Theater Chains Decline to Show Sony’s ‘The Interview,’ Citing Threats | Hacker News Reader

Theater Chains Decline to Show Sony’s ‘The Interview,’ Citing Threats

nytimes.com

250 pointsgreenburger256 comments

This is a horrible precedent. This was only a digital hack, that unfortunately violated many personal privacy's. But what happens when fundamentalist, a la ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then?

Another film set to premier on Dec 25 is Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" (yea I know, a Christmas classic /s) an easy film to misunderstand and sure to rally those oppose to the US coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan, if threats start about this film from fundamentalists will the studios respond?

*cross post from the dead WSJ discussion thread "Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film."

Theater chains are pretty spineless in general.

My initial thought was the opposite. There's no way this is a credible threat, but the theater chains can pretend it is and use it as a negotiating tactic against Sony for better terms.

Or they can use it as an excuse for their decision to remove an already controversial film.

Controversial with who? American audiences? I doubt it. What little controversy might exist over the film with American audiences is dwarfed by the controversy there was over even mundane family films like Harry Potter.

Sure, the North Koreans hate the film, but why do these cinema companies give half a shit? They weren't going to get North Korean ticket sales regardless of the movies content.

> Controversial with who? American audiences?

Yes, absolutely.

As a counterpoint, I'll point you to Chris Rock's opening monologue on SNL last month, wherein he makes 9/11 jokes. Famous comedian, Network TV, IN NYC... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZLKqGhSZs It got some comments but there was no lasting controversy about it as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, jokes about terrorism can obviously attract controversy, but that monologue was fairly mild as those go. I wouldn't consider it anywhere near as provocative as The Interview.

If it was a western leader maybe, but North Korea's leaders are comedy punching bags in the US. See: Every late night show monologue ever, Team America: World Police.

I'm not sure if one (or both) of us is majorly filter bubbled, but my impression is that Team America (and pretty much everything from those guys, including South Park) is extremely controversial.

The only controversy that exists is in the head of north koreans. You need to be part of a society to enter into its controversy. Do you see any americans protesting this? Of course not, it's a silly comedy. Trying showing a nipple, though....

Yes, I have heard Americans say that it is unacceptable to make a comedy film that makes fun of a country where people are currently being oppressed, and other Americans say that it is unacceptable to joke about assassinating a current world leader (even if the leader might deserve it). Not only that, but all films from this gang tend to be rather crude and controversial even without a political angle.

I don't share the ideas, but they certainly aren't rare.

I would wager that those Americans don't know what "unacceptable" means in a culture where we have agreed to explicitly _accept_ such things as a measure of protection of free speech.

There's a crucial difference between "accept" and "tolerate" and there's an even wider difference between "the government must tolerate that speech" and "I must tolerate that speech."

I roundly reject the speech of shitty people. (I've switched tabletop game stores because I have no patience for GamerGate partisans, for example.) While I don't agree with the notion that this movie is deserving of rejection, I sympathize and anybody who feels that way is not somehow wrong by refusing to accept and patronize it.

Well that's just equivocating. You accept that they are allowed to say those things. Or you accept that other people are allowed to hear them. The speech is _able_ to be accepted, even if you don't _in particular_ accept it yourself.

Where is anyone saying they can't say it?

Because if you say something _should_ be done, you are making a moral command. There is no point in tolerating things that you think shouldn't happen; that's just conflating your preferences with your ability to enforce them.

"Unacceptable" wasn't a direct quote. I just mean that they oppose it.

You can find token examples of Americans who think that Harry Potter tricks children into being Satanists. You can find Americans who think that Schindlers List is jewish propaganda. You can find Americans who believe that Brokeback Mountain should be banned under obscenity laws.

These are fringe beliefs. As a general rule, movie studios do not shitcan movies just because a couple of dumbasses think that the movie goes too far.

Seriously, if Harry Potter was released despite the controversy it caused, there is no way in hell that "controversy" around The Interview is the reason behind this decision. You'd have to be incredibly out of touch with American society to think otherwise.

Or it was going to most likely be a commercial flop anyways http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_interview_2014/

Critics' reviews can mean jack shit, especially for stupid comedies like this one. Movie critics rarely rate crude and stupid comedies highly.

Looking at the audience section, with 27k entries, 96% wanting to see it and a 3.8/5 score pre-release, it's clear that it wouldn't have been a flop.

Exactly.

For example, the (also Seth Rogan / James Franco) film Pineapple Express: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pineapple_express/

58% rating from "Top Critics". 73% rating from audiences.

21 Jump Street has high reviews.

Yes, and? That says nothing about the general case, which is that crude humour is often hated by critics.

Yea but that original statement is also not backed by data (yet).

Movies do not get their theatrical releases cancelled for 50% critic ratings. Particularly not well-publicized stoner movies with big-name actors and fervent fans. That just isn't something that happens. Even Dude, Where's My Car? got its theatrical release.

The idea that Sony is using the DPRK as an excuse to shitcan this movie because of mediocre critic ratings is flat out absurd.

The Green Hornet, 43% on RT, box office of 100M.

Step Brothers, 55% on RT, box office of 100M.

Shrek the Third, 40%, 320M.

Anchorman got 66%, 84M at the office and a major cult following.

Hell, You Me and Dupree had an atrocious 21% and had 75M.

That's just looking at Seth Rogen's filmography. There's a million more examples of comedies with low ratings that either resulted in high box office results or a major cult following.

Those are just extended anecdotes.

Lots of movies that have bad reviews still have a pretty big following. Comedies generally have worse reviews than other movies anyways. In 2014, I hear people talk about how much they loved Step Brothers all the time. Its rated about 55% on rotten tomatoes.

People don't watch comedies to see oscar-winning performances, they watch comedies to laugh. 50% isn't that bad.

Ignoring the limited predictive value of critics, the massive publicity this movie has gotten makes it hard to believe that it would not be worth showing.

