Shop Talk: The Interview and the Sony Hack
By BOP Staff
December 21, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Vijay Kumar: Reaction #1: How silly of Sony... they give in to the hackers.
Reaction #2: Wait... the theaters refuse to screen the movie. What choice does Sony have then? Release it online only.
Reaction #3: I want to see it now. Is this a publicity gimmick?
Bruce Hall: I realize I am only the millionth person to mention this - but giving into terrorists (or whatever you'd like to call these fools) only emboldens them. While I certainly understand the fear factor involved, the cynic in me tends to believe that this was less a matter of public safety and more a matter of nobody wanting to be held accountable in the improbable scenario where something actually happened.
To their credit, Sony didn't seem interested in pulling the film from release until everyone refused to screen it. After that, they really had no choice. What impresses me less is that they now appear content to discredit the film entirely, refusing to release it on ANY platform. In my mind, this is the exact same form of capitulation, and it's equally disingenuous.
Now that American theater chains and Sony Pictures have shown they can be pushed around by cyber terrorists with a questionable grasp of code - and an even more questionable grasp of English - if I were part of the so-called "Guardians of Peace", why would I be inclined to back off?
Capturing and murdering innocent journalists and aid workers requires a lot of resources. Making threats from behind a keyboard is just as cowardly, but takes as much effort as opening another can of Mountain Dew. So now that we've proven to them how easy this is, where does it end? Now that they know all they have to do is say "Boo," why should we expect it to stop?
Suppose the terrorists come back and threaten to blow up Times Square if they release the next Bond movie (and who's to say they won't)? Then what? The Interview is a high profile film starring popular actors, but it wasn't the one billion dollar cash cow that James Bond is. THAT is the kind of threat that will truly separate the boys from the men.
I think that theaters are overreacting to this somewhat dubious threat - but admittedly, that's a hard position to be in. I'm pretty sure AMC theaters would prefer not to be sued out of existence in the unlikely event North Korea unleashed their Ultimate Doomsday Device on unsuspecting moviegoers.
I am more disappointed in Sony, not just for their lackluster IT security infrastructure (the biggest threat to Corporate Security is not cyber terrorists, but a lazy IT department) but also for taking The Interview off the grid. I agree - release it for free online, and beat the terrorists at their own game. This is a silly movie about the completely fictional assassination attempt of a man who remains this pathetically insecure despite having a pile of nuclear weapons at his disposal.
The joke tells itself.
Far more people will see this movie if it's made freely available on the internet, and the gesture would be much more powerful than burying all the prints out in the desert and pretending it never existed. Shame on everyone involved but most of all, shame on Sony. Because they've confirmed that they do not have the spine to stand up to these people, this story may still be closer to the beginning than the end.
Reagen Sulewski: You know, while I obviously feel this is ultimately a foolish decision to capitulate to probably non-existent threats, I also have to recognize that I really have basically nothing personally at stake in this, and it's very easy for me to criticize those that do in this story. I'm not risking any money or bodily harm, whatever slight chance there actually is for that, and it's very easy for me to ask others to do so. It's not particularly fair and anyone close to this who feels even the slightest bit skittish has the right to feel scared and react accordingly. I do, however, feel that this not the last we've seen of this film, and whether it's just waiting until a bit of the heat dies down, or whether it gets "leaked" at some point, we are going to get to see this film, and it's going to be incredibly popular, and a huge let down.
Kim Hollis: The part of me that loves movies, books, music, and all kinds of art in general is bothered by the precedent this sets. People shouldn't feel intimidated about the kind of story they want to tell. It's frustrating to me that a country/leader as ridiculous as North Korea/Kim Jong-Un could precipitate events such as the ones that have been happening over the last couple of weeks simply because he takes insult at a piece of fiction.
On the other hand, the former claims adjuster in me understands the reasoning here. Even if we're being told that there is no credibility to the threats that were made against movie theaters, we can't ignore the fact that a threat *was* made. If movie theaters and Sony ignored the threats as a matter of principle and then something *did* happen to one theater or a dozen, whether from real terrorists or crazy opportunists taking advantage of the situation, they would be liable for every injury or death. If we follow through the basic principle of negligence, the theaters/studio could be presumed to have a duty to ensure the safety of their patrons. People should be able to go to the movie theater in a safe environment without fear of injury. The theater company's/studio's foreknowledge of a potential attack and then ignoring that knowledge would be a breach of their duty to maintain that safe environment. There might be a little gray area about whether their actions directly caused any injury, but it's hard to argue that if they hadn't shown the film, people would not be injured. Even if the theaters and studio were ultimately cleared of any negligence (and I'm very doubtful that would happen), the time and money spent fighting these cases, not to mention the bad publicity, would damage them infinitely more than not releasing a Seth Rogen movie. There can be little doubt that the legal departments of Sony and the various movie theater corporations made this call.
