So now that Xbox live and the Playstation network are being hacked, are we still crying that iTunes didn't host the movie? I think not.
The Xbox live attack was threatened for Christmas a few weeks ago (with the advance notice I'm a little surprised MS didn't have a better response). It had nothing to do with showing The Interview. Google showed no signs of being attacked by hackers for streaming the movie AFAIK.
Edit: I haven't seen any statement from the hacker group yet as to why they don't like gaming networks. This is one of several gaming disruptions they've claimed to have caused this year. Anyone seen anything from them saying why?
Edit 2:
The only thing I've come across is this pretty vague explanation:
"Lizard Squad hit Sony earlier this year, in August, when it took down Sony’s PlayStation Network. It said then that the purpose of the attack was to highlight vulnerabilities in the network. Lizard Squad attacks have taken down other high-profile gaming targets like EA Games and Destiny."
And I have no idea what the MPAA has to do with movie distribution. I thought that they only dealt with issues of content. You do know that distribution is completely separate from content and production?
(You added some edits with links; I have not viewed them, since I have no context for what I am supposed to be looking at and why).
You are so ignorant of the rest of the world and so defensive of the utopia that is the USA I wonder if you have a passport? Ever been anywhere to meet real people in other countries? No freedom of speech in the UK? Clearly you have not read Private Eye.
[SIZE=72px]READ POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.[/SIZE]
Reported. Done and done. There’s just no excuse now. You have no argument against this.
Yeah, we’re not a totalitarian dictatorship, so yeah, we can release content that the current administration doesn’t like.
Maybe that’s not how it is wherever you live, but it’s how it is in America.
If ever a phrase didn’t actually exist…
I got TSed! This is most definitely a belated Christmas gift!!
I live in the United States of America.
Is it really beyond any shadow of doubt in your mind that a U.S. movie about a U.S. President currently in office could be cancelled if the President did not like the movie?
Is it really beyond any shadow of doubt in your mind that a U.S. movie about a U.S. President currently in office could be cancelled if the President did not like the movie?
It was doing fine until someone touched Tallest Skil's patriotic nerve and then it came over all ranty. It's become a bit of an education actually. "England and America are two countries divided by a common language" ... ... it would seem this is so.
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
Indeed. The poster who you are responding to has no clue at all as to what they're talking about. There have been numerous movies or even news reports that the government would like to have stopped.
The poster seems to be having trouble differentiating between the USA and a country like North Korea. Perhaps they should take a look at a map sometime.
That sounds awfully like Sony saying "the theater groups made me do it," no?
You are correct about the whole mohammed controversy from a while back. Freedom of speech is a concept that suddenly went out the window when that happened. Numerous media and people were all of a sudden in favor of censorship, which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake.
By the way, has anybody been killed yet for watching "The Interview"? I thought not.
I got TSed! This is most definitely a belated Christmas gift!!
I live in the United States of America.
Is it really beyond any shadow of doubt in your mind that a U.S. movie about a U.S. President currently in office could be cancelled if the President did not like the movie?
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
There's also the Oliver Stone movie "W". It was a very unflattering view of a then sitting President, George W. Bush, based on a few facts and a whole lot of rumor and insinuation. Doubtful he approved of it and the movie there's little doubt it affected whatever remaining legislative or international influence he might have had in the last months of his presidency. Certainly helped to damage the image of America in addition to that of Mr. Bush IMHO.
And I have no idea what the MPAA has to do with movie distribution. I thought that they only dealt with issues of content. You do know that distribution is completely separate from content and production?
(You added some edits with links; I have not viewed them, since I have no context for what I am supposed to be looking at and why).
1) My point was that movies and television are inherently different in how they are disfigured.
2) I thought I made it crystal clear that South Park, as you put it, "made them do it," was incorrect. If you read the given information you'll see it very clearly states that South Park didn't edit or pull anything.
The Sony hacks were pretty embarrassing for Sony and some of their dumb execs.
I think that had more to do with their willingness to not release this movie than any concern over legitimate threats. They don't want any more leaks or hacks to be released, because it'll make them look bad and look like even bigger fools than they already are. That's all that they care about, themselves.
I also think that all of the lemmings that have paid money to see this terrible movie (read some real reviews, not fake), while proudly announcing that they are standing up for freedom of speech, are a bunch of naive fools who have been duped by Sony.
