"The Interview" movie shelved

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30528772

I was looking forward to this. I thought their movie, "This is The End" was great fun.

I'm quite shocked at the ease with which some hackers making threats have cowed free expression into submission.

Just a thought:

Let's assume they went forward with it and the film was shown in theatres. And there was a cinema shooting (not necessarily connected to the threat, could be a copycat) Would they be sued?

Perhaps they (SONY), or rather the cinema chains it seems, were most of all afraid of economic repercussions if they went on and things got ugly?

Still, it's sad, of course.

pibbur who doesn't know. But who was surprised when he heard about the decision.

Exactly. It's not about free speech, or bravery, or fear. It's all about the money. The risk of expensive legal judgements is too high.

Sends a bad message to terrorists. If you threaten a company with consumer deaths or injuries to get them to withdraw a product, it will almost always work.

Yep, this is 100% a reflection of our lawsuit-happy society. If anything did happen, even not directly related to the Korean threats (like pibbur mentions) you'd have a hundred shyster lawyers lined up claiming negligence for not reacting to a public threat.

Some beancounter at Sony has sat down and decided that the pile of money they'd lose to shyster lawyers is larger than the pile of money they'll piss away by throwing the movie in the can (reportedly a mere $40mil).

Thrasher said:

Exactly. It's not about free speech, or bravery, or fear. It's all about the money. The risk of expensive legal judgements is too high.

Sends a bad message to terrorists. If you threaten a company with consumer deaths or injuries to get them to withdraw a product, it will almost always work.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's all about the money, but I do think fear and bravery are important factors. In the sense that if all fanatics have to do is create the fear of an attack in order to shut down expression that they don't like, then we have a major problem.

I don't actually blame Sony in this case. They are almost certainly not vulnerable to a lawsuit for merely producing a film that provokes an attack. It's the cinemas - they could conceivably be liable if it could be shown that they had reasonable expectation of an attack, and did nothing to protect customers. I don't think it's a very good case, but crazy rulings are handed down.

Not all the cinemas were so craven, but a couple of the major chains took this position, so Sony's boxoffice would have been badly hit on release. I suspect that Sony would like to attempt a relaunch at some stage.

If it is because of fear of a lawsuit that would set a scary precedent. Any group of crazy could issue a bunch of threats about anything.

For that reason I don't think a lawsuit would hold up in court but there's always the McDonalds coffee incident to make you wonder what level of stupidity is possible.

That's exactly it. Not fear for the health and welfare of its customers, but fear of financial losses because of lawsuits. This indirectly protects the customer, but I can't imagine North Korea terrorists would actually come through on it's threat to make an attack in the US, at least. In an sense, the Sony bean counters are being overly paranoid, if you ask me.

I'm having trouble believing the lawsuit theory. Homeland Security said the threat was not credible - that should absolve the theaters. I can't imagine how Sony would be on the hook at all. If I read a post here that makes me so mad that I go break my neighbor's window, do you really think RPG Watch or even the person who made the maddening post is going to get sued!?

I expect it's the "court of public opinion" they were more worried about. While the courts may throw out the case, Sony and the theaters would still be stuck answering "why did you show this picture when you KNEW there were threats?" questions.

Plus it isn't just this movie. The hackers got a LOT of information out of Sony - information that Sony may be very interested in keeping out of the public eye. This avoids having the Sony version of Edward Snowden reveal all.

Remember Sony is a Japanese company. They also want to avoid causing additional offense.

sakichop said:

For that reason I don't think a lawsuit would hold up in court but there's always the McDonalds coffee incident to make you wonder what level of stupidity is possible.

Click to expand...

Trust me, the McDonalds incident ain't the half of it. Product liability cases get wide distribution with manufacturing engineers (as well as others, I'm sure). My personal favorite is the lady that was driving her RV, set the cruise control and then went in the back of the RV to make a sandwich while the vehicle was still going down the road. She sued because the owner's manual didn't state that "cruise control" did not allow you to leave the driver's seat and she won. $1M plus a shiny new RV, IIRC.

