Ship of Fools: Unwise Movies/TV

Thread: Unwise Movies/TV Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028841

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Sony Films has produced "The Interview", a movie about an assassination attempt on Kim Jung Un, the current president of N. Korea.

Hackers, possibly from N. Korea, have launched quite a campaign against Sony, including leaking all sorts of damaging e-mails, and have issued possible threats. (And NPR news, 2 seconds ago, said the US gov't has reportedly confirmed that the hacking was from N. Korea.)

Sony has now pulled the film, in response to the threats.

So...should "The Interview" have been made? I gather it's very unusual to make this kind of film about a leader who's currently in power.

There's an international incident; a great deal of hurt and damage has been caused by the leaked e-mails; millions of dollars have been wasted; and the hackers went so far as to mention 9/11 in their threat against movie goers.

Was it worth it? And what in the world were they thinking (other than money) when they approved doing "The Interview" in the first place???

[Ultra confused]

(Feel free to branch out into other films/shows, general policies, etc.)

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Should they have pulled the film in response to threats ?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I think so. But WTH were they thinking in doing the film in the first place???

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Sony didn't pull it in response to threats -- it's a bit more complicated than that.

Guardians of Peace threatened 9/11-style attacks on movie theaters showing "The Interview." Sony then said that they would not hold theaters to their contracts to show the movie, and would not penalize them in any way if they chose not to show the movie. The five biggest theater chains in the country pulled the movie. And then Sony cancelled the release of the film.

This is thus in part an economic decision. Most movie theaters in the US are multiplexes showing several different movies at the same time. Who is going to go to a theater on Christmas Day to see any movie when there's a chance the place will be blown up?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It does make censorship quite easy though. Someone phones in a threat, they may have no means to carry it out, and the project is spiked.

(People are still travelling on planes ...)

[ 17. December 2014, 23:47: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

To go back to the question of "Should this film be made?"

The studio is first and foremost thinking of money. Secondarily it's thinking of making films that appeal to its audience. There's a demand for films which portray national leaders in a bad way or do bad things to them. Since there's freedom to do so in the United States (ignoring the MPAA which is a studio led self censorship) there's not going to be an approval process. In fact, Sony did show a rough cut of the film to the State Department who shrugged and said ok. That has received comment since it's very unusual for a studio to seek such "advice/permission".

Many people in the U.S. dislike the government of North Korea. They see it as a dictatorship which starves it people to get nuclear capability to blackmail its neighbors. So there's a market for unpleasant portrayals of Korean dictators. South Park made a film portraying Kim Jong Il as an alien cockroach

Was it unwise for Chaplin to make the movie "The Great Dictator"? How about Jon Stewart's film Rosewater about a journalist imprisoned and tortured by the Iranian Secret Police?

In an ideal world films, especially satiric ones, can be a powerful protest against dictators and not just a profitable entertainment. Such protests are usually unwise but needed.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Weren't there threats against publisher and book stores when the book Satanic Verses came out?

IIRC, many stores removed the book from displays.

I can't blame those who worry about their safety when threatened, and I'm also glad some cannot be cowed. Should no book or movie be made that might annoy anyone willing to be violent?

The world is changing, hiding might be getting harder, not my decision. Ask Danish cartoonists if some things should be pre-publication banned, or printed in spite of threats. They are more expert than I on the topic and the personal costs.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It does make censorship quite easy though. Someone phones in a threat, they may have no means to carry it out, and the project is spiked.

(People are still travelling on planes ...)

Point taken. But US intelligence officials have confirmed that North Korea was behind the hack into Sony's computers. Why should we think they have no means to carry out 9/11-style attacks?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My daughter's firm has been the subject of specific and nasty threats simply for considering responding to a call for tender for a controversial project - as have all the other eligible contractors. Her firm was the only one that dared go public with the threat. Other contractors have already thrown in the towel.

It's an ugly culture in which threats are effective at this level. It validates terrorism as a modus operandi.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It provided a huge amount of free advertising. The Interview is probably one of those films made on a shoe string - what would have once been called a movie for the bargain bin at the local video store. But suddenly, now everyone wants to see it. It's a clever old ploy and for a movie that probably cost very little to make, they might make a healthy profit from dvd sales and claw back some of that misspent money on ill considered blockbusters.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Point taken. But US intelligence officials have confirmed that North Korea was behind the hack into Sony's computers. Why should we think they have no means to carry out 9/11-style attacks?

Because for all their faults (and despite the opening premise of Olympus Has Fallen) they've not yet shown a propensity for suicide?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It provided a huge amount of free advertising. The Interview is probably one of those films made on a shoe string - what would have once been called a movie for the bargain bin at the local video store. But suddenly, now everyone wants to see it. It's a clever old ploy and for a movie that probably cost very little to make, they might make a healthy profit from dvd sales and claw back some of that misspent money on ill considered blockbusters.

You think Sony pretended to hack itself and released "emails between employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of unreleased Sony films" and its employees' "Social Security numbers and medical information" ( Wikipedia) ... as a publicity stunt?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It provided a huge amount of free advertising. The Interview is probably one of those films made on a shoe string - what would have once been called a movie for the bargain bin at the local video store. But suddenly, now everyone wants to see it. It's a clever old ploy and for a movie that probably cost very little to make, they might make a healthy profit from dvd sales and claw back some of that misspent money on ill considered blockbusters.

