"Steve Carell’s North Korea Movie ‘Pyongyang’ Canceled in Wake of Sony Hack" http://www.thewrap.com/steve-carells-north-korea-movie-pyong...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_%28South_Park%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends

Would he have dared to make a comedy mocking Mohammed the warlord turned prophet and 72 virgins in heaven? I guess he was smart enough to figure out that life under police protection would have cramped his partying.

Oh, and Seth is a total prima-donna, witness his recent tirade against Cathay Pacific because they wouldn't allow his wife's dog onto the plane due to the breed being more susceptible to death during flight.

With demand now through the roof to watch this film, I'd bet we'll see some innovative work by Sony to release this film that satisfies that demand in a legal way.

Or maybe not....

[1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_interview_2014/

With this much publicity surrounding the movie, people are going to want to find out what the bug deal is. Trust me, the first weeks of release the numbers will be through the roof. After that, I'm sure they'll fall off a cliff.

This is already a cult classic and it hasn't even been released.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/sony-cancels-theatrical-re...

Not really.

The physical threat? No.

But there is a credible threat here. No theater wants to go through what Sony is going through right now. And no sensible one believes that they are going to be able to protect themselves from it.

Sure, the North Koreans hate the film, but why do these cinema companies give half a shit? They weren't going to get North Korean ticket sales regardless of the movies content.

Yes, absolutely.

I don't share the ideas, but they certainly aren't rare.

These are fringe beliefs. As a general rule, movie studios do not shitcan movies just because a couple of dumbasses think that the movie goes too far.

Seriously, if Harry Potter was released despite the controversy it caused, there is no way in hell that "controversy" around The Interview is the reason behind this decision. You'd have to be incredibly out of touch with American society to think otherwise.

I roundly reject the speech of shitty people. (I've switched tabletop game stores because I have no patience for GamerGate partisans, for example.) While I don't agree with the notion that this movie is deserving of rejection, I sympathize and anybody who feels that way is not somehow wrong by refusing to accept and patronize it.

Looking at the audience section, with 27k entries, 96% wanting to see it and a 3.8/5 score pre-release, it's clear that it wouldn't have been a flop.

For example, the (also Seth Rogan / James Franco) film Pineapple Express: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pineapple_express/

58% rating from "Top Critics". 73% rating from audiences.

The idea that Sony is using the DPRK as an excuse to shitcan this movie because of mediocre critic ratings is flat out absurd.

Step Brothers, 55% on RT, box office of 100M.

Shrek the Third, 40%, 320M.

Anchorman got 66%, 84M at the office and a major cult following.

Hell, You Me and Dupree had an atrocious 21% and had 75M.

That's just looking at Seth Rogen's filmography. There's a million more examples of comedies with low ratings that either resulted in high box office results or a major cult following.

People don't watch comedies to see oscar-winning performances, they watch comedies to laugh. 50% isn't that bad.

I agree with you, they shouldn't be caving to threats. But they can't possibly believe that this is a credible threat. We don't have a whole lot of North Koreans emigrating here. TMZ has a slightly more likely theory [1]. Rather than genuine fear of attacks from North Korea, they contend that Sony simply wanted to bury the movie without looking weak.

"We're told the execs are actually viewing the latest threat as having a silver lining ... the threat of a 9/11-type attack will make so many theaters pull the flick themselves -- and Sony won't have to do it....Sony execs want the bleeding to stop"

[1] http://www.tmz.com/2014/12/17/theaters-cancelling-the-interv...

[1] https://variety.com/2014/film/news/sony-weighing-premium-vod...

edit - I wonder if I should try and pitch that to someone.

There is more than one horrible precedent, in that the plot of the movie from what I've read, is the an assassination of a contemporary country leader by specific name. AFAIK that barrier of good taste has never been crossed by Hollywood before. Close, but advocating assassination of a current world leader by name?

Of course, two wrongs not making a right, and all that.

My gut level guess is the whole thing is being orchestrated for PR, lets call it the "snakes on a plane part 2" marketing plan. Hoping for the netflix revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006_fi...

I'm sure there are earlier precedents too, but this one comes to mind immediately.

Oh, another one: Team America: World Police... which actually did depict a mission to go kill Kim Jong Il (while he was still ruling North Korea). Though to be fair they didn't actually manage to kill him, since in that movie he turned into a cockroach and fled in a spaceship.

Wikipedia says it pretty well : "was much criticised by those who believed it exploited the subject of presidential assassination, and that by doing so, was in bad taste"

There's a quote by Hillary Clinton, like it or not, likely to be our next president, describing that movie as "despicable". I never thought I'd agree with her on absolutely anything, but here I am.

(and again I state two wrongs don't make a right, etc)

FWIW, I did see it at the time, and thought it was a fairly intelligent and sensitive depiction of what might happen to American society if Bush were murdered. In any case, why should such a "what if" scenario be off-limits to artists?

And she's a despicable person. Sadly, she's probably going to be the best candidate in the next election, but she's a horrible person whose opinion counts for nothing.

It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_(2006_film...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_...

[2] Don't feel I have to include links, they'd detract from the discussion, but we all know the massive international protests and even murders against cartoons, films, books, ... that muslims keep throwing every 5 years or so.

(yes, it's called defamation of religions, but it covers a hell of a lot more than just religions. Mostly mentioning islam here because it's the driver behind these horrible laws)

But here's the thing Americans don't seem to understand. Number of people in favor of real freedom of expression* : 60% of the US, 5% of the rest of the world.

* irrespective of the subject, which excludes most of Europe. Europe is only in favor of freedom of expression where it doesn't interfere with religion, (some) policies, a few families, ...

A contemporary story about the assassination of David Cameron would be unlikely to make it to the BBC.

A contemporary movie about same would never be funded.

Mind you they've received a share of vitriol for doing so.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/14/hilary-mantel-a...

Aside from being a rather flimsy argument in general, what does any of that have to do with the US? The parent referenced President Obama.

How many people does a dictator have to send to a concentration camp before they lose the right to complain about such a movie being in bad taste? Personally, I think the answer is 1.

So not only has this precedent been set, but it was done to the same country's leader by producers and directors in the United States.

Edit: This was done a decade ago.

Organized evil is more harmful than any sort of chaos. The only exceptions involve WMD deadman switches.