Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

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.

Comments

Home of the brave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh...

Re:Home of the brave?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Home of the brave?

[reboot246]

More like home of the pussies.

Re:Home of the brave?

[reboot246]

Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed by lightning. Why not go? It's not a matter of being "tough". It's simply a matter of math. Do the math.

Re:Home of the brave?

[khasim]

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?

[bughunter]

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?

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall.

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:Home of the brave?

[jbolden]

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?

[kylemonger]

If they launch an attack on the U.S., North Korea can kiss their asses goodbye and they know it. They can threaten Sony and get away with it, because public corporations are cowardly by nature. But it is a whole other thing to kill Americans in a terrorist attack today. Iraq is still living in butthurt due to 9/11 and they weren't even involved. Sony should have released the film and called North Korea's bluff.

Re:Home of the brave?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

cop?

And no, I'm not trolling.

Re:Home of the brave?

[squiggleslash]

Yes, I'd go to the mall. And if I didn't, it'd solely be because I'd turn back if I saw over-zealous TSA-style "security" at all entrances. That's right, I'm more afraid of the TSA (guaranteed to cause misery) than a terrorist (can only cause misery if extremely lucky.)

I lived the first 25 years of my life in a county regularly attacked by real terrorists - not cartoonish villains wearing head dresses, but the sociopathic extreme of a (rightly, in my view, but that's another story) angry Irish Catholic community. I can honestly say I never changed anything I did based upon fear of being killed by terrorists. You don't live your life that way.

In this case, Sony and various theater chains are pissing their pants over a group that has no record of terrorism and which, having "warned" us, is highly unlikely to get away with an attack anyway. And whose justification for an attack anyway is absurd and highly improbable to drive anyone into a murderous rampage.

Wusses.

This is the logical continuation of the Bush response to terrorism: show the entire world we're terrified and lashing out at everyone, because somehow that's helpful, moral, and not going to encourage more terror.

It's time this nation stood up, and stopped pissing its pants every time someone phones in a bomb threat.

Re:Home of the brave?

[Mirar]

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.

Re:Home of the brave?

[dave420]

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.

Terrorists Win

[mcolgin]

Terrorists seem to win over and over.

Re:Terrorists Win

[tverbeek]

"A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." – W. Shakespeare

Re:Terrorists Win

[Ol Olsoc]

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

[AchilleTalon]

The US? I believe the US is larger than Sony. Just in case you are not aware of it, the decision was not made by the White House, the Congress or the Senate. So, keep it to the right proportions.

Sets a precedent

[guytoronto]

Now every terrorist organization around the world will see how easy it is to control North American media.

Boycott

[ottawanker]

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

[mi]

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 making the answer easy and the question moot.

What happened to

[kruach aum]

"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

[Cro Magnon]

They didn't negotiate. They just capitulated.

Brilliant.

[hey!]

Now that Sony has cancelled the premier, if I want to see this movie I'll have to find a pirated copy.

I'm confused

[Rik Sweeney]

Are we backing Sony at the moment?

Opposite of the reaction they should have

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be advertising the sht out of this movie as the film that terrorists are afraid of, including funny made up quotes from bogus North Korean hackers and party officials, etc.

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.

... or a brilliant PR move.

[rwa2]

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.

Outstanding!

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Hyperbole Much?

[Irate Engineer]

'9/11 style attacks'? So if these movies are screened, attackers will sneak in, fueled up with convenience-store-bought Raisinets and armed with box knives? Or are they going to crash an airliner into each theater?

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

[aepervius]

I have the feeling the reason the show was cancelled , was because the pre-release feedback was very negative, that it was a bad film, but with those threat they saw an opportunity, and now they are priming the US market for a massive "buy it to spite terrorrist !" direct to DVD.

What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then?

[denzacar]

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.

Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you paying them for?

Choking black people?

Re:There is a difference.

[GigaplexNZ]

I'd take those odds.

Even for a shitty movie from Sony?

Re:No winner here, except for us all

[jbolden]

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.

Jesus this is embarassing

[DRMShill]

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.

This is just a ploy cooked up by sony.

[nbritton]

This is just a ploy cooked up by sony to increase sales. You watch, after christmas the theaters will cave in and show it and then everyone will want to watch it to see what all the hoopla is about.