Critic reviews for movies like this mean almost nothing. Audience reviews do, but it's not out yet of course.

There's no way this is a credible threat...

The physical threat? No.

But there is a credible threat here. No theater wants to go through what Sony is going through right now. And no sensible one believes that they are going to be able to protect themselves from it.

And once the first domino (theater) falls, the pressure on remaining theaters increases tremendously.

"This is a horrible precedent."

There is more than one horrible precedent, in that the plot of the movie from what I've read, is the an assassination of a contemporary country leader by specific name. AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before. Close, but advocating assassination of a current world leader by name?

Of course, two wrongs not making a right, and all that.

My gut level guess is the whole thing is being orchestrated for PR, lets call it the "snakes on a plane part 2" marketing plan. Hoping for the netflix revenue.

>> "advocating assassination of a current world leader by name"

It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?

OTOH what represents the white house won in the end. Does the same thing happen in this movie?

From what I've heard, North Korea would be less than happy with the end.

There was a 2006 British mockumentary, Death of a President, which depicted the death of President George Bush (in a much tamer fashion that the explosions in The Interview). The film was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Two U.S. cinema chains refused to screen it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_(2006_film...

There has been a long evolution by international organisations to pressure global culture into "respecting" their ideology. Islam is best known for this [1][2], but Russia, China and half of Africa and South America are on the side of the "global censorship"-cabal. Depending on whether it applies to religion (e.g. islam), political ideology (e.g. socialism/communism) or people (dictatorships, or royal family or ...) it refers to "defamation of religion" laws or ...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_...

[2] Don't feel I have to include links, they'd detract from the discussion, but we all know the massive international protests and even murders against cartoons, films, books, ... that muslims keep throwing every 5 years or so.

(yes, it's called defamation of religions, but it covers a hell of a lot more than just religions. Mostly mentioning islam here because it's the driver behind these horrible laws)

But here's the thing Americans don't seem to understand. Number of people in favor of real freedom of expression* : 60% of the US, 5% of the rest of the world.

* irrespective of the subject, which excludes most of Europe. Europe is only in favor of freedom of expression where it doesn't interfere with religion, (some) policies, a few families, ...

For that matter, Death of a President had GWB actually being assassinated. I remember it causing a stir, but it did see release in the US.

I suspect few would be as cool with this reasoning if a comedy came out of Asia featuring a climax where Obama is lynched.

Those among us with a bit of perspective would be. Do you imagine that the leader of our nation would call for the movie to be banned? Don't think so.

Hilary Mantel's short story about the (ahistorical) assassination of Margaret Thatcher was almost banned in the UK.

A contemporary story about the assassination of David Cameron would be unlikely to make it to the BBC.

A contemporary movie about same would never be funded.

So you have one instance of something _almost_ being banned in the UK (is that even true?), followed by two hypothetical situations.

Aside from being a rather flimsy argument in general, what does any of that have to do with the US? The parent referenced President Obama.

Hilary Mantel's short story was certainly controversial amongst the expected critics, but it was not "almost banned", or even considered for such a ban by anyone who could effect it.

The BBC is going to (or already did?) air the story on Radio 4's "Book at Bedtime" which is the furthest thing from being banned that I can think of.

Mind you they've received a share of vitriol for doing so.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/14/hilary-mantel-a...

I don't think the president would call for it to be banned, but I would expect protests, cries of racism, and possibly violence at theaters to follow even here in America.

Idoubt the latter, but sure, there would be a group of vocal detractors. That's the greatness of living in a free country; people are free to have their own opinions, but we still get to watch the movie of we like (or, at least, we used to be able to...).

My point was that of the group of 'vocal detractors', most of them are going to be the same people who are currently saying "Hey relax, it's just a movie, a comedy".

> AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006_fi...

I'm sure there are earlier precedents too, but this one comes to mind immediately.

Oh, another one: Team America: World Police... which actually did depict a mission to go kill Kim Jong Il (while he was still ruling North Korea). Though to be fair they didn't actually manage to kill him, since in that movie he turned into a cockroach and fled in a spaceship.

Thanks for the link, I never heard of that movie. Interesting.

Wikipedia says it pretty well : "was much criticised by those who believed it exploited the subject of presidential assassination, and that by doing so, was in bad taste"

There's a quote by Hillary Clinton, like it or not, likely to be our next president, describing that movie as "despicable". I never thought I'd agree with her on absolutely anything, but here I am.

(and again I state two wrongs don't make a right, etc)

If you haven't seen the movie (which she probably didn't either), then what's your basis for calling it "despicable"?

FWIW, I did see it at the time, and thought it was a fairly intelligent and sensitive depiction of what might happen to American society if Bush were murdered. In any case, why should such a "what if" scenario be off-limits to artists?

>There's a quote by Hillary Clinton, like it or not, likely to be our next president, describing that movie as "despicable".

And she's a despicable person. Sadly, she's probably going to be the best candidate in the next election, but she's a horrible person whose opinion counts for nothing.

Death of the Jackal! I think Hitchcock's 39 steps can count too, even if its not about a major figure. They're both great though. Political assassination has been a fiction trope since early literature, no?

You meant The Day of the Jackal, the thriller about the assassination of de Gaulle, right?

Yes, my bad. Thanks for catching that! I wish I could go back and edit.

Edit: It's actually "Day of the Jackal". Sorry HN!

Except death of a president and Day of Jackal are not saying haha we are going to kill the leader of a country.

Charles de Gaulle was president of France. I don't think tone matters here. I think we'd still be here if it was a Michael bay snoozer.

It's a comedy. It's satire. Also, none of us have seen it yet, so it's impossible to say it advocates anything until we've seen it.

Can anyone argue that it would not be a good thing if Kim Jong Un were assassinated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

The horrors of North Korea wouldn't suddenly stop just because the guy at the top got killed.

Not suddenly, but maybe after the 4th or 5th replacement got assassinated in short order. Keep killing them as long as they remain hostage takers who don't surrender.