If you consider $45 million a "shoe string".

And what Dave W. said.

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

I don't know why they're just making a film about assassinating the North Korean leader. Why not do the world a favor and spend the money on actually doing it ?

This odious little man is responsible for some of the worst pain and suffering on the planet, all to demonstrate he is a 'God'. Its a sad day when a dictator can demonstrate power over our democracies.

I hope they give the film away free and print a couple of billion DVD's to give away just to spite him. North Korea might be able to threaten a few big profile theater events but they can't intimidate the rest of the world at once.

Lets not forget that even saying you're a Christian in North Korea is virtually a death sentence not just for you, but for three generations of your family. I have no sympathy with Kim Jong-Un. I hope he repents or dies.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know that it was a good idea to make the movie in the first place (I'm not into kill movies of any type), but having made it, it's a pity to crumble in response to terror threats.

Why not place it on YouTube?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Dave:

quote:

You think Sony pretended to hack itself and released "emails between employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of unreleased Sony films" and its employees' "Social Security numbers and medical information" ( Wikipedia) ... as a publicity stunt?

Where did I say the whole thing was a publicity stunt pulled by Sony? When bad things happen to shit movies, distributors have a tendency to capitalise. 'Sony Pictures Under Attack' - you couldn't pay for better. Capitalisation on a poorly thought out film does not always translate as insider orchestration. And have you seen the trailer? It looks shit. For God's sake it has Rob Lowe in it; how much more bargain basement can you get? Although admittedly spending $17million of your budget on two actors might have been unwise, but these days $45million is a snip. Most holiday blockbuster films are coming in at the hundreds of millions.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Here's some actual data to inform these discussions of what a shoe string is and how good the movie was. Among action comedies released by major studios this century, it had a pretty average budget and a very average rotten tomatoes rating. In those two categories, it was very typical of its genre.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

It isn't the Kim dynasty alone though, is it? It's the whole military machine. And the chief argument against tyrannicide. There's always another one along in a minute.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I don't know why they're just making a film about assassinating the North Korean leader. Why not do the world a favor and spend the money on actually doing it ?

Sony has its fingers in lots of pies these days, but I'm not sure that assassinating foreign leaders is really part of its core brand.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

I don't care. It seems assassination movies are made every so often. Some Brits made one about Bush being killed. It seems someone made a film about Thatcher being killed. This all sounds like a publicity stunt, that's all.

My wife and I rarely go to the movies, anyway. Come to think of it, the last one we went to was Calvary. It was about a Roman Catholic priest getting aired out.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems assassination movies are made every so often. Some Brits made one about Bush being killed. It seems someone made a film about Thatcher being killed.

But, as Arminian said upthread:

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
This odious little man is responsible for some of the worst pain and suffering on the planet. . . . I hope he repents or dies.

Bush, OK. Thatcher, OK. Julius Caesar, OK. But I have to admit that when I first saw the previews for The Interview I said to myself, "Uh oh, somebody is looking for trouble."

We should have learned by now that this "odious little man" is not to be toyed with. The world should simply ignore him completely. No media coverage, no Western visitors, certainly no assassination films. Maybe he'll wither up and go away.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

There are assassination movies and assassination movies. It all depends on how you approach the subject. I don't like Kim Jong-Un either, but I can see why he might be ever-so-slightly miffed at being portrayed as a slavish follower of an American chat show... in a film that is meant to be a comedy, and presumably has a 'happy' ending (in that the American protagonists survive and American cultural imperialism triumphs). I would not be at all surprised to learn that he is more offended by the suggestion that he likes an American TV show than by the idea that the CIA wants to assassinate him.

Compare and contrast with, for example, The Day of the Jackal, which is all about an attempt to assassinate Charles de Gaulle (at a time when genuine attempts on his life were being made and published only a short time after the Kennedy assassination). The reader's (or viewer's) sympathy is engaged on behalf of the leader who is at risk and the detectives trying to track down the assassin. The attempt fails, the assassin is killed, Justice and Civilization triumph.

Not the same kind of thing at all, and that's why some people found Hilary Mantel's short story about the assassination of Margaret Thatcher objectionable. Because she thought it would have been a Good Thing.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

Not the same kind of thing at all, and that's why some people found Hilary Mantel's short story about the assassination of Margaret Thatcher objectionable. Because she thought it would have been a Good Thing.

Do we know this? Or do we know that she has written a piece a fiction in which a character thinks this? Exploring the interaction between a strong emotion and the opportunity to actualise it has to be a major motor of fiction. How many novels boil down to A loves/hates/covets/fears etc X: the plot confronts A with X: what happens?

Everything that is not a painstaking historical reconstruction is a What if?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

(People are still travelling on planes ...)

Security is better and alternatives fewer.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Firenze:

quote:
Do we know this? Or do we know that she has written a piece a fiction in which a character thinks this? Exploring the interaction between a strong emotion and the opportunity to actualise it has to be a major motor of fiction. How many novels boil down to A loves/hates/covets/fears etc X: the plot confronts A with X: what happens?

