Faceplams: 0
BACKROLLS?!
I can relate. We had our festive gorging on food last week since my sister is going to be in Spain with her boyfriend and his family. Just cultural differences asking, since over here EVERYTHING is shut down on the 25th, more or less. I've been in a hospital on Christmas Day since my sister was laid up once when she was a kid and it was the weirdest experience ever. Every single person just hated being there.Originally Posted by onthewall2983
tempus est umbra in mente
the craziest part of all this is that ultimately a genuine threat of massive violence against US civilians was made, and as far as the US intelligence is currently concerned, it was delivered by North Korea. Even the threat of that is a genuine act of war.
It would be absolutely insane if this ridiculous movie became the first step towards truly engaging North Korea... will this fucking movie be remembered as a turning moment when our film industry bowed down to terrorist threats?
I still don't get why people are actually attacking the movie, or asking things like "why would you ever make a movie like this, and imagine if the script was flipped and it was us being attacked! We'd go insane!"
No, we wouldn't. Ever heard of the movie Death of a President? No? Maybe it's because it was released and nobody gave a shit. Did everybody freak out when, in the opening scene of King Ralph the entire British royal family is wiped out by a freak accident (or did it turn out to be murder, I forgot, the movie was stupid).
You also have movies which have portrayed dramatic scenarios of extreme (and often inventive) violence against US populations. Ever heard of the book (and movie I guess) Black Sunday? It's a disturbing premise, but we didn't ban the book. If they change the president's name to something fictional, is that supposed to be ok then? That's been done a dozen times. Shouldn't the general idea behind The Manchurian Candidate be more disturbing than a slapstick comedy?
Uwe Boll made some shitty movie version of Postal that mocked the 9/11 attacks in a slapstick opening sequence. Did we freak out? No, we thought it was stupid, because we all pretty much agree Uwe Boll sucks, but we didn't have him arrested.
And asking why we'd make a movie like this just reminds me of all the people who said similar things about The Satanic Verses, without acknowledging that the people making violent threats against his (and his publishers) lives were the only people doing something wrong. Why did we have to make Team America?
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-18-2014 at 07:53 PM.
Bent Member
And add in the fact that The Interview is supposedly a raunchy, silly comedy.
Active Member
Exactly what I am saying. It's about money, not safety.
That said, it isn't stopping just about everyone from seeing this as some national response where we, the country, bow down to terrorists. Which leads to some dangerous situations like:
The US federal government is in place to prevent things like this from impacting public safety or economic damage. We have spent over a decade "fighting terror" and giving up our rights to agencies like the NSA... more proof it's all bullshit.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-18-2014 at 08:12 PM.
Active Member
You'd think the NSA would either be able to stop this while it's happening, or at the very least be able to very quickly tell you exactly who did this. They have visibility of the entire fucking internet and they have records of just about every bit that gets transferred over it. But no...
So what DO we do? There should be a rhetorical shift here, especially with the media. This is the story of how Sony had SHIT security and an unknown entity was able to get in. It's not really any different than all the retail stores having their Credit Card numbers leaked. The primary difference is the attacker is making threats. Sony has a history of this kind of bad security. The data that was leaked this time around shows quite a lot of really REALLY bad security. Passwords stored in unencrypted text document. Passwords that were literally "password." Etc...
Of course, if there is credible data indicating that another country is doing this to fuck with us, then it is no different than an act of war and should be handled as such. We aren't there yet.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-18-2014 at 08:21 PM.
Quiet Member
JMFC, THANK YOU.That movie and it being a COMPLETE non-event was literally the very first thing that leapt to mind when I read the above comments.
Can't believe it took till Page 3 for someone to mention it.
:-\
House Always Wins
The movie exampled hardly ever graced much news outlets to my knowledge anyways. Just initial shocking buzz.
However it doesn't get a free pass for this one. The film wasn't a comedy nor was it making an entire joke of the situation like this would of North Korea. I know it was slapped with a "mockumentary" for the genre.
I don't really give a shit about this film we're talking about and it isn't offending me in the slightest, but if a disrespectful country (UK, in this case England, is an ally and more respectful than some others...) with wide spread known wild dictatorship (Like NK) made a film about a goody two shoes country with an assassination joke plotline in which their political leaders were a brunt of the joke I know it'd get more flack than what anyone is saying it would. I know people would say rubbish like "It's good o'l America dude, stars and stripes...don't fuck with us. We're the best Country in the world. We fight for freedom, this movie is an outrage. How dare they."
But probably not as funny as I stated it. Times changed. The film posted before was about the US and George Bush of all people. It was filmed in 2006 and featured a what-if scenario with the aftermath rather than pushing a joke to the forefront and making the entire film about the death of ________. This war on terror junk is still going on, ties with North Korea since Ill's passing has deteriorated further (and fucking Dennis Rodman) and things have grown more tense globally with nuclear weapon rubbish since then as well.
Whatever.
Case in point, I see how this movie can harm reputation or be slanderous but I honestly think people are overreacting overall with it. So don't lump me in with people that are against it, I'm not. I just see where some things went wrong with it.
Last edited by Space Suicide; 12-18-2014 at 09:44 PM.
The Enhancer
My mind is still reeling from the fact that Seth Rogen and James Franco, a pair of one-trick ponies, have actually caused an international incident.
i'm too thin
Obama: 'Go to the movies'
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
God is an American
This man's got his head on straight. Visions of Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
tempus est umbra in mente
A few hours ago, Sony accidentally released a new promo ad for the movie. It's gone now
"In Franco and Rogan we trust?"