There are easier and better ways to start a war with North Korea.

There is no silver bullet, but that situation cannot get much worse than it already is. Even if the country collapsed into anarchy, the chaos would at least provide the opportunity for some to escape.

Organized evil is more harmful than any sort of chaos. The only exceptions involve WMD deadman switches.

I doubt it would collapse or even undergo anything much of note. I imagine if Kim Jong Un was assassinated, he would "retire" and be replaced with someone else. The government is much more than just the one guy.

North Korea's previous leader, Kim Jong-Il, was killed in 'Team America: World Police'. Impaled, actually.

So not only has this precedent been set, but it was done to the same country's leader by producers and directors in the United States.

Edit: This was done a decade ago.

The vomit scene was awesome. I saw it with my grown up daughter. She laughed so hard she couldn't stop. Then people around her started to go out of control laughter, too. Then she bolted. Apparently she was laughing so hard at the idea of a scene where a puppet vomits unceasingly that it triggered her gag reflex!

Freeing little kids from prisons isn't in good taste?

>AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before. Close, but advocating assassination of a current world leader by name?

How many people does a dictator have to send to a concentration camp before they lose the right to complain about such a movie being in bad taste? Personally, I think the answer is 1.

I assure you, if this happens again with a better movie more likely to make money, it will get shown. This is a business decision.

This has essentially happened already. Comedy central censors South Park in a direct response to threats made against them regarding depictions of Mohammed.

The South Park episode you speak of still aired. But the depiction of Mohammed was "censored."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_%28South_Park%29

Incidentally this episode aired nine years earlier with no controversy over showing Mohammed. Though after 201 aired they did take down Super Best Friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends

This South Park speech sums up the current situation pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3nKBR2mIU

Very funny and true... and it looks like fear (of getting emails hacked) has executives in Hollywood panicking now.

"Steve Carell’s North Korea Movie ‘Pyongyang’ Canceled in Wake of Sony Hack" http://www.thewrap.com/steve-carells-north-korea-movie-pyong...

You think that's bad? India took Comedy central off the air because of that!

Seth Rogen is a bit of a coward. He picked an easy target in Kim given that North Korea is isolated and has no ability to do any real harm to him. Easy to mock somebody who can't get back at you.

Would he have dared to make a comedy mocking Mohammed the warlord turned prophet and 72 virgins in heaven? I guess he was smart enough to figure out that life under police protection would have cramped his partying.

Oh, and Seth is a total prima-donna, witness his recent tirade against Cathay Pacific because they wouldn't allow his wife's dog onto the plane due to the breed being more susceptible to death during flight.

I think there might be a difference between mocking an actual dictator causing real harm to real people and an ancient religious figure.

That "ancient religious figure" is arguably causing real harm to real people right now, too. If anything, the difference should be that mocking "ancient religious figure" should be risk-free, while mocking psychos with nuclear weapons is rather risky. How it became exactly the opposite is beyond me.

> But what happens when fundamentalist, a la ISIS, decide to do physical harm for any film or song that humours their twisted ideology - will the film studios stop releases then?

I agree with you, they shouldn't be caving to threats. But they can't possibly believe that this is a credible threat. We don't have a whole lot of North Koreans emigrating here. TMZ has a slightly more likely theory [1]. Rather than genuine fear of attacks from North Korea, they contend that Sony simply wanted to bury the movie without looking weak.

"We're told the execs are actually viewing the latest threat as having a silver lining ... the threat of a 9/11-type attack will make so many theaters pull the flick themselves -- and Sony won't have to do it....Sony execs want the bleeding to stop"

[1] http://www.tmz.com/2014/12/17/theaters-cancelling-the-interv...

I also don't see how this could be taken as a realistic threat, but what are Sony's financial incentives to theaters pulling it? Weren't their costs in creating the movie?

According to Variety [1], the budget was $42 million, and they have "tens of millions" more into advertising and promotion. But I think they want this whole incident to go away, and they know that even without a theatrical release, they can make money on DVD/blu-ray and PPV.

[1] https://variety.com/2014/film/news/sony-weighing-premium-vod...

Sony is now saying they have no plans to release it at all, in any format. Buried.

I wonder if the hackers will release whatever draft the movie they grabbed just to spite Sony now.

This is the only reason I may suspect anyone that just normal black hats. Why wasn't this movie released with the rest of them. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen an unfinished movie released. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5AsOEk-ZJU

This is not a realistic theory. Nearly all of the costs associated with making and marketing the movie have already been spent. Even if the movie was a complete dud next week, it would still be making revenue in the theaters that would be going towards paying off these costs (and hopefully more).

It is realistic if they've had enough of the nonsense and don't want further bad stuff to happen after the release of the film.

Because capitulating is the sure-fire way to get the hackers and terrorists to stop? Fuck if we don't just congratulate them on a job well done, and help write the playbook for the next decade of cyber-terrorism.

It's clear in this case that their motive was to stop the release of the film. Sony decided to let them win this one. They are choosing their battles and this appears to be one they don't believe they can win or that is not worth winning. It's not what I would have done but it appears that it's what Sony wants, and it's their movie.

Are you kidding us? The entire world will now want to watch this film. One wonders if this isn't a hail mary pass by Sony....

With demand now through the roof to watch this film, I'd bet we'll see some innovative work by Sony to release this film that satisfies that demand in a legal way.

Or maybe not....

The early reviews are that the movie isn't awesome [1]. Even a Sony exec said it's just not that good of a movie. They probably will do a PPV release though.

[1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_interview_2014/

Hard to imagine it's much different than pineapple express and this is then end, both of which have similar RT critic scores at the moment. If you liked those you'll probably like this one.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/this_is_the_end/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pineapple_express/

Not really.

It doesn't matter if the movie sucks.

With this much publicity surrounding the movie, people are going to want to find out what the bug deal is. Trust me, the first weeks of release the numbers will be through the roof. After that, I'm sure they'll fall off a cliff.