Everything that is not a painstaking historical reconstruction is a What if?

Fair comment. I must confess I have not read the story myself, not being a Hilary Mantel fan; what I meant to say was that she suggested (in the story) that it would have been a Good Thing. I should have expressed myself more clearly.

As Aslan says, nobody is ever told what would have happened, but it is possible that a different Tory PM would have done more or less the same things as she did. So assassinating her might have had no effect on history; or it might have made things worse, with a backlash against all political dissent.

[ 18. December 2014, 16:37: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It provided a huge amount of free advertising. The Interview is probably one of those films made on a shoe string - what would have once been called a movie for the bargain bin at the local video store. But suddenly, now everyone wants to see it. It's a clever old ploy and for a movie that probably cost very little to make, they might make a healthy profit from dvd sales and claw back some of that misspent money on ill considered blockbusters.

It probably would have gotten pretty good box office. The stars, Seth Rogen and James Franco, have had several highly successful movies both together and individually.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Let's have a sense of proportion on this.

It's very disturbing that anyone should be suggesting Sony did wrong in making a film that mocks a particularly nasty dictator, rather than bemoaning the fact that he has enough clout in hyperspace to force them to remove the film from circulation.

Any 'international incident' has been generated by the manipulations of a person and a regime that we'd all rather didn't exist, yet alone didn't have the ability to reach outside its own boundaries.

Sony may have been prudent to back down, but it's a sad day that they have had to do so.

That's it, as far as I'm concerned. I can't see that there's anything to debate about this.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave:

quote:

You think Sony pretended to hack itself and released "emails between employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of unreleased Sony films" and its employees' "Social Security numbers and medical information" (Wikipedia) ... as a publicity stunt?

Where did I say the whole thing was a publicity stunt pulled by Sony? When bad things happen to shit movies, distributors have a tendency to capitalise. 'Sony Pictures Under Attack' - you couldn't pay for better. Capitalisation on a poorly thought out film does not always translate as insider orchestration.

You're right - you really haven't made any clear statements at all. You said "It provided a huge amount of free advertising" and "It's a clever old ploy" without providing an antecedent for either instance of "it".

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Should they have pulled the film in response to threats ?

Well I suppose pulling it does demonstrate that it is possible for someone to challenge the USA without being nuked or invaded in return.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Re: The Interview
It is inconceivable that someone in the US 'intelligence' world wasn't aware of the film, the subject matter - in fact they probably had a copy of the script.

What is mindblowing is that no one had the mother wit to realise this would cause outrage in North Korea - after all, how would most Americans feel if a film (comedy or otherwise) was made about the assassination of a POTUS?

As for all the slebs lining up to protest about the film being pulled and citing 'free speech' - they're just parading their ignorance as usual. And I'm sure, in any case, there are better authorities for good behaviour, decency and tact in international relations than Mia Farrow, etc.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well I suppose pulling it does demonstrate that it is possible for someone to challenge the USA without being nuked or invaded in return.

The whole sad business puts me in the embarrassing position of having to agree with Newt Gingrich, who tweeted to the effect that America had fought its first cyberwar, and lost.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well I suppose pulling it does demonstrate that it is possible for someone to challenge the USA without being nuked or invaded in return.
The whole sad business puts me in the embarrassing position of having to agree with Newt Gingrich, who tweeted to the effect that America had fought its first cyberwar, and lost.

The first one? I guess Professor Gingrich is showing his usual perspicacity and keen appreciation of recent history.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

What is mindblowing is that no one had the mother wit to realise this would cause outrage in North Korea - after all, how would most Americans feel if a film (comedy or otherwise) was made about the assassination of a POTUS?

You mean something like this film made by some Brits?

Sony has wussed out. Shame on 'em. I guess I now know that whatever they put out from now on at least has the approval of NK's number one asshole.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
after all, how would most Americans feel if a film (comedy or otherwise) was made about the assassination of a POTUS?

You mean one hasn't?

(Cross-posted with Mere Nick.)

[ 19. December 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Let's have a sense of proportion on this.

It's very disturbing that anyone should be suggesting Sony did wrong in making a film that mocks a particularly nasty dictator, rather than bemoaning the fact that he has enough clout in hyperspace to force them to remove the film from circulation.

Any 'international incident' has been generated by the manipulations of a person and a regime that we'd all rather didn't exist, yet alone didn't have the ability to reach outside its own boundaries.

Sony may have been prudent to back down, but it's a sad day that they have had to do so.

That's it, as far as I'm concerned. I can't see that there's anything to debate about this.

This. After all, in this age of infotainment, how far a step is it from here to North Korea dictating the content of our news programs?

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Re: The Interview
It is inconceivable that someone in the US 'intelligence' world wasn't aware of the film, the subject matter - in fact they probably had a copy of the script.

What is mindblowing is that no one had the mother wit to realise this would cause outrage in North Korea - after all, how would most Americans feel if a film (comedy or otherwise) was made about the assassination of a POTUS?

