or a protection of film-goers and workers from harm? Would you have chosen a different action?
sort by best latest
Thank you so much for your insights, Ericdierker! There is a lot of hope and information in them.
Thanks much for your opinions and insights. Releasing/making a film with assassinating a real head of state, especially one who seems very aggressive seems like proverbially shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, when it comes to ?'s of 1st Amendment.
Personally I think that that may be a personal choice. But the first amendment and our duty to exercise it trumps any notions of safety in a world without free speech. Protecting our freedoms, even at high cost and risk is paramount and not secondary
True, and Sony has already received additional threats of data release if all past mention of the film is not removed from the Internet and all media. Sony may be kaput now.
I suspect that you are correct. Thanks!
And look at this: Steve Carell told USA TODAY's Andrea Mandell on 12/18 that his new movie set in NK, "Pyongyang", is being scrapped (because of the threats to Sony).
I am grateful an attack of movie theaters was avoided, but sorry that North Korea seems to have won a victory. Anyway, hundreds of theaters refused to show the film, so Sony may have had little choice. Not sure.
George Clooney has just agreed with you in an interview. He says first a movie, then all sorts of businesses could be threatened and concede. Bad news, eh? Good to see you.
A lot of income was lost over this decision, for sure. Some of us reviewers lost a day of work, but that's tiny in view of the multiple millions lost and still owed on the picture. Sony could go bankrupt, followed by others. Thanks!
I've never heard of that film. With a box office take of only $869,300 USD in 2006 or just $1,018,344 in today's US dollars, it was seen by only about 102,000 people. Sounds like it was ignored by left and right.
I think that's true. Thanks for the comment!