This is already a cult classic and it hasn't even been released.

It might never be released. Sony has pulled it from theatrical release and said there are no plans for video-on-demand or DVD release.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/sony-cancels-theatrical-re...

For this film, maybe. It won't generate anywhere near as much publicity the 10th time it happens.

Likewise, the response will be muted the tenth time this plays out.

I think theaters are afraid of cyber attack and not a terrorist attack (physical)..... I guess pretty soon a cyber attack will be classified as a terrorist attack, legally speaking.

Surely protecting the rest of the world from bad hollywood trash is more "good" than "evil"?

This hack was probably organized by a shadowy cabal of film critics, driven mad by an endless flood of banal previews.

edit - I wonder if I should try and pitch that to someone.

Someone most probably already has...

Part of me secretly wishes that Sony would just put out a press release saying "You know what? Fuck it. The Interview will be on Netflix on Christmas Day for 24 hours. No extra charge. So stop downloading our Excel sheets and enjoy a movie. Merry Christmas."

Sony just announced it was pulling the Dec 25 release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-says-it-will-pull-the-...

If I was a movie star with a percentage of the profits, my lawyers would be very opposed to that strategy.

At this point, what profits?

Hold off 6 months, wait until the figure out who hacked them, and then release it.

A lot of people might see it now, who otherwise wouldn't have.

How? Theaters refused to show it. Sony has pulled the movie from distribution.

Just read that. I'll try to skip Sony movies from now on.

...and your agent and accountant would be completely incompetent.

By now, everybody ought to know to demand a percentage of the gross revenue, and not the net profit.

You have to be an A-lister, and a top name at that (like Tom Cruise) to get that kind of deal.

Everyone else gets a flat fee or some other graduated revenue. The Sony leaks show that Rogen and Franco got a fixed salary for The Interview (which is probably the smartest deal of the year, given the circumstances)

Huh? The fact that the actor may or may not have negotiated for gross revenue versus profit wouldn't make a difference if the movie made neither.

Movies never make a profit. Hollywood accounting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The point is that if there's never a box office release, there will be no revenue (net or gross) to take a share of.

I thought Hollywood accounting was already one step ahead of that and redefined "gross revenues" so those don't exist either?

It's pretty hard to hide the number of tickets sold at the box office. It's actually released to the press to publicize the opening weekend numbers.

Well it they wanted to get angry they could go all Oatmeal on them and immediately release the BluRay with all of the profits going some cause antithetical to the hackers.

Wouldn't profits going to Sony and the MPAA already be antiethical to most hackers?

Especially when the entire movie is about killing their leader.

The last time this happened was in 1977, when an Islamic group made threats if "Mohammad, Messenger of God" was shown. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege)

It's now on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/The-Message-1976-StoryofIslam

Hardly the last time. Last Temptation Of Christ had theaters refusing to show it because of threats.

I just read the book instead.

Good book, that.

Way better than the movie. The book is always better than the movie.

fight club

Is Fight Club an example or a counterexample?

Fight Club is one of those rare cases where the author himself preferred the movie's ending to his own written ending.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/FightClub

See also: The Mist.

Stephen King apparently hated the ending he wrote for the short story, but praised the ending of the 2007 film adaptation.

Non-Sarcastic Thank You for taking the time to explain what I thought was self evident if you had seen the movie and read the book.

The first rule of fight club is "You Do Not Talk About Fight Club."

The Sweet Hereafter

I'd rephrase that as "the books is almost always better than the movie". Most rules have exception and the use of "always" in a claim usually makes it too easy to falsify -- particularly in highly subjective fields such as appreciation of film / literature. Another counter-example would be Trainspotting: My 25-year old self found Danny Boyle's film to be much more coherent, interesting and enjoyable than Iriving Welsh's book. (FWIW, I've upvoted your comment as I don't think it deserves downvotes).

Available on Netflix for live streaming and has only 2 stars: http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/28000446?strkid=49037960_0_0&...

Maybe you are seeing your own personal rating? For me, it shows:

Average of 413,520 ratings: 3.4 stars

That's a shame. I'm not a huge fan of Rogen's, but I saw a screening of this a few weeks ago (the first public screening, actually), and it was probably my favorite work of his so far. It's weird to read it framed as "a movie about the assassination of a sitting foreign leader," because it didn't feel that way. Yes, that plot is technically true, but it feels like its just background for the comedy. It's actually very light for most of the time, with James Franco joking around with the leader and learning his more human side.

I don't want to give anything else away. It's just a shame.

Jealous! I know his stuff isn't that intellectually engaging, but I've enjoyed his previous stints with James Franco while enjoying a beer and hanging out with friends. There will have to be some direct to video form to get the film out there to compensate the cost.

A line at the end of the article caught my eye: "Hackers claim to have taken at least 100 terabytes of Sony data, or about 10 times of the amount stored in the Library of Congress."

Which struck me as very small. So I did some digging and it looks like as of 2009 (almost 6 years ago) the Library of Congress had 74 TB of online data available to the Internet. Additionally the U.S. Library of Congress Web Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about 525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per month. That just includes the web archive team which is one of 8 featured digital collections (http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html).

Here the LOC debunks the 10TB figure directly: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/07/transferrin...

I'm not sure where the author got their figure, but they are way off the mark.

[1] - http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009/02/how-big-is-the-library-of-c...

100 terabytes is pretty small for a movie company. Sony has done several animated feature films, and modern feature animation has insane data requirements. 100 terabytes isn't even the assets from one movie.

I haven't seen numbers for any particular Sony movies, but numbers for several Dreamworks movies have been published, which can give an idea of just what goes into an animated feature film. "Rise of the Guardians" [1] had 250 TB of assets. "How to Train Your Dragon 2" has over 400 TB.

[1] No, not the owl movie. That was "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole". People often get them confused because of the slight similarity of titles, but they have nothing to do with each other.

I get the feeling that theres a bunch of black hat guys with no affiliation to Korea snickering to themselves right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-...