As for all the slebs lining up to protest about the film being pulled and citing 'free speech' - they're just parading their ignorance as usual. And I'm sure, in any case, there are better authorities for good behaviour, decency and tact in international relations than Mia Farrow, etc.

I’m no fan of Mia Farrow either. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has SONY been elevated to overseeing US foreign policy.

First Amendment rights, though, are another matter. Sure, this is a film I wouldn’t cross the street to view; the few Hollywood-made political satires I’ve seen tend to be ham-fisted and dumb. In the grand scheme of things, the film’s no more worth protecting than the guys who burn flags, the moms who demand creationism in their 7th-graders’ science books, the Phelpses’ picketings and the KKK. It’s no less worth protecting either, though.

When we grant people the right to free expression, we inevitably open ourselves to a certain amount of rubbish. And when we censor ourselves at the behest of a foreign dictator, we surrender to him the right to decide what is rubbish and what isn’t, which "rubbish" he'll let us see and hear, and which "rubbish" we’ll never even know the existence of.

The pulling of this film just adds another to the long list of reasons why government shouldn’t and can’t be run by or like businesses. Profit – or in this case, liability – will never be an adequate substitute for human rights. Or spine.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

When we grant people the right to free expression

Rights aren't granted. You have them whether others realize it or not.

quote:
And when we censor ourselves at the behest of a foreign dictator, we surrender to him the right to decide what is rubbish and what isn’t, which "rubbish" he'll let us see and hear, and which "rubbish" we’ll never even know the existence of.

I imagine shareholders wonder how the guy all of a sudden became the head honcho.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
[QUOTE]And when we censor ourselves at the behest of a foreign dictator, we surrender to him the right to decide what is rubbish and what isn’t, which "rubbish" he'll let us see and hear, and which "rubbish" we’ll never even know the existence of.
I imagine shareholders wonder how the guy all of a sudden became the head honcho.

Shareholders understand a business decision when they see one. They know this wasn't about free speech or censorship. It was about the public perception of safety at movie theaters and the impact of that perception upon box office receipts.

In the US, most movie theaters are multi-plexes showing multiple movies at the same time, and many malls have movie theaters in them. Also, the Christmas-time box office is normally huge; entertainment companies are looking to make a lot of money this time of year. If Sony hadn't cancelled the nation-wide release of "The Interview," it's very likely that the so-called Guardians of Peace would have issued more threats and a lot of people would simply have stayed away from movie theaters entirely, and also kept out of a fair number of malls. A whole lot of companies would have lost a whole lot of money. Sony's competitors will gain from this because their movies will get some of the money that would have been made by Sony this Christmas, but overall the movie business would have taken a huge hit if the movie had gone forward.

Folks can cry "free speech" all they want, but huge entertainment conglomerates do not exist to further free speech. They exist to make money.

[ 19. December 2014, 15:44: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

What is mindblowing is that no one had the mother wit to realise this would cause outrage in North Korea - after all, how would most Americans feel if a film (comedy or otherwise) was made about the assassination of a POTUS?

I might or might not find it offensive, but I guaran-goddam-tee you that I wouldn't threaten the film company with violence if they released it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Shareholders understand a business decision when they see one. They know this wasn't about free speech or censorship. It was about the public perception of safety at movie theaters and the impact of that perception upon box office receipts.

Are these things mutually exclusive? Saying, effectively, 'I won't do anything if you show Film A, but if you show Film B I will bomb your cinema' is a form of censorship, is it not? As well as, of course, a safety issue.

[ 19. December 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Shareholders understand a business decision when they see one. They know this wasn't about free speech or censorship. It was about the public perception of safety at movie theaters and the impact of that perception upon box office receipts.

So Sony shareholders now understand and accept that one can thug their way into determining what Sony produces? Really?

quote:
In the US, most movie theaters are multi-plexes showing multiple movies at the same time, and many malls have movie theaters in them. Also, the Christmas-time box office is normally huge; entertainment companies are looking to make a lot of money this time of year. If Sony hadn't cancelled the nation-wide release of "The Interview," it's very likely that the so-called Guardians of Peace would have issued more threats and a lot of people would simply have stayed away from movie theaters entirely, and also kept out of a fair number of malls. A whole lot of companies would have lost a whole lot of money. Sony's competitors will gain from this because their movies will get some of the money that would have been made by Sony this Christmas, but overall the movie business would have taken a huge hit if the movie had gone forward.

Great. I guess the next time I go to the flicks I can bask in the safety of knowing I am watching a film approved by the Guardians of Peace.

quote:
Folks can cry "free speech" all they want, but huge entertainment conglomerates do not exist to further free speech. They exist to make money.

Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees that people in companies work for the same reason you do.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

When we grant people the right to free expression
Rights aren't granted. You have them whether others realize it or not.

I'm sure the people of North Korea take great comfort from this.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

When we grant people the right to free expression
Rights aren't granted. You have them whether others realize it or not.
I'm sure the people of North Korea take great comfort from this.

Now you know why their government sucks.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Dave W:

quote:

....without providing an antecedent for either instance of "it".