I'm also going to throw this out there, but the fact that Paramount also banned theaters from showing Team America: World Police this weekend makes me suspect there is more heft to the threats than is being publicly discussed.
There's also a lot of chatter from people wondering why Sony doesn't just go ahead and release it VOD, but if the hackers are likely to succeed in causing damage anywhere, this is the place where it's most likely to happen. You have to worry that credit cards would be hacked and that the studio would then be looking at an entirely different kind of damage that could certainly have been mitigated/prevented.
And I think a lot of people who are screaming about not being able to see their Seth Rogen comedy right now would be singing a very different tune if something happened because Sony so "bravely" stood up to the terrorists. Not all - I think many people would hold strong to those principles, but consistency is not something I've come to expect in situations like these.
What's happened here is unprecedented. A film has been pulled from release eight days before it was to hit theaters, supposedly never to see the light of day in any form. Big Trouble was the other film that immediately came to mind as it was scheduled for release on September 21, 2001. That made sense as an important plot point was that a bomb was on a plane. (Yes, it was also a comedy.)
However potentially credible the threats made regarding theaters showing The Interview are, this is ridiculous and potentially causes a problem for the future any time anyone disagrees with the content of a film or how someone or something is portrayed.
Edwin Davies: The idealistic part of my brain is very angry at this since it's tantamount to censorship enforced through fear and intimidation. A film that was going to be released is now unlikely to see the (legal) light of day because the people distributing it are afraid that they will suffer dire consequences for doing so. Capitulating as they did seems pretty cowardly, and sets a dangerous precedent that could make Hollywood - a place that is already getting more and more risk averse by the day - even less likely to take a chance on potentially contentious topics.
The pragmatic side, meanwhile, realizes that Sony had very few options. Theaters didn't want to be liable for endangering the lives of consumers by screening the film and (presumably) pressured Sony to let them drop it, then once they put that option on the table, the chains started running away in droves. They could still put it out on VOD or, as John McCain suggested, release it online for free, which seems like a great way of thumbing your nose at the hackers while guaranteeing that even more confidential secrets will leak online.
Basically, I think that Sony made the wrong the decision in cancelling the release of The Interview, but given everything that's happened I can understand why the people in charge blanched and took what they hoped would be the easy way out.
David Mumpower: I like that everyone here sees and appreciates both sides of this discussion. There is nuance to the conversation that exists beyond the free speech debate. When I first read of the threats made toward theater attendees, my mind raced somewhere dark. Americans are so indoctrinated to the idea of shootings, that The Dark Knight Rises incident has been pushed down in our memories. Only 27 months ago, 12 people were killed while 70 others were injured. The opinions of those 70 survivors are the ones that interest me the most.
We can all say that Sony should not have capitulated. That's the obvious direction for the conversation to head. In execution, we should understand it was the theater chains who determined that the legal ramifications alone justified cancelling the screenings. I am resisting the temptation to be glib about the quality of The Interview as a determining factor here, but the impending box office disappointment of the movie also could have played a factor.
If, say, The Hobbit Ever After had been the title threatened (I guess Smaug would be the North Korean dictator in this scenario), I wonder if the choice would have been the same. Thinking out loud about the numbers here, only about one out of every six to eight people attending movies at the cineplex would have been there for The Interview. Erring on the side of caution protects the rest in the extremely unlikely scenario that somebody tries something stupid/unconscionable. Upon reflection, I have decided that I stand behind the decision of the people involved with the project not to release the movie in theaters.
Where I diverge is in shutting down the film completely. I understand that Sony's CEO has stated that there is no way for them to exhibit the film on the internet right now. He claims that no company is willing to risk the ire of hackers in order to show the film. I find that extremely difficult to believe. In debating the situation, I've decided it's more likely that Sony either has an insurance clause they believe they can trigger to collect the cost of financing the film, something I've been assured by people who would know isn't possible, or they are waiting for a better deal in 2015. I believe that would be a mistake.
There will never be a time when The Interview is hotter than it is today. Having said that, it has received as much free news as any film since The Passion of the Christ. Even POTUS is weighing in on the topic. Maybe they think they can still recoup their investment without giving away the milk virtually for free on Netflix, Hulu or the like.