Except that when you read the article, you find that the opposite is true.

"It is not clear how the United States determined that Mr. Kim’s government had played a central role in the Sony attacks. "

I really don't think North Korea has the sophistication to do this.

This is perfect explanation:

http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why-the-sony-hack-is-unlike...

I've honestly thought from the very beginning that the hackers had absolutely zero ties to the DPRK. Early on when people were curious on who did this and there was very little communication from the perpetrators I feel that the the only ties to North Korea was the speculation between the release date of the movie and the general speculation of Chinese and N. Korean IP addresses being increasingly prevalent in network attacks in recent years. I think the hackers glommed on to this speculation and are using it to increase the damage by playing on their (and our) fears.

Never considered that, but I think this is the only explanation.

Seriously though, Guardians of Peace is a name that could have only come from someone that's fanatical or someone that's got a great fucking sense of humor.

It's interesting how so many on HN are making such pronouncements, and if they've made them once, their commitment to that line just gets more and more aggressive with each comment.

But seriously, on the matter of motivations -- you're a "black hat" and you decide to screw with Sony. Fun enough, really. If you're something less than mentally incompetent, though, are you then going to threaten literal terrorism? Do you really want to draw the intense attention of very, very well resourced organizations?

If the North Korea angle seems weak, the notion that "random hackers" (the term so commonly used) are doing this for the lulz seems even less likely. There is a line where your probability of remaining unincarcerated drops dramatically.

Somewhere in between are groups who will do things for money -- where the immense risks and operational costs can be made worthwhile. North Korea has the ability to sponsor such groups.

What's the motivation behind this hack? Money from blackmail? Identity theft? Don't like the gist of the movie? or?

One of the reasons why it's so tough to figure out who was responsible for the hack is that a vast number of people dislike Sony.

As unbelievable as many on here seem to find this, North Korea was making threats regarding this movie many months ago. Long before this hack.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28014069

North Korea was bizarrely sensitive about this movie, and made actual, military threats regarding it.

One of the reasons, I think, that makes so many discount the North Korea angle is the belief that such would be so contrary to normal human behavior. Yet the NK leadership seems to exist in some sort of bizarro world where these sorts of actions are fine.

Doubtful in this scenario that they would take it as far as to threaten physical violence. That would up the anty involving law enforcement if Sony were to call out their bluff.

The threat is most likely real.

Remarkably absent is any discussion about the precedent this sets for the future. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea, even private corporations should understand this.

But I think I know what the calculus here was: the public would have excoriated Sony and Regal (or any other theater owner) if an attack was actually carried out.

We seem to be a nation remarkably devoid of principle, and in that environment, it makes little sense to take a principled stand yourself.

I am very disturbed by the implications this has for the next decade of cyber-warfare. I don't think it was a physical attack the theaters were actually worried about. The unspoken fear is getting hacked as badly as Sony, since they have establish they can pull that off, and the theaters know they can't defend against it. The physical threat gives them an easier 'out'.

I thought the article actually mentioned this angle but I was trying to find the quote and don't see it now.

Sony just announced they are cancelling the entire Christmas day premier of the movie.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-the...

FWIW I would have never seen this movie but now I will due to all of the hoopla. Though obviously it will be harder to see if it isn't in any theaters, this is still a lot of free publicity for the movie, and I'm sure it will be viewable somehow.

Why are people surprised Hollywood capitulates to fear? It's a generally risk-averse industry. That's why Fast and Furious 7 is coming out soon.

The precedent for this was set 70 years ago when Hollywood execs decided to blacklist purported communists and fellow travelers. Several movies were never distributed because of alleged left-wing sympathies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth).

As a curious side-note, North Korea's GDP is 12.4b and Sony's market cap is 22.8b.

This seems like a reaction completely based in fear not reality.

Maybe they were all blackmailed by the same attacker?

When I see things like this, it makes me wish I had the ability to just "spin up a theater" just to run one and call their bluff. Perhaps this is just naive bluster, but I there are few things that make me stand my ground like threats.

I agree.

If you start thinking about the logistics, odds are, this is a very remote possibility.

Most of the reports have said the hackers are either in N. Korea or Eastern Europe. They've threatened US theaters here. So either this is a huge bluff, or they have some serious sleeper cells here in the US they are going to activate them and have them attack theaters in specific cities where the movie is being shown.

The problem with North Korean "sleeper cells" that are resident in the US, is well...once they're here, they kinda shift their opinion on how the world works.

It's liability, which you might call the corporate version of fear.

Even though the chance that North Koreans would stage a terrorist attack in an American movie theater is slim to none, if something did happen, there would be no end to the lawsuits. As the article mentions, even in the case of the Aurora shooting there was plenty of blame being thrown around in the courtroom. The shooter dressed like the Joker, is the Batman movie to blame? Is the theater to blame? Even in a case like that, where there's clearly one violently insane person to blame, lawsuits happened.

In this case, where there was a clear threat issued, if something happened the theaters would be instantly culpable. It wouldn't even have to be North Koreans, maybe just some sick DPRK sympathizer going nuts and shooting someone.

And like they say, on top of that there might be reduced attendance for other movies as well. If someone's going berzerk in the theater that's playing The Interview, do you really want to be next door watching the Hobbit? Do you even want to go to the mall?

I don't think anyone is seriously worried about an attack. They're worried about the potential legal fallout / lowered profits that could occur in a variety of ways. Controversy isn't great for business, especially during the holidays.

That being said, I think it's spineless. The US Government doesn't respond to threats and blackmail, but corporate America is more than happy to sacrifice anything in order to preserve the bottom line.

I had no intention of going to see The Interview at a theater, but if I can find an independent place playing it on opening night (assuming they'll even try to have it open that night), I'll be tempted to go and support them for standing up to idiocy.

On top of everything else, the DHS even announced yesterday that they didn't consider it a credible threat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dhs-no-credible-threat...