Well, one example - a famous one - would be A Clockwork Orange. That film was pulled by Kubrick himself even though it was arguably his finest work. He as director pulled it (although it also involved and directly effected the producers and distributors) after growing tired of the sensationalist headlines, the claims of a copycat killing and outrage expressed by some against the films contents. He quite literally ensured that it stayed out of circulation for as long as he lived. Within days of pulling the film he basically ensured its lasting fame. Long, long before it ever again saw the light of day it was already being hailed as a masterpiece of modern cinema and considered by many as a part of the sacred canon of twentieth century cinematic works. Since Kubrick's death and the subsequent re-release of the film it now frequently appears in lists of the greatest films ever made. There are some who would still claim Kubrick pulled it because he had no choice, but he wasn't as repentant about it (even after the so-called copycat killing) as his detractors would have hoped for. It was quite a coup for Kubrick and I hope he knows it now; I'm sure he did even when alive though.

There are many other examples, but I thought I would go with the most famous one and a film I think of as being very good, but you will still find some critics who still feel it is essentially an indulgence of violence and a poorly adapted book.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I have seen clockwork orange, I am not convinced the premise and its execution are streets ahead of many good sci fi films - but what stuck with me was just how unpleasant the rape scene was.

It is not something I'd watch again.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I will point out, though, that Kubrick had the film withdrawn in Britain only. I saw it in the theater at least twice during the early 1980s in the USA.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

According to Wikipedia (whose URL for this I can't use here due to included parentheses, but you can easily look up A Clockwork Orange for yourself), significant differences exist between the British and US versions of both the film and the novel on which it's based, so some Pond-based confusion may ensue. I didn't recall the rape scene (maybe I simply repressed it)mentioned by doubelthink, and found that bits of it may have been cut from the film I saw. And the US book publisher insisted on and got from Burgess a "happy ending" for the novel, which Kubrick didn't employ in the film.

(Crossposted with Fr Weber)

[ 19. December 2014, 22:02: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

As Aslan says, nobody is ever told what would have happened, but it is possible that a different Tory PM would have done more or less the same things as she did. So assassinating her might have had no effect on history; or it might have made things worse, with a backlash against all political dissent.

Rem acu tetigisti.

Well done.

The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
According to Wikipedia (whose URL for this I can't use here due to included parentheses, but you can easily look up A Clockwork Orange for yourself), significant differences exist between the British and US versions of both the film and the novel on which it's based, so some Pond-based confusion may ensue.

Similarly with the UK and US versions of the series "Life On Mars". The bulk of the stories are the same, but they take some wildly divergent turns.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave W:

quote:

....without providing an antecedent for either instance of "it".

Well, one example - a famous one - would be A Clockwork Orange...
...
... but you will still find some critics who still feel it is essentially an indulgence of violence and a poorly adapted book.

No - I meant you didn't supply the grammatical antecedent of "it" - i.e., what exactly were you claiming Sony did, specifically as a "ploy"; I wasn't inquiring about historical precedents.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Anthony Burgess hated the movie Kubrick made of his book.
I've only seen the American version. It's a very powerful but dishonest film in how it manipulates the audience into like a horrible person.

Paramount just cancelled the screenings of Team America: World Police the film I mentioned earlier that portrays Kim Jong Il as an alien cockroach.

It's sad to watch the studios caving. A number of theater has specifically scheduled Team America to fill the slot created by the Sony Picture being pulled. They were aware of the risks and willing to let the audience decide if they wanted to take the risk to keep their freedom of speech. It's too bad the studios lacked courage to do so. I suppose we'll be seeing threats to Paramount from people who don't like the reboot of Star Trek and will be forcing it to shut down.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.

Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.

Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.

The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Dave W:

quote:

No - I meant you didn't supply the grammatical antecedent of "it" - i.e., what exactly were you claiming Sony did, specifically as a "ploy"; I wasn't inquiring about historical precedents.

Well, I think we're all waiting to see what Sony does next. I strongly suspect that they will attempt to turn events to their own advantage and I think that is what the word 'ploy' means, unless I'm sadly mistaken. So far they haven't said or done very much, but there are some who seem absolutely sure that it was a cyber attack by N Korea and others who seem to be saying we don't know who it is other than that they call themselves 'Guardians Of The Peace'. It would be hilarious if it turned out to be a bunch of smelly teenagers in a bedroom in Vermont. The US would even have to apologise to N Korea. Bloody hell, it would make a great movie.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.

Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.

The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.

I wondered whether I should add a "rolling eyes" emoticon to my post, but decided that it was unnecessary because my sarcasm was so obvious.

Apparently i was wrong.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

The Sony movie was , from the clips I have seen a silly movie . But in USA there is that pesky 1st Amendment to the US Constitution giving freedom of speech .
As for Chaplins "The Great Dictator" It was a comedy but Chaplin after the war said that if he had known what Hitler was doing he would not have made the movie.
Does it really mean we need to be cautious in the kind of movies made ? Maybe because any movie illustrating assination of a leader is
plain wrong.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Why only leaders, though? Murder is a terrible crime, yet one can scarcely turn on US TV without encountering depictions of murder. Why draw the line at leaders?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Meanwhile, the North Korean Internet is down. While it may just be a failure, the timing and behavior makes it appear to be a denial of service attack, and might be the "Proportional Response" President Obama was talking about when discussing the Sony incident. It also might be a hacker collective like Anonymous . No one has stepped up to claim it.
The North Korean Internet is very small and only available in the Capital, most to elites and military computer hackers. It doesn't really effect the everyday citizen. It also runs through China, so they might be involved any attack.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re comments by PaulBC and Porridge:

Yes, I think *some* caution needs to be exercised in making movies. Doing one about assassinating a current, named leader is very unwise.

