of this film being shown here in the U.S. where it's perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected.

And yeah, this is absolutely a slippery slope to censorship. Should artists not be allowed to depict the Prophet Mohammed because Islam forbids it? Should Andres Serrano not have been allowed to place a crucifix into a bowl of his own urine to create 'Piss Christ' because it's offensive to Christians? Should Pro-Lifers not be allowed to protest outside of abortion clinics because they believe it's murder? Should Eric Garner supporters not be allowed to protest in his name because pro-police citizens and policemen find it unsettling?

You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.

Again, where do you draw the line of demarcation, and who is actually drawing that line and determining what is or is not up to the standards of the Nation? This is an absurd line of thinking that plays into Totalitarianism where the decisions on what is or isn't allowed in a country is determined by a sole person. Kind of like... North Korea.

If they did show the film & people were attacked, would you come here & say "Sorry about your family, but no terrorist will deny my right to watch this mediocre comedy!" I surely hope not. So where is your line? Picking your battles over this sort of thing is not so cut and dry when there are different factors at play like the validity of the threats or the importance of the material. Besides, its over a fucking stoner comedy, not like they are burning books in the town square.

If they showed the film and people were attacked, it would be no different than if States continued to overturn archaic laws that prevented same-sex couples from being married and some other Nation attacked us over it, or if Cuba were suddenly upset over the amount of violence we show on television, or if China attacked us over the fact Miley Cyrus is popular, etc. etc. etc.

We are a sovereign fucking Nation. We decide what is or isn't lawful, what is or isn't permitted and what our citizens can or cannot do. You know who doesn't get to decide that? North fucking Korea. China. Cuba. Any country. Any person or peoples who are not U.S. citizens who think that committing Acts of War is going to get them what they want.

That's my line of demarcation. It's drawn along a line that reads "Americans decide what is best for America".

I don't care if it's a stoner movie, the 'Piss Christ' photo, the cartoon depiction of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, etc. It's artistic freedom that should be protected by the rights of free Nations, and if someone has a problem with that, they can fuck right off. If I draw pictures of dicks because I find some artistic relief in doing so, who are you to tell me I can't? You know what your job is if you don't find it appealing? Don't come to my opening. Don't look at my work. Just go about your business as though I don't exist and you won't have to be bothered or upset by my phallic expressions.

 

[macaulayculkin]

i think we should release this movie and tell those jap fucks to go screw themselves

 

[Moon Knight]

LOL invading North Korea? Guess you didn't remember the last time we tried.

I am just pointing out a possible outcome, not defending that outcome.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

This is all about public perception and marketing and nothing to do with being cowardly or the Constitution. SONY does not want to perceived as a company that would put lives on the line to make a few bucks therefore they pulled the film.

Same goes for the theaters. People are not going to care about missing out on the theater for a perceived couple of months even if the US govt (who we trust so much) says there is "no real threat". Pull The Interview and people will come to other movies, keep up the interview and people stay home and illegally download the movie they planned to see or do a million other things we have to entertain ourselves.

And no the US govt should not ban the name Kim. The US govt did not ban The Interview. But if a mom and dad don't want to name their kid Kim, their not cowards, their parents.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

LOL invading North Korea? Guess you didn't remember the last time we tried.

I don't remember that. Please share your memories of the experience.

 

[nightmare]

Does the thing we are talking about matter more than the potential loss of life.

This. Right here.

You are running around up in arms about this when what we are talking about is a stoner movie. Something that clearly does not register as highly on the 'give a shit' scale than other examples you have used- including the ISIS scenario (which by the way is fucking hilarious you would stretch that far to make a point here).

Even if the potential loss of life was 1, that would be too many over this situation. If Sony did not respond the way they did & people died -the media would have sent a shit storm their way for not just simply holding off on the movie like this or at least until things died down. So in their judgement & to prevent possible loss of life, Sony & the theaters decided it was not worth it.


The decision was made & in the wake, action will be taken against those responsible. People are safe & America isnt laying down or banning everything that can possibly be offensive. So calm down, grab a beer, put on your American flag pajamas & go back to drawing dicks for your art show.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

This. Right here.