Theaters should have gone forward with it. God forbid something happened they could have said "DHS has far more expertise in these matters than entertain chain management, so we were trusting their judgement".

I personally doubt the credibility of the threats; I've also yet to be come across evidence that the same people who made the recent physical threats are responsible for cracking. Anyhow, according to the article:

"officials with the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person briefed on the sessions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment.

That person said the officials spoke in terms far less assuring than those used publicly by Homeland Security, which had played down the threat."

This would seem to indicate that federal security agencie were influential in the decision by the cinema theatres.

After reading stories about some of Sony's emails I have to wonder if they were looking out for public safety or if they are being blackmailed with some juicy new ones.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22139/20141214/leaked-sony...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...

(Removes tin foil hat)

The terrorists have won. :-(

They won a long time ago.

'My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time...Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.'

— Chamberlain, 1938

Appeasement, it works.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down.

Back in the day the studios always released their best pictures on Dec 25th. If it was being released on Christmas day it was a picture that they expected would be a great hit and garner multiple Oscar nominations.

I don't intend to be a movie critic, but I've seen the trailer and my question is did Sony really expect this picture to be a blockbuster for them?

>> "It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down."

It was originally supposed to be released in October 2014.

Seth Rogen and James Franco were concerned about the Oscar contention.

> It appears that Sony pushed really hard for a Christmas release when it would have made more sense to wait until summer when the furor would have most certainly died down.

This is pretty clear victim blaming, this is not clear. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis )

A movie that Sony expected to be their best movie (44 million to make and 55 million to advertise) turns into a fiasco that cost them tens of millions in lost work, rebuilding IT, hurt brand.

man, man.

This happens to pretty much every movie of a couple of actors in my home state in India. Random group makes threats to bomb theaters -> spineless theaters refuse to run the movie -> 2 weeks of negotiations with politicians -> movie comes out. There are two paths after that. Either it runs well because its garnered enough publicity, or it has already been leaked on DVDs. Sickening to see that happening in the US though.

I can't believe they capitulated. I hope Sony gives the movie away for free, in the spirit of the last U2 Album. Make it the widest release ever.

I don't understand what this has to do with hacking in particular.

That they had a list of theaters showing the film? It seems trivially easy to find however many theaters you want, just by googling.

It just seems confusing.

Really confused by all the "it was offensive and in bad taste, so nbd" comments on here. I don't even know where to begin.

Related on the margins, if only that it has to do with the 1st amendment, check out Elonis v. United States[1]. Important 1st amendment case dealing with online threats and reasonable perceptions or expectations of harm.

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...

Well, I was not planning to watch this movie but now plan to visit any movie theater that is screening it and watch it. Hope those chains who show spine make more money this holiday season.

It isn't Sony who benefits from pulling the movie. It is the theaters. If this movie was going to be a dud, Sony would make some money back, greater than zero revenue. All their costs are sunk.

But the theaters would lose money relative to how much they might make screening a more popular movie. So the theater chains can use this as an excuse to cancel showing the release, which is probably a violation of some contract or agreement, but they can get away with it in this special circumstance.

How many North Koreans "sleeper agents" do we actually have inside the USA, that companies see this as a legitimate threat?

Shutting down an event because someone is able to say "remember Sept 11" says more about our own government than it does theirs. We should not be at the point where anybody can cause a disturbance for something they don't like just by uttering threats.

Yeah, the threat is highly unlikely to come through.

Problem is, if it did - by as little as one random nutcase coincidentally firing one shot during one screening - the studio would be sued into oblivion for failing to act on a then-proven threat. This movie is not what they want to make a stand on, for principle nor for profit. Cancel the release, eat the losses, and move on.

Theaters are hurting themselves. Sony will release the movie on itunes/google-play and make more money than they would've have if they released in theaters first.

I intend to buy the movie, just to stick it to the scum Kim and his underlings, even if I don't like the movie or intend to watch it.

In the end, studios will learn they don't need theaters as much as they think they do.

Well, this is somewhat disappointing, but the original "threat" did accomplish one thing: It reminded me I need to get off my ass and go get my concealed-carry permit.

Granted it wouldn't help if they crashed a plane into the theater, but if some whack job decides to start shooting, I'd like to at least have the option of returning fire if need be.

Yes, because more bullets flying in a dark room full of panicked civilians would help the situation.

It might, it might not. There's no way to know in advance, so I'd say your comment here is pretty much content-free. What I want is the option to make that call, if/when an actual situation develops where it might be justified - based on the actual situation "on the ground"... not hypotheticals.

Sure but giving you the option to make that call has an effect on others. Giving you that option may increase my chance of death in that situation. How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives. I would guess almost none.

How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives

Of the civilian population at large? Yeah, almost none, percentage-wise. But of the civilian population who choose to carry and even more the civilian population who choose to get a CCW permit I'd say it's "a very high percentage".

I don't know if you are a gun owner / enthusiast or not, or if you hang out with "gun people" or not, but my experience has been that the kind of people who carry regularly, go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit, etc., take shooting and training pretty seriously. There are plenty of civilians who shoot competitively and are absolutely better trained than (many|most) cops.

I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns. In the US however I don't disagree with it completely mainly due to the fact that so many people already have them (there is no way to get them back) and it seems like many more criminals in the US are armed with guns. I think that I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting. It takes someone with a lot of training to act rationally in a deadly situation and to make the correct call (i.e. using my weapon will help the situation or using my weapon will make things worse and even though I have it I should not use it today). It's good to be able to shoot accurately but being able to make that call is just as important.

I think criminals in the US tend to have guns because the population in general is more likely to be armed.

Where I live, I don't know anyone who owns a gun and don't expect to encounter a criminal armed with a gun in my lifetime.

I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns.

Aaah, there are definitely some serious cultural differences at play here then. I grew up in a country where my grandfather bought me my first gun before I was even born. And I've been shooting guns (rifles, pistols, etc.) since I was about 9 years old.