Someone's apt to consider it an act of war.

The head of a country isn't more important than anyone else. Movies shouldn't be made about killing a particular named person. However, the person would probably just take the makers to court. The head of a country has lots of "toys" and other options at their disposal.

And after the Colorado theater shooting, a few years back, we can't blithely assume that we're safe in theaters.

Hmmm...can something like this be taken by Pres. Kim to the International Criminal Court? Except the US isn't a signatory.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmm...can something like this be taken by Pres. Kim to the International Criminal Court? Except the US isn't a signatory.

The ICC handles genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Which of these categories do you think an insulting movie falls under?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Dave--

Well, that's kind of what I was asking! [Biased]

I don't know whether or not they do international incidents that don't involve someone actually getting killed.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.

Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.

The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.
I wondered whether I should add a "rolling eyes" emoticon to my post, but decided that it was unnecessary because my sarcasm was so obvious.

Apparently i was wrong.

Yeah, well, considering the American track record in this area, you might have thought of that!

Also, the US and North Korea are technically still at war. We have an armistice, but no peace treaty.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--

Well, that's kind of what I was asking! I don't know whether or not they do international incidents that don't involve someone actually getting killed.

I don't think "hurt feelings" would make the grade; and though I've heard the movie may not be very good, it's probably not bad enough to qualify as a real crime against humanity.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Looks like the International Court of Justice might be a better match than the ICC. In my government's infinite wisdom, the US accepts decisions as binding only when it wants to.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Looks like the International Court of Justice might be a better match than the ICC. In my government's infinite wisdom, the US accepts decisions as binding only when it wants to.

But what possible justification could there be for a complaint? What international law or treaty could North Korea claim had been violated?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I don't know, Dave. I was simply raising a question. I thought maybe that a court procedure, if available, might be better than Obama promising a "proportional response", and NK shouting and making threatening noises. And Japan worrying about getting nuked.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Looks like the International Court of Justice might be a better match than the ICC. In my government's infinite wisdom, the US accepts decisions as binding only when it wants to.

Only states are parties to the ICJ. That's what it's there for, settling disputes between states. Even if one regards Sony as a multinational, it is not capable of suing or being sued in the ICJ.

As for North Korea's internet, since they claim the 'Guardians for Peace' are nothing to do with them, presumably they can't accuse anyone more significant of being behind any cyber-attack if, say, some teenager with a computer in Tulsa comes forward to claim to have knocked out their internet.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It has just been announced on our television news that this film will be released after all, but initially in art-house cinemas.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

You know, since yesterday I've been pondering this: what, exactly, did North Korea, or the Guardians of Peace, or whoever, actually "get" for its efforts in this caper? Unless we're to assume that Kim What's-his-face is actually batshit loony, which I acknowledge is a real possibility, this maneuver did pose some risk to the regime / country if the US decided to get all shirty about things.

What was accomplished, from North Korea's P-O-V, that made it worth that risk -- especially now that the movie will be released anyway?

Its utility as internal propaganda is almost nil; only a few elites have internet there. If they're trying to get leverage on easing up restrictions, this seems a dubious way to go about it. Why the hell did the do this? Why this particular target? Why now? What gives? Mass delusions of grandeur above the parallel?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anthony Burgess hated the movie Kubrick made of his book.
I've only seen the American version. It's a very powerful but dishonest film in how it manipulates the audience into like a horrible person.

Paramount just cancelled the screenings of Team America: World Police the film I mentioned earlier that portrays Kim Jong Il as an alien cockroach.

It's sad to watch the studios caving. A number of theater has specifically scheduled Team America to fill the slot created by the Sony Picture being pulled. They were aware of the risks and willing to let the audience decide if they wanted to take the risk to keep their freedom of speech. It's too bad the studios lacked courage to do so. I suppose we'll be seeing threats to Paramount from people who don't like the reboot of Star Trek and will be forcing it to shut down.

Could be that Paramount were not entirely confident in the security of their servers.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Well, if the source of the attack was from N. Korea, they got to defend their "Dear Leader".

Kim's father had a reputation--in the US, anyway--for being batshit crazy. (Though he was very fond of movies. Don't know what he'd think about this.) I'd hoped that the current Kim might be less crazy, because he got outside of NK and went to school in Switzerland. But from news stories I've heard since he took office, like having his uncle executed, he might not be any better a ruler than his dad.

I do think, though, that most people would be upset if someone made a very graphic movie about murdering them.

I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?

Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, if the source of the attack was from N. Korea, they got to defend their "Dear Leader".

