# "The Interview" Limited Release (was Cancelled)



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From NBC News:

*Sony Cancels 'Interview' Release After Theaters Drop Out While Fox Folds Similar Movie*

Sony is dropping its planned release of "'The Interview," the comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco that depicts the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un - and at least one other Hollywood flick is dying on the vine because of the fallout.

The decision by Sony came after some of the nation's largest movie theater chains, including Regal, Cinemark, Carmike and Cineplex, said they were holding back or dropping "The Interview" from screens in the aftermath of a hack that has ballooned from embarrassing disclosures for Sony Pictures executives to involve threats against theaters screening the film.
. . .​On Wednesday evening, NBC News also confirmed that a Gore Verbinski-directed movie starring Steve Carell and tentatively titled "Pyongyang" (after the capital of North Korea) would not be "moving forward" at Fox's New Regency studio.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/sony-cancels-interview-release-after-theaters-drop-out-while-fox-n270281 (with video)


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I bet the person who gave the original approval on this film has found a pink slip in their office mail this week.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The film seems to be one of those annual throw away comedies that make a little money and are on PPV and DVD in a few months. While I do not like the idea that we are conceding to a terrorist threat, it isn't like we're losing great art.

When the threats first started I thought it might be some ill thought out viral marketing for the movie.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Well with all the free publicity this movie was getting thanks to the hacking and threats it was probably due to do a lot more business than it ever would've otherwise. Just goes to show that North Korea really doesn't understand how capitalism works. If they had just ignored it, it probably would've passed with very little fanfare and no one probably would've barely even remembered that it existed a couple years down the road. Oh well guess now we'll never know anyway thanks to Sony deciding that North Korea should be allowed to have the final word on what can and can't be censored.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I guess Hitler should have raise a stink when Charlie Chaplin did _The Great Dictator_ in 1940.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> I guess Hitler should have raise a stink when Charlie Chaplin did _The Great Dictator_ in 1940.


"I exercise my God-given rights under a democracy and dislike whom I please" (Pfc Peter Conyay (John Agar) to Sgt John M. Stryker (John Wayne) in "Sands of Iwo Jima"). Try saying that today. Back then no one had to worry about being politically correct.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> I bet the person who gave the original approval on this film has found a pink slip in their office mail this week.


Likely not. It sounds like they went to great lengths as things go, including getting a rough cut screening to the State Department.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This is one of the most significant, troubling matters to have occurred in the history of the internet and we all knew it would happen. As thoughtfully summarized by Mike Fleming Jr. in Deadline Hollywood:



> This is the bottom line in this attack. North Korea seemed to have thought of everything, with a plan that could have come right out of Sun-Tzu's The Art Of War. These cyber-terrorists played a seamless game of divide and conquer, relying on media to turn Sony leaders Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal into pariahs unfit to lead, to the point that one trade depicted them cooking in a cauldron.
> 
> While all this swirled around, we were all too busy to see what was coming or even recognize it for the terrorist master stoke that it was....
> 
> I spoke with Lindsay Moran, a former CIA operative who is an author and consultant on security and intelligence matters. She isn't sure it's fair to label media outlets as accomplices, or really pass judgment on anyone in this drama. That's because this was new terrain to everyone, from media to Sony, to law enforcement and government. "The job of government is to safeguard American interests and that includes economic interests so in that regard, a private business like Sony belongs in the same category as a U.S. government agency," she said. "The media has a job, but is that job to enable a victory by cyber criminals? Do we treat cyber-terror the same way we have other forms of terrorism? This is a debate that is fast coming, but we haven't had it yet. There hasn't been an opportunity to formulate policy. It is chilling, and hard to convince the American public to be outraged over something like this. But today it is Sony, and tomorrow, it could be another private company or a government agency."


In a separate article Hollywood Cowardice: George Clooney Explains Why Sony Stood Alone In North Korean Cyberterror Attack Fleming explains:



> George Clooney has the answer. The most powerful people in Hollywood were so fearful to place themselves in the cross hairs of hackers that they all refused to sign a simple petition of support that Clooney and his agent, CAA's Bryan Lourd, circulated to the top people in film, TV, records and other areas. Not a single person would sign. Here, Clooney discusses the petition and how it is just part of many frightening ramifications that we are all just coming to grips with.


