Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release 589
tobiasly writes The country's top five theater chains — Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment — have decided not to play Sony's The Interview. This comes after the group which carried off a massive breach of its networks threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks" on theaters that showed the film. Update: Sony has announced that it has cancelled the planned December 25 theatrical release.
Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh...
Re: (Score:2)
Home of the financially weary.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they show it, and then something happens at one theatre, they will still get sued for millions.
I bet they would show it if there wasn't a huge culture of suing everything out of everything.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. And even more so.
If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.
Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.
And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually - not really, that statistic is simply based on crime numbers. More people are killed by spouse/partner than any other source. This is pretty much a global reality, the only significant exceptions are the middle of warzones.
The vast majority didn't make random choices, they just made WRONG choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
I will bet your chances of being killed in a mall go way up if there are specific threats against that mall.
I would bet that the decision to not show this movie was made entirely by whoever provides insurance to the theater chain. It must be killing the theater owners not to show a movie that has gotten this much publicity at opening. But if your insurance provider says "No", you do what they say.
Re: (Score:3)
The car insurance people also probably said no to all those people who called them and asked them if they could park it in a theatre showing the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
If somebody damages your car, would you want your insurance company to pay to fix it?
That means they can set prices based on risk. And risk in this case means "perceived risk". It's not brave or not brave. It's just corporate behavior. This is why corporations are not considered people except by reactionaries and the far Right.
Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score:4, Informative)
All the court really said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.
(2) The nature of the group (corporation, labor union, activist group, etc) does not matter.
(3) Media corporations (i.e. traditional news) have no special rights with respect to speech, all corporations have the same speech rights.
Re: (Score:3)
>Nobody on the right
Mit Romney, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ron Paul aren't "on the right" ?
They've all said it out loud.
Re: (Score:3)
The Aurora shooting lawsuits are still working their way through the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
It also increases interest in the movie. If it hadn't been for this threat, I doubt many of us would even be aware of "The Interview".
What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know... Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, bronies...
If they can't secure a fuckin mall for an afternoon... What are you paying them for?
Also, WHAT "rational cautions and plausible evidence"?
All the public got so far was some overdue candid insight into scheming of a mega-corporation and what it REALLY thinks about people it uses, hires and its customers.
If that's terrorism, seems to me there's a great demand for more of it.
"well, you see, you just don't have enough of us" (Score:3)
"well, you see, you just don't have enough of us..."
Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you paying them for?
Choking black people?
They are there to take your money ... (Score:3)
If you are an American, you should know ...
The cops are there to enjoy Dunkin Donuts
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine are there to be used to invade yet another foreign country
The NSA, CIA, FBI are there to invade our privacy
The IRS are there to harass us and to take our money
As for the congress ? They are there to talk shit
There is a difference. (Score:5, Interesting)
A "real and present threat" on a specific mall is a very different thing from a random threat.
There are 5300 movie theaters in the USA. If half of them show the movie, that's 2650 showings. If the terrorists attack *ten* showings (likely an overestimate), that's still less than half a percent chance of being impacted.
I'd take those odds.
The alternative is that random groups start making threats against everything they don't like while carrying through on just enough of them to keep people scared, and the population lives in fear.
Re:There is a difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd take those odds.
Even for a shitty movie from Sony?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Even for a shitty movie from Sony?
A shitty movie that takes and endlessly long piss on Kim Jong-Un? Yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, what would the GOP (Guardians of Peace, not the Republicans lol) do? Fly over into the US and set fire to 5000+ theaters? Attack the US's critical cyber infrastruc
Draw the terrorists to particular theaters ... (Score:4, Funny)
There are 5300 movie theaters in the USA. If half of them show the movie, that's 2650 showings. If the terrorists attack *ten* showings ...
The terrorists can be trapped. Have a few theaters where there is a double feature of "The Interview" and "Team America: World Police", that should lure the NK agents to those theaters.
Re:There is a difference. (Score:5, Funny)
Man, talk about being an arm-chair general.....
I guess when you're in the basement, everything looks like a bomb shelter.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems very hypothetical as I wouldn't normally go to the mall.
But the chance for excitement would bring in a lot of people I bet.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
I went to events where there were terrorist threats. New Years 2000 being a great example. No you don't live in fear and no you don't let them create hysteria.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd ask my appointment to move it somewhere else. Duh.
