Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:44 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
Um…who the Hell green-lighted this picture???
Is it really a GOOD IDEA in this frightening world to posit that two American Cornholios should go and assassinate a foreign leader at the behest of an agency of its own Government? Really? It would be one thing if it were one of those intriguing spy thrillers wherein the American or Brit has to save the life of a despised King-For-Life or President-For-Life in order to maintain balance or some other contrived crapola, but when I saw the trailer for the film and the commercials on TeeVee, I cringed in my clothes. We as Americans claim to be so deeply affected by the assassinations and attempted assassinations of our own prominent people, and then we are asked to pay money to see a film in which we seem to be drafting civilians into joining a comedy-based international death squad tasked with killing a leader of a foreign country? Really? Not just puerile, but downright stupid, and moronically conceived from the beginning.
|
171 replies, 31407 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | OP |
frazzled | Dec 2014 | #1 | |
SoCalNative | Dec 2014 | #2 | |
joeybee12 | Dec 2014 | #4 | |
Posteritatis | Dec 2014 | #27 | |
TNNurse | Dec 2014 | #43 | |
DeSwiss | Dec 2014 | #54 | |
roguevalley | Dec 2014 | #51 | |
sabrina 1 | Dec 2014 | #71 | |
Fred Sanders | Dec 2014 | #3 | |
Earth Bound Misfit | Dec 2014 | #5 | |
Starry Messenger | Dec 2014 | #6 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #7 | |
FSogol | Dec 2014 | #10 | |
icymist | Dec 2014 | #18 | |
chrisa | Dec 2014 | #62 | |
Hekate | Dec 2014 | #8 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #9 | |
freshwest | Dec 2014 | #26 | |
GeorgeGist | Dec 2014 | #46 | |
a kennedy | Dec 2014 | #68 | |
TransitJohn | Dec 2014 | #11 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #70 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #83 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #106 | |
marions ghost | Dec 2014 | #162 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #163 | |
marions ghost | Dec 2014 | #164 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #166 | |
marions ghost | Dec 2014 | #169 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #79 | |
Shrek | Dec 2014 | #84 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #89 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #99 | |
Action_Patrol | Dec 2014 | #113 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #87 | |
DawgHouse | Dec 2014 | #154 | |
kwassa | Dec 2014 | #161 | |
Ykcutnek | Dec 2014 | #12 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #14 | |
Marrah_G | Dec 2014 | #13 | |
xocet | Dec 2014 | #40 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #90 | |
Beaverhausen | Dec 2014 | #156 | |
NaturalHigh | Dec 2014 | #15 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #16 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Dec 2014 | #28 | |
Logical | Dec 2014 | #38 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #72 | |
Logical | Dec 2014 | #73 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #107 | |
GreatGazoo | Dec 2014 | #17 | |
LynneSin | Dec 2014 | #60 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #88 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #91 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #100 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #108 | |
Action_Patrol | Dec 2014 | #133 | |
Bluenorthwest | Dec 2014 | #145 | |
GreatGazoo | Dec 2014 | #116 | |
deutsey | Dec 2014 | #121 | |
GreatGazoo | Dec 2014 | #127 | |
jberryhill | Dec 2014 | #141 | |
baldguy | Dec 2014 | #122 | |
Doctor_J | Dec 2014 | #19 | |
NuclearDem | Dec 2014 | #20 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Dec 2014 | #39 | |
chrisa | Dec 2014 | #61 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Dec 2014 | #63 | |
Logical | Dec 2014 | #21 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #22 | |
Logical | Dec 2014 | #24 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #76 | |
AngryAmish | Dec 2014 | #23 | |
neverforget | Dec 2014 | #25 | |
Tommymac | Dec 2014 | #64 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #78 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #92 | |
Jesus Malverde | Dec 2014 | #29 | |
951-Riverside | Dec 2014 | #33 | |
ohnoyoudidnt | Dec 2014 | #30 | |
alphafemale | Dec 2014 | #31 | |
ohnoyoudidnt | Dec 2014 | #44 | |
BlueJazz | Dec 2014 | #32 | |
L0oniX | Dec 2014 | #34 | |
tammywammy | Dec 2014 | #53 | |
WhiteTara | Dec 2014 | #35 | |
Man from Pickens | Dec 2014 | #36 | |
KMOD | Dec 2014 | #80 | |
msanthrope | Dec 2014 | #135 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Dec 2014 | #37 | |
brush | Dec 2014 | #41 | |
CincyDem | Dec 2014 | #42 | |
proverbialwisdom | Dec 2014 | #103 | |
alarimer | Dec 2014 | #129 | |
proverbialwisdom | Dec 2014 | #153 | |
HERVEPA | Dec 2014 | #151 | |
proverbialwisdom | Dec 2014 | #155 | |
HERVEPA | Dec 2014 | #158 | |
NuclearDem | Dec 2014 | #160 | |
lastlib | Dec 2014 | #45 | |
niyad | Dec 2014 | #47 | |
NYC Liberal | Dec 2014 | #48 | |
X_Digger | Dec 2014 | #49 | |
ErikJ | Dec 2014 | #50 | |
progressoid | Dec 2014 | #52 | |
BlueEye | Dec 2014 | #55 | |
Boomer | Dec 2014 | #57 | |
Blue_Adept | Dec 2014 | #114 | |
DawgHouse | Dec 2014 | #147 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | Dec 2014 | #66 | |
BlueEye | Dec 2014 | #111 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | Dec 2014 | #140 | |
DeSwiss | Dec 2014 | #56 | |
A-Schwarzenegger | Dec 2014 | #58 | |
LynneSin | Dec 2014 | #59 | |
ButterflyBlood | Dec 2014 | #96 | |
Stardust | Dec 2014 | #65 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #93 | |
Bluenorthwest | Dec 2014 | #146 | |
whatchamacallit | Dec 2014 | #67 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #69 | |
frazzled | Dec 2014 | #74 | |
neverforget | Dec 2014 | #82 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #94 | |
liberalhistorian | Dec 2014 | #86 | |
Agschmid | Dec 2014 | #95 | |
frazzled | Dec 2014 | #97 | |
HappyMe | Dec 2014 | #118 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #102 | |
hedgehog | Dec 2014 | #148 | |
sabrina 1 | Dec 2014 | #81 | |
NuclearDem | Dec 2014 | #134 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #98 | |
NewDeal_Dem | Dec 2014 | #75 | |
Baitball Blogger | Dec 2014 | #77 | |
KMOD | Dec 2014 | #85 | |
MannyGoldstein | Dec 2014 | #101 | |
Rex | Dec 2014 | #104 | |
nilesobek | Dec 2014 | #105 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #109 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Dec 2014 | #112 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #123 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Dec 2014 | #125 | |
steve2470 | Dec 2014 | #150 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Dec 2014 | #110 | |
Blue_Adept | Dec 2014 | #115 | |
HappyMe | Dec 2014 | #117 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #124 | |
HappyMe | Dec 2014 | #128 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #159 | |
sendero | Dec 2014 | #119 | |
baldguy | Dec 2014 | #120 | |
stevenleser | Dec 2014 | #142 | |
RedCappedBandit | Dec 2014 | #126 | |
bluedigger | Dec 2014 | #137 | |
Maeve | Dec 2014 | #130 | |
LanternWaste | Dec 2014 | #131 | |
lovemydog | Dec 2014 | #132 | |
lame54 | Dec 2014 | #136 | |
NuclearDem | Dec 2014 | #138 | |
Overseas | Dec 2014 | #139 | |
DesMoinesDem | Dec 2014 | #143 | |
stevenleser | Dec 2014 | #144 | |
Chalco | Dec 2014 | #149 | |
HappyMe | Dec 2014 | #152 | |
Beaverhausen | Dec 2014 | #157 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #167 | |
Blue_Adept | Dec 2014 | #168 | |
Beaverhausen | Dec 2014 | #170 | |
PCIntern | Dec 2014 | #171 | |
Chalco | Dec 2014 | #165 |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:45 PM
frazzled (17,694 posts)
1. Agreed /nt
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:46 PM
SoCalNative (4,250 posts)
2. Nobody said boo
when TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE came out.
