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.

47 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 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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 *
    15. 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.

  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 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/
    2. 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!
  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!

  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. 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"?

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. I'm confused by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we backing Sony at the moment?

  10. 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.

  11. ... 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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!

  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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 !
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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