True, but given the isolation of N. Koreans, it's unlikely many folks there know of the film or its subject matter, except for the regime informing them. It just seems a colossal waste of scarce resources, plus something of a risk, to shoot up SONY for the benefit of the home side. Why "defend" against an attack nobody knows about? The rest of the world is unlikely to be much impressed.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kim's father had a reputation--in the US, anyway--for being batshit crazy. (Though he was very fond of movies. Don't know what he'd think about this.) I'd hoped that the current Kim might be less crazy, because he got outside of NK and went to school in Switzerland. But from news stories I've heard since he took office, like having his uncle executed, he might not be any better a ruler than his dad.

Relying, as I must, primarily on US-produced news, that's my impression too -- but must consider the source.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I do think, though, that most people would be upset if someone made a very graphic movie about murdering them.

Agreed, but there's an awful lot of open territory between "upset" and threatening to strike theatres-full of people who did not make the movie.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?

Now that would be crazy. Like a fox. Maybe this was Il's practice run before he has his hackers tooling around inside the Federal Reserve.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re comments by PaulBC and Porridge:

Yes, I think *some* caution needs to be exercised in making movies. Doing one about assassinating a current, named leader is very unwise.

Someone's apt to consider it an act of war.

Or some thin-skinned loony is likely to be unable to take the insult to his ego.

Screw him.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.

But they used him, by name, as a character. A really good lawyer might be able to make the case that Sony owed him a percentage of the profits.

I wonder if the film has an on-screen disclaimer of "all characters are either fictional, or used fictionally"?

ETA: AIUI, Americans sue for all sorts of reasons, including being upset about something. We're very litigious.

[ 23. December 2014, 22:47: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.
But they used him, by name, as a character. A really good lawyer might be able to make the case that Sony owed him a percentage of the profits.

I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.

IANAL, but some things to note:

--Personality Rights (Wikipedia).

The strictest relevant laws in the US are in Indiana.

quote:
Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.

(My italics.)

--Defamation--Republic of Korea(Wikipedia).

The ROK is South Korea, so it may not pertain at all to NK. But they have their roots in the same culture. And the ROK's anti-defamation laws are very strict--even if what's said is true.

--California Celebrities Rights Act (Wikipedia).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The Sony movie was , from the clips I have seen a silly movie . But in USA there is that pesky 1st Amendment to the US Constitution giving freedom of speech .

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, though. If one of those consequences is making somebody angry, they have the right to be angry.

And no, that doesn't make it okay to use that anger to, for example, blow up a cinema complex. But the point is I get a bit tired of "freedom of speech" being thrown around as if it means that no matter what you say, everybody has to be okay with it. It doesn't mean that at all. All that freedom of speech means is that the government authorities of the United States can't punish you for what you've said. It's no guarantee at all that anyone besides the government authorities of the United States won't find a way to let you know exactly what they thought of your 'free speech'.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

orfeo--

Well, the definition of "freedom of speech varies a lot by country. In the US, it's a little more complicated. It also means that the gov't is supposed to protect your right to speak freely. So if you (a private citizen, corporation, etc.) try to keep someone from speaking up, then the someone, and the general public, and various parts of gov't may well remind you.

And there are exceptions, as shown in those articles.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Actually it doesn't look at all like "the government", as in the federal one, is supposed to protect anything for you.

The wikipedia article you linked to only has a brief section on 'private actors', which then links to this case, and a ruling that the California constitution has an affirmative right to free speech as distinct from the federal constitution.

There's also evidence in that article that other states haven't tended to follow suit, and that even in California there's been some narrowing of the application of the decision over the years.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.
IANAL, but some things to note:

--Personality Rights (Wikipedia).

The strictest relevant laws in the US are in Indiana.

quote:
Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.
(My italics.)

Unfortunately no link is given to the Indiana statute - but nearly all the discussion there is of false endorsement, which clearly doesn't apply here. And the fact that politicians routinely use images of their opponents in campaign ads suggests their protection is very limited.

quote:

--Defamation--Republic of Korea(Wikipedia).

The ROK is South Korea, so it may not pertain at all to NK. But they have their roots in the same culture. And the ROK's anti-defamation laws are very strict--even if what's said is true.

ROK defamation law obviously doesn't apply in the US, though it might matter if Sony had hoped to screen the movie in South Korea. (And DPRK defamation law, whatever it might be, would be even less relevant.)

quote:

--California Celebrities Rights Act (Wikipedia).

That law specifically exempts audiovisual works of fictional entertainment (among many other things) from its restrictions.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Meanwhile, with screening to go ahead after all, KJU had better get braced for the Streisand effect.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This blogpost from someone working in IT security makes quite a good case for it not having been NK at all.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

North Korea has accomplished something I believed impossible--they've made me want to see a Seth Rogen movie.

Nevertheless, I get queasy at the idea of making a comedy about killing anyone (especially by blowing their head off, graphically). Bad taste doesn't even begin to describe it.

However, as Ruth said, the cancellation was a purely commercial decision. The theater chains were afraid that no one would show up on Christmas Day for fear of something or other. Not a credible threat, exactly--it's not like North Korea has the wherewithal to crash planes into several hundred multiplexes (9/11 was years in the planning and preparation). But fear is not rational, and corporations are risk averse.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I'm not convinced by the blog. It says that the US comment that the windows computer was set to Korean, where North Korean is a separate dialect.

