North Korea Wins!!!

Dayum

This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

Bravo to the guy that thought it up...

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Dayum wrote: »

This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

Bravo to the guy that thought it up...

Only people who have no idea of corporations would think a marketing department would convince executives to release internal emails to promote a movie (one not playing anywhere).

deco nate

Dayum wrote: »

This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

Bravo to the guy that thought it up...

No, just... No.... Think before posting, oh is that you Kim?

The_Valeyard

Who knows, maybe Kim secretly directed the movie and is using all this to create the best hype ever. lol

recedite

The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.

Custardpi

recedite wrote: »

The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

Yes, damn the Yanks & their free speech principles. So hypocritical too. There's no way anyone would ever be allowed make a similar film about an American president. Oh, wait...

Xenji

recedite wrote: »

The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.

Some people are very easily disgusted these days it seems, also Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company, who's current president is British, so it has nothing to do with Americans , but go on with being blissfully uninformed and ignorant in your disgust.

recedite

Xenji wrote: »

Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company

An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.

Xenji

recedite wrote: »

An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.

God bless Wikipedia.

Wompa1

recedite wrote: »

An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.

Where do you think the decision making is being made?

Not that it even matters. The chains of cinemas pulled the plug before Sony did anyways.

Jim Norton had a pretty good take on things:

Jim Norton

recedite

Custardpi wrote: »

There's no way anyone would ever be allowed make a similar film about an American president. Oh, wait...

Made in Britain and vilified in the USA. Hilary Clinton's quote on that movie was "I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

The Bush administration did not comment about the film; as White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore remarked, "We are not commenting because it doesn't dignify a response."
It only survived because it focused on the political changes in the aftermath of an assination. The murder itself was not the point of the film, nor was the murder treated as something funny.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Wompa1 wrote: »

Where do you think the decision making is being made?

Not that it even matters. The chains of cinemas pulled the plug before Sony did anyways.

Jim Norton had a pretty good take on things:

Yes. The threat of legal action could have bankrupted them.

Tin Foil Hat

Xenji wrote: »

Some people are very easily disgusted these days it seems, also Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company, who's current president is British, so it has nothing to do with Americans , but go on with being blissfully uninformed and ignorant in your disgust.

It's clearly an american movie. It also looks like total arse.

Wompa1

NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »

Yes. The threat of legal action could have bankrupted them.

Yes, because they'd be worried about being bankrupted by it?...

They release movies to make money, not cost them money. Also, they didn't pull it from the cinemas first. The cinemas did it themselves.

Custardpi

recedite wrote: »

Made in Britain and vilified in the USA. Hilary Clinton's quote on that movie was "I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

The Bush administration did not comment about the film; as White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore remarked, "We are not commenting because it doesn't dignify a response."
It only survived because it focused on the political changes in the aftermath of an assination. The murder itself was not the point of the film, nor was the murder treated as something funny.

Villified yes, but still permitted. Do you seriously believe that even if the film had been a comedy that the American government would have banned it or threatened the British filmmaker? Even at their most craven the Bush administration would not have been so stupid as to blatantly attack free speech in such a way.

Standman

South Park have killed real world people many times. Hot Shots was pretty brutal with Saddam Hussein. I'm sure there are many more examples.

When it comes to comedies it should be anything goes. Fair enough if you don't think it's funny, that's your prerogative.

Connemara Farmer

Screw North Korea, Sony should release this movie one way or another. When did "The West" lose it's balls?

recedite

Custardpi wrote: »

Even at their most craven the Bush administration would not have been so stupid as to blatantly attack free speech in such a way.

Free speech is never an unrestricted right.
There are always restrictions, including amongst others, offense against an individual, incitement to hatred, violating an individual's right to privacy.
Generally speaking, you can express hate against an ideology or an idea, but not against an individual person.

recedite

Standman wrote: »

When it comes to comedies it should be anything goes. Fair enough if you don't think it's funny, that's your prerogative.

It probably is funny, but I don't agree that anything goes if it's in the name of comedy.

Custardpi

recedite wrote: »

Free speech is never an unrestricted right.
There are always restrictions, including amongst others, offense against an individual, incitement to hatred, violating an individual's right to privacy.
Generally speaking, you can express hate against an ideology or an idea, but not against an individual person.

The US constitution provides extensive protection for freedom of speech, far more than in Europe. Although it's not unlimited it's difficult to see on what grounds a comedy film about killing a US president would be made illegal. The US courts have on numerous occasions upheld the right to produce & sell offensive & even obscene material.

AboutaWeekAgo

recedite wrote: »

It probably is funny, but I don't agree that anything goes if it's in the name of comedy.

But if that's the case who's to say where the line is to be drawn? What might be too much by one persons standards would be totally fine by someone else's.

Standman

recedite wrote: »

It probably is funny, but I don't agree that anything goes if it's in the name of comedy.