|
Response to SoCalNative (Reply #2)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:47 PM
joeybee12 (56,177 posts)
4. I thought of that, too...
Maybe North Korea didn't have hacking ability back then!
|
Response to joeybee12 (Reply #4)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:40 PM
Posteritatis (18,807 posts)
27. Maybe. Definitely didn't have a new leader wanting to throw his weight around. (nt)
Response to SoCalNative (Reply #2)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:18 PM
TNNurse (4,953 posts)
43. Did not see a movie with such a stupid title.
Did it single out actual people who are currently alive to kill??? Because that would have been immature and ignorant, too.
|
Response to TNNurse (Reply #43)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:02 PM
DeSwiss (27,137 posts)
54. Yep. A bunch of them.....
![]() Plot
Team America: World Police, a paramilitary anti-terrorism force, has a home base located inside Mount Rushmore. The team comprises Lisa, a psychologist; Carson, her love interest; Sarah, an alleged psychic; Joe, a jock who is in love with Sarah; and Chris, a martial arts expert who harbors a deep mistrust of actors. The team is led by Spottswoode and a supercomputer named I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.. Having tracked down a group of terrorists in Paris, France, the team inadvertently destroys the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe and The Louvre during a gun battle. Carson proposes to Lisa, but a surviving terrorist guns him down. As a replacement, Spottswoode recruits Gary Johnston, a Broadway actor with college majors in Theater and World Languages. Unbeknownst to the team, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il is supplying international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Using his acting skills, Gary successfully infiltrates a terrorist group in Cairo, Egypt. The team manages to kill the terrorists and foil their plot, but the city is left in ruins. For their actions regarding Cairo, the team is criticized by the Film Actors Guild (F.A.G.), a union of liberal Hollywood actors led by Gary's favorite actor, Alec Baldwin, and also consists of Matt Damon, Liv Tyler, Samuel L. Jackson, Janeane Garofalo, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Ethan Hawke, Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins. As the team relaxes following their victory, Gary tells Lisa about his childhood: his acting talent caused his brother to be killed by gorillas. While the two express their feelings and have sex, a group of terrorists blow up the Panama Canal as retaliation for what had happened to Cairo. The Film Actors Guild again blames Team America over the incident regarding the Panama Canal. Gary, realizing that his acting talents have once again resulted in tragedy, abandons the others. The original members depart for Derkaderkastan, but are captured by terrorists, which include the North Korean government. Filmmaker Michael Moore vengefully infiltrates the team's Mount Rushmore base and suicide bombs the area. In North Korea, Kim Jong-il hosts a peace ceremony, inviting the Film Actors Guild and all the world's political leaders. Using the ceremony as a mere distraction, Kim Jong-il plans to detonate a series of bombs throughout the world, reducing every nation to a Third World Country. During a depressed state as an alcoholic, Gary finds himself reminded of his responsibility by a speech from a drunken drifter. Upon returning to Mount Rushmore, he finds the area in ruins, though Spottswoode and I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. have survived. After regaining Spottswoode's trust by giving him a blowjob and undergoing a one-day training course, Gary is sent to North Korea, where he uses his acting skills to free the other members. The team then engages in a violent battle with the Film Actors Guild in which most of the actors are brutally killed. After Gary uses his acting skills to save Chris's life, Chris finally confesses to Gary that he mistrusts actors because when he was 19 years old, he was raped by the cast of the musical Cats. The team then confronts Kim Jong-il. Gary goes on stage and convinces the world's leaders to unite by using the drifter's emotional speech. Kim Jong-il kills Alec Baldwin with an assault rifle, and then is kicked over a balcony by Lisa. He is impaled on a Pickelhaube and is revealed to be an alien cockroach from the planet Gyron. The cockroach then departs in a miniature spaceship, promising to return. As Gary and Lisa begin a relationship, the team reunites, preparing to combat all of the world's remaining terrorists. MORE |
Response to SoCalNative (Reply #2)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:52 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
51. they pulled the movie
Response to roguevalley (Reply #51)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:12 AM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
71. Good, is someone trying to start more wars?
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:47 PM
Fred Sanders (23,946 posts)
3. The theme of the movie is truly disgusting, no matter who the national leader targeted. No one wants
to state the obvious.
