Slashdot Mirror


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.

97 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh huh...

    1. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

    2. Re:Home of the brave? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like home of the pussies.

    3. Re:Home of the brave? by Obscene_CNN · · Score: 5, Funny

      So if 9/11 style threats against theaters will stop a movie from being released, Why the hell didn't someone think of that when Twilight was released?

      --
      I don't want to do a sig now
    4. Re:Home of the brave? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Home of the brave? by khasim · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Home of the brave? by bughunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.

      Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    7. Re:Home of the brave? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, because it is very hard to find a barber here in Austin at a reasonable time

      I've been to Austin, and judging from the looks of the locals, it did not appear that the barbers had been very busy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Home of the brave? by righteousness · · Score: 2

      That last part is just pathetic.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    11. Re:Home of the brave? by jbolden · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Home of the brave? by kylemonger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Home of the brave? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Home of the brave? by frovingslosh · · 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.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    17. Re:Home of the brave? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Home of the brave? by Frankie70 · · Score: 2

      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.

    19. Re:Home of the brave? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Home of the brave? by Mirar · · Score: 4, 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.

    21. Re:Home of the brave? by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      It was a terrible situation but to put things in perspective, this kind of incident is incredibly rare in Australia and only 2 poeple died. If you had concealed carry, there would be orders of magnitude more accidental deaths. Doesnt seem worth it and the gun controls we have here generally do a good job.

    22. Re:Home of the brave? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:Home of the brave? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >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.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:Home of the brave? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      In the US, you probably have a way higher chance of being kill at a mall or random public place by some other American freak who has decided to kill as many people as he or she can for some reason; and takes their assault rifle they purchased at a gun show or corner gun shop and 2000 rounds of ammunition (even though they couldn't possible carry that much) and goes off on innocent people. It's not like it hasn't happened dozens of times before. And it's interesting that I have yet to hear of some gun totin' NRA wingnut with his right to bear arms concealed pistol taking one of these guys down. The only time I heard it tried was in Las Vegas when a married couple went off at a Walmart. And that guy was killed (real life is different). The police that everyone lately seems to want to protect themselves from are the ones who do the job.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    25. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The Aurora shooting lawsuits are still working their way through the courts.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Home of the brave? by dave420 · · Score: 3, 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.

    28. Re:Home of the brave? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2

      Spoken like a true anonymous coward...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  2. Terrorists Win by mcolgin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorists seem to win over and over.

    --
    I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com
    1. Re:Terrorists Win by boristdog · · Score: 2

      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!

    2. Re:Terrorists Win by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Terrorists Win by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Terrorists Win by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    5. Re:Terrorists Win by TropicalCoder · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re: Terrorists Win by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 2

      I thought the quote was "Cowards die many times before their deaths;Â The valiant never taste of death but once.Â"

    7. Re: Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It depends on the translation.

    8. Re:Terrorists Win by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      We, on the other hand, have spent trillions on military action and our citizens are still being kidnapped, held, and executed. Why? Because taking Americans hostage is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of whether the captors actually expect to get paid.

      Taking an American hostage is hugely more fun than getting some ransom. You take a French dude hostage and maybe you get a few million dollars out of it - but that doesn't really buy much military hardware or support very many jihadis for long. It happens in quiet, so you don't get any PR out of it. If you just want money, it's easier and more certain just to rob a couple of banks. You take an American hostage, though, and you can be sure of whipping the most powerful government on the planet into an irrational frenzy. They'll make big threats, blow up a few wedding parties, and generally, brazenly, demonstrate themselves to be nationalistic assholes. If you're interested in gaining support for your own nationalistic pride, there's no better way than to get the other guys to make asses of themselves.

  3. Sets a precedent by guytoronto · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Sets a precedent by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you don't even need to get elected to do it!

    2. Re:Sets a precedent by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      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...

    3. Re:Sets a precedent by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      DHS openly stated they don't think there was any credible threat. Major theater chains panicked anyway. Seems sort of telling how much stock they put in that, doesn't it?

    4. Re:Sets a precedent by steelfood · · Score: 2

      You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  4. Boycott by ottawanker · · 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.

    1. Re:Boycott by mi · · Score: 4, 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 making the answer easy and the question moot.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. What happened to by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "we do not negotiate with terrorists."?

    Dude, you don't understand. This is like acknowledging your stalker. It will never stop now.

    1. Re:What happened to by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't negotiate. They just capitulated.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  6. So stream it... by studpuppy · · 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?

    --
    The last time I wrote code, it was Morse
    1. Re:So stream it... by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sony should say screw you to North Korea and release the entire movie for free on the internet. Make sure everybody has a chance to see it. Of course they won't because they still have to monetize it somehow, but it would be something to say "we're not going to give in".

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:So stream it... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I'd be more likely to buy it streaming or DVD than going to a theater. Frankly, the "theater experience" sucks anyway.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:So stream it... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:So stream it... by Matheus · · Score: 2

      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!)

  7. Edited for Slashdot by tobiasly · · Score: 4, 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"?

    1. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Sony should give free license to the South Korean groups that send balloons over the North Korean border to include DVD copies of this movie.

    2. Re:Edited for Slashdot by sh00z · · Score: 2

      Post it on a torrent site. That's about the best possible PR they could do.

      Looks like it's already available.

    3. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      According to this - http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... - many of them do.

      Key quote:

      The balloons carried with them USBs containing Korean-language versions of Wikipedia, 500,000 leaflets, DVDs with South Korean TV dramas and radios able to be tuned to foreign broadcasts.
      "Mr Gladstein says most North Koreans do not have access to technology.
      "Obviously high level military and political figures have access to pretty much anything you'd expect to have in a similar sized city or country, with the exception that it is not connected to the outside world."
      "So they have access to the intranet, which is a closed internal-only internet. But that's just the elite, the average North Korean, many of them do have TV and DVD players that have actually been provided to them by the government so that the government can show its propaganda."
      He says the most effective media is probably still DVDs.

