The Interview (NOT Cancelled)

[Kete]

I don't think this has anything to do with morality or freedom of speech. Sony fears they might lose money if they get hacked. Sony has a recent history of getting hacked and losing money.

Making themselves look cowardly doesn't seem like a good financial strategy.

I fail to see how possibly preventing deaths is cowardly.

Based on that logic we should all stay home and never go out.

[goflyblind]

I don't think this has anything to do with morality or freedom of speech. Sony fears they might lose money if they get hacked. Sony has a recent history of getting hacked and losing money.

Making themselves look cowardly doesn't seem like a good financial strategy.

I fail to see how possibly preventing deaths is cowardly.

Based on that logic we should all stay home and never go out.

HOME?! ARE YOU INSANE?! I COULD STUB MY TOE!!!

[Relaxing Dragon]

Cracked did an article today that basically sums up my side of the argument: http://www.cracked.com/article_22076_why-pulling-the-interview-proves-weve-all-become-cowards.html

[Pak-Man]

Well if the President is saying Sony goofed up, maybe Sony goofed up..

Also, if there was any doubt, it was totally North Korea.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/19/fbi-confirms-north-korea-responsible-for-sonyinterview-cyber-attack

[jonalame]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385790,00.asp Sony loses $171,000,000 during 2011 when PSN was put down for a month. That is just on paper. PSN's stored credit card information for millions of users was compromised. That price tag doesn't include stock losses and handouts to every single PSN user to appease their vitriol. This hack coincided with that huge earthquake. Bringing up hacking also reminds them of losing nearly $2,000,000,000 to the earthquake, if only subconsciously.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/sony-cybersecurity-costs-idUSL1N0TT1YO20141209 Sony stands to lose $100,000,000 from a recent attack earlier this month. That figure only covers their initial estimate for security costs.

Now, obviously these are all just drops in the bucket to Sony, but considering this(and other recent hacks and poor business choices) it makes a little more sense to me why they get gun-shy when someone threatens to hack them. I'm sure there are damage reduction protocols in place that got triggered here. Sure, they will throw away a $90,000,000 movie away, they've lost more in the past over the same thing. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony changes their mind when they find that the threat is minimal and they realize that the movie is now part of some groundswell patriotic posturing in America.

[David]

So now after the presidential smack-down Sony is maybe considering releasing it on VOD or something?

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/sony-ceo-defends-interview-decision-we-have-not-caved-20141219

I love this story. I don't remember the last time I've followed news like this.

[Relaxing Dragon]

So now after the presidential smack-down Sony is maybe considering releasing it on VOD or something?

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/sony-ceo-defends-interview-decision-we-have-not-caved-20141219

I love this story. I don't remember the last time I've followed news like this.

Some folks have pointed out that this whole ordeal might end up being funnier/more ridiculous than the actual movie. Go figure.

And jonalame raises some good points (although I don't think the actual information revealing has stopped. Sony lost a ton of information, only a fraction of which has been given out so far. Plenty more skeletons to be revealed). I should then clarify that my all my previous arguments about giving in go a bit past Sony to the theater chains that pulled the movie to begin with. They practically forced Sony's hand, or at least made the final decision that much easier.

My argument also extends to Paramount, which basically just made a shining example of what I was worried would happen. Because nuts to those gutless guys.

[Miku Fan]

Has Homeland Security, FBI, or such, treated this as a terrorist threat to theaters?  I've seen them refer to the hack as a criminal act, haven't heard anything about taking the threats to the theaters seriously.   I don't watch a lot of news, so I could be missing some information.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Has Homeland Security, FBI, or such, treated this as a terrorist threat to theaters?  I've seen them refer to the hack as a criminal act, haven't heard anything about taking the threats to the theaters seriously.   I don't watch a lot of news, so I could be missing some information.

DHS released a statement early on that there was no credible evidence to treat the theater threat as a legitimate one. It was just fearmongering on the part of the hackers.