Thank you. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:48 PM
Earth Bound Misfit (3,516 posts)
5. I got nothing.
No argument here.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:49 PM
Starry Messenger (32,325 posts)
6. Franco and Rogen must have polaroids of the Sony execs.
Even the higher-ups hated this movie. Why was it made? They are probably counting their blessings that they have an excuse to let it get flushed.
http://defamer.gawker.com/leaked-emails-the-interview-sucked-for-sony-even-befor-1671234001 "A previous report by Bloomberg said Sony execs altered the gory finale of The Interview, toning down the extent to which Kim Jong Un's head is exploded and set aflame. But the movie faced more problems than just Supreme Leader's immolation scene—Sony executives and distribution partners around the world were worried that the movie was too offensive, "desperately unfunny," and worst of all, starred James Franco. Emails sent from UK Sony Pictures exec Peter Taylor to president of Sony Pictures Releasing International Steven O'Dell are particularly harsh, describing the comedy as a "misfire," "unfunny and repetitive," with "a level of realistic violence that would be shocking in a horror movie." Taylor holds one of the film's co-stars in particularly low regard: "James Franco proves once again that irritation is his strong suit which is a shame because the character could have been appealing and funny out of his hands." |
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #6)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:50 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
7. Love it! Thanks!! nt
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #6)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:07 PM
FSogol (40,740 posts)
10. Tonight on TNT: "Desperately Unfunny: The Seth Rogen Story"
![]() |
Response to FSogol (Reply #10)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:21 PM
icymist (14,751 posts)
18. My roommate claims that this is karma for fu$king up Green Hornet!
Every single time Rogen's name is mentioned!
|
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #6)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:50 PM
chrisa (4,524 posts)
62. Seth Rogen is only believable as an assassin if the target is comedy.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:04 PM
Hekate (66,336 posts)
8. One of those guys was on The Daily Show, and I swear he has the most moronic laugh I have ever heard
Hyuk hyuk hyuk with mouth wide open and head a-bobbin'
![]() It figures he was in on the so-called joke, but that begs the question as to whether there were any grownups at all involved in this process. |
Response to Hekate (Reply #8)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:07 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
9. I can hear the pitch now:
See Boss, these two guys who are like Dumb and Dumberer go to North Korea and get involved with zany shit, try to kill the PM. You can just see that hilarity ensues!!! Can't miss boss. Let's drop 100 million on the production...
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #9)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:40 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
26. The Idiocracy takes no prisoners. And Hollywood is a cesspool.
Response to Hekate (Reply #8)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:33 PM
GeorgeGist (23,739 posts)
46. That was Rogen ...
you captured his essence. He thinks he's hilarious.
|
Response to Hekate (Reply #8)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:37 PM
a kennedy (21,770 posts)
68. Seth rogan was on stephen colbert's last night...
And you're right his laugh is most annoying.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:10 PM
TransitJohn (6,928 posts)
11. Who cares? We don't have state-run media, and most of us like it that way.
If occasional bombs and blunders happen, so much the better. At least it's some risk-taking, and not just the normal pablum that passes for cinema in modern Hollywood.
|
Response to TransitJohn (Reply #11)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:10 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
70. Thank you. Apparently, some people on this
progressive site are getting their knickers in a knot because they cannot dictate what movies can be made and seen. Sickening.
|
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #70)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:26 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
83. Yup.
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #70)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:59 AM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
106. Oh I see....
Did I say that they can't make this film? Did I say that the government should stop them from making it? Did I infer that I didn't think it was a good idea to make this film? These are different issues. But then again I wasn't attempting to start a specious argument.
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #106)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:55 PM
marions ghost (19,841 posts)
162. In this jump to conclusions
culture we live in now, saying somebody in the industry should have stopped it = a threat to freedom of speech.
![]() |
Response to marions ghost (Reply #162)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:25 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
163. Yeah…except I didn't even say THAT...
All I said was that I personally, if I am actually entitled to hold an opinion around here, thought that it was foolish to green light the project. Jesus…if I posted that 2+2=4, there'd be five people up my asshole that I was prejudiced against odd numbers. But that is their whole purpose for being here….
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #163)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:17 AM
marions ghost (19,841 posts)
164. So even more nuance
that cannot be fathomed by some. I agree--the black & white thinkers have invaded. "I'm right so you must be...wrong."
Tiring. But that's their purpose, yes. |
Response to marions ghost (Reply #164)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:25 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
166. Great minds think alike...!
DU Rules prevent me from venting my spleen.
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #166)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:39 PM
marions ghost (19,841 posts)
169. & great minds rarely deal in absolutes...
![]() |
Response to TransitJohn (Reply #11)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:21 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
79. Yes, I just can't wait for the edgy new Hollywood offering where assassins from North Korea target
our own President.
Yep, that would go over big, no doubt. Free speech and all that. |
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #79)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:27 AM
Shrek (2,990 posts)
84. That movie has already been made
Response to Shrek (Reply #84)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:29 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
89. Some people don't Google so well...
Response to Shrek (Reply #84)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:41 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
99. i don't recall President Benjamin Asher. Was he before Bush II?
The pukefest currently under offer names the current NK Pres and apparently uses his image.
|
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #99)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:17 AM
Action_Patrol (822 posts)
113. I give you this
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #79)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:27 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
87. So it did...
I mean we "won" but barely. Won all the way to the bank to the tune of 161 million... And no terrorist threats. Ain't America great? |
Response to TransitJohn (Reply #11)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:36 PM
DawgHouse (4,019 posts)
154. I agree. nt
Response to TransitJohn (Reply #11)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:20 PM
kwassa (23,340 posts)
161. Risk-taking of an artistic variety? not likely.
This film, judging by the trailer, is today's typical comedic pablum.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:12 PM
Ykcutnek (1,305 posts)
12. It's a tragedy that it's not going to be seen. nt
Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #12)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:13 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
14. Yeah, I'm sitting shiva… nt
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:12 PM
Marrah_G (28,581 posts)
13. Freedom of speech
No one should decide what to produce to cater to the mega-ego of that murdering little asshole.
|
Response to Marrah_G (Reply #13)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:46 PM
Beaverhausen (23,724 posts)
156. Right the fuck on
I can't believe what some are saying here.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:15 PM
NaturalHigh (12,778 posts)
15. I doubt that it's any stupider than most of the comedies released these days.
It's a shame that Sony caved in to a bunch of half-assed terrorist wannabes, though.
|
Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #15)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:19 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
16. whether this piece of garbage is shown or not is of no interest to me...
what I almost cannot believe is that they made this without thinking of the ramifications. Expensive mistake…maybe. We shall see.
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #16)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:45 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
28. why should we have been kinder to Hitler too?