You are running around up in arms about this when what we are talking about is a stoner movie. Something that clearly does not register as highly on the 'give a shit' scale than other examples you have used- including the ISIS scenario (which by the way is fucking hilarious you would stretch that far to make a point here).

Even if the potential loss of life was 1, that would be too many over this situation. If Sony did not respond the way they did & people died -the media would have sent a shit storm their way for not just simply holding off on the movie like this or at least until things died down. So in their judgement & to prevent possible loss of life, Sony & the theaters decided it was not worth it.


The decision was made & in the wake, action will be taken against those responsible. People are safe & America isnt laying down or banning everything that can possibly be offensive. So calm down, grab a beer, put on your American flag pajamas & go back to drawing dicks for your art show.

Not at all. I'm not actually up in arms at all. But my issue here has always been over the principle. The fact it's a Franco/Rogen movie only pisses me off, because I wish this was at least something "worth" being upset over. I hate both of them. Especially Rogen.

But at the end of the day, it's the principle of the matter I have issue with, and the principle is that the least free nation on the planet just influenced censorship in one of the most free by threat of terror, and committed what I would consider an Act of War by hacking Sony in the first place on the direction of North Korea. Like I said earlier in this thread, that's just unpalatable.

For the record, I wish I owned American Flag pajamas. They'd look sweet. On a related note, I actually own the "book of dicks" from Superbad — the collection of all Jonah Hill's characters' penis drawings. It's fuckin' hilarious.

 

[Dirk]

Chairman Mao only had one ball.

 

[nightmare]

Not at all. I'm not actually up in arms at all. But my issue here has always been over the principle. The fact it's a Franco/Rogen movie only pisses me off, because I wish this was at least something "worth" being upset over. I hate both of them. Especially Rogen.

But at the end of the day, it's the principle of the matter I have issue with, and the principle is that the least free nation on the planet just influenced censorship in one of the most free by threat of terror, and committed what I would consider an Act of War by hacking Sony in the first place on the direction of North Korea. Like I said earlier in this thread, that's just unpalatable.

I understand where you are coming from on the principal of it. At first I was a little pissed at the idea this was censored in a roundabout way, but then it set in on why the decisions were made to pull it. Should it be a trend? Certainly not, but it opens a door for others to try the same tactics & hopefully will not happen often enough to matter. Some people are getting too over the top with the outcry of injustice for this & at the end of the day its just a damn comedy film. The public response just seems better fit for something of more importance & many people yelling about it would surely speak bad about Sony for not yanking the film, if the threats were carried out.


At the end of the day, I think this will still be released eventually on DVD\VOD & Sony will at least make some money back. After the publicity, people are clamoring for this to be seen. Which in a sense is good for the film because more people care now than they did before. Something will be done about the hack\threats in the near future & if not directly the people responsible, at least N. Korea will know this type of shit wont fly (much like their missiles).

For the record, I wish I owned American Flag pajamas. They'd look sweet. On a related note, I actually own the "book of dicks" from Superbad — the collection of all Jonah Hill's characters' penis drawings. It's fuckin' hilarious.

I know I made the joke about pajamas, but all I can picture now is this:

I had no idea that there was actually a book of dicks. That is both hilarious and unnecessary. Does it come in a lunchbox? That would make it funnier.

Chairman Mao only had one ball.

& the drummer from Def Leppard only had one arm. It all makes sense now.

 

[Dirk]

& the drummer from Def Leppard only had one arm. It all makes sense now.

Nick Fury & Zack Gowen will join them in Sony's latest venture... The Extendables!

 

[A11oftheLights]

I see the point your making nightmare, however when you say "risking lives is not worth a stoner movie" i disagree with this stance. I believe there can be/is no grea area or fence-sitting on this issue. Either you are all in on wanting every film to be pulled if there are threats of terrorism, or you are all in that freedom of speech cant be compromised no matter what the film is. You cant say this comedy film isnt worth the risk but this action movie is.

 

[nightmare]

I see what you are saying, but what I meant was the content- regardless of the medium. If this was a film documentary about something to do with a serious real life topic or historical fact & threats were issued to ban\censor the film- that would have a bit more impact than a satirical comedy plot. Another example would be a joke panel in a comic book vs a passage in the bible or other religious text. Which one has more of an impact or would be more likely to be defended? Censoring material in a country with free speech laws is not a great idea, but there certainly is a hierarchy of meaning regarding the content in question.