In an article by another writer 'The Interview' Release Would Have Damaged Kim Jong Un Internally, Says Rand Expert Who Saw Movie At Sony's Request we read:



> Rand Corporation senior defense analyst Bruce Bennett, who says he was asked by Sony chief Michael Lynton to look at The Interview, said today the depiction of Kim Jong Un in the movie would have harmed the North Korean leader once the "elite" in his country got hold of the DVD and began sharing it. That's why North Korea hacked Sony, he speculated.
> 
> A proportional response, to North Korea's cyber attack on Sony, Bennett said, referencing President Obama's comments this morning at his end-of-year news conference, would be to make certain the movie got released on DVD, so copies could find their way into North Korea.


And we have this article BitTorrent To Sony: Let Us Distribute 'The Interview'.

The most troubling part of this is that it is another confirmation of my belief that supposed "capitalists" ultimately dependent upon the American military personally would not risk a good bottle of booze in the cause of the very freedom that underlies their ability to do business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> The most troubling part of this is that it is another confirmation of my belief that supposed "capitalists" ultimately dependent upon the American military personally would not risk a good bottle of booze in the cause of the very freedom that underlies their ability to do business.


I do NOT want to see this thread go political ... but one should note that Sony pulled their theatrical release. They did not call up the government and demand any special protection from North Korea. Sony is looking for industry partners who will join them in getting the flim released. They are having trouble getting others to join them in taking the risk.

When the threat became physical ... potential harm to people attending showings and the areas surrounding theaters ... many theatrical partners backed away and Sony followed suit. Perhaps if the theaters played the film there would be power grid disruptions. Would the theaters and Sony want to take responsibility for the collateral damage?

What distribution partner wants to put themselves in the crosshairs of terrorists? Put it on DirecTV or DISH PPV and watch the uplink centers go down mysteriously? Or customer service centers? Every company hopes that they have perfect security and cannot be attacked ... but who wants to bet their business worth billions of dollars?

Unfortunately this is an example of terrorism working. The targets are afraid ... they are terrorized and ended up giving in to the demands of the terrorist. And that is a shame.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Sorry I simply disagree. They should have released it without question and no chain should have backed out. They should have asked for a wider release if anything. 

And had hackers taken out a power grid or worse that would be essentially declaring war. And if they are that dumb..... Because NO country would have defended North Korea had that happened. None. 

It was a game of chicken to a large extent. And frankly we would have been better playing it against this threat then waiting for a larger one.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> I do NOT want to see this thread go political ... but one should note that Sony pulled their theatrical release. They did not call up the government and demand any special protection from North Korea. Sony is looking for industry partners who will join them in getting the flim released. They are having trouble getting others to join them in taking the risk.
> 
> When the threat became physical ... potential harm to people attending showings and the areas surrounding theaters ... many theatrical partners backed away and Sony followed suit. Perhaps if the theaters played the film there would be power grid disruptions. Would the theaters and Sony want to take responsibility for the collateral damage?
> 
> ...


This thread should probably be in The OT as the issues aren't really about a movie. The first article linked in my post indicates this:



> Free speech certainly got drubbed this week. The President criticized Sony for that, meaning the studio is taking heat from both sides. The other side is the theater chains that were compelled to take action when Sony wouldn't. Artists lamenting the chilling effect here are also right. Would North Korea have actually spilled blood in the U.S. over a satirical comedy? Homeland Security found no credible terror threat, and once North Korea was identified as the hacking mastermind, any bloodshed would have made Kim Jong Un the new Bin Laden, and we saw how that ended in Zero Dark Thirty, another controversial Sony Pictures release.
> 
> Despite all this, it is hard to imagine theaters reacting differently. I'm told they got pressure from all sides, from rival studios with Christmas films that worried about empty houses, and mall shopkeepers near cineplexes. As Clooney explained, there were also lawyers telling theater owners that because they'd been forewarned, the potential liability was enormous.