Response to PCIntern (Reply #16)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:05 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
38. LOL, I know you think you are an expert on most stuff.....
But what makes you think you have ANY IDEA about a film being green-lighted or not??
Maybe you need to stop "saving life's" and go into the movie business! |
Response to Logical (Reply #38)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:13 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
72. Yes, I'm still waiting for that
Ebola epidemic that, according to the OP, was supposed to have swept us nationwide and taken out half the country or more by now, unless dictatorial measures were taken to stop it. Yep. Still waiting.........and waiting.............
|
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #72)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:13 AM
Logical (22,457 posts)
73. I know, he predicted a severe outbreak. Never happen. nt
Response to Logical (Reply #73)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:07 AM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
107. No I did not
But you're not worth the effort.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:20 PM
GreatGazoo (3,937 posts)
17. Borat made shipload of money so pictures like this were/are inevitable
Where they screwed up was using a real nut when they could have made it generic, perhaps with strong hints. Borat cost $18 mil to make and pulled down $261 mil in theaters before going on to DVD, Netflicks, etc. So Hollywood does what Hollywood does...
|
Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #17)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:43 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
60. I don't think the plot of the Borat movie was to assassinate a world leader
He just made asses of people.
|
Response to LynneSin (Reply #60)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:28 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
88. Not just an all-purpose world leader: a NAMED world leader. It's as if someone made
a film about assassinating Queen Elizabeth, or Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or President Francoise Holland.
IOW, it's beyond the pale, even if we dislike the leader. IMO. We'd never tolerate it if the film were about our own named leader. |
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #88)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:31 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
91. Speak for yourself.
Response to Agschmid (Reply #91)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:42 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
100. Are you confused? Did I claim to speak for someone else?
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #100)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:02 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
108. When you used the collective "we"...
But hey maybe I need better glasses.
|
Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #88)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:00 AM
Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)
145. Except the Brits made a film about asssassinating President GW Bush and we did tolerate it.
America, in fact, did not give a flying fuck about it. That includes Bush, who frankly would have had a right to express some distaste for the project but did not.
2006. Death of a President http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/ Always amusing when people claim 'we'd never' when we already have. |
Response to LynneSin (Reply #60)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:44 AM
GreatGazoo (3,937 posts)
116. but Sasha Baron Cohen used a made up country instead of a real one
The fictional country in Borat had hints of Afghanistan and Pakistan but claimed to be neither of those.
|
Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #116)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:03 AM
deutsey (20,166 posts)
121. Borat is from Kazakhstan
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/life_and_art/2006/11/the_real_kazakhstan.html
According to this article on Slate: "Borat's Kazakhstan bears little resemblance to the real Kazakhstan. Little resemblance, but not no resemblance." |
Response to deutsey (Reply #121)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:16 AM
GreatGazoo (3,937 posts)
127. Thanks. My apologies to the glorious, and very real, nation of Kazakhstan.
In 2012 an athletic event in Kuwait erroneously played the Borat parody version of Kazakstan's anthem during a gold medal ceremony as seen here:
Coach Anvar Yunusmetov told Kazakh news agency Tengrinews that the tournament's organisers had also got the Serbian national anthem wrong.
"Then Maria Dmitrienko's turn came," he said. "She got up on to the pedestal and they played a completely different anthem, offensive to Kazakhstan." The spoof song praises Kazakhstan for its superior potassium exports and for having the cleanest prostitutes in the region. ... The film outraged people in Kazakhstan and was eventually banned in the country. The government also threatened Baron Cohen with legal action. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-17491344 |
Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #127)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:50 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
141. It was very gracious of her to recognize they made a mistake, but to wait patiently for it to end
|
Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #116)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:06 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
122. It was Kazakhstan - which is a real country.
The Kazak govt threatened to sue Cohen - they didn't threaten to bomb theaters.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:26 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
19. That is kind of weird
I wouldn't have seen it anyway, but it's a strange subject to broach. OTOH it's preposterous, so I think the outrage is sort of dumb.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:27 PM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
20. Did Kim's feefees get hurt?
I'm sure Saddam didn't appreciate being Satan's lover. I'm sure Hitler didn't like being portrayed as a bumbling idiot by Chaplin.
Who gives a fuck? It's a movie--don't like it, don't see it. Plenty of sand to go around. ![]() |
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #20)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:06 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
39. "Who gives a fuck? It's a movie--don't like it, don't see it."
Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a single movie in the "Leprechaun" series.
I've survived not seeing them too. |
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #39)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:46 PM
chrisa (4,524 posts)
61. You're missing out on some gems.
Leprachaun: Back To Tha Hood was worth every minute. A tear fell from my eye a few times, and I gave a standing ovation at the end.
|
Response to chrisa (Reply #61)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:51 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
63. Okay, now I gotta go check it out.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:29 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
21. FFS, dramatic much?? No more ebola to freak out about I guess. nt
Response to Logical (Reply #21)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:34 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
22. FFS? Wow...
Holding a grudge I see. You're right: I'm the first person to post about this subject.
And BTW, since you like three-letters, I was exactly correct about the Ebola nightmare. |
Response to PCIntern (Reply #22)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:38 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
24. LOL not you were not. But keep up the front. nt
Response to PCIntern (Reply #22)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:20 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
76. Bullshit. Where are the countless numbers of
American victims you were breathlessly and hysterically predicting unless drastic, dictatorial measures were taken? Where's the disintegration of our society you were predicting along with such numbers of victims, again, unless such dictatorial measures were taken? Let's see, less than ten American victims as opposed to the countless numbers you were insisting would happen because the big bad government didn't clamp down on people the way you wanted it to. Yeah, you sure were "exactly correct" alright. LOL.
And now you want to dictate what movies can and cannot be made and what we can and cannot see. No fucking thank you. We still have some modicum of freedom in this country, we are not North Korea yet. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:37 PM
AngryAmish (25,704 posts)
23. Horseshit.
Day of the Jackel. The various films and books about killing W. Hell, Lincoln.
If this stands we get more of it. Mine a harbor. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:39 PM
neverforget (9,367 posts)
25. We're free to make stupid movies
and people can decide for themselves if they want to see the movie or not. But thanks to North Korea and their hacking of Sony, we don't get to decide if the movie was good or not. Terrorism works.
|
Response to neverforget (Reply #25)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:53 PM
Tommymac (3,620 posts)
64. ^^^ This ^^^
Response to neverforget (Reply #25)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:21 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
78. This, exactly,
thank you. We've become a nation of fraidy-cat wimps.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:48 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
29. "The mighty Wurlitzer"
Been playing since 1948.