[Miku Fan]

Has Homeland Security, FBI, or such, treated this as a terrorist threat to theaters?  I've seen them refer to the hack as a criminal act, haven't heard anything about taking the threats to the theaters seriously.   I don't watch a lot of news, so I could be missing some information.

DHS released a statement early on that there was no credible evidence to treat the theater threat as a legitimate one. It was just fearmongering on the part of the hackers.

Thank you.  I thought that might be the case.  DPRK is pretty consistent in its threatening rhetoric.

[JimJ]

So now after the presidential smack-down Sony is maybe considering releasing it on VOD or something?

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/sony-ceo-defends-interview-decision-we-have-not-caved-20141219

I love this story. I don't remember the last time I've followed news like this.

Some folks have pointed out that this whole ordeal might end up being funnier/more ridiculous than the actual movie. Go figure.

And jonalame raises some good points (although I don't think the actual information revealing has stopped. Sony lost a ton of information, only a fraction of which has been given out so far. Plenty more skeletons to be revealed). I should then clarify that my all my previous arguments about giving in go a bit past Sony to the theater chains that pulled the movie to begin with. They practically forced Sony's hand, or at least made the final decision that much easier.

My argument also extends to Paramount, which basically just made a shining example of what I was worried would happen. Because nuts to those gutless guys.

To be fair to the theater chains though, Sony is the one that let them out of their contractual obligation to show the movie in the first place.  In the incredibly unlikely event of something happening, when the lawsuits and the finger pointing start flying in the aftermath, Sony would've been able to say "Hey, we gave them the option to not show the movie and they went ahead with it, this isn't on us."

Anyway, here's an interview with George Clooney on the situation that I really enjoyed.  Apparently he had a petition going around to all the major studios to get people to stand behind Sony on going ahead with the release (before they pulled the movie) and not one person signed it.  https://deadline.com/2014/12/george-clooney-sony-hollywood-cowardice-north-korea-cyberattack-petition-1201329988/

[Kete]

Sony should have let theaters out of their obligation, but still allow those theaters willing to show it.

[Trekker4747]

Sony should have let theaters out of their obligation, but still allow those theaters willing to show it.

With the four biggest chains out the movie would have had a very limited release which probably wouldn't have been worth the trouble/enough for Sony to get a profit from the movie.

Sony shouldn't have let the theaters out of their contracts and the theaters should have screened the movie.

They buckled.

They gave an evil dictator who treats his people like Sims power over them.  Think about the implications of that, "President" Kim Jong-Un was able to control what Americans get to view by making empty threats.  The threats *had* to be empty, there's little conceivable way an attack would have occurred as any attack would have brought a world of hurt on NK either in retaliatory attacks or vastly harsher sanctions on the country.

Sony Pictures (an American company that's a spin-off of the Japanese company "Sony,") let a dictator living half a world away decide what Americans get to view.  Yeah, it's a crummy Seth Rogen movie that barely looked watchable to begin with.  Still, the implications here are troubling because, now, what IS to stop other foreign powers from making threats to stop the release of a movie?  Germany, tired of American WWII movies depiction of Nazis and Germany in that era?  The Taliban and other radical Islamic groups tired of middle-eastern terrorists in movies and TV shows?

Where does this now end that this precedent has been set?

Sony and the theaters should not have caved.

[Nunyerbiz]

Oh don't start with the slippery slope nonsense... They have Sony data and lots of it. That's all this is. Nothing to do with democracy or "OMG what about the next crazy dictator guy?"...

There was a successful hack, there is likely still shit tons of data that the hackers could release.... Sony knew this and buckled. If you want to protect freedom going forward, then give up the internet. Otherwise let it go....

[Miku Fan]

Maybe one day, huge corporations will learn to take "super sensitive" stuff offline. And perhaps corporations and software companies will get their acts together and strengthen computer security- Encrypt hard discs, and individual files and accounts using something like PGP.  The lapses in computer security are insane.