Well if you believe in freedom of speech you should believe that.

Custardpi

Standman wrote: »

Well if you believe in freedom of speech you should believe that.

See his post above. He clearly doesn't. Uses the old "free speech isn't unrestricted" argument. The subtext usually being "so lets restrict it even more!".

recedite

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

But if that's the case who's to say where the line is to be drawn? What might be too much by one persons standards would be totally fine by someone else's.

Everybody has a different personal viewpoint yes. The Ku Klux Klan might think it was hilarious to make a video about stringing up Barack Obama from a tree in Alabama. A black person might disagree. The person with the most right to object would be Obama himself.

Standman

recedite wrote: »

The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.

Wow I just saw this earlier post of yours.

You are a-OK with speech being free when it comes to the use of blackmail and threats of mass murder in order to "teach a lesson", yet when it comes to comedy, that's where there should be restrictions!

Jesus, the irony.

Have you really thought in depth about your opinions on this?

recedite

I have no problem with that because he used whatever means were available to him, while escalating his response gradually and exercising the maximum restraint.
In the same way, if somebody attacks you, then violent retaliation in self-defense is justifiable.

Standman

recedite wrote: »

I have no problem with that because he used whatever means were available to him, while escalating his response gradually and exercising the maximum restraint.
In the same way, if somebody attacks you, then violent retaliation in self-defense is justifiable.

It's not the same. If someone makes a joke at my expense it doesn't make it ok for me to steal and publish his personal info & threaten to murder him and his family. That shouldn't need saying.

dr.fuzzenstein

recedite wrote: »

I have no problem with that because he used whatever means were available to him, while escalating his response gradually and exercising the maximum restraint.
In the same way, if somebody attacks you, then violent retaliation in self-defense is justifiable.

You can withdraw this comment or I will make your banking information as well as your address, photo and families details public. Failing that I may have to take more drastic measures.

Still think that this a reasonable response that doesnt infringe on your right to express yourself? Above is of course not a threat, but if it was, of course you would be ok with it according to your own comments, you said somehing people didn't like, so I'm shutting you down in a reasonable manner.

recedite

As I said he

managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence

If he had carried out any of the violent threats, I would not hesitate to condemn him, because that would not be proportionate. I think he has some very smart guys working for him, and they played a game of poker against Sony. Sony were hoping to profit by mocking somebody, and instead they lost out financially, but in the end, nobody was physically hurt on either side.

sabat

recedite wrote: »

The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.

Do you even know a single thing about North Korea? It's political system is the most repressive totalitarian regime in history apart from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. It's worse than Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia in individual oppression, censorship and militarism and sheer inhumanity. Read this then come back here and try to defend these people's actions on any level:

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

Kim Jong Un is not a head of state; he's the figurehead of a bizarre personality cult used by the ruling classes to maintain their grip on power. Any satire which lowers his public image is an attack on the entire regime and that's why this has provoked such a forceful reaction-if for example DVDs of this film made their way into NK over the border from China (which does happen) it will cause cracks to appear in the facade which is the first step in the whole thing collapsing. Also, he's not "well" - the fat cúnt just spent several weeks in hospital with gout brought on by his fondness for cheese.

DarkyHughes

So that's Vietnam, Cuba & now North Korea.

DarkyHughes

Custardpi wrote: »

The US constitution provides extensive protection for freedom of speech, far more than in Europe. Although it's not unlimited it's difficult to see on what grounds a comedy film about killing a US president would be made illegal. The US courts have on numerous occasions upheld the right to produce & sell offensive & even obscene material.

I bet that's something to do with all the mad brutal dictators Europe has produced over the years.

recedite

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You can withdraw this comment or I will make your banking information as well as your address, photo and families details public....

What if you released my photos and people find it funny? Would it be OK then, in the name of comedy? No it would not. because you cannot justify breaching a persons right to privacy by shouting "its free speech" or "its comedy".

sabat wrote: »

Do you even know a single thing about North Korea? It's political system is the most repressive totalitarian regime in history....cheese.

Yeah I know all that. Do you think aggravating and insulting them is going to help matters?

Standman

recedite wrote: »

As I said he If he had carried out any of the violent threats, I would not hesitate to condemn him, because that would not be proportionate. I think he has some very smart guys working for him, and they played a game of poker against Sony. Sony were hoping to profit by mocking somebody, and instead they lost out financially, but in the end, nobody was physically hurt on either side.

What you are saying here is that it's ok to blackmail and threaten violence to large amounts of people in order to get your own way. Think about that for a while.

Al bloody Sharpton now advising Sony on something something racism in movies. Can't link but it's in New York post

AboutaWeekAgo

recedite wrote: »

Everybody has a different personal viewpoint yes. The Ku Klux Klan might think it was hilarious to make a video about stringing up Barack Obama from a tree in Alabama. A black person might disagree. The person with the most right to object would be Obama himself.

