I'll take your word for it that these are movies that advocate (that's the correct word, by the way) or "feature" (weasel word) the assassination of an actual contemporary fascist (i.e., dangerous, autocratic unpredictable) state leader. I'm not going to rummage through the rubbish to find out if you got it right.
No it doesn't have to be a comedy, but I suspect that a culture like North Korea that never developed Western-style individualism, instead is still in an honor-bound, face-saving mode of social standing, and still involved with emperor worship, might be much more vulnerable to ridicule than expository prose or drama.
I'm coming at this from the point of view of curing the disease of North Korean fascism, not making it worse by ignorant aggravation. There is a history of making the disease worse, and it could be said this is a learning opportunity along these lines, to say the least.
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Then you have multiple South Park episodes with Saddam Hussain and their South Park movie where Saddam is dead and in hell manipulating Satan.
Finally, TS already posted a link to a non-comedy from 2006 about assassinating GWB.
My view is that this is a sorry-ass movie on which I would not spend $6, but one that Apple should have allowed to be shown on iTunes. It's silly not to.
Btw, the arguments about bandwidth are beyond lame. Are those posters seriously suggesting that, in the future, Apple could/should refuse to release blockbusters on iTunes around times of high high product demand? If you really think that's the case, then you should also think it's time for Apple to outsource its downloads/streaming business.
The focus needs to get back on Sony's leaked information. Sony's public threats of lawsuits and Sony's secret backdoor deals with state attorney generals will have more of an effect on censorship than the non-distribution of a movie. This is the freedom of speech censorship the New York Times should be writing about. The same goes of AppleInsider.
That's a rather forced either/or argument that's a strawman. There's no reason that these coud not all be simultaneously written or argued about.
Then you have multiple South Park episodes with Saddam Hussain and their South Park movie where Saddam is dead and in hell manipulating Satan.
Didn't South Park wimp out of an episode with some negative reference to Mohamed, however? Was it over those famous Danish cartoons (which, of course, no US media outlet had the courage to show, as I recall)?
That's a rather forced either/or argument that's a strawman. There's no reason that these coud not all be simultaneously written or argued about.
Are you writing my argument is a strawman? If so, why?
Looking at all of the digital ink spilt on the Sony hacking, nothing that has been written comes close to the furor over Apple not distributing a movie. Sony played the strawman card and the New York Times with assistance from the President of the United States gave the card credence. Sony became a hero of freedom of speech and Apple somehow became a supporter of censorship. Yet, the Sony Playstation Network remains movie free. Why?
Does it seem odd to you that Amazon has somehow escaped the furor that has been thrown at Apple? Did President Obama purposefully choose to speak only to Apple while choosing not to speak to Amazon or did the New York Times choose not to publish that information to skew public opinion against Apple?
In my opinion, Sony has most definitely figured out how to spin the message in its favor to briefly take the heat off of itself. To keep the heat off for as long as possible, Sony will try to positively spin the number of people who watched the movie in a theatre and rented/purchased the movie online from Wednesday to Sunday afternoon. One problem for Sony is the world is watching theatre and Internet traffic for the movie. Hiding the truth will be impossible.
Since US citizens will now realize Sony's problem was not an attack on US interests, they will move on to post-Christmas shopping on their iPads.
My view is that this is a sorry-ass movie on which I would not spend $6, but one that Apple should have allowed to be shown on iTunes. It's silly not to.
Btw, the arguments about bandwidth are beyond lame. Are those posters seriously suggesting that, in the future, Apple could/should refuse to release blockbusters on iTunes around times of high high product demand? If you really think that's the case, then you should also think it's time for Apple to outsource its downloads/streaming business.
The fact is none of us know why Apple chose not to offer it right now.
I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole thing. I'm skeptical about the whole scrambling on Christmas eve to get it online. I mean it's not like we just found out yesterday that major movie theaters weren't going to show it on Christmas Day. I'm skeptical about the leak that Sony wanted this to be on iTunes only and then a day later to find out the Google and Microsoft swept in and offered it up (with accompanying press releases). Why wouldn't Sony want it to be everywhere possible to reach the widest audience?
Personally I think it's a crappy movie and Sony knows it's a crappy movie. I think all these last-minute shenanigans were intentional on Sony's part to drum up more interest than the movie actually deserves.
Are you writing my argument is a strawman? If so, why?
Looking at all of the digital ink spilt on the Sony hacking, nothing that has been written comes close to the furor over Apple not distributing a movie. Sony played the strawman card and the New York Times with assistance from the President of the United States gave the card credence. Sony became a hero of freedom of speech and Apple somehow became a supporter of censorship. Yet, the Sony Playstation Network remains movie free. Why?
Does it seem odd to you that Amazon has somehow escaped the furor that has been thrown at Apple? Did President Obama purposefully choose to speak only to Apple while choosing not to speak to Amazon or did the New York Times choose not to publish that information to skew public opinion against Apple?