The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no2/intelligence-in-recent-public-literature-1.html |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #29)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:58 PM
951-Riverside (7,234 posts)
33. Whoa!
Almost every CIA station had case officers dedicated to working with labor unions, intellectuals, youth and student organizations, journalists, veterans, women’s groups, and more. The Agency dealt directly with foreign representatives of these groups, but it also subsidized their activities indirectly by laundering funds through allied organizations based in the United States. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:49 PM
ohnoyoudidnt (1,858 posts)
30. The agencies that protect these dictators are not exactly stupid.
To think they have never thought such an attempt could happen until this movie was made is pretty silly.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:52 PM
alphafemale (16,588 posts)
31. Fuck fascists.
All any stupid little tantrum trowing piece of shit has to do now is to threaten mayhem.
And we concede. Yeah. And you you give a screaming toddler in the checkout line the candy bar and totally fuck the rest of your life. We are totally fucked |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #31)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:28 PM
ohnoyoudidnt (1,858 posts)
44. "We are totally fucked"
I am afraid so. We have enough problems with elements within our own government without citizens wanting to cave and change our behavior because of outside threats.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:54 PM
BlueJazz (25,348 posts)
32. When I saw the previews, my first thought was: Well, this is going to make "The Blair witch project"
...look like 2001, Gone with the wind and Citizen Kane....all wrapped up in one.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:58 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
34. Ask why... Team America: World Police ...didn't raise some hell with N.Korea.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #34)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:01 PM
tammywammy (26,582 posts)
53. That was dad
Apparently son is more sensitive
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:02 PM
Man from Pickens (1,713 posts)
36. Hillary Clinton was running the State Dept. at the time
As she is a full-fledged card-carrying member of the War Party it makes sense that she'd be involved in this.
|
Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #36)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:24 AM
KMOD (7,906 posts)
80. LMAO
your post? for real???
![]() |
Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #36)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:04 AM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
135. DUZY!!! Right? You were trying to be funny, right? nt
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:02 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
37. "downright stupid, and moronically conceived from the beginning."
Exactly like the Neocons.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:12 PM
brush (33,419 posts)
41. Probably the same a holes who conversed by email about the president's . . .
taste in movies, Angelina Jolie's lack of talent and that Denzel Washington shoot never be cast in big international movies because he's black.
Green lighting that movie was about the same level of stupidity as writing that stuff in emails and pressing send, thus documenting it in cyberspace for forever. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:13 PM
CincyDem (4,851 posts)
42. Stupid Movie but...feels like some anonymous group is creating a chilling effect.
What happened to the idea that free speech is my accepting your right to say something with which I disagree. The movie's isn't on my to-do list and you're right..whoever decided to push it though should have their head examined. That said, for some unknown reason, someone unknown (assumed to be NK related) desperately does not want you and I to see it. Feels like we're creating a bad precedent here because the content being suppressed is so easily ridiculed. How are we going to feel when some indie film group does an amazing movie about how two rich brothers have co-opted a country with the world's most powerful military. Those two brothers eventually "but the country" through their political contributions and they're about to get handed the "nuclear football" when Wesley Snipes (escaped from prison) and Kristen Bell suddenly expose the brothers for who they are - just a couple greedy libertarians who got theirs in the past and now want to be sure nobody else gets theirs today. What happens when that indie studio is hacked by some "unknown group" and their opening is threatened with violence. Will we be so quick to say "that was a dumb movie". Separate the content from the process here and it looks pretty f'ing scary. |
Response to CincyDem (Reply #42)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:39 AM
proverbialwisdom (4,959 posts)
103. Jaw-dropping anecdote recounted here. Do your ideals still apply?
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/12/safeminds-lyn-redwood-deafening-silence-the-systematic-censorship-of-the-truth-about-vaccines.html
Note: The article below is from our sponsor, Safeminds. Please join us in thanking Lyn Redwood for her tenure on IACC, where she fought for families facing all of the challenges of autism from vaccine induced cause through adult issues. She stepped down this year. If you're relatively new to Age of Autism and/or the vaccine injury community, please read Evidence of Harm by David Kirby to learn how Lyn Redwood, a nurse, set off the earliest alarm bells about mercury and vaccination, when doctors, scientists and governement watchdogs were oblivious. December 10, 2014 Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and Fulbright grantee. Her articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on the cover of Smithsonian Magazine. She is the author/editor of five books, including The Business of Baby (Scribner), finalist for a Books For a Better Life Award, which will be published in paperback under the new title, Your Baby, Your Way. She has taught literature in inner city Atlanta; appeared live on prime-time TV in France; and worked on a child survival campaign in Niger. She lives in Oregon with her husband and four children. |
Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #103)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:20 AM
alarimer (16,245 posts)
129. Paranoid fantasy
By some anti-vax nutter.
Utter and complete bullshit. |
Response to alarimer (Reply #129)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:26 PM
proverbialwisdom (4,959 posts)
153. Blather... "by some anti-vax nutter..." Do you stand by that mischaracterization?
You know not of what you speak. Redwood's expertise is undeniable though you may disagree with her conclusions.
http://www.safeminds.org/blog/2014/12/10/deafening-silence-systematic-censorship-truth-vaccines/
Lyn Redwood, R.N., M.S.N., is co-founder and board member of SafeMinds and cofounder of the National Autism Association. In 2000, she testified before the Government Reform Committee on “Mercury in medicine: Are we taking unnecessary risks?” and in 2003 before a Congressional sub-committee on health. She has published in Neurotoxicology, Molecular Psychiatry, Medical Hypotheses, Mothering Magazine, and Autism-Aspergers Digest; appeared on Good Morning America and the Montel Williams Show; and been interviewed by U.S News and World Report, Wired Magazine, and People. She is prominently featured in David Kirby’s award-winning book, Evidence of Harm. Lyn Redwood also served on the Department of Defense Autism Spectrum Disorder Research Program from 2007-2009 and served as a public member of the National Institutes of Health Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee for the past eight years. She was awarded the National Autism Association’s Believe Award in 2013 for her dedication to the autism community. http://www.safeminds.org/about-2/mission/ http://www.safeminds.org/advocacy-2/advocacy/ Off-topic, so I'll beg off. You can have the last word. |
Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #103)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:40 AM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
151. Anti-Vax bullshit has great potential for harm
Nobody has right to make anyone else show it.