However,Windows Locales don't support North Korean. (I can't imagine there's a big business case for doing the localization; would they sell 10 non-pirated copies?) So "Korean" meaning koko would be the closest they could set a Windows box to North Korean. That way they could use the Bopomofo editor.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

orfeo--

Free speech cases that *aren't* about something a level of US gov't has done often play out in the courts. They can even be between individuals.

One that's mentioned on that US page links to Snyder v. Phelps (Wikipedia). And yes, that's Fred Phelps and Westboro Church. One of their protest victims sued, and it went all the way to the Supremes.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Dave--

I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.

I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not convinced by the blog. It says that the US comment that the windows computer was set to Korean, where North Korean is a separate dialect.

CBS seems to think so too.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Kaplan Corday:

quote:
The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.

I wasn't talking about ethics at all, as you would have noticed if you were paying attention. The leader of a democratic government cannot impose policy unilaterally; she (or he) must govern with the consent, or at least the acquiescence, of the Cabinet and a majority of the House of Commons. That's why I don't think assassinating Thatcher would have had any effect on government policy in the 1980s; if it had, it would most likely have been a negative effect.

Whether it is morally acceptable to assassinate a political leader is a completely separate question. If you were paying attention during the discussion on the assassination of bin Laden you may remember I expressed disapproval of that, too; which may give you a small hint on where I stand on the question of whether I think it is ethical to assassinate a political leader. Even one I disapprove of.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And given the effect assassinations often have on the political front -- i.e., that of turning the victim into a Martyred Saint of the People (at least for the victim's followers unto the seventh generation), it's worse than useless for the victim's actual political foes.

In addition, of course, to being murder.

All of which, of course, is beside the point here. No one has assassinated Kim Jong Un. It doesn't seem especially likely that anyone has actual plans to do so.

It's just a movie.

[ 24. December 2014, 16:24: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--

I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.

I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.

You were suggesting that Kim might have legal recourse; I see no reason to think so.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Many of the 300 theaters that showed "Interview" on Christmas day reported sold out houses for the showings. People said they went to support the right to show films, rather than any fondness for film which has gotten mediocre reviews. North Korean called the showing of the film "an act of war".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
People said they went to support the right to show films

People are terribly confused.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

People are pretty clear that it's not a good film, so they are only there to defy those who threatened the theater.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I personally would risk my life to ogle Libby Caplan, but that's just me.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
People are pretty clear that it's not a good film, so they are only there to defy those who threatened the theater.

Yeah. I might want to find a way to express my support for the general notion that people should be largely free in an open society to watch what they want to watch, but throwing my money at a film that I don't think is actually very good isn't the way I'd do it.

The principle isn't about the particular film, the principle is about film in general, and I don't think it's a great idea to reward the creators of a bad controversial film, lest filmmakers everywhere cotton onto the idea that to achieve a hit, making your film controversial is more important than making it good.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
I don't think it's a great idea to reward the creators of a bad controversial film, lest filmmakers everywhere cotton onto the idea that to achieve a hit, making your film controversial is more important than making it good.

Too late.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

So how does the situation with hacking and threats over "The Interview" compare and contrast with the Charlie Hebdo-related shootings?

What if someone had followed through on their threats to attack theater-goers? What if the Paris shooters had just hacked Hebdo's computers and threatened violence?

If the two situations had come to similar ends, would the issues be the same?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Yes. It's always wrong to hack someone else's computer and it's always wrong to kill the employees of a magazine. In both cases, whether you find them offensive, even if you are rationally offended according to your own word view, has no bearing at all on whether you are entitled to kill someone or even to hack their computer. The latter, though, is usually less dangerous, and for your victim, less terminal (dire pun intended).

[ 17. January 2015, 08:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

It's already on Netflix. I don't know if that means it's bad but, here, usually the movies that go to the $1.50
theaters shortly after release aren't exactly blockbusters, if you get my drift. In other words, crap. I've heard about Netflix and Redbox thought of as "the modern equivalent".

I could be wrong, though.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

NetFlix (at least in the UK) is a pay to view service - think of it as a DVD rental, but with the data streamed direct to your TV. So, you'll get the top blockbusters, and the stuff that most of us won't have heard of. The main measure of quality (or, at least, how much people want to see it) is the price charged.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--

I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.

I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.
You were suggesting that Kim might have legal recourse; I see no reason to think so.

Frankly, if The Interview has made people more aware of the completely shitty regime that exists in North Korea, then it may have done the world a public service.

I worked in a public library when The Satanic Verses came out. There were protests and threats. Mostly low key and everyone was very polite back then. Apart from an unsuccessful fire-bomb attempt. All the library staff thought it was important to stock the book so people could read it. All of them.

GK, the concept of face may explain NK's reaction, it doesn't justify it.

Freedom of speech and ideas is worth defending. The moment you spike something just because someone might be offended by it, the bullies have won.

Tubbs

[ 27. January 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0