In my opinion, Sony has most definitely figured out how to spin the message in its favor to briefly take the heat off of itself. To keep the heat off for as long as possible, Sony will try to positively spin the number of people who watched the movie in a theatre and rented/purchased the movie online from Wednesday to Sunday afternoon. One problem for Sony is the world is watching theatre and Internet traffic for the movie. Hiding the truth will be impossible.
Since US citizens will now realize Sony's problem was not an attack on US interests, they will move on to post-Christmas shopping on their iPads.
I disagree. Sony was raked over the coals these past couple of weeks in much of the media coverage that I read or saw about the whole thing, including by the President of the US (whose business it was not, I might add, but that's another debate). They were equally savaged in the comments sections of just about every one of those media outlets, regardless of politcal persuasion. To the point that I felt sorry for the company, since it appeared that their hands had been forced to some extent because five major movie theater chains refused to screen The Inteview.
In fact, I've seen relatively little mainstream coverage about the Apple decision, except in tech sites. And even then, mostly in passing. It's possible that there's been more since then, but nothing that has jumped out at me the way Sony was pilloried.
Personally I think it's a crappy movie and Sony knows it's a crappy movie. I think all these last-minute shenanigans were intentional on Sony's part to drum up more interest than the movie actually deserves.
I doubt that any corporation would risk so much derision over something that's so admittedly crappy. It's simply not worth the risk.
I think whole incident just snowballed out of everyone's control (including perhaps Kim Jong Whatever's, and the GOP's; I still have trouble accepting that NK had much to do with it, although there's no doubt they're basking in it).
Sure, that would be great. But of course every movie theater would go out of business. Why go and pay a bunch if money, if you can rent it for that price for a bunch of people and have your own snacks.
I’m glad that you’re happy to gloss over the fact that mentally ill people are executed in your country…
Because it’s meaningless to anything.
Originally Posted by Crowley
You didn't have the word treason in your post?
…what the flying **** does it have to do with…
Aside from outright treason, there’s nothing that can be more reviled than abandoning the principles upon which this country was founded.
The initial actions of Sony regarding The Interview run contrary to the freedoms (more so than most other nations) protected by the government of this country. To be cowed into silence by threats domestic or foreign is not an acceptable behavior. As Sony is guilty of this, they are guilty of abandoning said freedom of expression. There are five options regarding rights. First is the protection thereof. Second is the exercise thereof. Third is apathy regarding them. Fourth is refusing to exercise them. Fifth is actively working against them.
Now, as previously shown, you have no such right to expression in Britain, so you may not get this. There may be a case made for a sixth option–perhaps a sub-option–regarding a government’s suppression of a right, but if it’s suppressing the right, that’s basically just a domestic option 5.
Notice that not once in the explanation have I used the word treason. That’s because it isn’t treason. Shock and horror, right? It’s almost as though I never said it was treason (or even akin to treason) in the first place. That’s because I didn’t. You’d know this if you read posts before replying to them.
Finally, TS already posted a link to a non-comedy from 2006 about assassinating GWB.
You never know... Kim might like a movie about himself like Death of a President... as long as it showed the ills the country would have to endure if anyone else was their leader.
I don't recall Bush being mocked and belittled in that movie... although, it probably would have been shown anyway.
You never know... Kim might like a movie about himself like Death of a President... as long as it showed the ills the country would have to endure if anyone else was their leader.
I don't recall Bush being mocked and belittled in that movie... although, it probably would have been shown anyway.
Do you really think EVERYONE associated with the Bush movie was not secretly investigated by the CIA, FBI and NSA? If Bush had found the movie offensive, it would have never been released. Please do not be delusional about this.
Didn't South Park wimp out of an episode with some negative reference to Mohamed, however? Was it over those famous Danish cartoons (which, of course, no US media outlet had the courage to show, as I recall)?
They didn't wimp out. Comedy Central would'n't let them show the images of Muhammad. The irony of it all it's the only time CC prevented them showing anything and that years earlier they had already shown Muhammad in a Super Best Friends episode.
Comments
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Then you have multiple South Park episodes with Saddam Hussain and their South Park movie where Saddam is dead and in hell manipulating Satan.
Finally, TS already posted a link to a non-comedy from 2006 about assassinating GWB.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
had that man threatened to kill YOU the government wouldn't have gave a f***.
Nah. Sony is trying to do a publicity stunt and Apple wasn't playing that game.
Btw, the arguments about bandwidth are beyond lame. Are those posters seriously suggesting that, in the future, Apple could/should refuse to release blockbusters on iTunes around times of high high product demand? If you really think that's the case, then you should also think it's time for Apple to outsource its downloads/streaming business.
That's a rather forced either/or argument that's a strawman. There's no reason that these coud not all be simultaneously written or argued about.
Didn't South Park wimp out of an episode with some negative reference to Mohamed, however? Was it over those famous Danish cartoons (which, of course, no US media outlet had the courage to show, as I recall)?