Sucumbing to pressure from a foreign country on his movie is in absolutely no way related. May I repeat, anti-vax bullshit harms people, the movie harmed no one. |
Response to HERVEPA (Reply #151)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:45 PM
proverbialwisdom (4,959 posts)
155. Product loyalty is limitless and supersedes science (because none of it can possibly be reasonable)?
Check out some of those National Children’s Study Proposed Core Hypotheses: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014966033
Check out the MUMPER STUDY: http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34 May I encourage you to define your pejorative terms with greater care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5944629 IMO, information is part of informed consent and is for everyone, not just policymakers. |
Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #155)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:38 PM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
158. Peer reviewed science over woo any day.
I am no lover of the drug companies. But much less a lover of those who make money on false studies and garbage products.
|
Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #103)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:08 PM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
160. Age of Autism. LOL
![]() |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:30 PM
lastlib (17,033 posts)
45. You're almost onto it.......
Really? Not just puerile, but downright stupid, and moronically conceived from the beginning.
Oughta be a blockbuster......! Given the vapidity of so many Americans these days, and what they are willing to absorb as "entertainment", and spend money for.........bound to be a hit! |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:37 PM
niyad (74,561 posts)
47. to what movie are you referring?
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:39 PM
NYC Liberal (19,139 posts)
48. Yes, it is a good idea. N/t
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:39 PM
X_Digger (18,585 posts)
49. *yawn* So you don't like it. That matters why, exactly? n/t
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:47 PM
ErikJ (6,335 posts)
50. Pineapple Express was a huge hit. Rogen was golden.
He said he didnt want to do another mindless stoner movie but something to make a political statement with humor.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:55 PM
progressoid (45,862 posts)
52. 'Noah', 'Godzilla', 'Men, Women & Children', 'Left Behind'. 'Atlas Shrugged Part III', 'Blended'
There is no shortage of crap to watch.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:08 PM
BlueEye (449 posts)
55. I agree with the poster that remarked that this creates a dangerous precedent.
Had the studios pulled Oliver Stone's "W." because the Bush Administration protested, everyone here would have a fit. And rightfully so. But the OP is propagating a double standard.
It is disturbing to me that any government, foreign or domestic, can suppress a work of fiction, made freely and with artistic license, however tasteless. It is censorship, at the behest of a despicable regime nonetheless. Only a matter of time before a Koch Brother's documentary gets pulled "for being factually inaccurate" or something. |
Response to BlueEye (Reply #55)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:19 PM
Boomer (3,530 posts)
57. It's damage control not bowing to censorship
Censorship would be the U.S. government grabbing this movie from Sony and forbidding them to show it. That did not happen.
Sony pulled the picture because they decided the cost of being assholes was too high. When you have the right of free speech, you're not guaranteed freedom from consequences. They thought -- for some bizarre reason -- that this insulting and incendiary "comedy" about assassinating a country's ruler was a good idea and they yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre without anyone getting hurt. Pulling the movie is considerably more prudent than the decision to produce it. They were not FORCED to withdraw the movie by the U.S. government or by the North Korean government. But they certainly were forced to consider the consequences of their actions. |
Response to Boomer (Reply #57)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:29 AM
Blue_Adept (6,139 posts)
114. No, Sony pulled it because the major chains dropped it out of fear
of being bombed or attacked.
The cost of distribution is now too high for the few theaters that would end up showing it. |
Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #114)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:18 AM
DawgHouse (4,019 posts)
147. This is what I think has happened, not so much a censorship issue.
People will stay away from the theaters out of fear.
|
Response to BlueEye (Reply #55)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:15 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (20,683 posts)
66. Didn't NPR already pull a Koch Bros. Documentary
That they (Koch Bros) deemed too critical of them?
|
Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #66)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:57 AM
BlueEye (449 posts)
111. Did they? I did not hear that, but you're probably right.
It's a damn shame if they did. There is a Koch Bros documentary on Netflix that did survive the corporate censorship process, it's pretty decent.
|
Response to BlueEye (Reply #111)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:32 AM
Proud Liberal Dem (20,683 posts)
140. I can't remember where I heard about it
But I do believe that they loudly objected to an NPR doc or story (maybe it was Frontline) and I guess they had some leverage w/NPR to get it pulled.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:41 PM
A-Schwarzenegger (15,500 posts)
58. I walked out on the trailer.
And I was in my living room.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:42 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
59. As much as I think the idea of the movie is dumb, it was done about a decade ago....
Response to LynneSin (Reply #59)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:39 AM
ButterflyBlood (12,644 posts)
96. There have been reports Kim Jong-il was actually a fan of that movie
Seriously. Some have reported that he owned a private copy and apparently enjoyed it.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:12 PM
Stardust (3,858 posts)
65. I thought I was the only one who thought the plot was in very poor taste. Imagine if another
country made a film, a *comedy* no less, about assassinating our president. We'd be rattling our sabers, at the very least.
Once again, I'm embarrassed for our country. |
Response to Stardust (Reply #65)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:33 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
93. We make tons of films about it ourselves.
No need for anyone else to do it.
|
Response to Stardust (Reply #65)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:08 AM
Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)
146. Except the Brits made a film about asssassinating President GW Bush in 2006
And it was deadly serious. America, Bush included, yawned at the sight of it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/ |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:33 PM
whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)
67. Sign of the (shit) times
Bumblefuck Nation
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:09 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
69. You are aware that we do not have
a state-controlled, state-run media and entertainment industry in this country? You are aware that studios have the right to make whatever movie they want without government interference and that we have, or should have, the right to see those movies if we so choose without that same government interference? You're aware that you're sounding just like the fuckwit pea-brained dictator who demanded it be removed under threat (and WTF was he going to "do" to us anyway, for Christ's sake?) You're aware that this chicken-shit backing down makes us look, well, weak and chickenshitty just like said fuckwit pea-brained dictator wants? And that you're playing right into it? Basically, who are you to tell studios what movies to make and Americans what movies they can and cannot see? Last time I checked, we were not a dictatorship.
|
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #69)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:17 AM
frazzled (17,694 posts)
74. I'm glad you're all for supporting the freedom of giant corporations
like Sony Pictures Entertainment, a Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate. There are no good actors in this drama (and I'm not even referring to the bad acting of James Franco, which speaks for itself). Sony is enormous. It can eat the losses on this stupid production. And filmgoers everywhere will honestly probably not be missing a thing. Kim Jong whatever can go back to his crazy.
