Companies surrender to terrorists over The Interview.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think you are underestimating the potential for a backlash and engaging in typical stupid Americans stuff.

Will directors refuse to work with Sony? Possibly. Several directors recently made studios keep using real film by threatening not to work with them (among them Abrams, Nolan, and Tarantino).

And as an American, I'll remember this and hold a grudge in two weeks and two months and probably two years.

[bilateralrope]

I wonder if anyone involved in making The Interview was going to be paid based on the income and/or profit the movie made. Because if anyone was, that's likely to be a problem for Sony. Though one that's likely to be settled before any lawsuits are filed.

[Zaune]

Are you suggesting that its not worth it to confront them them over this movie? If so, my answer is that it may not be worth it over a movie, but it is worth it over threatening terrorism and the principle of freedom of expression.

I don't know about Simon, but the point I was trying to make is that if North Korea actually went through with some state-sponsored terrorist attacks over this movie, the US can't do a hell of a lot to retaliate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you suggesting that its not worth it to confront them them over this movie? If so, my answer is that it may not be worth it over a movie, but it is worth it over threatening terrorism and the principle of freedom of expression.

I don't know about Simon, but the point I was trying to make is that if North Korea actually went through with some state-sponsored terrorist attacks over this movie, the US can't do a hell of a lot to retaliate.

Well yes we can. Weather that retaliation would be worth the cost can be debated, but if 911's aftermath is any indication, their would be a war.

[Tiriol]

Are you suggesting that its not worth it to confront them them over this movie? If so, my answer is that it may not be worth it over a movie, but it is worth it over threatening terrorism and the principle of freedom of expression.

I don't know about Simon, but the point I was trying to make is that if North Korea actually went through with some state-sponsored terrorist attacks over this movie, the US can't do a hell of a lot to retaliate.

If it can be proven, however uncertainly, that North Korea has committed an act of terrorism against the US on US soil? An act of terrorism that has cost lives? Either bombardment that will cripple whatever forces and industry North Korea has or an outright war (although I don't think that the US public can stomach another war, unless something like 9/11 happens again). And God forbid if they think to use any nuclear attack as deterrent, North Korea will turn into a wasteland kingdom of millions of corpses.

HOWEVER. Maybe you are saying that the diplomatic and political cost of such actions would be (almost) too much for the US to bear (considering how close North Korea is, geographically speaking, to China)? I actually agree with that. China would be very nervous if USA would flex its muscles in that part of the world as it has done in Middle East. They might not object much if evidence is clear enough and US retaliation is more along the lines of precise, surgical strikes against North Korean targets, but an outright war would make the Chinese leadership very anxious and I'm not sure if the US government is willing to pay such price. Maybe they have learned something from their early 2000s campaigns. Maybe not. But if I were a betting man, I'd sure bet that North Korea wouldn't want to test that resolve unless their leadership has gone dangerously bold or actually insane.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you are underestimating the potential for a backlash and engaging in typical stupid Americans stuff.

Will directors refuse to work with Sony? Possibly. Several directors recently made studios keep using real film by threatening not to work with them (among them Abrams, Nolan, and Tarantino).

And as an American, I'll remember this and hold a grudge in two weeks and two months and probably two years.

Honestly, going forward down the road, from a pure PR standpoint Sony has a lot more to worry about from the content of the leaked e-mails and such then they do about how they reacted to this particular situation. As others have mentioned, even if you disagree with the decision to not release "The Interview", you have to at least be able to understand the logic and motivation behind that decision. Most people in Hollywood will likely forgive and forget this incident. On the other hand, those leaked e-mails generally showed the top Sony executives to be childish, petulant, spiteful, and borderline incompetent, which will REALLY discourage people from wanting to work with them down the road. Like it or not, those sorts of practical matters will, in the long term, hold more weight than moral grandstanding over freedom of speech issues.

[Broomstick]

My experience with corporate America leads me to think that top executives are generally either shallow politicians (childish, borderline incompetent, etc.) or assholes. Corporate America is secretly afraid the general public and the peons will one day discover this.

[Lost Soal]

A Nice little post on the subject with some historical equivalence.
On George Clooney's Sony Petition, The Satanic Verses And Tough-Talking Right Wingers

Deadline reports that George Clooney tried to get Hollywood to rally around Sony Pictures, to no avail:

... The most powerful people in Hollywood were so fearful to place themselves in the cross hairs of hackers that they all refused to sign a simple petition of support that Clooney and his agent, CAA's Bryan Lourd, circulated to the top people in film, TV, records and other areas. Not a single person would sign....