There's a line between stupid and brave. Brave is to face danger when there's necessity. Stupid is when you face danger when you could easily avoid it without losing anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:4, Funny)
I've been to Austin, and judging from the looks of the locals, it did not appear that the barbers had been very busy.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the amount of guns was increased, the amount of lunatics with guns would also increase. That means you've just raised the chances of a bad situation occurring in the hope that when these now-more-common scenarios occur, they can be dealt with more easily by having untrained people firing guns off in public, doing what their complete-lack-of-training tells them is the right idea. Australia is of the mindset that the only people who should be firing guns off in public are those with sufficient training, frequent mental health screenings, and with medical, intelligence & logistical support.
Judging by their homicide rate compared to that of the US, it looks like Australia is on to something.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, this only emboldens the bad guys, now that some hackers have actually gotten companies to run away screaming from a fictional movie.
The movie theaters have just fscked themselves. Now they can't present any controversial material out of fear.
Like the old counterstrike game:
"Terrorists win."
Re: (Score:3)
The movie theaters have just fscked themselves. Now they can't present any controversial material out of fear.
Sure they can. Just not any "controversial" material that bothers Muslims or dictators.
Re: (Score:2)
OT: Seppuku (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the proper term is "seppuku" [wikipedia.org]. "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...
Re:OT: Seppuku (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm. Does that mean that literal translations are
Seppuku : Ritual disembowelment
Hara-Kiri: Stupid posh bloke killing himself
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.
Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.
Re:Home of the brave? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, SONY might not be as "All-American" as "Home of the Brave" implies.
But, while the terrorists have won, SONY could do their part to rob the terrorists of their victory. Since they have decided NOT to release the movie to theaters anyway, they could score a great public relations victory by giving away lots of free copies. Imagine free DVDs at lots of retailers and/or sent to anyone who signs up for a free DVD on a Sony website getting a copy in the mail, delivered by an agent of the U.S. Government. And, of course, free digital downloads for people who don't care about quality. And it would send a nice message to all munchkin dictators. Hack us because you don't like what we say, you don't get to silence us, you get us to send out our movie to even more viewers than would have seen it before.
Not that I expect Sony to do something that would have such a positive effect; I expect them to allow the terrorists to win and focus on making money. Just saying that it is what I would do if I ran Sony. I do not.
Terrorists Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
These "terrorist" fellows seem to know how to get the US to do what they want!
They've got moxie, I'd like to be one of those guys!
... or a brilliant PR move. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what this movie is, and I don't follow or watch movies in general, but I suddenly almost want to find out more about this movie is all about now.
Almost.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It seems that the terrorists also seem to know how to get the UK/Germany/France/Other EU country to pay millions in ransom to ISIS.
I'd rather live in a country where an inconsequential movie is dumped over a country stupid enough to pay a ransom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that the terrorists also seem to know how to get the UK/Germany/France/Other EU country to pay millions in ransom to ISIS.
I'd rather live in a country where an inconsequential movie is dumped over a country stupid enough to pay a ransom.
Appeasment only works for a while - and the UK should know better.
Re:Terrorists Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrorists Win (Score:5, Insightful)
"A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." – W. Shakespeare
Re: (Score:3)
But, in this particular of Sony vs. North Korea, it's pretty hard to blame a private company that's under attack from a military totalitarian state. Especially once its nose has been badly bloodied.
Sets a precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sets a precedent (Score:5, Funny)
And you don't even need to get elected to do it!
Re: (Score:3)
You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.
Re: (Score:2)
True, it's a bad precedent but on the other hand it's also questionable whether a lousy comedy is worth that some people die. If this was like Chaplin's The Great Dictator or Lubitsch's To Be Or Not To Be I would think otherwise, but judging from the trailer it's really just trash.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the three-letter agencies were spying on all of us to prevent things like this - you know, stop the terr'ists, protect our freedoms, etc. etc.
Seems like a vote of no confidence from various businesses here...
Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm boycotting any theatre that isn't showing this movie because of a terrorist threat. If they don't want to show it because it's crap, that's fine with me.. But not because of some threat.
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... Although I have not gone to movies in the last 7 years or so (since renovating a house with home theater in it), I was thinking of going to see this one just to stick to those assholes ("Guardians of Peace").
I was just deliberating with myself, whether I am, perhaps, falling for a sneaky marketing ploy, but now Sony officially pulled the movie release [variety.com] making the answer easy and the question moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Communists can also be terrorists. They are not mutually exclusive.
Recipe (Score:2, Interesting)
1/2 a dash of bullshit (fresh)
Two sprigs of the Smith Mundut act repeal
1 whole FUD, chopped
1 government w/control issues
Mix ingredients in a large water cammode briskly then flush on to American public
What happened to (Score:5, Insightful)
"we do not negotiate with terrorists."?