Here in the US, there is a large population of people who taking shooting very seriously. There are competitive shooting events run through obstacle courses and using pop-up targets, similar to the things you may have seen on television for police training. Yeah, people here do that kind of stuff for fun. There are magazines, books, videos, training courses, etc. dedicated to tactical shooting, self-defense, etc. Of course none of this is required (by and large, but see below) and not everybody goes to this extreme. But this is what I mean by "gun people". And in my experience here, the kind of people who make the choice to carry in public, tend to come from that population. So yeah, I by and large trust those people to do the right thing in a scary situation.

I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting.

FWIW, every US state sets its own standards. Not all states even require a permit for pistols (concealed or otherwise). But in my state (NC), if I want to get a concealed carry permit, I do actually have to attend a training course which includes covering the legalities of carrying a firearm and using deadly force, a firearms safety component, and a visit to the gun range where I would have to certify as proficient with my weapon. There is no yearly recertification requirement however, as best as I can recall.

Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims?

Or perhaps you have another option, say an increased movie ticket price and on-site, armed security?

Take a look at my discussion with mindcrime for more details on my stance.

> Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims?

...yes?

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that arming victims does in fact reduce or eliminate the ability of a mass shooter to inflict casualties. The only way to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in whichever screening is hypothetically attacked is to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in most if not all screenings. That's a lot of handguns.

The vast majority of these weapons will be used responsibly, but some small fraction of them will be used in crimes of passion or suicides that would not have happened but for the easy availability of a deadly weapon. Some other tiny fraction of them will injure or kill someone accidentally.

Mass shootings and terrorist attacks, while incredibly tragic, are incredibly rare. They also rarely have casualty counts above the low double digits. Meanwhile firearm accidents kill hundreds of people every year, and suicide and homicide claim tens of thousands. Arming ourselves to a level that can prevent black swan events is optimizing for the wrong case and will almost certainly lead to more loss of life than it prevents.

Letting violent assholes do what they want usually results in less total harm than fighting back does. To take an extreme example, capitulating to Germany would have resulted in less loss of life than World War 2 did. But is that the kind of people we want to be?

I think every person has a moral right to turn to their attacker and say "No. If I'm going down, then I'm going to take a bitch with me."

I think your facts must be confused. Capitulation to Germany would have resulted in every single minority in the entirety of Eurooe being exterminated. Capitulating to Germany (and therefore Japan) would have resulted in all of China becoming the Rape of Nanking.

Lots of people with handguns inside theaters increases the chance of someone losing their temper and shooting someone dead for throwing popcorn, like in the case of that retired cop in Florida.

Fights inside cinemas are vastly more common than mass shootings and people massively overestimate risk in stressful situations, especially when they cannot see properly, so I would expect that if there were self-selected people carrying concealed handguns to every single screening, for this to not to make people safer.

I don't blame you, but it's going to be a real bummer if you're not the 2nd person carrying, but the third.

Three people with guns in a close, crowded, dark space seems intuitively worse than only one.

No doubt. That's where judgment comes into play. And why I would be very averse to actually firing in a situation like that. But, again, I just want the option for the times when there is a clear path to eliminating the threat.

What about the cyber defense command ? Couldn't they have done anything to protect the U.S. companies?

This is becoming a security issue.

Government can't place a policemen at the every doorstep of a house which owners failed to lock windows. With billions of funds available, Sony should have taken more steps to protect itself, the malware was quite primitive[1]. Especially, when you have so many enemies as Sony..

1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/state-sponsored-or-n...

These hacks were probably done by hackers in US/EU to help expose SOPA legislation. However they found other goodies, and then trolls started trolling about this movie and blaming it on NK, who cant deny it because they like the attention.

I find it hilarious that anyone takes NK as a serious domestic threat.

They should stream it for free, today. Perhaps with a 'pay what you like' button.

Bruce Schneier weighs in.

"this is like Snowden, only with Sony."

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bruce-schneier-sony-hackers...

Well, American companies shared user's confidential data with NSA because they were too scared of the action. Google stopped hiring ex-Apple because of Steve's threats and we are twisting our pants over a movie ?

More bad things have happened in past.

I can't believe people actually take the NK threat seriously. I mean these hackers sold the information to journalists. If these were state hackers wouldn't they have just released everything immediately?

Some people seem to really live in a bubble

If they release everything immediately, there would be no leverage to make demands.

It is a valid question whether or not NK has the capabilities to cause harm. But if lives are at stake, why take the risk? It is just a movie after all.

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant the prevailing theory that North Korea is even involved in this. There's basically no evidence that North Korea has any involvement

Wired has a good write up on the lack of evidence http://www.wired.com/2014/12/north-korea-did-not-hack-sony-p...

Wrong. Minutes after it was published, NYT reports govt is pointing fingers at N Korea.

Update at 8p.m. 12/18/14: Minutes after we published this story examining the known evidence for and against North Korea as the source of the hack, The New York Times and other media outlets announced that the U.S. administration was ready to conclude North Korea was involved in the Sony hack. We have updated the story with this new information

Relevant: Sony cancels the movie's release - http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-scraps-the-interview-120132...

Doing that they are just opening the doors for the next threat.

I'm a dreamer but instead I'll create one ad to show before the movie explaining what Art actually is and why anyone shouldn't be offended.

North Korea has done a great PR boost for this film. Now many more will see it than before. It's the movie that got North Korea officially off the sidelines and right in the middle of GWOT.

Possibly relevant: AMC theaters is owned by Chinese Wanda Group. China is an acquaintance of North Korea.

Also, the Chairman and 100% owner of Wanda is a high level communist party member.

What would China have to fear from North Korea? China dictates things to NK not the other way around.

They probably don't have anything to fear from North Korea. That's beyond the point though.

The point is that China can influence American pop culture to be more communist-friendly.

