I thought that was released in the 80s?...

The original was 1942, bo. One of the great comedies.

I tend to agree with Invictus here, generally. It's a little ridiculous that Sony felt this was credible enough to respond to. I can understand the hypothetical problem of liability if they don't cancel and an attack occurs (don't pretend you can't see people lining up to sue in such a hypothetical), but it's just so incredibly minute. There's just no credible danger present.

I'm sure the north koreans are going to get it back in spades.

No kidding. Wait till they see the comedy Paramount is making about this!

I think Sony was less concerned about the safety of theatergoers than it was about damage to its brand. They *were* cyber attacked. It could easily happen again. If there was a single bad incident from this, the fallout would last forever.

So it was, semck. I only saw the one with Mel Brooks.

A brief overview of history:

World War I - started due to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
World War II - fought to prevent expansion of Nazi Germany.
World War III - retaliation for a Seth Rogen movie.

The assasination was a pre-text. Serbia's invasion started the war and was a result of Russian and German promises which lead Serbia and Austro-Hungary acting like tough guys.

The reasons are complicated and far more nuanced.

World War 2's German Empire was largely about self-reliance; building an Empire large enough that it didn't need any external help - basically a reaction to globalisation. There was no need to invade the Soviet Union if Hitler didn't think he needed the Ukraine to grow food to feed Germans. (Japan's Imperial ambitions were to see a similar independence, and had been shown in the first world war aswell, they just happened to be on the winning side that time) The simple explaination is usually wrong.

IF we have a third world war, it will be largely focused on economic things - i'm surprised the US hasn't declared war on internet privacy... Maybe when you're done cleaning up your mess in Iraq/Syria.

Orathaic.

"The simple explanation is usually wrong"

"your mess in Iraq/Syria. "

You are such a shit. Do they just breed fuck heads on the british isles?

You know what's more destructive than a nuclear bomb?

Words.

"You know what's more destructive than a nuclear bomb?

Words."

Touché!

Loved this movie so much.

They hate us 'cause they ain't us. Ow my ankles.

I figured it out!

jmo is actually Kim Jong Un.

Really though, I think TMoW is probably right. The way they just "canceled" a multi-millione dollar venture didn't make sense to me. I wasn't surprised to see it released on youtube. I would very much like to know whether they made more money off of this with the extra publicity than they would have by releasing it in theaters?

They did not, and sorry to disappoint, but I am not in fact him.

Wait, jmo, you're sure you're not Kim Jong-Un? Can you speak to dolphins?

jmo stands for 'i speak dolphinese'

What I admire most is the company's marketing strategy.... Produce a film of questionable morality portraying the murder of a foreign head of state. Spend little on the promotion of the quality of the film (movie). Just accuse a hated alien government of an act of censorship, trap the President into supporting the film and fool the American public into watching it, as an act of jingoistic solidarity. Brilliant......
Sony must be the only electronics company ever to make a virtue of the inadequacies of its own computer security systems.

wasn't the reason to call off the release that major movie chains didn't want to have the movie in their theaters? After the threats? So that Sony just made a virtue out of a bad position…

Sony had a contract to force release in the theaters. The theaters used the Korean threat to get Sony to agree not to make them show that bomb.

"Oh and abge, let's not forget "To Be or Not to Be," in which the still-ruling Hitler was assassinated."

Hitler appeared, but wasn't assassinated in it. You are thinking of the more recent, "Inglourious Basterds."

I doubt he's mistaking a 1940s comedy for a weak Tarantino film.

it's a long time since I've watched that glorious movie. I think the idea was similar, they wanted to assassinate Hitler, but never got a chance. Also, Hitler did never appear, but rather a Polish stage actor who looked surprisingly similar. He went on to eat Poland and to take a stroll around Warszawa just the day before the war broke out.