Apparently not.
should have updated link.
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-19-2014 at 03:22 PM.
Stubby Member
The only reasonable explanation for this reaction is a fear of losing money during what is usually a high point for the movie business. Similar threats have been tossed around for bigger events, but nothing done as the paying public's voice is usually louder.
Given the volatility of the cinema industry, this isn't a fear of terrorism, it's a fear of the paying public turn their backs on the cinema this holiday.
Captain Rustleboots
North Korea was responsible.
http://gizmodo.com/fbi-north-korea-w...ium=socialflow
Active Member
this sounds like some WMD bullshit.
Active Member
Ok. Gizmodo bastardized what the FBI said. Their actual statement is here: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...-investigation
That makes this more believable.
i'm too thin
Can I just reiterate "what in the ever living fuck is this reality"
Active Member
Right. "North Korea is involved" was pretty much a given at this point, although it would have been funny if they weren't. But "North Korea is responsible" is indeed over-simplifying the situation.
Active Member
U.S. officials have said the government will retaliate for the attacks and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the response would be "proportional."
Is there some big box-office North Korean movie scheduled to be release soon they can block?
Bored
What I would do is this: I'd leak The Interview to Anonymous and they'd hack North Korea's 3 TV stations (all under government control, of course) so that they would play the movie non stop for as long as possible.
Anonymous would never do this but man, think about how it would piss off that delusional idiot who runs the country!
Throbbing Member
I love how Obama was all "fuck your sensitivity".
Arts have been neutered enough already.
Active Member
I seriously can't imagine wtf the USG is going to do.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ws-north-korea
"China's new J-20 stealth fighter jet should look familiar, because it's based on America's F-22 stealth jet, because China stole the blueprints and other incredibly important information from Lockheed Martin and the US military. Chinese hackers have been accused of stealing a trillion dollars worth of intellectual property from American companies.
The literal theft of a war machine by another country wasn't enough to spur any sort of fear in the American people. Now, a state-sponsored hack on a company that did less than the bare minimum to keep it and its employees safe is going to spur the beginning of the cyber war age? It’s the act that is starting our collective freakout about cyber criminals and state-sponsored hacking?"
tempus est umbra in mente
"Sony CEO Michael Lynton, who was one of the executives whose emails were leaked, responded to the President in an interview with CNN. "We have not caved. We have not given in. We have preserved," he said."
what the fuck is this supposed to even mean? Sony, you fucking caved. Release the movie online you fucking pansies. It's astonishing how the ball has landed so squarely in Sony's court here. You have the capacity to defuse a potential international incident. Instead they're now standing on weird platitudes like "we have preserved?" What is this insanity?
The longer this gets dragged out the worse it's going to get. The fastest way to resolve it is to find some avenue to release the movie as soon as possible.
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-19-2014 at 03:46 PM.
Active Member
He claims that no major VOD distributor has approached them to release the movie. Claims Sony doesn't have the platform to release it on their own.
This guy truly thinks we're idiots.
tempus est umbra in mente
also, I guess The Interview currently has a 10/10 rating on iMDB, making it the highest user-rated mainstream movie of all time.
Active Member
Throbbing Member
.........................
Last edited by Your Name Here; 07-25-2016 at 11:41 AM.
Active Member
^there are so many angles going on that I feel like something obvious is getting missed.
Another one only being lightly discussed is our official govt response compared to prior situations. Remember the "Innocence of Muslims" YouTube video? Obama to a very different angle on that one. Quick recap: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/19/ob...innocence-of-m
Our response is VERY specific to this being North Korea.
tempus est umbra in mente
Maybe it is specific to North Korea. At the same time, how do you think this article would have spun events if Obama had said nothing? If he had said that the free market is correct in protecting human lives in view of a possible (lol) threat?
Obama will be the enemy in this discussion, no matter what. He could encourage a film company to stand up for freedom and say "fuck you Kim Jong Un!!!!" and he's still the bad guy, because he didn't handle Bengazi properly. What would you have preferred Obama say or do? What could he have possibly said where he could just be "right" here? Can't we just cut the partisan bullshit (for a brief, awesome moment) and just admit that he's handling this right?
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-20-2014 at 01:21 AM.
Active Member
Well, I think the article is very much in agreement with his response in the NK situation. They were just showing the inconsistency with the Muslim video and bitching about prior handlings. But my reason for showing the difference is different than the article's reason.
I'm more interested in why there is a difference and how things would look if we changed who perpetrated the Sony hack. Imagine if this were a Muslim group. I'm not sure Obama would change his response then, but I feel like we would have a military response. We fear Islamic terrorism. We don't fear NK. (In terms of physical danger)
This situation is just so unique. Yet, it opens the door for plenty of other state and non-state actors to try something similar. The results would be different for most of them.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-20-2014 at 01:30 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
I think comparing his stance on this issue to the whole Bengazi debacle is an insane partisan distraction, and it could only be employed by people disinterested with resolving the current situation, which is already insane enough without the inclusion of political Buzz words. If you want to compare/contrast his treatment of this issue with the "innocence of muslims" video, why not wait until later. There will be plenty of time for that in the future.
Right now, let's just be glad he's siding with free expression, and telling Sony to harden up and release the movie. Let's have a bipartisan Christmassy moment where we all join hands and agree to getting behind that
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Reply With Quote