DEADLINE: You said you won't name names, but how many people were asked and refused to sign?

CLOONEY: It was a fairly large number. Having put together telethons where you have to get all the networks on board to do the telethon at the same time, the truth is once you get one or two, then everybody gets on board. It is a natural progression. So here, you get the first couple of people to sign it and ... well, nobody wanted to be the first to sign on. Now, this isn't finger-pointing on that. This is just where we are right now, how scared this industry has been made....

Clooney's instincts were right, because a big part of the problem is that Sony is isolated on this. Things could have been different if others in the industry had been willing to stand up and say, in effect, "I am Spartacus." But that didn't happen.

All this made me think about what happened when violence and threats of violence arose in the early 1990s in response to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses. Viking Penguin published the American hardcover edition and kept it in print, but the publisher balked at putting out the paperback. It was proposed that the paperback should be published jointly by a number of publishers and other groups, but, as The New York Times reported at the time, that didn't happen, and the paperback was published essentially anonymously:

An anonymous group calling itself the Consortium is publishing a paperback edition of Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses," with the book scheduled to be in stores before the end of the month.

A spokesman for the group, who spoke on condition of remaining unidentified, would not say who was financing the publication, who was part of the group or who would receive any profits the book earned....

There had been much debate about organizing a conglomerate of publishers and human rights groups to bring out a paperback "Satanic Verses." Supporters said that the threat would be defused under such an arrangement and that publishers had an obligation to be defiant in the face of threats against freedom of speech. But some people in the industry disagreed, saying that the hard-cover "Satanic Verses" was widely available and that they could not afford to jeopardize the safety of their employees for the sake of a paperback edition.

In that situation, of course, the threats of violent retaliation were not idle:

The Japanese translator of the book was murdered last year and the Italian translator was severely wounded in attacks that are believed to have been carried out by people fulfilling the Iranian decree.

And in America, there were bomb attacks on two bookstores.

As Rushdie has noted in his memoir, Joseph Anton, he got backup from one publishing executive, George Craig, then the head of HarperCollins. Craig provided money for a first printing and other assistance, albeit anonymously -- but the Consortium was just Rushdie himself along with his American and British agents.

(A paperback of The Satanic Verses is now widely available from Rushdie's current publisher, Random House.)

****

I see that wingnut blogger Moe Lane is saying that what's happening now is a vast liberal conspiracy of cowardice -- Hollywood, the Obama administration, trial lawyers who are advising theater owners that they could be held legally liable if anyone were to be injured or killed at a screening of The Interview (yes, trial lawyers are to blame for making that simple statement of fact). Reading Lane's pot that makes me want to ask: So where are all the brave right-wingers in all this?

Take Rick Santorum. He's a foreign policy hard-liner who now runs a Christian film studio. Why doesn't he offer to take The Interview off Sony's hands so he can release it? Where's his patriotic courage?

For that matter, why doesn't the most prominent conservative in Hollywood -- Rupert Murdoch -- show us his intestinal fortitude and grit? He has the Hollywood connections, and he has enough money to indemnify every theater in America that's willing to show the movie. He's an octogenarian who's lived a full, excellent life -- why doesn't he just offer to take the movie on and dare the North Koreans to hurt him?

And if he doesn't want to put employees of Fox in the crosshairs, why doesn't he put together a consortium of right-wingers to release the movie? Murdoch, Santorum ... who else? Breitbart Media? The Sarah Palin Channel? The Glenn Beck media empire? Maybe Ted Nugent wants to host some screenings? Or Nick Searcy? Or the Duck Dynasty guys?

You right-wingers are all really brave, right? That's what you keep telling us. Well, so far you've got a loss less backbone than George Clooney, a liberal you despise. So what are you waiting for? Show us what you're made of.

Crossposted at No More Mr. Nice Blog

[General Zod]

I wonder if anyone involved in making The Interview was going to be paid based on the income and/or profit the movie made. Because if anyone was, that's likely to be a problem for Sony. Though one that's likely to be settled before any lawsuits are filed.

Considering it was a fully funded, major studio production with a Sag-Aftra agreement I'd be surprised if that were the case.