Sony and the theatre chains have deep pockets. They'd get sued in a heartbeat and there's a very real chance they'd lose. Heck, didn't the theatre in Aurora CO where the nutjob shot up everyone at the Batman movie get sued for negligent security measures?

edit- looks like there's some dissent on whether the RV case is real or not. Perhaps I was too quick to believe in the stupidity of our legal system.

sakichop said:

For that reason I don't think a lawsuit would hold up in court but there's always the McDonalds coffee incident to make you wonder what level of stupidity is possible.

Click to expand...

The thing is - the McDonald's thing actually WAS correct. The woman got THIRD degree burns over 6% of her body - which would have been impossible had McDonalds produced the coffee according to their actual protocol.

The actual medical bills were $11,000 and 8 days in the hospital. She approached McDonalds with a request of $20,000 to cover costs of current and future medical and lost wages. They offered an F U amount of $800. She got a lawyer who continued to try to negotiate a reasonable settlement - and McDonald's wouldn't budge. When a lawsuit was filed, the judge told the two to seek mediation, and the mediator suggested a $225k number, which McDonald's rejected completely.

(the reason I belabor this)

What came out in court was that McDonalds had been selling coffee for 10 years, and had received more than 700 formal complaints about actual burns from the coffee being so hot (40-50 Deg hotter than home brewed coffee), but had decided (and testified) that the since it was only a 1 in 24 million cup risk, the danger was statistically insignificant so they ignored it. In terms of actual damages, the woman got $160k, but for being arrogant pricks McDonald's got handed a $2.7 million punitive finding (reduced to 480k, and eventually settled out of court for somewhere in between).

The big thing has to do with statistical significance. Companies know that 'zero risk' doesn't exist - but people act like it does. So they need to calculate the risk - not just of lawsuits as you guys cynically assume - but also of injury or death occurring based on their actions.

When I was speaking of risks, I was speaking of both kinds of lawsuits - frivolous and justified. I doubt most companies actually care about the health of their customers, unless it causes a lawsuit or impedes their ability to buy (or pay for) the products.

Dte said "edit- looks like there's some dissent on whether the RV case is real or not. Perhaps I was too quick to believe in the stupidity of our legal system."

Son, you can NEVER be too quick to believe in the STUPIDITY of your legal system!!

Well then, next time I go out for Chinese food, I'm going to stir my hot tea with my penis and then get me a lawyer. I'll sue the Chinese people for their dangerous cultural love of hot tea. $1 per Chinese citizen sounds reasonable to me. After all, those Chinese people are supposed to be real smart--they should anticipate that someone might think it's perfectly fine to bring their delicates in close proximity to a liquid that's steaming hot. Such callous disregard for my safety is shameful and the only way anything will change in this country is to give me a big pile of money for being a moron.

pibbur who said:

Just a thought:

Let's assume they went forward with it and the film was shown in theatres. And there was a cinema shooting (not necessarily connected to the threat, could be a copycat) Would they be sued?

Perhaps they (SONY), or rather the cinema chains it seems, were most of all afraid of economic repercussions if they went on and things got ugly?

Click to expand...

Could they be sued?

The general rule is that you aren't liable for the tortious acts of a third-party absent some special relationship.

The thing is any sort of relationship can be argued to be a special one that invites a duty. Hence, a movie theatre has a "special relation" to its patrons to provide security, which is the theory that some of the Aurora victims are using to sue the theater, and it appears the theatre hasn't been successful in getting a summary judgment, so that will likely be reaching a jury or settlement.

To sue Sony, you could argue that Sony knew much more about the seriousness of the threat than the average viewer, and there is a general duty on manufactuers to warn about the forseeable risks of it's products even to downstream users. E.g. asbestos litigation, epilepsy warnings, etc…

You could even argue that Sony films broke the implied warranty of merchantability, because it's showing was subject to an international threat of reprisal. Kind of like blood diamonds — the product is fine, it's the baggage attached to it. I just put that in for laughs, but I think you could argue it.

So can you sue? Of course…creative lawyers always find a way.

I'm having trouble believing the lawsuit theory. Homeland Security said the threat was not credible - that should absolve the theaters.

Click to expand...