That's a rather forced either/or argument that's a strawman. There's no reason that these coud not all be simultaneously written or argued about.
Are you writing my argument is a strawman? If so, why?
Looking at all of the digital ink spilt on the Sony hacking, nothing that has been written comes close to the furor over Apple not distributing a movie. Sony played the strawman card and the New York Times with assistance from the President of the United States gave the card credence. Sony became a hero of freedom of speech and Apple somehow became a supporter of censorship. Yet, the Sony Playstation Network remains movie free. Why?
Does it seem odd to you that Amazon has somehow escaped the furor that has been thrown at Apple? Did President Obama purposefully choose to speak only to Apple while choosing not to speak to Amazon or did the New York Times choose not to publish that information to skew public opinion against Apple?
In my opinion, Sony has most definitely figured out how to spin the message in its favor to briefly take the heat off of itself. To keep the heat off for as long as possible, Sony will try to positively spin the number of people who watched the movie in a theatre and rented/purchased the movie online from Wednesday to Sunday afternoon. One problem for Sony is the world is watching theatre and Internet traffic for the movie. Hiding the truth will be impossible.
Since US citizens will now realize Sony's problem was not an attack on US interests, they will move on to post-Christmas shopping on their iPads.
The fact is none of us know why Apple chose not to offer it right now.
I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole thing. I'm skeptical about the whole scrambling on Christmas eve to get it online. I mean it's not like we just found out yesterday that major movie theaters weren't going to show it on Christmas Day. I'm skeptical about the leak that Sony wanted this to be on iTunes only and then a day later to find out the Google and Microsoft swept in and offered it up (with accompanying press releases). Why wouldn't Sony want it to be everywhere possible to reach the widest audience?
Personally I think it's a crappy movie and Sony knows it's a crappy movie. I think all these last-minute shenanigans were intentional on Sony's part to drum up more interest than the movie actually deserves.
I disagree. Sony was raked over the coals these past couple of weeks in much of the media coverage that I read or saw about the whole thing, including by the President of the US (whose business it was not, I might add, but that's another debate). They were equally savaged in the comments sections of just about every one of those media outlets, regardless of politcal persuasion. To the point that I felt sorry for the company, since it appeared that their hands had been forced to some extent because five major movie theater chains refused to screen The Inteview.
In fact, I've seen relatively little mainstream coverage about the Apple decision, except in tech sites. And even then, mostly in passing. It's possible that there's been more since then, but nothing that has jumped out at me the way Sony was pilloried.
I doubt that any corporation would risk so much derision over something that's so admittedly crappy. It's simply not worth the risk.
I think whole incident just snowballed out of everyone's control (including perhaps Kim Jong Whatever's, and the GOP's; I still have trouble accepting that NK had much to do with it, although there's no doubt they're basking in it).
(Crappy autocorrect).
... "The Interview" will be available to rent on Christmas Day on YouTube ...
"Konnichiwa!"
Just saw "The Interview" in a theater, and it was vastly better than I had expected. Glad I went.
To paraphrase a line from the movie, most of the comedy was "lowbrow with a capital 'low'" but that I *did* expect.
My only regret was not snagging a poster while they lasted. I saw about 12 people who got them.
Because it’s meaningless to anything.
…what the flying **** does it have to do with…
The initial actions of Sony regarding The Interview run contrary to the freedoms (more so than most other nations) protected by the government of this country. To be cowed into silence by threats domestic or foreign is not an acceptable behavior. As Sony is guilty of this, they are guilty of abandoning said freedom of expression. There are five options regarding rights. First is the protection thereof. Second is the exercise thereof. Third is apathy regarding them. Fourth is refusing to exercise them. Fifth is actively working against them.
Now, as previously shown, you have no such right to expression in Britain, so you may not get this. There may be a case made for a sixth option–perhaps a sub-option–regarding a government’s suppression of a right, but if it’s suppressing the right, that’s basically just a domestic option 5.
Notice that not once in the explanation have I used the word treason. That’s because it isn’t treason. Shock and horror, right? It’s almost as though I never said it was treason (or even akin to treason) in the first place. That’s because I didn’t. You’d know this if you read posts before replying to them.
Finally, TS already posted a link to a non-comedy from 2006 about assassinating GWB.
You never know... Kim might like a movie about himself like Death of a President... as long as it showed the ills the country would have to endure if anyone else was their leader.
I don't recall Bush being mocked and belittled in that movie... although, it probably would have been shown anyway.
Do you really think EVERYONE associated with the Bush movie was not secretly investigated by the CIA, FBI and NSA? If Bush had found the movie offensive, it would have never been released. Please do not be delusional about this.
They didn't wimp out. Comedy Central would'n't let them show the images of Muhammad. The irony of it all it's the only time CC prevented them showing anything and that years earlier they had already shown Muhammad in a Super Best Friends episode.
Yeah, no, that’s not how it works. How ironic.