[Death from the Sea]

Am I the only one who thinks that a threat from North Korea to start a war over a silly movie is about as credible as that threat ISIS made about attacking in the US on the anniversary of 9/11 this year? which is to say it was not credible at all.

[Elheru Aran]

I wonder if anyone involved in making The Interview was going to be paid based on the income and/or profit the movie made. Because if anyone was, that's likely to be a problem for Sony. Though one that's likely to be settled before any lawsuits are filed.

Considering it was a fully funded, major studio production with a Sag-Aftra agreement I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Since Jack Nicholson made a huge killing on a percentage of 'Batman' Hollywood has been much more careful about paying actors and production team based upon profit percentages. Generally it's more or less entirely up front (or at least after a performance is delivered/production is done). That's pretty much how it's always been done in the past thirty years or so as far as I know.

[General Zod]

I wonder if anyone involved in making The Interview was going to be paid based on the income and/or profit the movie made. Because if anyone was, that's likely to be a problem for Sony. Though one that's likely to be settled before any lawsuits are filed.

Considering it was a fully funded, major studio production with a Sag-Aftra agreement I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Since Jack Nicholson made a huge killing on a percentage of 'Batman' Hollywood has been much more careful about paying actors and production team based upon profit percentages. Generally it's more or less entirely up front (or at least after a performance is delivered/production is done). That's pretty much how it's always been done in the past thirty years or so as far as I know.

Well, chances are you'll still get royalty checks if you're a principal cast member with more than 5 lines. But that depends on the individual's contract. Being paid on royalties alone is almost unheard of for a big budget production.

[Lost Soal]

Considering it was a fully funded, major studio production with a Sag-Aftra agreement I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Since Jack Nicholson made a huge killing on a percentage of 'Batman' Hollywood has been much more careful about paying actors and production team based upon profit percentages. Generally it's more or less entirely up front (or at least after a performance is delivered/production is done). That's pretty much how it's always been done in the past thirty years or so as far as I know.

Well, chances are you'll still get royalty checks if you're a principal cast member with more than 5 lines. But that depends on the individual's contract. Being paid on royalties alone is almost unheard of for a big budget production.

Can still be done though. That was the deal Vin Diesel made to get Riddick an R rating

[Block]

Yeah, but Vin Diesel also owns the rights to the Riddick IP if I remember right. Puts him in a pretty unique negotiating position.

[CaptHawkeye]

Am I the only one who thinks that a threat from North Korea to start a war over a silly movie is about as credible as that threat ISIS made about attacking in the US on the anniversary of 9/11 this year? which is to say it was not credible at all.

No, you're not.

I can't wait for another topic about knee jerk reactions toward the non-existent threat posed to the most heavily armed country in the world.

[Simon_Jester]

Only a lunatic would pick a fight with the most heavily armed country in the world.

The concern is, and has always been, that North Korea might actually be that lunatic. They certainly play fast and loose with issuing threats.

If you are a man with a gun, and your neighbor with a butterfly knife keeps sending you threatening letters about how "if you do this I KILL YOU..."

It is at best, unnerving. Even if you are confident that given anything like a fair fight he would be a minimal threat.

If North Korea really wanted violence to happen, tens of thousands of people would die, most of them innocent or effectively innocent, including the North Korean casualties.

Why should we just... not worry... about something with the potential to kill tens of thousands of innocents?

[General Zod]

Well, what can you realistically do about North Korea? What asre the options that just won't make them angrier?

[Borgholio]

Well, what can you realistically do about North Korea? What asre the options that just won't make them angrier?

There are only three options to deal with NK:

1. Ignore them. Ignoring them might work when they issue threats or fire test missiles, but they actually caused some problems this time. Ignoring them now would only embolden them in the future.

2. Retaliate. This will demonstrate that they can't get away with just anything and that there are certain lines they may not cross. It also has the possible side effect of pushing them over the edge and causing them to go completely batshit crazy.

3. Give in to them and let them do whatever they want. I don't need to explain why this is a bad idea.

So pretty much right now it's a classic "rock and hard place" problem. Do we ignore them and let them get the idea they can get away with more shit like this (or worse) in the future? Possibly with the added downside of inciting other nations to do the same? Or do we fight back and risk provoking them into doing something even worse (no matter how reasonable or proportionate our response may be)?

Either way things can get ugly...

[TheHammer]

Well, what can you realistically do about North Korea? What asre the options that just won't make them angrier?