This is not some kind of tragedy. It's tragi-comedy, on all sides. |
Response to frazzled (Reply #74)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:25 AM
neverforget (9,367 posts)
82. As long as the actors suck
or the corporations can eat the losses and you deemed this movie unworthy to be seen, I guess it's okay. Giving in to threats, bullies and black mailers works!
![]() |
Response to frazzled (Reply #74)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:27 AM
liberalhistorian (20,705 posts)
86. I support the freedom of studios to make
whatever movie they want without government interference or interference by foreign fuckwit pea-brained dictators who think they can get their way by throwing tantrums and jumping up and down like a two-year-old. Well, guess what? The NK pea-brain has shown the world just what chickenshits we really are and that he can do just that, throw a tantrum and we'll give in to it.
It doesn't matter that the movie's subject is in poor taste and offensive. It doesn't matter that it's not a good movie or that people won't be missing much. It wouldn't matter if it were the worst movie ever made. It Just. Doesn't. Matter. Studios have the right to make the movies they want and we have the right to choose which ones we want to see, period. You don't get to make that decision for everyone else. We are not yet living in a full-fledged dictatorship. |
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #86)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:35 AM
Agschmid (28,720 posts)
95. Me too.
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #86)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:40 AM
frazzled (17,694 posts)
97. They had the right to make it and they did.
Then they pulled it because of controversy and threats, and because theaters didn't want to show it. (And theater chains have the right not to show anything they don't want to show.) Sony made a stupid decision to make it. What's your beef? Or do you just like to say "fuckwit peabrain" a lot?
Movies are shelved all the time. |
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #86)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:48 AM
HappyMe (20,277 posts)
118. Well said.
Response to frazzled (Reply #74)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:48 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
102. Free speech for Sony & Seth Rogen (but not for me and thee)
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #69)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:25 AM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
81. You must be aware that N. Korea is a Nuclear Armed nation so what 'he' might do
being how crazy he is, isn't known. And when you don't know if a lunatic with Nukes might decide to use them, maybe you shouldn't tempt fate by making a stupid movie that is probably not worth watching anyhow to taunt him with.
And you must be aware that the Government didn't shut down the movie, or tell anyone not to make it. Obviously the morons who did, were too stupid to realize they were poking a nutcase with Nukes finally and THEY decided not to show it. Your lecture would have some meaning if the Government had influenced any of this. I could not care less what happens to the movie. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #81)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:01 AM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
134. Yeah, North Korea isn't going to launch a nuclear attack over a movie
The rank and file might be utterly brainwashed, but the leadership knows doing such a thing would seal their fate.
Not that they'd have any way to deliver the weapon in the first place. |
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #69)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:40 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
98. No, we just have a media infiltrated by agents of the state and run by giant corporations
who also run the state.
what's the difference, really. listening to your spiel, as though our media were some world bastion of freedom, is to laugh. as if our media didn't pick and choose what to portray according to political and financial considerations every fucking day. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:18 AM
NewDeal_Dem (1,049 posts)
75. Agreed.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:20 AM
Baitball Blogger (37,397 posts)
77. What a relief. I thought there was going to be a spoiler in this thread.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:27 AM
KMOD (7,906 posts)
85. it's not my cup of tea for sure,
I suppose some will find humor in it.
I find it very sophomoric, and yeah, asking for controversy. But to stifle it is wrong. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:47 AM
MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)
101. Agreed.
A big WTF?
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:43 AM
Rex (65,616 posts)
104. Already been done.
![]() |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:13 AM
nilesobek (1,423 posts)
105. I'm glad I don't have to download this piece of tripe.
Just the fact that they caved shows the courage of their convictions. I saw Seth in that crappy comedy "Pineapple Express," in which he throws up when he sees a murder. Nice reaction. Tripe. Not missing a thing except crappy American agitprop.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:26 AM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
109. WHOA NELLIE!
Where in my post did I state that the movie should be censored by the Government? Where in my post did I state that no one should have the freedom to make a shitty film? Where in my post did I advocate SONY Pictures' pulling the film out of release? Where in my post did I proffer sympathy for this dictator?
All I was trying to say was that this whole concept, in my opinion,(and apparently in the opinion of many many many others) was not a GOOD IDEA. Some here say that I was advocating censorship. Not at all...is it disallowed to simply posit that this was an idea which had real potential to fail from the beginning? The nastiness of some here is just appalling -as a ten year veteran of this site, I am thoroughly disgusted with the attitudes of some here who have already managed to drive out dozens and dozens of veteran posters. If that is your plan, then you're succeeding. Congratulations. Oh...and just one more thing: for whatever reason a few posters decided to bring up my opinions in re: the Ebola situation from a number of weeks ago. There was a deliberate misstatement of my position during that entire misadventure, and I stand by every single post I made during that time. DU Rules prevent me from stating exactly what I think these people are doing here and what I think of them personally for doing so. |
Response to PCIntern (Reply #109)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:04 AM
Laura PourMeADrink (34,670 posts)
112. Ten years for me too and I agree with you 100% ! Even the
most innocuous seeming post gets turned way off topic and made into
a nightmare "back and forth". I think before you post now you have to analyze all the possible angles and insert disclaimers about every conceivable complaint. Exhausting. I don't know where all the "Contrarians" came from but I wish they would expend their energies elsewhere. |
Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #112)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:07 AM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
123. Exactly...
It's like the Monty Python skit about arguments.
I know well what their stupid game is. |
Response to PCIntern (Reply #123)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:12 AM
Laura PourMeADrink (34,670 posts)
125. "Stupid Game" What???
Do you have something against the mentally challenged?
![]() |
Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #112)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:30 AM
steve2470 (36,873 posts)
150. trolls
If anyone thinks the RNC does not pay at least one person to troll this board heavily, I'm sorry but they are naive. Hell, if I ran the RNC, I would. What better way to wreak a bit of havoc with the left and Democrats ? The rest (99.999%) are unpaid, going for "the lulz".
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:55 AM
Laura PourMeADrink (34,670 posts)
110. How true and well stated ! And, what the hell has happened to James
Franco? He used to be a serious actor - now it seems like he thinks he's
the new Jerry Lewis. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:34 AM
Blue_Adept (6,139 posts)
115. I was looking forward to it
It looked silly and fun, had actors I liked and has been a familiar plot concept in film (especially comedies) for decades.
