New York Premiere of Sony Film, The Interview, cancelled

a reply to: neo96

or homefront,

in that game, which was made, and released before the death of Kim Jong Il, it gives you a rundown of the timeline leading up to beginning of the campaign....Kim Jong Il dies, his son, Kim Jong Un, takes over....and then declares war on everyone, lol

they take the south, then japan, ally with china, i think it was.....then they launch a satellite, that hits CONUS with a massive EMP, and knocks everything out...in the wake of that, Korea invades CONUS, who is already super-weak from a lack of oil, and a stalled economy, which is why the north was able to take the south, because the military had been massively downsized, and had been pulled out of the south...

CONUS gets overrun by Korea, and is occupied....

the entire game is spent killing Koreans...i hear there might be a mission in the sequel where we kill Un.....oh no, i guess these fake guardians of peace are gonna hafta go after whoever's developing that game now...

what a bunch of crap this is..

a reply to: deadeyedick

yes, they're dead now.....a lot of them weren't, when the films were made....have you ever seen this kind of s**t before? where a country threatens to kill people over a goddamn movie?

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: deadeyedick

yes, they're dead now.....a lot of them weren't, when the films were made....have you ever seen this kind of s**t before? where a country threatens to kill people over a goddamn movie?

Yep muslims do it all the time.

a reply to: Daedalus

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

That is the point here rogan and company went out of there way to cross a line that had not been crossed before.

Yes it has been done in cartoon before and all the ones depicted are now dead.

Do you get it?

A crazy man with power will not take the chance of him dying because of a film.

Label it whatever you want but it has not been till now except a cartoon.

They could have made the film in the same manner as the hundreds of films before it and change the name and give hints as to the identy.

It really is not funny to prod a man that has nukes.

Rogan and co. crossed the line.

a reply to: UnBreakable

You could add: 'Death of a President' - featuring the assassination of George W. Bush

Though it was a T.V. documentary and not a film released in cinema (to the best of my knowledge)

a reply to: deadeyedick

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

Oh please.

Game of Thrones put GW'S head on a pike.

Before that Believe it was 'Hot Shot's movie series that killed Saddam.

Sony did not do anything they haven't done before.

I have few thoughts on this.

1. I think it was really dumb of Sony to make a movie that has a sitting leader of a country as a target for assassination. I also think if they would have made a similar movie with a sitting US president as a target they would have far more to worry about then hacking, beginning with secret service and probably ending with congress. So I think it was just dumb on their part from the beginning.

2. I don't think they are cowardly for pulling it and I doubt they pulled it because of threats of violence, but more then likely because they are trying to save their company. There is nothing more valuable to corporations then their information and secrets. And really I think the current releases are just the tip of the iceberg and a message, from the hackers saying that they got a ton of info, probably every bit on their entire network.

And a lot of the people saying that they would release it anyway, probably really wouldn't if their whole company was being held over a fire barrel either. And I would say from some of the reports including the one where all the computers on their network was compromised, that the hack probably gleaned the entire network. And that is information that some people would kill for in the business world. If competitors new the internal workings and problems they may have it could be used to leverage a hostile take over or even worse their may be info that could tank their stock and send their company belly up in months. I think the executives know that.

3. I have sneaking suspicion. An intuition if you will that this hack is actually part of a much larger conspiracy. I agree with some others that we probably just saw the opening salvo of the new cyberwarfare paradigm. Yes I know the US has been using cyber war before this, but I think this is more a sign that things are going to change quickly in the rate and importance of cyber warfare globally.

I also suspect it is not even North Korea either, but more then likely China testing their cyberwarfare capabilities on the US net infrastructure, while using North Korea as a foil. Which if true would be brilliant on their part. If there is any blow back everyone will blame North Korea, meanwhile China would probably step in and say that it is horrible and that they will deal with them. Then just give them a slap on the wrist in public and continued support in secret.