Sorry kids, you don't get to use "Death of a President" as a precedent. It doesn't humiliate the Prez, nor make fun of the tight-assed, lying secrecy state that the US became after a certain incident in New York. As far as I know, that is, since I haven't/won't watch the movie. (Not a fan of assassination movies, having lived through three real ones myself, four if you include Lennon, about which I have suspicions. We're still living under the consequences of the first Kennedy murder, since the perps were never fingered, and every prez since therefore has a gun to his head.)
Anyway, I digress. You got to humiliate the great leader of America and his pompous, preposterous culture to have a comparable test for the free speech case in the land of the free. And you have to conceptually extend your suppression definition to things like your wife getting outed as a CIA agent, that kind of thing. In short, I would advise not making this very dangerous act of adolescent bullying into a patriotic cause. Will you dress up in an Uncle Sam outfit when you do your duty and go to the theater?
You are correct about the whole mohammed controversy from a while back. Freedom of speech is a concept that suddenly went out the window when that happened. Numerous media and people were all of a sudden in favor of censorship, which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake.
By the way, has anybody been killed yet for watching "The Interview"? I thought not.
Out of curiosity and nothing more ... I find your post confusing.
When you say this:
"... which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake."
Which people are you referring to... the people raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps or the people who are saying that there should be a more cautious approach (... or, in some cases, the people who have said it should be censored outright).
Which people are you referring to... the people raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps or the people who are saying that there should be a more cautious approach (... or, in some cases, the people who have said it should be censored outright).
Definitely the first group of people. The fools who are raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps. Those people do not give a crap about first amendment rights at all. And this movie wasn't censored by anybody. It was Sony's choice to not release it, and now they have done a 180. But I do also find the second group of people to be cowardly fools, for suggesting that the movie should be censored in any way.
I believe that they (Sony) are merely attempting to make some money back on an otherwise crappy movie.
You are correct about the whole mohammed controversy from a while back. Freedom of speech is a concept that suddenly went out the window when that happened. Numerous media and people were all of a sudden in favor of censorship, which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake.
By the way, has anybody been killed yet for watching "The Interview"? I thought not. :no:
There is a difference between a short film produced by an unimportant religious zealot claiming the script to be the gospel truth while using actors that say had zero knowledge of their characters they were hired to represent. There is deceit and then there is deceit. Nonetheless, I am recalling from memory but feel free to research.
I understand the premise why The Interview was filmed even though I have not seen it: the executive branch of the North Korean government is more dispensable than the North Korean people while the former believes otherwise. A bit of poetic justice, in my opinion, that the message was delivered and on time, unfortunately not as widely as expected because of the profit motive.
Keep in mind, as expected, Putin is now defending North Korea.
Comments
Edit: I haven't seen any statement from the hacker group yet as to why they don't like gaming networks. This is one of several gaming disruptions they've claimed to have caused this year. Anyone seen anything from them saying why?
Edit 2:
The only thing I've come across is this pretty vague explanation:
"Lizard Squad hit Sony earlier this year, in August, when it took down Sony’s PlayStation Network.
It said then that the purpose of the attack was to highlight vulnerabilities in the network. Lizard Squad attacks have taken down other high-profile gaming targets like EA Games and Destiny."
You must have missed reading or listening to the news these past couple of weeks about the five major theater chains -- who control the vast amount of distribution in the US -- refusing to screen the move, which apparently led to Sony's decision: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-cancels-release-of-the-interview-us-blames-pyongyang-for-hack-1418844906?tesla=y
And I have no idea what the MPAA has to do with movie distribution. I thought that they only dealt with issues of content. You do know that distribution is completely separate from content and production?
(You added some edits with links; I have not viewed them, since I have no context for what I am supposed to be looking at and why).
Some of their video download/streaming companies seem to have more b411s than some of ours.
READ POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.
Reported. Done and done. There’s just no excuse now. You have no argument against this.
Yeah, we’re not a totalitarian dictatorship, so yeah, we can release content that the current administration doesn’t like.
Maybe that’s not how it is wherever you live, but it’s how it is in America.