I say that if holding off on something trivial until the threat can be assessed &\or terminated saves innocent lives, then so be it. The difference with this censorship argument & one dealing with something else of importance is that this movie will likely still be released in the near future. Holding off on a comedy release and totalitarian book burning are two different animals. One is a temporary removal over a possible threat, while the other is a ban of all related material to suppress free speech or thought.

 

[A11oftheLights]

Again I see what your saying but this isnt being cnesored or banned this is the producer of the medium not allowing it to be shown based on threats of violence. So I think the same logic should be applied across the board but I have the feeling that it wont be. Would be interesting to see if a company made a movie that was either pro-christianity or anti-muslim and see what would happen if ISIS made a threat, a much more credible threat.

Interesting to see that the North Koreans have denied any involvement

 

[nightmare]

Well of course N. Korea denied it. Why freely admit to it & open themselves to even more than what they will get over this? That way anything that happens to them over the situation gives them a platform to cry foul for being accused.


One thing I was thinking about was that the producers\writers\studio surely had an idea that this film would me met with some sort of backlash. Obviously nothing like this, but something. They could have used a fictitious Asian dictator's name in a random unnamed country & just hinted at it being N.Korea without actually saying so. Again, no way of knowing it would be met with this type of response. Its still not an excuse for the threats & using actual names\places should not deter artists in the future, but rather make them aware just how far certain people will go when displeased.

 

[A11oftheLights]

The part i find interesting about N.Korea is that they're willing to help with a joint inquiry

 

[nightmare]

Have not heard about that part. Makes sense though. Offer to help & then all of the sudden find those responsible, put out the word they will be dealt with accordingly & do nothing. N. Korea comes out saving some face without actually handing down a punishment & it becomes a scar on their reputation that no-one can technically prove their involvement in. They can literally pin it on someone they were already going to punish anyway & we could suspect otherwise, but never know for sure.


Sneaky bastards.

 

[A11oftheLights]

how far away are we from another world war? The North Koreans are ran by a crazy kid launching missiles, then there is ISIS and all the other terrorist organisations, Palestine & Israel, Vladimir Putin/Russia(who as Key & Peele put it is a James Bond Villain) and you cant forget China(who arent really publicly a threat of starting a war but who knows what they're really thinking).

 

[Akhilleus]

I'm not worried about Russia or China, because they're both sensible. And we all know if another World War starts, it's going to involve WMDs.

North Korea is all by itself. I don't think China really likes them either. ISIS is just an terrorist group, not a government. They won't be anyone's big ally in a World War. Yeah they'll probably pick a side, but that's if anyone even wants them. All they want attention.

The difference now with world wide conflicts compared to when the first two World Wars started, is we have the United Nations. So everyone can sort out problems, and the ones that don't show up will just be by themselves while the ones that do can align in bulk and likely out power them big time. Not to mention we have the technology and the awareness to shoot down a missile coming our way before it even gets half way there.

 

[A11oftheLights]

I'm not worried about Russia or China, because they're both sensible. And we all know if another World War starts, it's going to involve WMDs.

North Korea is all by itself. I don't think China really likes them either. ISIS is just an terrorist group, not a government. They won't be anyone's big ally in a World War. Yeah they'll probably pick a side, but that's if anyone even wants them. All they want attention.

The difference now with world wide conflicts compared to when the first two World Wars started, is we have the United Nations. So everyone can sort out problems, and the ones that don't show up will just be by themselves while the ones that do can align in bulk and likely out power them big time. Not to mention we have the technology and the awareness to shoot down a missile coming our way before it even gets half way there.

After world war they created the original United Nations, we had another World War before you could blink. And even since then, theres the palestine/israel crap(which is the UN's fault i'm pretty sure) Vietnam War, Korean War and a few Gulf Wars, not exactly ideal.

 

[nightmare]

Apparently our government had a hand in making this film with the purpose to spread anti-DPRK propaganda.





Little Kimmy and his friends are fucking ******ed.