No one knows how many American's would have not gone to theaters because of the threat. But if the executives of corporate theater chains, their fellow corporate mall occupants, their corporate lawyers, and their corporate insurance companies reflect the commitment of American corporate executives to our freedoms, we do know that any disgruntled competent hacker can shut down our access to any product of corporate America they decide to shut down. It doesn't matter if the threats are credible, nobody was even willing to sign Clooney's petition.

Contrary to the opinions of many, I don't think it's government's job to protect our freedoms on American soil, particularly the freedom of speech and the freedom of movement. I think it's our job.

In this case, all that had to happen was for "them" to show the movie and for "us" to go to see it. The most dangerous part of that would have been the drive to the theater.

What's the matter with corporate America??? This attitude has to be reversed immediately.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The issue is the movie ... just another "throw away" film that would recover it's production cost at the box office and be released on DVD in a few months (an "uncut/unrated" version with filthier jokes included). Perhaps a sequel if they could convolute a reason for one (make money is a reason).

I saw some of the promotion for the movie ... mostly commercials and interviews on Comedy Central. Fortunately Colbert got his interview in before the movie was pulled and promotion ended. A good interview.

Now it is a cult classic before it is even released. Watch this movie and give a finger to North Korea? If you don't see this film you are un-American? Now if only Sony Pictures could find a way to make money off of that sentiment ...


(BTW: The OT does not allow political posts so the thread will close before it is moved for that reason.)


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I'm not one to make predictions, but if I was, I'd predict the film will be
streamed first, probably on the big three, Netflix, Amazon and/or Hulu,
but if I had to pick only one, it would be Netflix.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Nick said:


> I'm not one to make predictions, but if I was, I'd predict the film will be
> streamed first, probably on the big three, Netflix, Amazon and/or Hulu,
> but if I had to pick only one, it would be Netflix.


For a streaming service the risks of being hacked creating service disruptions are high, maybe too high, but we'll see. For BitTorrent Inc.it would simply be a challenge they couldn't pass up, but Sony wouldn't see the potential profits from them.

I disagree with James that the issue is the movie, except perhaps for folks in North Korea. I, for one, would have ignored this movie altogether except for the hack. Unlike many, I don't agree that it is "terrorism." To me the issue simply is using the internet for purposes of extortion/blackmail. It was criminal act, a felony in virtually every state in the Union. If it was actually done by a nation-state, it may be an act of aggression, albeit not the dictionary first definition.

What I see here is that the issue in the United States is the idea that there can be a process of determining just how much is the freedom of speech and freedom of movement for American people worth to corporate America (who despite the Supreme Court cannot be considered "people"). A combined twenty dollars? A hundred dollars? A thousand dollars? A billion dollars? A trillion dollars?

My gut reaction was utter astonishment along the lines of "you've got to be kidding, have we become so crass, stupid, and fearful?" The potential political risk here will be advocacy for isolating national internet networks. That has already occurred in non-democratic nations.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I could imagine Sony going ahead and showing The Interview on Christmas day and getting sue for billions as a result of a stampede course by an unauthorized fart.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I just can't wrap my head around the the movie itself.
If the all of this did not happen, I would have never known it ever showed.
The previews did not give me any indication that it was going to be worth my time to watch it.
And it would have been a straight to dvd movie.
It did not look like "TED" success movie.

I hate this world now the way it is and stuff.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Oddly enough, my GF had just downloaded a digital book a week ago, one written I think in 2010. It's about N. Korea, and the conditions there were (are?) appalling. Rampant hunger, no electricity, infrastructure deteriorated, a regime as repressive as that one in Germany 70 or so years ago. Horrible. 

I will one day, by hook or by crook, see the film, but knowing what I know now, it won't be as amusing.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> I could imagine Sony going ahead and showing The Interview on Christmas day and getting sue for billions as a result of a stampede course by an unauthorized *fart*.