If ever a phrase didn’t actually exist…
You are so ignorant of the rest of the world and so defensive of the utopia that is the USA I wonder if you have a passport? Ever been anywhere to meet real people in other countries? No freedom of speech in the UK? Clearly you have not read Private Eye.
I got TSed! This is most definitely a belated Christmas gift!!
I live in the United States of America.
Is it really beyond any shadow of doubt in your mind that a U.S. movie about a U.S. President currently in office could be cancelled if the President did not like the movie?
YES.
BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
What happened?
It was doing fine until someone touched Tallest Skil's patriotic nerve and then it came over all ranty. It's become a bit of an education actually. "England and America are two countries divided by a common language" ... ... it would seem this is so.
YES.
BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
I don’t understand what’s confusing about this. The government cannot do this.
Indeed. The poster who you are responding to has no clue at all as to what they're talking about. There have been numerous movies or even news reports that the government would like to have stopped.
The poster seems to be having trouble differentiating between the USA and a country like North Korea. Perhaps they should take a look at a map sometime.
That sounds awfully like Sony saying "the theater groups made me do it," no?
You are correct about the whole mohammed controversy from a while back. Freedom of speech is a concept that suddenly went out the window when that happened. Numerous media and people were all of a sudden in favor of censorship, which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake.
By the way, has anybody been killed yet for watching "The Interview"? I thought not.
There's also the Oliver Stone movie "W". It was a very unflattering view of a then sitting President, George W. Bush, based on a few facts and a whole lot of rumor and insinuation. Doubtful he approved of it and the movie there's little doubt it affected whatever remaining legislative or international influence he might have had in the last months of his presidency. Certainly helped to damage the image of America in addition to that of Mr. Bush IMHO.
1) My point was that movies and television are inherently different in how they are disfigured.
2) I thought I made it crystal clear that South Park, as you put it, "made them do it," was incorrect. If you read the given information you'll see it very clearly states that South Park didn't edit or pull anything.
The Sony hacks were pretty embarrassing for Sony and some of their dumb execs.
I think that had more to do with their willingness to not release this movie than any concern over legitimate threats. They don't want any more leaks or hacks to be released, because it'll make them look bad and look like even bigger fools than they already are. That's all that they care about, themselves.
I also think that all of the lemmings that have paid money to see this terrible movie (read some real reviews, not fake), while proudly announcing that they are standing up for freedom of speech, are a bunch of naive fools who have been duped by Sony.
Anyway, I digress. You got to humiliate the great leader of America and his pompous, preposterous culture to have a comparable test for the free speech case in the land of the free. And you have to conceptually extend your suppression definition to things like your wife getting outed as a CIA agent, that kind of thing. In short, I would advise not making this very dangerous act of adolescent bullying into a patriotic cause. Will you dress up in an Uncle Sam outfit when you do your duty and go to the theater?
You are correct about the whole mohammed controversy from a while back. Freedom of speech is a concept that suddenly went out the window when that happened. Numerous media and people were all of a sudden in favor of censorship, which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake.
By the way, has anybody been killed yet for watching "The Interview"? I thought not.
Out of curiosity and nothing more ... I find your post confusing.
When you say this:
"... which is why I find many people's stance on this "interview" movie to be ludicrous, hypocritical, not genuine and 100% fake."
Which people are you referring to... the people raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps or the people who are saying that there should be a more cautious approach (... or, in some cases, the people who have said it should be censored outright).
Which people are you referring to... the people raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps or the people who are saying that there should be a more cautious approach (... or, in some cases, the people who have said it should be censored outright).
Definitely the first group of people. The fools who are raving about first amendment rights and calling Sony and Apple wimps. Those people do not give a crap about first amendment rights at all. And this movie wasn't censored by anybody. It was Sony's choice to not release it, and now they have done a 180. But I do also find the second group of people to be cowardly fools, for suggesting that the movie should be censored in any way.
I believe that they (Sony) are merely attempting to make some money back on an otherwise crappy movie.
I understand the premise why The Interview was filmed even though I have not seen it: the executive branch of the North Korean government is more dispensable than the North Korean people while the former believes otherwise. A bit of poetic justice, in my opinion, that the message was delivered and on time, unfortunately not as widely as expected because of the profit motive.
Keep in mind, as expected, Putin is now defending North Korea.