So they are influencing American pop culture by pulling the movie? They could have decided not to carry the movie months ago when it was first being pitched for distribution. And I believe one of the leaked Sony emails show that a China distributor decided not to carry the movie. So there was ample opportunity to exert influence ahead of the movie's release.

This is not a China fearing NK. This is China using an unaffiliated hacking group to hurt a Japanese company. A small dose of payback for the conquests of the 20th century.

How is this related to the Chinese owner of a theatre chain? They are hurting themselves with lost ticket sales. Are you linking the theatre owner to the hacking incident?

Others have noted that the hackers have latched onto the movie as a reason only after there was speculation that the movie was the reason. There was no mention of the movie when the hackers released their first press release.

One more thing, AMC isn't the only theatre chain to pull the movie. At least 5-6 other theatre chains are refusing to screen the movie.

Rumors of threats against the theatres that showed the movie. Understandable that they'd pull it, but dangerous precedent indeed.

Seems like a good opportunity to route around the damage: release it ASAP on iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, perhaps for free.

They should do a digital release or sell to netflix. Then we should air drop copies of the film over Pyongyang.

...land of the free, home of the brave.

Will the hackers bring down the torrent network if the movie is shared by torrents.

A part of me wants to believe this is all marketing and a viral publicity stunt.

Boycott all theater chains for not showing the INTERVIEW.

Are we obviating that Sony is a Japanese company?

If someone with broken English successfully hacks your company's internet firewall, are the odds improved that they will blow up your garage next? This seems strange to me.

http://guysgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/randy.jpg

Will there still be a release outside the US?

Sony should release it free on YouTube.

Boycott all theaters chain

If this movie went to theatres, it would hit $1B because how fucked up this situation is.

The NSA would have prevented any attacks, why are they worried...

Cowards.

This is intolerable. To have a thug like regime such as North Korea impose their will on rest of the world on what they can or can't see is infuriating.

All of this is just a publicity stunt and you all fell for it.

Making a specific threat like this is completely out of line with the way the regime works. They work by brinkmanship; they learned in the 80s that they can't effectively use terrorism as they have a physical nexus.

So, we must assume that Sony hacked themselves and leaked their internal emails and data to promote a Seth Rogan movie?

Genius!

/sarc

I'm not saying that studio is the principal agent here. What I am saying is that it's probably not coming from Pyongyang.

So who's benefiting from the "publicity stunt", if the hackers aren't North Korean?

Sony? If you're hacked, might as well spin it into a good-vs-evil story, where the evil just happens to be part of a movie you're launching.

If Sony didn't have this cover story, then they'd have nothing with which they could distract people with.

So....Sony issued a false threat supposedly from the hackers, or otherwise convinced all these movie theater chains to not run the movie?

I'm failing to see the beauty of this plan, or even how somebody with a room-temperature IQ could think this is a smart move even if the original Sony hack was legitimate (which I have no reason to disbelieve is the case).

No, Sony just needs to hint about NK and let the media do the rest. The movie theatre threat is anonymous, right? So basically anyone else could just tag along for the ride.

And I'm not sure why it's stupid to think that a, from the looks of it, low-quality movie would not benefit from a "ban". Great hype for the movie, Sony might as well ride it. There's no upside for them to stand up and say "nope, we just have poor security and someone did it for the lulz".

(Going to take some downvotes today)

The incident is likely to be remembered as a failure of Hollywood leadership. As the attack progressed, both studios and the industry’s Washington-based trade associations — the theater association and the Motion Picture Association of America — remained in a defensive posture, and ultimately found no way to save the film or to stem the flow of Sony’s private data, which has been released online by hackers in waves since Nov. 24.

How out of touch is NY Times with the times?

The Oscars are a joke and, come on, so is Hollywood. The latter is good at providing vacuous entertainment and the former is a self-congratulating organisation. It's an incestuous industry that only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, don't expect Hollywood to do the moral/ethical thing. With Sony getting sued, they saw this was no longer their big profit making movie they wanted it to be, so they pulled the plug.

Nothing to see here, folks. Low revenue = no movie. It takes a lot of money to make films these days and they don't want to risk losing (more) money.

The movie itself was most likely not going to bring some insight or analysis to North Korea or Asian history or political dynamics, so I don't understand why so many people are up in arms about it--no pun intended.

People are saying "terrorists won" and some Republicans are making a big stir on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/545339504803196928

https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/545346735510257664

America's low point in film history happened a long time ago, and yes, it was caused by Hollywood.

Also: "This Is Cyberwar, Not Tabloid Fodder", http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/17/this-is-cyberwa...

> only seeks out an opportunity where there are millions of dollars to be gained

This isn't just isolated to Hollywood. Many companies across industries are profit driven.

It is perhaps more in your face in the entertainment industry, but greed doesn't just occur there.

It was an offensive stupid movie anyway. In the era of youtube and the internet, making a movie is no different then posting a youtube video. See Youtube comments to see what happens when you post something.

You have the right to upload a video, others have the right to tell you what they think of it.

On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms.

On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.

That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm internally divided on the issue.

Rights don't erode from the center, they erode from the edges. As such protecting the rights at the edges is where it's most important. If you find yourself defending the center, it's generally already too late.

> On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.

Based on what?

The dictator was aired in 1940 when Hitler was still well-alive and the US was not at war against Germany.

I pretty sure some people were making the exact same comments back in these days.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator

Which censors don't claim that the objects that they wish to censor are needless, tasteless, and harmful to the good moral character of the people?

Once you start picking and choosing what deserves to be censored or not, it's already over.

What is wrong with a "needless tasteless" movie? The primary purpose of movies is to entertain, and neither being "needless" nor "tasteless" prevents a movie from entertaining.

Seriously, how is your appraisal of the content relevant at all?

Hitler (Adenoid Hynckel) falls off a vehicle and arrested and humiliated by his own men in classic Charlie Chaplin style. It's a great hilarious movie but there's no dignity in it and there's certainly an empowerment fantasy involved.

Maybe you should rewatch The Great Dictator.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com