Dude, you don't understand. This is like acknowledging your stalker. It will never stop now.
Re:What happened to (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't negotiate. They just capitulated.
Outstanding! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is actually the best marketing this stupid loser of a movie could ever get, since without this too-doo, it would have opened and closed within two weeks.
So stream it... (Score:2)
I can easily see how to capitalize on this by releasing it via pay per view/on-demand or other services (assuming, of course, these providers can do a better job at protecting their servers than Sony did in the first place). Who says you have to sit in a physical movie theater with a bunch of strangers that you don't talk to in order to enjoy this movie?
Re:So stream it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have to monetize it at all.In fact, by not monetizing it, they can claim North Korean Economics in the process, in a double slam. Screw the commie bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
Um... that already happened (of course ti was against Sony's will but none-the-less it's out there if you want to see it!)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be more likely to buy it streaming or DVD than going to a theater. Frankly, the "theater experience" sucks anyway.
Edited for Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure why they truncated my submission but the questions this raises was more interesting to me than the news itself.
For posterity: What should Sony do? Cut their losses and shelve it? Release it immediately online? Does giving in mean "the terrorists have won"?
Re: (Score:2)
The terrorists will take it that way, yes.
Sony should release, even in a limited way. Online would be great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cowards. (Score:2)
I don't like Rogan or Franco, don't like that kind of film, but was planning to go anyway just because I was pissed off at a bunch of script kiddies pretending to be a tinpot dictator's henchmen. Sony should have acquired some 'nads and shown it anyway. At least in the theaters courageous enough to put it on the marquee.
Well, expect more of these, then (Score:3)
All they've done is taught attackers that they can force our media around.
Really disappointed in everyone involved here. Especially the cinemas. At least Sony *was* going to follow through.
Sad (Score:2)
I couldn't have cared less about the movie. It didn't really sound like my kind of humor.
But after the threat was made, I was planning on seeing it just to show the (newly become) terrorists what I think of them.
I'd have liked this to be Sony's most successful release of the year.
I'm getting mixed messages from the news, though. Has the release been completely scrubbed, or are they just canceling the formal premier?
Brilliant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that Sony has cancelled the premier, if I want to see this movie I'll have to find a pirated copy.
Jeez (Score:2)
As an American, when did Americans become such fucking pussies?
Re: (Score:2)
'Sony' != 'America'
I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we backing Sony at the moment?
Until Sony caved, yes.... (Score:3)
I was planning to go see this, not that I'm interested in the movie, but to show that I won't kow-tow to terrorists and extortionists. But since Sony has caved by deferring its release, Sony has joined the ranks of the chicken-droppings.
Several sites have called for Sony to release this on the Internet, and that's what I think they should do. And someone needs to make "we don't negotiate with Young Weasel" stickers with Kim Jong Un's face in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on this issue, yes.
reason, when your right, your right. Censorship is bad, regardless who does it.
Opposite of the reaction they should have (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be running to the fire on this, not away. It could send a message and increase their sales at the same time. The ONLY people in the whole world who really care about this two-bit movie are the North Koreans. They're not going to pull off any real terrorist attacks. Their hack of Sony was impressive, and I can understand the studios being wary of that, but really, some consulting dollars could mitigate a lot of that risk. Run a security blitz at the studios and poke NK in the eye. It's what they deserve.
No winner here, except for us all (Score:3, Informative)
It's pretty transparent that these hackers are North Korean. Fuck North Korea.
On the other hand, fuck Sony. I can't say that enough - FUCK SONY.
This doesn't help NK in any way. Oh, this movie is blasphemous to their state-mandated religion, worshipping the rotting corpse of Kim I and Kim II? This movie was never going to be seen by anyone in that entire country, if for the simple reason that so few of them can even afford it. I doubt they can even use this hack as internal propaganda, because the simple fact that such a movie exists shows how little the outside world cares about North Korea. And nobody's fooled by their disavowal - this is just more proof that they're a bunch of thugs.
This hurts Sony. First the humiliation of the hack. Then the financial damage. Then the humiliation of acceding to terrorist demands. They may have had a bad reputation in our circles for years now, but they've now lost face in the mainstream media, too.
So yeah, our enemies are fighting and both of them are losing. Time to break out the popcorn.
Re: (Score:3)
Except NK denied being behind the hacking.