4. And lastly, in a different vein, I find this hack interesting because it shows at least some hackers somewhere were good enough to basically compromise a whole company and bring it to it's knees at least in acquiescence and yet Anoynomous hasn't really done anything of this magnitude. For all the grand standing and promises, they don't seem like very good hackers.

These are all just my opinions though

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Daedalus

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

I think you forgot about the move "Hot Shots!" where a bomb was dropped on Saddam Hussein while he was sitting in a chair by a pool having a drink.

Didnt the president get shot, and smacked around in Olympus has Fallen?

a reply to: deadeyedick

i'm not sure how to reply to this, without engaging in a fevered, profanity-laced rant, that would probably get me temp-banned....i'm going to try though...

what in the world is wrong with you? crossed the line? what line?

and who are they prodding who has nukes? oh, you mean doughboy? yeah, maybe he has a few crappy bombs, but he has no way of getting them here, and if he tried, Pyongyang would disappear off the map, and i don't think there would be a country on earth that would say a thing about it...

A crazy man with power will not take the chance of him dying because of a film.

i especially love this morsel of delusional drivel......if you honestly believe that a film can kill someone, i've got a bridge i'd like to sell you....i promise, it is very reasonably priced...

a reply to: Daedalus

yes your anger has you seeing things that are not there. I never said movies kill people.

I said that we are dealing with a percieved crazy person that is highly likely to view reality as such.

calm down and breath.

yes the film crossed a line and others agree with me or it would not have been pulled

Total freedom of speech in film is not and really has never been

certain lines are not to be crossed

some type of mutual respect has to be maintained in order to survive

So the secret to make Hollywood (and the USA) buckle is to release a few emails of personal back-stabbing and say a two numbers '9' and '11'. Damn, if I knew it was that easy............

originally posted by: deadeyedick

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

That is the point here rogan and company went out of there way to cross a line that had not been crossed before.

They could have made the film in the same manner as the hundreds of films before it
yeah. god forbid someone does something new...wouldnt want that. cant do something new for fear of pissing off big fat dictator man

.

you keep talking about this unwritten rule
why is there an unwritten rule?
because you say so?

maybe it has not been done before cause everyone with the ability to make a movie about it is too much of a big fat [snip]
i think that is more likely than your unwritten rule malarky

a reply to: Junkheap

good call man

a reply to: deadeyedick

it wasn't pulled because of the agreement of the existence of some imaginary, quazi-moral line in the proverbial sand...

it was pulled because brainwashed, small-minded, delusional jackasses, with no sense of humor, made terroristic threats against civilian targets, over a f**king movie...

jesus man, get it straight..

This whole thing shows the world just how bat snip crazy the NO KO regime is.

And how gutless Americans have become.

If this was Mortal Kombat?

Flawless Victory.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Daedalus

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

That is the point here rogan and company went out of there way to cross a line that had not been crossed before.

Death of a President. It released in 2007, was produced in 2006, and depicted the assassination of W during the RNC in Chicago 2008.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: deadeyedick

NO we have never seen this before in the U.S. because it has been an unwritten rule that the killing of a world leader not be acted out on film directly.

Oh please.

Game of Thrones put GW'S head on a pike.

Before that Believe it was 'Hot Shot's movie series that killed Saddam.

Sony did not do anything they haven't done before.

Don't forget the South Park movie.

a reply to: Aazadan

I didn't forget this.



I guess they don't read sony ads.

a reply to: Daedalus
The people who decided to make a stupid movie for profit with little regard for anything else then decided to not release it, probably also with more of an eye toward their own bottom line than the risk of retaliatory incidents. Risk mitigation. Affecting their bottom line. That's probably it in a nutshell.

And of course, they could have been leaned on a little, too, probably again using a pointing out of the monetary ramifications should some people happened to get hurt. Sorry, but this incident really isn't a reflection of anything more than some bad decisions stemming from one company.