There are only three options to deal with NK:

1. Ignore them. Ignoring them might work when they issue threats or fire test missiles, but they actually caused some problems this time. Ignoring them now would only embolden them in the future.

2. Retaliate. This will demonstrate that they can't get away with just anything and that there are certain lines they may not cross. It also has the possible side effect of pushing them over the edge and causing them to go completely batshit crazy.

3. Give in to them and let them do whatever they want. I don't need to explain why this is a bad idea.

So pretty much right now it's a classic "rock and hard place" problem. Do we ignore them and let them get the idea they can get away with more shit like this (or worse) in the future? Possibly with the added downside of inciting other nations to do the same? Or do we fight back and risk provoking them into doing something even worse (no matter how reasonable or proportionate our response may be)?

Either way things can get ugly...

They aren't crazy. They simply want to appear that way. These aren't religious extremists who might actually believe the crazy things they say. They are propagandists, and they know that what they are selling is bullshit. That's why their first reaction when called out by the FBI was to deny responsibility. When it was clear that wasn't going to fly, their next reaction was to make threats that Sony was "only the beginning".

You can ignore them when they do inconsequential sabre rattling. You can't ignore them when they take actual destructive acts. Not doing so because of some "fear of provoking them into doing something worse" is exactly what they want. You don't give in to bullies when they try to push you around. You thump them appropriately. And if they don't learn their lesson the first time, you thump them harder the next.

[Borgholio]

Not doing so because of some "fear of provoking them into doing something worse" is exactly what they want. You don't give in to bullies when they try to push you around. You thump them appropriately. And if they don't learn their lesson the first time, you thump them harder the next.

Exactly, and while that sounds good on the surface, NK might just be dumb enough to something stupid.

[Lagmonster]

I've long wondered just how dangerous NK actually is. You always hear about their thousands of guns all ready to raze Seoul at a moment's notice, but then you read about how ancient and/or crappy their tech is and you start to wonder if even at their worst they could do any sincerely appreciable damage before being neutralized.

[Borgholio]

Thousands of old artillery pieces can still kill a lot of people, and keep in mind they may have working nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them.

[Elheru Aran]

However it went, the odds are extremely good that any outright (and many not so outright) attack on North Korea would have quite messy results, one way or another. It's not something done lightly. A very different proposition from attacking a Third World military in a more isolated location like Somalia or Iraq. It's a little better than your typical Arab army, as far as equipment goes... and is located very close to China, Russia, and a major American allies in Japan. Obviously, South Korea is right there as well. So there's a high potential for collateral damage; a few good rockets and suddenly you have a bunch of governments going 'wtf are you doing, why didn't you stop them, we are not happy about this'.

North Korea talks a lot of big talk... but they're in a position where all the other powers have to step fairly carefully in regard to them... and they're fully aware of this.

[TheHammer]

Not doing so because of some "fear of provoking them into doing something worse" is exactly what they want. You don't give in to bullies when they try to push you around. You thump them appropriately. And if they don't learn their lesson the first time, you thump them harder the next.

Exactly, and while that sounds good on the surface, NK might just be dumb enough to something stupid.

No, they're not or they would already have done it. If they believed their bullshit, they already would have ordered an attack on South Korea raining down "nuclear hellfire" on their enemies. Most of their actions are propaganda pieces intended for their own population. Selling their story with the sort of panache that old Baghdad Bob could only dream of.

I believe they never expected to get directly implicated in the Sony hack while wanting to be everyone's suspect. That way they could have the propaganda coup while avoiding any serious consequences. When it was in fact traced unequivocally back to them they first tried to deny, and then went with a defiant stance when it became clear that there were going to be consequences. More bluster, but they aren't going to commit suicide over the inevitable spanking they are going to get for going too far.

[Borgholio]

No, they're not or they would already have done it. If they believed their bullshit, they already would have ordered an attack on South Korea raining down "nuclear hellfire" on their enemies.

Sure, much of their blustering is just that...propaganda. But they have always portrayed themselves as the victims, about how the evil United States is collaborating with the traitors in Seoul to destroy the country. They have launched artillery attacks and torpedoed SK warships to prove that they can "fight back" successfully to their population. But what if they genuinely came under attack? What if we launched our own cyber attack or lobbed a few cruise missiles their way? Then they could use that to prove what they're saying is true and have an excuse to act out even more.