Now there is no reason to believe anything NK says, but I would think they would be very proud of their computer achievements if they had been behind it.
The reason they don't falsely claim they are behind it is because they are worried the actual hackers would be found and then it would be clear they were lying.
Re:No winner here, except for us all (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony are sometimes jerks regarding stuff like DRM. They don't starve millions of their own people to death. I'm not unclear about which side I'm on in this one.
The joke could be on them (Score:2)
Since Sony is going to eat the production costs anyway, why not declare the movie to be in the public domain and make it downloadable by anyone at no charge?
That'll piss off the terrorists, but they'll be powerless to stop its distribution.
Do we have reason to believe... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we have reason to believe that this group is actually capable of or prepared to carry out the attacks that they're threatening? If theaters around the country showed the movie, can these terrorists bomb them all?
Or did all these companies simply buckle to a random threat without anything behind it? Because, yeah, I guess if someone calls in a bomb threat to the local high school, you might have to go evacuate the school while the police check it out, but you should have some plan for keeping the kids from calling in new threats every day and shutting the school down permanently.
Hyperbole Much? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've become a nation where a college kid wishing to avoid a final exam can call in a bomb threat to close a campus. All threats, however implausible, must be taken seriously, just in case it truly is a real threat and an attack occurs. 99.999% of the time the threat is bogus, but if one doesn't act hysterically and it turns out to be the 0.001% situation, you're screwed (more likely by lawyers after the fact, not so much by the attack itself).
By caving to the threat, they are validating the use of this strategy, and are ensuring that they will get more threats like this in the future. It works.
I am cynical (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a sizable sports network. Sony had a ton of inventory purchased across many networks to promote the release. They pulled ALL of it, ridiculously close to airtime. Way closer than we normally allow.
They were negotiating down to the wire to not have to cancel this movie. And why wouldn't they? They stand to lose tens of millions unless they're smart about how they do a private release now.
Trust me. Sony has released FAR shittier movies than this. This one had buzz going for it. Remember that months ago, NK declared it an act of war.
This looks completely legit. A ridiculously weak - and in my mind completely wrong - move, but legit.
This nation is run by idiots (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The DOD tried procuring stiff upper lips. But the analyst contractors they hired put together a 30 minute power point presentation outlining the how and why they were incompatible with our current military strategy. Ending with the simple fact that a retrofit would slash everyone's budget across the board.
So, this is what we get.
Jesus this is embarassing (Score:4, Insightful)
Borderline despicable behavior on Sony's part actually. The movie industry makes an enormous amount of money because of the freedom of speech. But when it comes time to defend that freedom this is how they behave.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the rotten tomatoes score. Not missing much...
I have to reluctantly say, that's not the point. To not show it because it stinks is fine. (I've seen the reviews, and it has all the characteristics of a true stinker.) But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.
Re: (Score:3)
The decision to not show it is based on the other movies that wouldn't be seen because 5-10% of the populace would rather not take the chance, however small, of a terrorist action. The studios count on Christmas holiday revenue and to risk that much is not acceptable.
That being said, I agree with you completely. Before, this was a hack, a nasty one at that. Now this is terrorism, and I almost pity the fools that made their veiled threat behind the keyboards...they will pay.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
I almost pity the fools that made their veiled threat behind the keyboards...they will pay.
And I am always thinking that the FBI must know a lot more than they let on. Just think of all the resources the NSA has to track this down - taps into every internet trunk line in the world. Surely they can follow the trail to the perpetrators, and deliver a punishment to fit the crime in their own time. They may never even tell us about it, but somewhere, someday, some people will mysteriously meet up with a premature death. For sure the US Gov has an interest in this, above and beyond what they would have in hacks of Target & Home Depot, because the unique wanton destructiveness of the hack and the terrorists threats.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. But since the theaters dun goofed and Sony compounded their incompetence with a double-helping of cowardice, we need to compensate. Clearly, what needs to happen now is for Anonymous to hack Sony again and release the movie to Bittorrent.
Re: (Score:3)
Sony Pictures is an American company that happens to be owned by a Japanese conglomerate. Sony bought out an American company.
Put it this way, no one considers Chrysler an Italian company. Neither is Sony Pictures.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah.. after a real, actual shooting (Dark Knight Rises) a few years ago -- people still went and saw it. An actual, physical event, with a body count, and it did not scare people away. Copycats be damned.
this is just sad. Sony perhaps looking for a reason to pull the movie to save face (IE, they know it's shit.)
Re: (Score:3)
That spot is already taken by Battlefield Earth.