So you're comparing a Seth Rogen & James Franco movie to the KKK. Right.

UCDVet

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

So you're comparing a Seth Rogen & James Franco movie to the KKK. Right.

Personally, I don't think it should matter. Freedom *should* include the freedom to dislike or even hate other people. Freedom of speech should protect the right to express those feelings.

If the KKK wants to make a movie about killing Obama, I support them. I don't *agree* with them, but they should be able to make that movie. And if people want to go see it, that should be their business.

Krusader

flanzer wrote: »

"America will NEVER give in to the demands of terrorists"

.......... unless of course they're a group of North Korean nerdlingers

Sony Pictures != USA

Iwasfrozen

Krusader wrote: »

Sony Pictures != USA

It's obviously an American film don't be pedantic.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

recedite wrote: »

What if you released my photos and people find it funny? Would it be OK then, in the name of comedy? No it would not. because you cannot justify breaching a persons right to privacy by shouting "its free speech" or "its comedy".


Yeah I know all that. Do you think aggravating and insulting them is going to help matters?

christ. The politics of "that's offensive" has jumped the shark. A dictators feelings are hurt. Ban stuff.

recedite

UCDVet wrote: »

If the KKK wants to make a movie about killing Obama, I support them. I don't *agree* with them, but they should be able to make that movie. And if people want to go see it, that should be their business.

Fair enough, at least you are consistent. Such a movie could not be made in the USA, yet they are quite happy to make "The Interview". Its another example of their double standards.

Also, I see the agenda is now changing; Obama is now threatening that the USA will retaliate in some secret way against NK.... because Kim Yong retaliated against Sony... because Sony offended/violated Kim Yongs personal rights.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

recedite wrote: »

Fair enough, at least you are consistent. Such a movie could not be made in the USA, yet they are quite happy to make "The Interview". Its another example of their double standards.

Also, I see the agenda is now changing; Obama is now threatening that the USA will retaliate in some secret way against NK.... because Kim Yong retaliated against Sony... because Sony offended/violated Kim Yongs personal rights.

There is something utterly obscene about worrying about Kim's "rights". You mean - don't make fun of the dictator. Diddums.

The KKK could make that movie.

OldRio

Dictators have feelings to, you know

Xeyn

UCDVet wrote: »

Personally, I don't think it should matter. Freedom *should* include the freedom to dislike or even hate other people. Freedom of speech should protect the right to express those feelings.

If the KKK wants to make a movie about killing Obama, I support them. I don't *agree* with them, but they should be able to make that movie. And if people want to go see it, that should be their business.

No it should absolutely not. Inviting hatred and indeed crime through hate speech should definitely not be supported under free speech. Seriously if your actions impinge on others rights it is no longer freedom. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Iwasfrozen

Xeyn wrote: »

No it should absolutely not. Inviting hatred and indeed crime through hate speech should definitely not be supported under free speech. Seriously if your actions impinge on others rights it is no longer freedom. Not a hard concept to grasp.

That's what free speech is. I may not agree with what neo nazies for example have to say but as Voltaire famously quibbed I'll defend their right to say it.

Custardpi

Xeyn wrote: »

No it should absolutely not. Inviting hatred and indeed crime through hate speech should definitely not be supported under free speech. Seriously if your actions impinge on others rights it is no longer freedom. Not a hard concept to grasp.

How do you define hate speech though? If it's a direct threat of violence then certainly I can see how the other party's competing rights would come into play. If it's merely something that insults or offends then I'm sorry to say that you & any lawmakers who agree with you do not believe in freedom of speech at all. Freedom of speech means nothing unless it means freedom of those who say things with which we disagree most strongly, which offend us to our core. A world in which only nice people are allowed to say nice things about the nice people in the nice world is a tyranny, whatever nice language you dress it up in.

Grayson

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's what free speech is. I may not agree with what neo nazies for example have to say but as Voltaire famously quibbed I'll defend their right to say it.

Up to the point where they rabble rouse a crown who go lynch a black guy.

I know where you're coming from. Voltaire's quote is something to aspire to, however we also have to place certain limits.

A good example is libel and slander. If someone starts spreading lies about you, you can bring them to court.

the_syco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9u92GC9ErQ

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

Standman

recedite wrote: »

Fair enough, at least you are consistent. Such a movie could not be made in the USA, yet they are quite happy to make "The Interview". Its another example of their double standards.

Also, I see the agenda is now changing; Obama is now threatening that the USA will retaliate in some secret way against NK.... because Kim Yong retaliated against Sony... because Sony offended/violated Kim Yongs personal rights.

Sony have not violated his rights, you are not making sense. A similar movie about the US president could be made as America has free speech laws, unlike NK. Can you explain why you think it could not be made?

Gosub

Sony should buy the other Rogen film "This is the end" from Columbia pictures and blast it into North Korea as an act of revenge. That pile of crap is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch.