The Interview (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: The Interview
>sigh<
I get what the guy is saying, but, people, please.
Nobody's rights have been taken away. For that to happen you would first have to have First Amendment rights with respect to private corporations and foreign powers.
You do not.
P.S. That also applies to internet forums.
- - - Updated - - -
And the alternative is...what....we nuke them for trying to scare us about going to see a movie?
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand this ain't, folks.
>sigh<
I get what the guy is saying, but, people, please.
Nobody's rights have been taken away. For that to happen you would first have to have First Amendment rights with respect to private corporations and foreign powers.
You do not.
P.S. That also applies to internet forums.
- - - Updated - - -
And the alternative is...what....we nuke them for trying to scare us about going to see a movie?
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand this ain't, folks.
Re: The Interview
I agree, every private company have the right to exercise their freedom on how they want to promote and sell their product. Internet forums do the same when they have their own rules as to what is deemed acceptable for its participating members to contribute.
Yes, First Amendment rights haven't been taken away, but freedom of expression itself has been wounded; maybe not rights of the general public directly but it's of the people at the company and the company itself succumbed to do so cause of fear. This in turn has led to the public's consumption of entertainment being governed by an external entity.
Floodgates have been opened. Next up, another nation will now choose to dictate what is okay or not okay to be showcased on the TV series Homeland.
I agree, every private company have the right to exercise their freedom on how they want to promote and sell their product. Internet forums do the same when they have their own rules as to what is deemed acceptable for its participating members to contribute.
Yes, First Amendment rights haven't been taken away, but freedom of expression itself has been wounded; maybe not rights of the general public directly but it's of the people at the company and the company itself succumbed to do so cause of fear. This in turn has led to the public's consumption of entertainment being governed by an external entity.
Floodgates have been opened. Next up, another nation will now choose to dictate what is okay or not okay to be showcased on the TV series Homeland.
kegas76
Well-Known Member
Re: The Interview
We could send Seth Rogen and James Franco over to apologize for the movie and while they are there have James Franco kill Kim.
We could send Seth Rogen and James Franco over to apologize for the movie and while they are there have James Franco kill Kim.
Re: The Interview
I don't agree with Sony one bit, but that is who is bowing down to pressure. Wish people would stop bringing the US government into this. They have nothing to do with this, other than the FBI investigating a crime (the hack). This is between Sony and North Korea. Not the US.
I don't agree with Sony one bit, but that is who is bowing down to pressure. Wish people would stop bringing the US government into this. They have nothing to do with this, other than the FBI investigating a crime (the hack). This is between Sony and North Korea. Not the US.
crabra comander
Master Member
Re: The Interview
OH HELL NOES!!! Down with joshvanrad and down with his imperialistic spoiler tag trailer of Glorious Leader AND sumo champipn Kim Jun un...AKA Big Un...
OH HELL NOES!!! Down with joshvanrad and down with his imperialistic spoiler tag trailer of Glorious Leader AND sumo champipn Kim Jun un...AKA Big Un...
Re: The Interview
"Do whatever you can to get this movie out. Not because everybody has to see the movie, but because I’m not going to be told we can’t see the movie. That’s the most important part. We cannot be told we can’t see something by Kim Jong-un, of all ******* people."
That's an excellent interview with George Clooney. It's tad long, but it's needed to address the bigger issues in detail.
"Do whatever you can to get this movie out. Not because everybody has to see the movie, but because I’m not going to be told we can’t see the movie. That’s the most important part. We cannot be told we can’t see something by Kim Jong-un, of all ******* people."
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: The Interview
Ok, I literally laughed out loud at that whole sequence of posts. :lol
Ok, I literally laughed out loud at that whole sequence of posts. :lol
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: The Interview
Like I said: an overabundance of caution.
I totally get that attitude, and I agree with it. I mean, frankly, I think the illusion of security that we have is just that: an illusion. At ANY time, a wacko could go off his meds and shoot up ANY public event. So, what, you're gonna cower in your homes forever? At some point you just have to say "**** it. We're going to live our lives and accept the risks of doing so."
Right now folks are saying "This could set a new precedent." I disagree. I actually think that if and when more of these things happen, we'll see less and less sensitivity to it.
All that said, the reality is that we live in a world with terrorism. It hasn't really visited American shores very often, but it will happen in the future. By the same token, lunatics will go nuts and shoot up a public event at some point in the future. It's just that events like this wig people out.
Oh, and legally? Yes, it's true that a theater could get sued, but after the threats went public, they could easily defend by saying that the patrons assumed the risk of going anyway.
Like I said: an overabundance of caution.
I totally get that attitude, and I agree with it. I mean, frankly, I think the illusion of security that we have is just that: an illusion. At ANY time, a wacko could go off his meds and shoot up ANY public event. So, what, you're gonna cower in your homes forever? At some point you just have to say "**** it. We're going to live our lives and accept the risks of doing so."
Right now folks are saying "This could set a new precedent." I disagree. I actually think that if and when more of these things happen, we'll see less and less sensitivity to it.
All that said, the reality is that we live in a world with terrorism. It hasn't really visited American shores very often, but it will happen in the future. By the same token, lunatics will go nuts and shoot up a public event at some point in the future. It's just that events like this wig people out.
Oh, and legally? Yes, it's true that a theater could get sued, but after the threats went public, they could easily defend by saying that the patrons assumed the risk of going anyway.
Re: The Interview
Makes sense. I certainly hope that is the case if these things repeat.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: The Interview
Neither. I doubt people will stream it en masse, and Netflix doesn't face the same potential legal hurdles as the theaters.
I mean, understand that the theaters' lawyers weren't wrong. You can sue anyone for anything. Literally. It doesn't mean you'll win your lawsuit, or that the case won't be thrown out, but you can make life difficult by filing a lawsuit with only a thin shred of credibility, and as long as it's not totally 100% bogus, you can probably force a settlement. If the stuff about theaters being legally sensitive is true, that's probably why they pulled the film. They didn't want to have to defend against a lawsuit, even if they'd win. It's cheaper to just pull the film and go on about their business. And I still think Sony was concerned about branding in this as well.
Neither. I doubt people will stream it en masse, and Netflix doesn't face the same potential legal hurdles as the theaters.
I mean, understand that the theaters' lawyers weren't wrong. You can sue anyone for anything. Literally. It doesn't mean you'll win your lawsuit, or that the case won't be thrown out, but you can make life difficult by filing a lawsuit with only a thin shred of credibility, and as long as it's not totally 100% bogus, you can probably force a settlement. If the stuff about theaters being legally sensitive is true, that's probably why they pulled the film. They didn't want to have to defend against a lawsuit, even if they'd win. It's cheaper to just pull the film and go on about their business. And I still think Sony was concerned about branding in this as well.
Re: The Interview
Source: Hackers send new message to Sony - Dec. 19, 2014
To hell with these a**holes, I will continue to promote this movie till it is widely available across the internet.
Sony Hack: FBI Confirms North Korea Is 'Responsible For These Actions' - The Hollywood Reporter
Full statement from the FBI.
Source: Hackers send new message to Sony - Dec. 19, 2014
To hell with these a**holes, I will continue to promote this movie till it is widely available across the internet.
Sony Hack: FBI Confirms North Korea Is 'Responsible For These Actions' - The Hollywood Reporter
Full statement from the FBI.
Similar threads