  8. Well, expect more of these, then by stonecypher · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  9. Sad by nytes · · 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?

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  10. Brilliant. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Jeez by Xaemyl · · Score: 2

    As an American, when did Americans become such fucking pussies?

  12. I'm confused by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we backing Sony at the moment?

    1. Re:I'm confused by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately. Screw North Korea for making me feel sympathy for Sony Pictures.

  13. Opposite of the reaction they should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. ... or a brilliant PR move. by rwa2 · · Score: 4, 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.

  15. No winner here, except for us all by gman003 · · Score: 2, 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.

    1. Re:No winner here, except for us all by spitzak · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:No winner here, except for us all by jbolden · · Score: 4, 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.

  16. Until Sony caved, yes.... by david.emery · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Do we have reason to believe... by nine-times · · Score: 3, 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.

  18. Hyperbole Much? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  19. I am cynical by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  20. This is such BS by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    This comes after the group which carried off a massive breach of its networks threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks"

    I can't believe anyone is cowering to these little bastards. Who in their right mind believes any group is going to hijack planes, or even gas trucks and suicide bomb movie theaters? If they would have threatened Batman/Aurora style attacks I would have given them a little more credence. I mean why didn't they just go for broke and threaten Nagasaki style attacks? Or really go all out and threaten Chicxulub or Krakatoa?

    So they managed to break Sony's "security" and steal a bunch of data. Wow! From what I've read about Sony and their IT security, this could be a 12 year old girl in Tajikistan who did this for fun. There's been no indication that there is any credible physical threat to anyone. Yet everyone's running around in a panic. What the hell has happened to this country?

  21. This nation is run by idiots by davydagger · · Score: 2

    The other side of promoting this fear mongering over terrorism, is that people get so scared, they believe their own bullshit. What decades of fear mongering have done is made us a nation of cowards, unable to cope with idle threats, most likely by people incapable of pulling them off. the largest army in the world, the most advanced weapons, the biggest navy by far, with the most amount and most advanced carriers, and we are still scared of unspecified threats on the internet. Sweet Jesus fuck. I think instead of spending millions on tanks, and Jets, and aircraft carriers, and shit that won't protect us, lets spend some time learning not to be affraid, and sticking up for what we believe in, instead of paying the defense industry out the nose for what ultimately won't protect us?

    1. Re:This nation is run by idiots by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      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.

  22. What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then? by denzacar · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  23. Re:Good by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  24. There is a difference. by Chirs · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:There is a difference. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, talk about being an arm-chair general.....

      I guess when you're in the basement, everything looks like a bomb shelter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:There is a difference. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd take those odds.

      Even for a shitty movie from Sony?

    3. Re:There is a difference. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if you're lucky, the terrorists may kill you before the movie starts.

      If you're not so lucky, the last thing you hear before your death is Seth Rogen laughing...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:There is a difference. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Even for a shitty movie from Sony?

      A shitty movie that takes and endlessly long piss on Kim Jong-Un? Yeah.

    5. Re:There is a difference. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the same thing. And the MO here is an "electronic attack" anyway, it's not like NK has been able to do much of any phyisical force projection outside of their own little corner. The "real threat" is that Sony will have even more internal documents leaked, and MAYBE AMC, Cinemark, etc could eventually get hacked too?

      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 infrastructure and start WWIII over a Seth Rogan movie? Even though that would be the FUNNIEST reason ever to destroy humanity (they could film it and call it "This REALLY is The End, PS we're sorry!" lol), there's little the GOP can do outside of what they've already done.

      Maybe if Sony didn't have unencrypted Excel and Word docs all over the place in their HR department and used an end-to-end encrypted HR solution like most other corps use this wouldn't happen. Maybe close off the $C, implement some vlans and VPNs... you know, catch up 10-15 years with the rest of the planet and it might make this a bit more difficult. Personally I don't blame the GOP...I blame Sony for having circa-1992 coffee shop security.

  25. Re:Pussies!! by vakuona · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. Re:Good by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, 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.

  27. Re:In other words by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    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.)

  28. This can't be the real deal by white+russian · · Score: 2

    Something seems off on this whole thing. They are afraid of 911 style threats... at a movie theater?! The Koreans probably got something else on the executives. Something so good that the execs are giving in to these crazy demands. The whole 911 thing sounds like an alternative explanation for whats really going on.

  29. Re:Slight reality check here by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    In fact Webster should place a picture of Sony and the Interview poster next to the dictionary entry for "disaster".

    That spot is already taken by Battlefield Earth.

  30. "well, you see, you just don't have enough of us" by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2

    "well, you see, you just don't have enough of us..."

  31. Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are you paying them for?

    Choking black people?

  32. OT: Seppuku by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

    But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.

    Actually, the proper term is "seppuku". "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:OT: Seppuku by Cederic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm. Does that mean that literal translations are
      Seppuku : Ritual disembowelment
      Hara-Kiri: Stupid posh bloke killing himself

  33. Re:Good by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    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.

    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.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  34. Nope by Controlio · · Score: 4, 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.

  35. They are there to take your money ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3

    ...You know... Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, bronies...

    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

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  36. Jesus this is embarassing by DRMShill · · Score: 3, 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.

  37. Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Supreme Court never said that corporation are people. That's just a talking point of the left, taken from the post-decision spin of the losing side in the court case.

    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.

  38. Draw the terrorists to particular theaters ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, 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.