SBD?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Sony Pictures Will Screen _The Interview_ on Christmas Day



> Multiple theaters are now announcing that Sony Pictures has authorized screenings of _The Interview _on Christmas Day. There are also reports that the company will also announce corresponding video on demand release. They're not such cowards after all!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Watching Michael Furlinger the owner of Plaza Atlanta Theater explain why they are showing the Interview on Christmas day. Good for them. In the long run we have no chose but continue with our lives dispute threat from others.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Oddly enough, my GF had just downloaded a digital book a week ago, one written I think in 2010. It's about N. Korea, and the conditions there were (are?) appalling. Rampant hunger, no electricity, infrastructure deteriorated, a regime as repressive as that one in Germany 70 or so years ago. Horrible.
> 
> I will one day, by hook or by crook, see the film, but knowing what I know now, it won't be as amusing.


Throw a '_Interview_' screening party.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, now, I may not have to wait very long. Apparently it's green lighted for release after all.... Who knew?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I will now probably go see it when I didnt plan to before, simply to show the hackers they didnt do squat... Can't encourage their behavior!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> I will now probably go see it when I didnt plan to before, simply to show the hackers they didnt do squat... Can't encourage their behavior!


This been their plan all along -- to dumb down America. By having intelligent people that had no plans to see it, to now go.

You see, NK has managed to put in a subliminal messages into the film that will have everyone that see it praising Kim Jong-un.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

!rolling

You are hilarious!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> This been their plan all along -- to dumb down America. By having intelligent people that had no plans to see it, to now go.
> 
> You see, NK has managed to put in a subliminal messages into the film that will have everyone that see it praising Kim Jong-un.


Dumb down America. Is that even possible.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

yosoyellobo said:


> Dumb down America. Is that even possible.


Every time I think it can't, I heard of someone doing something real dumb.

And then there are almost a dozen reality shows that focus on people intentionally doing dumb things to others and to themselves.

And Americans suck all this up like a sponge while not being to pinpoint where they live on a globe.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Reality is a different ball of wax. 

But...

Vacation?

Airplane?

Truly dumb but truly funny to all kinds of people. Entertainment people watch does not necessarily equate to brain power. 

Note I don't call most reality shows entertainment.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

You Can Stream _The Interview_ Right Now, Here's How


> _The Interview_ has had the craziest release story of any film in recent memory. But a crippling hacking attack, terrorist threats, and state-sponsored "cybervandalism" aside, the movie is now (finally) available to watch-and you don't even have to leave your couch.
> Earlier today, Sony announced that YouTube, Google Play, and Xbox Video would be streaming the film for $6 or for $15 to own starting at 1pm EST. Here are the links that'll take you there:
> 
> YouTube
> ...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

*UPDATE:* _The Interview_ is now streaming online via the following links:

 YouTube
Google Play
Xbox
Pricing for each is $5.99, and the film is available for purchase for $14.99 in HD.
Sony's own site www.seetheinterview.com will also stream the film.Why Sony isn't making the film available on the Playstation Network is something of a mystery, though we wonder if that has to do with PSN's history of being hacked.
I am now streaming it from the latter site. Good picture on my slow ISP, money going direct to SONY, who deserves it in this case....


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It's unlikely I'll watch it but I'll sign in and pay for it just because the way they are releasing it allows me to defend my rights as an American to access silly stuff.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

phrelin said:


> It's unlikely I'll watch it but I'll sign in and pay for it just because the way they are releasing it allows me to defend my rights as an American to access silly stuff.


I am viewing my purchase somewhat seriously as my patriotic duty. Doubt that it will shed sweetness and light to a very oppressed and backwards country, and I do hope it's amusing. 
I watched just the first ten minutes, to check on how it plays, etc, and will wait till the family is back this afternoon to play it through.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I bet the reviews will be funnier then the movie.


----------



## Rduce (May 16, 2008)

I had no plans to see it before based on trailers I had seen and those plans have NOT changed. I am not a fan of either actor and it just looks awful.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I do not go to movie theaters. I can not afford the popcorn. :eek2:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Homeland Security is giving bonus points to those of us who purchase it. It's a patriotic statement! Though unfortunately, I'd give the overall rating of about 4 out of ten. Lots of promise, great subject idea, too juvenile for many.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

You can now watch it on Directv PPV


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has had it on PPV for the past few days as well (on a Sport PPV channel).


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

DCSholtis said:


> You can now watch it on Directv PPV


Watched it in glorious 1080P on Directv last night! It was good


----------