There's no safe harbor in the law that says if homeland security says no threat, you can't be sued. Thus homeland security's statement is merely evidence as to the level of the threat. And judges don't weigh the credibility of evidence…that's left to the jury.

dteowner said:

edit- looks like there's some dissent on whether the RV case is real or not. Perhaps I was too quick to believe in the stupidity of our legal system.

Click to expand...

Seems like several of the alleged frivolous cases are fabricated. You can read more about it here: http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

Pibbur who is saddened by yet another cause for making fun of americans being lost.

Let us also remember that Japan and the Koreas have a history; Japan as a nation kept women as joy girls e.g. prostitutes or sexslaves the 1930's and 1940's. It is not that long ago. So the complaint from North Korea could very well have an historic component as well.

Am I the only one who thinks this movie shouldn't have been made in the first place?

Look, I'm all for freedom of speech, but when you poke a bees nest, you run the risk of getting stung.

North Korea and especially their "Dear Leaders" throughout the years have proven that they are not stable by any means. Making a movie, even if it's a comedy, about killing their Dear Leader is going to provoke a response.

What if Afghanistan made a movie about killing President Obama? I'm sure some Republicans would love it, but most people would be outraged and take it as a slap in the face to their country.

And what if a cinema gets bombed and innocent lives are taken because they chose to play this movie? I mean, think about the insanity of that. People could possibly die over a stupid movie. It's just not worth it, in my opinion.

So, I simply think you have to draw the line somewhere. Making a movie like this is just asking for trouble.

Fluent said:

Am I the only one who thinks this movie shouldn't have been made in the first place?

Look, I'm all for freedom of speech, but when you poke a bees nest, you run the risk of getting stung.

North Korea and especially their "Dear Leaders" throughout the years have proven that they are not stable by any means. Making a movie, even if it's a comedy, about killing their Dear Leader is going to provoke a response.

What if Afghanistan made a movie about killing President Obama? I'm sure some Republicans would love it, but most people would be outraged and take it as a slap in the face to their country.

And what if a cinema gets bombed and innocent lives are taken because they chose to play this movie? I mean, think about the insanity of that. People could possibly die over a stupid movie. It's just not worth it, in my opinion.

So, I simply think you have to draw the line somewhere. Making a movie like this is just asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree ... let's not forget 'That's My Bush' which depicted the former president as a total idiot ... very disrespectful, but that was their choice to make. Like the current white house awful sitcom (can't even remember the name). It is just how it goes.

Political figures have always been targets in comedy ... and it is important to remember that it is a freaking comedy.

And sadly people from all over have decided that killing innocents is a great way to make a statement. Choosing to change your way of life because of that is allowing them more power than they deserve. But I don't want anyone to die either ... and pretty much agree with the president 'I don't agree with the decision ... but it isn't my choice to make'.

I think it's one to thing to have a comedy making fun of Bush, since he's an American and even he probably laughs it off. But I don't recall any comedy where they tried to assassinate Bush.

I think it's different when you make a movie about assassinating a foreign leader, especially the leader of North Korea, when the relations with N.K. are already very strained and the country itself is very unstable.

I don't think Kim Jong Un has the same sense of humor as our fellow Americans do. I think this is a case of bullying by the U.S. citizens involved in making this movie. They are picking on N.K. and poking and prodding a hornets' nest. Of course there is going to be a response, who didn't see this coming?

All it takes is one lone gunman who is sympathetic to N.K. to shoot up the local cinema because they showed this movie. Is this really the sort of entertainment we want to put out there? Shouldn't Sony be focused on making movies that try to attain more positive and good goals, rather than bullying?

I think it's easy to take the stance you are now, txa, but if the tables were turned and let's say, Iran made a comedy movie about blowing up Israel, or China released a worldwide action movie about killing Obama, we'd have something different to say about that.

It's just not a good move to even make this movie in the first place. Sony is honestly getting exactly what they bargained for when they took that utterly ridiculous risk.

I certainly feel a bit ashamed that this whole episode even had to happen. This doesn't paint Americans in a better light in any way worldwide. It just goes to reinforce the idea that Americans are bullies.