But I tend to like a wide range of movies and prefer to make my own judgments on what works and what doesn't. So hopefully I'll get an opportunity. This could be a good one for Sony - and a bad one for theaters - in the end. If Sony goes and does this as VOD through various outlets, and it makes them some amount of coin, it'll give them further incentive to push past the theatrical exhibition side for other films. But it's good to see the thought police out in full force, making sure that things they think are childish and moronically conceived should never see the light of day. Frankly, I've spent years being fans of things that the "mainstream" hates. Only to see it change generationally and watching people now having to "suffer" through it. Growing up a fan of comic books and science fiction, it's sweet revenge. Particularly from people I knew in high school that used to bully me because I liked comic books, only to now see them spending money and time on them because their kids are so into it. Thankfully, DU generally isn't the barometer for anything, especially when it comes to entertainment. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:46 AM
HappyMe (20,277 posts)
117. Who greenlighted those tedious Atlas movies?
Who cares? Given the content of the emails leaked, the Sony people yanked the movie for fear of lawsuits if the floor of the theater was extra sticky.
It's a movie, you have a choice to see it or not - usually. I'm a bit weary of the fear mongering. On to the next panic. |
Response to HappyMe (Reply #117)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:10 AM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
124. So you are the determiner of
What questions I AM PERMITTED TO ASK. thank you very much.
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #124)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:16 AM
HappyMe (20,277 posts)
128. No, I did not say that.
You seem to be the determiner of what movies should or shouldn't be made, based on if you consider them stupid.
|
Response to HappyMe (Reply #128)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:04 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
159. I'm not the determiner...
I'm asking who decided that this was a good idea. Look, you wanna pick a fight over nothing you go right ahead. This seems to be what you're really interested in...right? All I did was suggest that this concept for a film wasn't in the best taste and had potential international problems post facto. What's wrong with that? It DID, DIDN'T IT?
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:59 AM
sendero (28,552 posts)
119. I agree..
.... this picture could have been done just as well using a faux world leader as the target. Sony stepped in the hoya and man are they paying the price.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:00 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
120. There have been many movies & books about assassinating real-life political leaders.
Those leaders' respective counties never resorted to blackmail and threats of violence to stop them from being distributed.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:14 AM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
126. It's called the first amendment
I think it's pathetic that we would kowtow to that little cretin and not show this movie.
|
Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #126)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:12 AM
bluedigger (16,219 posts)
137. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Our government hasn't told Sony to pull the movie - they have made that decision on their own. It doesn't help when people keep saying "we" have capitulated to some anonymous group, either. Unless you are a Sony executive, "we" haven't done a damn thing. They have made a business decision calculating perceived risk vs. potential profit. They made a mistake in not factoring in the potential fall out that has arisen in response to their movie. Because free speech has consequences, whether the government intervenes or not.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:24 AM
Maeve (40,338 posts)
130. "No one ever went broke underestimating the tast of the American public"
attributed to H. L. Mencken
Dumb and dumber is a marketing ploy. And it works |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:37 AM
LanternWaste (36,780 posts)
131. Good thing North Korea has no problem with violent video games
Good thing North Korea has no problem with violent video games, otherwise we'd meekly rationalize the loss of those, too.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:45 AM
lovemydog (11,833 posts)
132. I want to see it.
I enjoy comedies.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:07 AM
lame54 (29,285 posts)
136. Frank Drebin kicks the shit out of real world leaders...
Team America kills Kim Jong Il Hot Shots drops a bomb on Saddam Hussein |
Response to lame54 (Reply #136)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:14 AM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
138. Cartman vs Saddam Hussein
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:17 AM
Overseas (12,121 posts)
139. K&R. Well said.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:58 AM
DesMoinesDem (1,569 posts)
143. It looks like it might be funny. You seem to be mad because Sony didn't call you
to get your opinion on the movie before it was made. If the movie makes people laugh and makes money then it has achieved it's purpose. It's one thing to say you don't like a movie, but another to say that you don't like the plot so the movie should have never been made. You want to deprive millions of people of a movie they might find funny because you don't like the sound of it. Reading your post made me cringe. It's not just puerile, but downright stupid, and moronically conceived from the beginning.
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:59 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
144. And now we have allowed a foreign government to censor our entertainment industry.
That's the real issue. And your OP attempts to rationalize it by complaining about the art on a qualitative basis.
Not good. |
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:17 AM
Chalco (1,157 posts)
149. I was shocked when I first heard about this movie. In the U.S.
it is a crime to threaten the president. We could not make a film about killing a real president of this country and yet Sony felt it ok to produce a film about killing a real president of another country?
|
Response to Chalco (Reply #149)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:55 AM
HappyMe (20,277 posts)
152. Here you go --
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:52 PM
Beaverhausen (23,724 posts)
157. have you seen the film yet?
are you aware of the concept of comedy? Satire?
Unless and until you have seen it and how the story actually plays out onscreen, I really don't think you can judge if it is puerile, stupid and moronically conceived. Just my opinion. |
Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #157)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:27 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
167. Oh Yeah...
Kubrick would have made this if he weren't dead right? The TRAILER was frigging unwatchable.
|
Response to PCIntern (Reply #167)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:35 PM
Blue_Adept (6,139 posts)
168. For you, sure
Plenty of others thought it was hilarious.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. There's a whole lot of people who can't stand Kubrick's films as well. And some of those trailers are frigging unwatchable. Some of the films are for people too for a whole host of reasons. |
Response to PCIntern (Reply #167)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 01:04 PM
Beaverhausen (23,724 posts)
170. Kubrick? Not really known for his comedies
I don't even understand that comment.
And by the way, YOU found the trailer unwatchable, which is your right. Lots of us thought it looked funny and looked forward to seeing the film. That is our right. You don't get to decide what films the studios make, you only get to decide which ones you want to watch. |
Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #170)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:12 PM
PCIntern (21,003 posts)
171. Dr. Strangelove was comedic...
but then again, your concept of comedy involves someone being hit over the head with a pan. That is your perfect right. Mine was to say that I didn't think this was or even could be funny. Is that OK with you, or do I have to agree with your assessment of humor?
|
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:54 AM
Chalco (1,157 posts)
165. In the Washington Post today...
It was reported that the State Department gave its approval to Sony to go forward with
the movie. |